Who really cares whether the media appears to the nyt reader as divided or united?
Whose point is it, other than a media which finally, after all these decades, and centuries, knows that now the mask has been torn off for good?
The topic itself is a smokescreen for the responsibility of the media. The ' divided media ' is a faux division, for the insiders. They know, and have long known the real score.
Even if the other NYT account happens to be correct, in this case, Trump's assessment is certainly the more accurate one regarding the role, the power, and the resources, legitimate and illegitimate, of the media more in general.
It seems to me that a far better question might have been: how long had the media itself known it?
And, conversely, if they hadn't, then why had their media investigators, responsible for also knowing for weeks this juicy piece of faux muck, not already lost their pathetic jobs?
Another question lingers, for me: If Clinton or her putative staff, had also had similar conversations, or frankly any conversations, with Russian so called intelligence agents (sometimes otherwise known as diplomats), why did not the conservative muckraking thorough paced tool media establishment not disclose it already, or even first? Hello. It cannot be because they merely detest Trump! It is Clinton who would be the target, after all! It sounds to me like heads need to roll within the conservative reporting establishment as well!
The last question: assuming that they, also, knew it for weeks, just as they say Trump did, then why did they, good newspaper men eager for a fresh hot story, not disclose it at that time, when they, too, first knew it?
Dramatic effect. Also, the story gets better by acting like it was something somehow worth concealing.
Further, it gives the principals, the media victims, time to get their stories of what had happened several weeks ago garbled, not because they really had much to hide, but rather because they did not think enough of it at the time to care to micro manage the record of it even.
The only thing left to add, at this point, is that the conservative media here is, if anything, more corrupt and degenerate than the liberal one.
It seems to me that a far better question might have been: how long had the media itself known it?
And, conversely, if they hadn't, then why had their media investigators, responsible for also knowing for weeks this juicy piece of faux muck, not already lost their pathetic jobs?
Another question lingers, for me: If Clinton or her putative staff, had also had similar conversations, or frankly any conversations, with Russian so called intelligence agents (sometimes otherwise known as diplomats), why did not the conservative muckraking thorough paced tool media establishment not disclose it already, or even first? Hello. It cannot be because they merely detest Trump! It is Clinton who would be the target, after all! It sounds to me like heads need to roll within the conservative reporting establishment as well!
The last question: assuming that they, also, knew it for weeks, just as they say Trump did, then why did they, good newspaper men eager for a fresh hot story, not disclose it at that time, when they, too, first knew it?
Dramatic effect. Also, the story gets better by acting like it was something somehow worth concealing.
Further, it gives the principals, the media victims, time to get their stories of what had happened several weeks ago garbled, not because they really had much to hide, but rather because they did not think enough of it at the time to care to micro manage the record of it even.
The only thing left to add, at this point, is that the conservative media here is, if anything, more corrupt and degenerate than the liberal one.
No comments:
Post a Comment