• neatchee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, not news at all. OP doesn’t need to editorialize when the columnist has already done such a good job of editorializing themselves lol

      • neatchee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        35
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        AP and Reuters are the only real news agencies left (with PBS getting close but still editorializing too often).

        Everything else is entertainment media, and they’ve even gone to court to prove it themselves

        EDIT: look at all the tankies and extremists downvoting the truth. Opinions aren’t news. Editorials aren’t news. I like watching Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart as much as the next progressive, but they’re entertainment, not news, and it’s a major failure if you can’t recognize that

        • MrMeowMeow@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          While I agree with most of what you’re saying, do you realize that the linked media is literally an editorial? Published in the editorial section?

        • ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Everything else is entertainment media, and they’ve even gone to court to prove it themselves

          If by “they” you mean Fox News exclusively, then yes, that’s correct. Fox News has made that argument in court.

          • neatchee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            … But there would only ever be one case in the first place? Because once FOX won it applied to everyone else too? There was never a need for additional cases, they all benefited.

            Seriously, go watch CNN from a year before that case, and then from a year after it. They and everyone else took the ball and ran with it, never looking back.

            And of course they did, they’re corporations. They’re in the business of making money, not improving the world. Why would they hamstring themselves by playing by a different set of rules than the competition?

            • ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              … But there would only ever be one case in the first place? Because once FOX won it applied to everyone else too? There was never a need for additional cases, they all benefited.

              Lol no. That’s not how the real world works. Fox News didn’t establish a precedent by “taking a whammy” on behalf of the rest of the mainstream media so they could all lie freely and thereby ending all potential litigation against media outlets. They just successfully defended themselves. The reason Fox News is the only outlet to mount such a defense in court is because they’re the only outlet that’s consistently, and verifiably, lied under the auspices of “entertainment” and been sued as a direct result.

              Do you understand that “the media” is not a monolith? What Fox News does is not automatically true across the board.

      • neatchee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        You misunderstood (as did everyone else it seems). I meant to say the OP had no need to editorialize because it was already editorialized; it was in response to the previous comment which said they assumed it WAS editorialized. I was saying “op didn’t editorialize, because they didn’t need to, because it was already editorialized”