|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 5, 2015 7:58:02 GMT -5
I don't assume that believing journalistic integrity is a good thing is lazy, I believe it is believing that news, with a modicum of objectivity, is better for the discourse, the nation and the world than a 24-hour cycle of partisan BS. I don't believe everyone who has different priorities or beliefs from my own is mentally handicapped, or a boob. And I can manage to make my small point without demeaning anyone who might disagree. I agree with you, even though I now know that you would not have demeaned me if I hadn't. The concept of objectively looking at the news is fine. Getting relatively objective input, whether through sampling all sources or relying primarily on trusted straight news sources is also fine. I'd agree with all those approaches. The only thing I'd disagree with is getting most of your news from sources with known biases and agendas, like FOX, MSNBC, etc. However, before stating that you've got it all figured out (I'm not talking about you, Tim), I think you also have to look at the results. If your supposedly objective method leaves you sounding like you pulled every idea and opinion straight off of FOX news or (not and) MSNBC, I think it might be a good idea to quit boasting about your higher intellect and objectivity.
|
|