"My job is to present all sides, not just the one that aligns with my values or worldview," he argued.
Nah, fam. Your job is to be a talking head for whatever narrative your masters demand of you.
Yet, when he wanted to "show what's happening at a Proud Boys rally, which ended up being quiet and peaceful," critics accused him of "not being more critical of this event and also legitimizing their hate."
Showing they're not hateful = legitimizing their hate. Projection, as always.
A source at the station told TVSpy that staffers were complaining about Choe and that this was "the last straw."
Crazy how easily programmed people are. "He's doing his job too well, we hate him!" Disgusting cultists
Nah, fam. Your job is to be a talking head for whatever narrative your masters demand of you.
Many journos are oblivious to the fact that they're just puppets for their masters to speak through. They think their coverage is independent just because their boss isn't dictating their every move, but they never stop to think why they were hired for the job and not somebody else.
They think their coverage is independent just because their boss isn't dictating their every move, but they never stop to think why they were hired for the job and not somebody else.
They also often seem to have self-servingly narrow definitions of what things like "independence" and "bias" really mean.
Ars Technica has recently given the Apple Studio desktop some very positive coverage, and I saw some (downvoted) comments on their articles accusing them of bias. I won't debate whether their coverage is biased because it's not really the point. What is the point is that saying that Apple isn't paying you isn't really a good defense.
There's more to inducement than just being paid directly by an outside party for positive (or negative) coverage. There's also things like "If I give this a positive review, will Apple (continue to) send my company early review units?" and "Does Apple advertise on the site, and if so and my review is less than glowing, might they decide to pull their ads?"
I'm not saying that's the case, of course, just that so many other potential sources of conflict of interest get swept under the rug.
Nah, fam. Your job is to be a talking head for whatever narrative your masters demand of you.
Showing they're not hateful = legitimizing their hate. Projection, as always.
Crazy how easily programmed people are. "He's doing his job too well, we hate him!" Disgusting cultists
Many journos are oblivious to the fact that they're just puppets for their masters to speak through. They think their coverage is independent just because their boss isn't dictating their every move, but they never stop to think why they were hired for the job and not somebody else.
They never asked 'why me?'
They also often seem to have self-servingly narrow definitions of what things like "independence" and "bias" really mean.
Ars Technica has recently given the Apple Studio desktop some very positive coverage, and I saw some (downvoted) comments on their articles accusing them of bias. I won't debate whether their coverage is biased because it's not really the point. What is the point is that saying that Apple isn't paying you isn't really a good defense.
There's more to inducement than just being paid directly by an outside party for positive (or negative) coverage. There's also things like "If I give this a positive review, will Apple (continue to) send my company early review units?" and "Does Apple advertise on the site, and if so and my review is less than glowing, might they decide to pull their ads?"
I'm not saying that's the case, of course, just that so many other potential sources of conflict of interest get swept under the rug.
Or "Is this product the hip, new thing everyone wants so if we talk it up will we get more readers?"
Meritocracy literally makes their blood boil.