Posted on 04/29/2020 10:39:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
Wait, this title is misleading in that it could be read that either “reporters” or “liberals” suck, and the fact is that both suck. But reporters don’t have to suck. Liberals always do, because their trash ideology is terrible and yet they adhere to it. Reporters could be no-holds-barred truthtellers who could not care less, whose agenda they skewer or narrative they shatter in pursuit of the truth. That’s at least theoretically possible, even though most of them merely aspire to be skeevy prog transcriptionists typing out ham-handed propaganda to please their pinko masters.
But if our reporters were not human cesspools, what would they be doing right now? How would they be dealing with the tidal wave of Twitter blue check lies and Fredocon dung we’re seeing in the wake of the Bat Biter Bronchitis?
Well, they would not be like whoever Olivia Nuzzi is. She is a twenty-something former Anthony Wiener staffer, and while she was a bit older than his target demo what she lacked in youth was probably made up for in mindless progressivism. She’s the one who asked President Trump that stupid coronavirus/’Nam question, demonstrating that she knows about as much about the Vietnam War as liberal military hero Senator Dick “In the Schiff” Blumenthal. Just wait ‘til she finds out that America’s intervention in Vietnam was initiated by liberal Dems.
Regardless, if reporters were not trash, what would reporters do when faced with stupidity like this from the bloviating Dems and their adolescent stooges? It would be easy to say “treat them like Republicans,” but tongue-lashing newsmakers are no more appropriate than tongue-bathing them. Instead, when faced with obvious talking points, they might choose to ask questions that forced the subject to reveal and examine his premises. Who knows – if enough reporters actually forced politicians to explain the manifest manure they spew they might spew less manifest manure.
Take the “Trump lied, people died” notion that the Democrats are trying to make into the “fetch” of Biden 2020 election themes. The idea they want to transmit is that, but for the acts or omissions of Donald J. Trump, tens of thousands of Americans are now unnecessarily dead. That’s a pretty serious charge, even when leveled by distinctly unserious people, and it’s, therefore, worth exploring further with questions designed to elicit the grounds for the shabby accusation.
What is the number of Americans who would have died from the Wuhan Flu under President Biden?
That seems like a pretty basic question that no one ever asks these bozos. You have to have a scale to measure these things by. Where is the cut-off between a good outcome and a bad one in terms of mortality? Is it 10,000? 20,000? What’s the number? All we know is that one death is acceptable. If it weren’t, the Dems would have cast off Floatin’ Ted Kennedy the minute he showed up with a neck brace and a martini.
If Trump is the cause of all the deaths in America, what is the cause of all the deaths in Europe and Asia?
It seems fair for the accusers to explain what different factors caused the carnage overseas, where Trump was not president. That is, unless all the Chinese coronavirus deaths are Trump’s fault. And don’t be surprised if some of our ChiCom chump media goes there.
What advice from Dr. Fauci should Trump have ignored in order to stop the virus?
The good doctor, who is no conservative, has been very clear that Donald Trump has carefully listened to him and accepted his guidance throughout. Now, a lot of conservatives might find this to be a bad thing, but liberals are in a tough place. To deny Trump means to deny the doc. To deny Fauci is to deny #science, and their argument must necessarily be that Fauci must be denied since Trump did what he said. This question might make them explode like Harcourt Fenton Mudd’s robot chicks in the old, not-sissy Star Trek series.
If this disaster was caused by the Trump’s administration being unprepared for the pandemic, what was the date after the Obama administration left office that America stopped being prepared?
We keep hearing about how Trump was not ready for this once-a-century occurrence, but that kind of presumes that Obama was. Negligence requires unreasonable behavior, and if no administration ever bought and stored up 100,000 ventilators, then how was Trump unreasonable for not doing so? So, if Obama was all cocked and locked for the Chinese coronavirus, when did this cocking and locking cease such that America stopped being ready?
What was the name of each Democrat congresscreature and senator who would have supported Trump closing down America during the failed impeachment?
If Trump was supposed to have done something, it’s fair to ask if his opponents would have let him or #resisted, right?
If intelligence agencies were warning of the pangolin pneumonia, should Trump have ignored the WHO and American scientists who were saying it was no biggie?
Since the WHO was pushing ChiCom lies, of course he should have ignored that useless grift machine. But will a Democrat ever admit that?
Would there be fewer unemployed Americans if Biden was president now, or would Biden have locked down tighter and caused more economic pain?
Seems unfair to criticize Trump both for the economic dislocation and contend that he is not economically dislocating us enough.
Would not America be in much worse economic shape if the Trump economy had not been so much better than the economy under Obama and able to absorb this hit?
Just think about how bad it would be if we had started off in the Obama era doldrums.
Is this still the Obama economy, or is it the Trump economy now? What is the date it became the Trump economy and, once this lockdown ends, won’t a successful and strong recovery be all to Trump’s credit?
By this time, the interviewee will either be sobbing or calling the reporter a racist. The premise of all of these is that Trump chose poorly, and the job of the reporter is to force the interlocutor to state unequivocally how he would have chosen and accept the consequences.
Well, it’s always fun to imagine things that won’t happen. The media asking tough but fair questions of liberal spokesjerks is never going to happen. But we can dream.
I'm gonna go with both pending further clarification.
Looks like you got it right in one.
;-)
“All we know is that one death is acceptable. If it weren’t, the Dems would have cast off Floatin’ Ted Kennedy the minute he showed up with a neck brace and a martini.”
And thanks to generations of Massholes, Teddy the Swimmer went on to infect the U.S. Senate for forty more years after Chappaquiddick and only left it feet first.
I remember that event like yesterday. It’s said, “all that hate’s gonna burn you up.” I reply, “Keeps me warm”.
Yeah, that’s from Red Dawn. But it applies yet.
My time machine is failing to start up. I can’t go back to when there was a distinction between them. . . in fact, I’m not sure my timedial settings go back that, even if it would start.
Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.
Hmmmn. I fixed my TV when I pulled the plug.
It means both.
Honest reporters would also ask if people would prefer to have Trump (who jumpstarted the economy in 2017) or Biden (when Obama led the slowest recovery from a recession in 50 years) to lead us out of this recession.
Marking...
My time machine is failing to start up. I can’t go back to when there was a distinction between them. . . in fact, I’m not sure my timedial settings go back that, even if it would start.Does it mean reporters suck or liberals suck.
The distinction (I didn’t say, “difference”) is that an “objective journalist” works as a journalist and a “liberal” does not. A “liberal” can become “objective” by the simple expedient of putting on a reporter hat and rejecting the application of “liberal” as a label for his politics.The meaning of the two labels is otherwise the same, namely, “simpatico with the consensus imposed by the journalism cartel.” Break unrepentantly from that consensus, and a reporter becomes “not a journalist, not objective.” Break unrepentantly from that consensus, and a “liberal" becomes a right wing extremist.
The journalism cartel organically self-assembled (due to the wire services generally and the AP in particular). The AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of the AP and its member newspapers. It has been ongoing since before the Civil War. And given that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices” (Adam Smith), a journalism cartel was and is the inevitable result.
Crises are good for journalism and for big government, and that is an explanation for the cartel’s socialist slant. Since the wire services are a Nineteenth Century solution to the Nineteenth/Twentieth Century problem of expensive telegraphy bandwidth, wire services have no legitimate raison d'être justifying their violation of AntiTrust law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.