![]() ![]() Its anorexically "thin" but if you're a news editor intent on making as point, you use the words "linked to" and it looks good in print and they eye passes right over it and takes as a 'given' a sense of an interrelatedness out of that "linked to" thing that would perhaps not be justified as with my example of Ars Technica. Therefore, "linked to" would only be used in such a case to spin innuendo and an impression that may not be supportable. But its crazy to suggest George Soros has his finger on Ars T. So someone can describe a "linked to" connection and justify it to their public editor or ethics staff. Heck, I bet some of Ars current talent made their way to the site care of Ms. Pons job just previous to Conde Nast was working for George Soros' "Open Society Foundations." Conde Naste has a recruitment director named Monica Pons. "Linked to" can be used to create completely unjustified impressions.įor example, one can say that Ars Technica is "linked to" George Soros! And it takes less work than playing that old game about Kevin Bacon: Otherwise they use more direct modifiers: "Owned by," "operated by," "a division of," etc. News folks use 'linked to' when ALL they have is innuendo. Its too often used to imply more of a connection than justified by the facts in most cases. Take the bit of prose early in the article, attributing the hacks to "a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government." Still lots of innuendo in that NYT article. Hillary Clinton is guilty of a lot of things we should look down our noses at, but the way some people are treating it as if she's responsible for some of the worst scandals ever perpetrated in the 240 odd years our government has existed is just. I mean hell, congress can't even pass a budget without throwing in a few pork barrels to boost up some senator's cousin's step-son's nephew these days. Anyone in congress who pointed a condemning finger at Hillary Clinton for using her position to scratch some of her friend's backs are probably the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth. Pay to play? The only thing shocking about that is that there are people who are apparently shocked this happens in Washington. The only thing that was scandalous about the "Benghazi scandal" was how it was hyped up into a dog and pony show because, hey, election season. The "email scandal" was a giant clerical fuckup that could've been dangerous, but was overhyped to ridiculous degrees because, hey, election season. People already overlooked her email scandal and the Benghazi scandal and the Pay to Play scandal. It will probably just the same old shit or even worse, but someone needs to kick these people in the ass" They are like "fuck it, we're screwed anyway, lets try something different. I didn't vote for Trump because he scares the shit out of me. When your job got off-shored to China or Mexico and they are about to reprocess your car and all of the media is touting the stock market advantages of trade agreements, why would you vote for more of the same? Think about all of the terms they have used to describe half of the country: They just re-elected Nancy "We have to pass it to see what is in it" Peloski back to to House Minority leader, indicating they are absolutely clueless. They refuse to look themselves in the mirror and say: "Maybe we messed up." Do you want Trump re-elected in 2020? Because that's how you get Trump re-elected. #Dnc server randomly opening licenseNone as yet - but it's license to blame the election loss on an outside factor so that will be the narrative that's pushed. Is there any evidence that at least one contested state was swayed? A few tens of thousand more votes in California for Clinton wouldn't have influenced the election - only the turnout. Playing Devil's advocate - or just the muse of good journalism - Are we certain these hacks influenced the election? Common sense says perhaps they did but I don't recall seeing any exit poll results in battleground states that would have changed the outcome. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |