You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: MSNBC 'journalist' Mika Brzezinski: "I Can't Pretend" To Cover Donald Trump "Fairly"
Mika is one special snowflake. She will stop and stare into the camera with a half shocked half confused doe face. Its no surprise she would half say this and yeh I'd like to see a journalistic revolution or sorts.
First things first, for anyone who doesn't watch, Morning Joe, the program under discussion is clearly clearly not straight news, its news with the hosts giving their opinions. Its not supposed to be straight news
Mika says outright she's too horified to be objective anymore. And to counter her we have all of Fox news, which is sucking Trumps dick and licking his balls.
How you feel about this depends on how you feel about Trump, obviously. I genuinely believe, not that Trump is certainly a Republic ending threat, but that he's the biggest internal threat to the United States, including domestic terrorists and the like, that is, if we elect him, we're risking disaster. Its not certain, but its more likely just because he's the president. Either because he'll overreact to a foreign leader, or because something he does will create a constitutional Chrisis, by say ordering a general to do something against the law. Or by ignoring the Supreme Court when it makes a descision.
For all the talk of Obama being a dictator, he doesn't tell the supreme court to fuck itself when it rules against him. He goes on tv and says, "that was very disappointing," and moves on.
I know journalists are supposed to be objective. I understand that. But at the same time, I think journalists have a loyalty to facts. So when Trump says he'll build a wall across the entire southern boarder, and if, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, 99.5 percent of engineres say this is imposible, journalists have a duty to report what the experts are saying on that subject. I find the bigger problem with todays media is that they have a need to balance everything. Full disclosier, I'm not a republican, but this problem isn't always favoring my side. The problem is that if I get a following by saying the moon is made of cheese, and all reputable scientists tell me I'm wrong, when the msm covers the story, they'll have two scientists on saying I'm insane, but then they'll feel the obligation to find someone who agrees with me and they'll put him or her on tv for five minutes, even though that person is objectively wrong. The headline in that case should be "man falsely claims moon is made of cheese."
As inteligent people, we should not be relying on one media source. CNN, for example, shouldn't be your only source of news, pitty the thought. However, if you have a problem with the mainstream media, and then tell me Alex Jones is the shit, I'm dismissing you right away, no further thought necisary.
For me, what I want from my media is facts first, inturpritation of those facts second. A five minute news report about what Trump said recently, followed by opinion depending on the program.
And finally, I believe Trump is such a serious threat to the republic, who conducts himself in such an unorthodox manner, that he'll get unorthodox coverage. He's brought much of that biased coverage, but not all of it, on himself through campaigning in a very unusual way, to say the least.
Just so everyone knows where I stand. My thoughts on Hillary are that first, if I don't want Trump, I have to want Hillary to be president, its either her or him. And second, I'm not against the status quo, I'm for it, with slow change, by which I mean not only obama, but Bush JR, Clinton, Bush JR, Reagan, Carter, etc. Hillary Clinton represents the status quo, Trump does not.
I don't think the alagations against Clinton affect her descisions about United States foreign policy. If you want money you don't go into politics. You do something else that gives you more money. Everyone running for president wants power. Its what you actually do with that power once you get it that matters.