You have substantially more respect for what used to be called the journalism profession than I do. I don't think that even Thomas Friedman, who made an almost tearjerking effort to explain why Biden should drop out, is anywhere near as concerned about beating the failed insurrectionist as he is about selling newspapers, generating click…
You have substantially more respect for what used to be called the journalism profession than I do. I don't think that even Thomas Friedman, who made an almost tearjerking effort to explain why Biden should drop out, is anywhere near as concerned about beating the failed insurrectionist as he is about selling newspapers, generating clicks, and picking up subscriptions to his column. If they were, the clamor for Biden to get out of the race would be overwhelmed in volume by the demands for an explanation from Republicans why they continue to support a convicted felon and rapist who is liable for almost 1/2 a billion dollars in civil judgements. There really is no comparison between the two and we dare not let anyone lose sight of that.
Dave, Respectfully, every piece I have read leaves me with the same impression. Journalists are raising questions because they want to beat Trump. In my view, it’s precisely because they care so much about defeating Trump that they’re raising these questions.
As for demanding an explanation from Republicans for their continued support for Trump, I imagine the journalists I’ve read would view that as an exercise in futility.
Thanks Barbara Jo. Your closing comment is exactly why I've lost most of my respect for journalists. Opposing the war in Vietnam was an exercise in futility for much of the 60s and 70s but, had that not been done, and had the Pentagon papers not been published, the succeeding decades would have turned out much differently. Investigative journalism rarely produces immediate positive results but is essential to any effort to keep politicians or anyone else honest in their behavior and actions. Once the Paley wall between news and entertainment was broken, fewer efforts were made to do anything that doesn't have an immediate positive impact on the organization's bottom line. The fact that the former president, failed insurrectionist, and convicted felon isn't referred to in those terms every time his name appears in print or is broadcast is a sad sign of how far we've regressed.
Dave, To be clear, my response expressly was a reply to your question as to why the Press was not demanding a response from Republicans for their continued support of Trump. To clarify why I asserted that journalists, overall, would view that as an exercise in futility, particularly at this terrifying moment in our nation’s history, is my sense that journalists, overall, are well aware that the one thing the radical right loathes more than, say, liberals is the truth.
My point is that as much as I largely concur with your post, I don’t see its relevance either to the specific question you had asked or my response.
You have substantially more respect for what used to be called the journalism profession than I do. I don't think that even Thomas Friedman, who made an almost tearjerking effort to explain why Biden should drop out, is anywhere near as concerned about beating the failed insurrectionist as he is about selling newspapers, generating clicks, and picking up subscriptions to his column. If they were, the clamor for Biden to get out of the race would be overwhelmed in volume by the demands for an explanation from Republicans why they continue to support a convicted felon and rapist who is liable for almost 1/2 a billion dollars in civil judgements. There really is no comparison between the two and we dare not let anyone lose sight of that.
Dave, Respectfully, every piece I have read leaves me with the same impression. Journalists are raising questions because they want to beat Trump. In my view, it’s precisely because they care so much about defeating Trump that they’re raising these questions.
As for demanding an explanation from Republicans for their continued support for Trump, I imagine the journalists I’ve read would view that as an exercise in futility.
Thanks Barbara Jo. Your closing comment is exactly why I've lost most of my respect for journalists. Opposing the war in Vietnam was an exercise in futility for much of the 60s and 70s but, had that not been done, and had the Pentagon papers not been published, the succeeding decades would have turned out much differently. Investigative journalism rarely produces immediate positive results but is essential to any effort to keep politicians or anyone else honest in their behavior and actions. Once the Paley wall between news and entertainment was broken, fewer efforts were made to do anything that doesn't have an immediate positive impact on the organization's bottom line. The fact that the former president, failed insurrectionist, and convicted felon isn't referred to in those terms every time his name appears in print or is broadcast is a sad sign of how far we've regressed.
Dave, To be clear, my response expressly was a reply to your question as to why the Press was not demanding a response from Republicans for their continued support of Trump. To clarify why I asserted that journalists, overall, would view that as an exercise in futility, particularly at this terrifying moment in our nation’s history, is my sense that journalists, overall, are well aware that the one thing the radical right loathes more than, say, liberals is the truth.
My point is that as much as I largely concur with your post, I don’t see its relevance either to the specific question you had asked or my response.