Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
I would argue that while there are "talking points" on both sides, the dissemination of these points doesn't always point to a sinister agenda on the part of those repeating the message, rather it just points to journalistic laziness.
Many journalists get their "news" from press releases. There are services that disseminate these releases and many journalists simply parrot what is found in the release without calling to ask any follow up questions. Punditry, blogs, etc. are not all that difference.
It's like a series of "me too" posts in an online forum.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
True, in the 'gravitas' incident, and it was 7 years ago so its fuzzy, but I recall a handful of pundit types using it on the same day. That was the talking point. The rest, as you said were just plain lazy and latching on.
I heard recently the Clinton campaign got busted for planting a question in the audience at some debate. Thats really about the same level, its just a way to get a side of an issue 'out there'.
|
Yup, in the views of folks who see everything from a "business as ususal", POV, all "talking points" are equally meritless, or the opposite, and "both sides do it", so there is nothing to see here....move along, host. Associated Press is "bad", sez "one side" of the aisle, snd the administration it blindly supports, says the same....so, where does that "side of the aisle" get "it's news"?
It should be an important question, as should the questionable detentions, without charges, of both Padilla and AP photographer Hussein...but curiously,
none of these assaults on our rights or intimidations of the press, or the partisanizing of the US military, as an official policy, are of much concern to Ustwo and Charlatan...so move along, host...you're too shrill, and your overreacting.