If you have an agenda and people realize you have an agenda and you inject yourself into these situations hoping to profit from it then honestly what did you expect would happen?
Journalists have spent the last few years being very vocal and making it very clear they are not neutral ground (because appealing to base emotion is more profitable) but also invest a lot of time agitating these situations so why would they expect to be treated like neutral parties. Makes no sense, until you realize pretending you're a victim is also profitable to the journo.
It's all a huge feedback loop they they're all too happy to be a part of.
People infuriated by a journalist's lie/misrepresentation (either actively or by omission) cannot counter it on-the-spot (how could they address material printed or broadcasted by mass-media?) and think that they can only aim at the source. Without any live report the journalist's comments are less convincing.
Also: some consider journalists are representatives/relays of the powers-that-be.
>Doesn't that open the door for anyone to attack anyone else for their speech?
I personally don't think anyone should be attacked for their speech but isn't the current prevailing ideology that "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences".
So it seems to me we already live in a society like that.
Journalism does not exist anymore. They are propaganda actors. And people are revolted with that.
Obviously physical abuse is always the wrong response. But these "journalists" are helping to perpetuate this society where people think violence is the answer
7 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 18.9 ms ] threadIf you have an agenda and people realize you have an agenda and you inject yourself into these situations hoping to profit from it then honestly what did you expect would happen?
Journalists have spent the last few years being very vocal and making it very clear they are not neutral ground (because appealing to base emotion is more profitable) but also invest a lot of time agitating these situations so why would they expect to be treated like neutral parties. Makes no sense, until you realize pretending you're a victim is also profitable to the journo.
It's all a huge feedback loop they they're all too happy to be a part of.
Doesn't that open the door for anyone to attack anyone else for their speech? Why would you want to live in a society like that?
People infuriated by a journalist's lie/misrepresentation (either actively or by omission) cannot counter it on-the-spot (how could they address material printed or broadcasted by mass-media?) and think that they can only aim at the source. Without any live report the journalist's comments are less convincing.
Also: some consider journalists are representatives/relays of the powers-that-be.
And that journalists claiming to be victims of may exaggerate the danger they're in, in the first place. Which describes WP's bullet list.
I personally don't think anyone should be attacked for their speech but isn't the current prevailing ideology that "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences".
So it seems to me we already live in a society like that.
Anyway…
Obviously physical abuse is always the wrong response. But these "journalists" are helping to perpetuate this society where people think violence is the answer