As a result of my last post, Dan has decided to respond with a post of his own, because he's too chicken-shit to engage here, and has some petulant pants-wetting issues that compels him to delete me there, even when I've successfully answered demands he's made of me. Indeed, it's why he deletes me. But I digress.
In his recent post, he takes issue with my position that abortion is never necessary. Thus far, I've only ever been able to find a contrary position by those who perform abortions. In another post, an article was present from some medical experts who were speaking on behalf of many others as well, who insist that there is no medical reason to abort in order to save a woman from a complicated pregnancy. So there's a clear conflict between a number of those who deal with pregnancies on both sides of the issue, but one side is decidedly pro-abortion and my guess is that they aren't above rationalizing their choice any more or less than the women who choose that route. I mean how can so many who have had long careers delivering babies so firmly insist no situation exists whereby abortions must be performed when some form of delivery can be performed instead? Would the pro-aborts try to insist they simply haven't had truly life-threatening situations? That would be an absurd thing to put forth. More likely, it is as I said, that the pro-aborts rationalize their decision rather than the situation truly dictating it. They already are predisposed to believe that it's a "moral" choice, whereas all the others are speaking from experiences dictated by their conviction that it isn't.
Anyway, what follows are responses to Dan's questions put forth as if they are truly exposing flaws in my position. Before I do, however, I will say this: Most pro-life proponents have expressed a willingness to compromise in order to save the most lives as possible, by allowing for those rare and minuscule instances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The rejection of this compromise by the pro-aborts proves they aren't concerned with the health of the mother at all, and simply use these excuses so as to protect ANY reason for abortion from legal consequences. So here we go:
"These people are bona fide anti-abortion zealots."
Is this supposed to be an insult? If so, it's inaccurate in fact. Truer is "pro-life zealot". That's a good thing and one would think this would be a default position for anyone daring to call one's self a Christian. But as I'm not convinced that there truly is a legitimate reason to ever abort, why would I not deny anyone the legal ability to off their own kid? Then again, as I consider abortion murder...yeah, that might be accurate after all.
Before anyone blows a gasket over a possible contradiction, I do not believe that allowing an exception for "life of the mother" denotes a belief that there are truly such cases where a mother's life is so endangered by her pregnancy that the unborn must be killed. The compromise is simply to save as many lives as possible. To have the pro-aborts muster the humanity to actually agree with such a compromise is not the ultimate ideal, but merely a stopgap until it can be shown there is no such need. The law wouldn't even have to be changed. We can work on those three myths later on.
"1. So, you recognize that girls as young as ten (and younger, of course) have been raped, I suppose?"
Sadly, this is true. In fact, it happens quite a bit in any of those shithole countries with unfortunate regularity. Often, it is simply not seen as wrong. It's a cultural thing.
"2. Do you recognize that some ten year olds have gotten pregnant as a result?"
Uh...yeah. I do.
"3. Do you recognize that a child's body is not prepared to give birth?"
I recognize that this is true for some, but not necessarily true for all. I'd prefer to simply say it's not ideal for any of them. The list in the link I provided in my previous answer clearly states some were "delivered", while others were by C-section. But you pro-aborts pretend the risks posed by abortion to such patients is negligible. They're not. They're about the same.
"4. Do you recognize the trauma that would be involved in having a ten year old girl go through that process?"
I recognize you're purposely overstating this possibility in order to shield the heinous act from objective scrutiny. Guatemala is among those countries where young girls are commonly abused as a matter of cultural acceptance (even if illegal). That is to say that there is a high percentage of girls younger than 14 giving birth, including as young as ten, with unfortunate regularity. To suggest that they all have experienced great trauma simply from being pregnant is just pro-abort hyperbole. More than likely, any trauma is only related to the actual rape if it was particularly violent...not the pregnancy that results from it. My reference to Guatemala stemmed from researching all this. I thought I saved the article that informed me, as it quite clearly showed that these girls commonly go on as if it was no big deal, for a variety of reasons including the fact that they didn't even regard their situation (being preggers) as particularly alarming, and went on to regard their offspring as if a sibling, many having children later on in life.
"5. You're opposed to an abortion even under that set of circumstances?"
As a general rule, yeah. I'm willing, as are most pro-lifers and most pro-life governments, to hear arguments on a case-by-case basis. There is the unexpected.
"6. If so, what sort of monster are you?"
Oh, I'm the worst kind of monster. I'm the kind that doesn't think killing the innocent is necessary and that protecting them does not put an unjust burden on anyone, even if it puts some degree of burden on some. I'm the kind of monster that won't consider the most vulnerable expendable simply because it costs those less vulnerable some hardship. Most importantly, I'm the kind of monster that doesn't deprive one of one's humanity due to one's size, age or location as if I'm some kind of nazi or klansman. I'm the kind of monster who wishes he could be as monstrous as my Lord Jesus Christ...the ultimate Pro-Life Zealot.
"7. Would you truly sacrifice these children on the altar of anti-abortion worship?"
If you could prove that they are more likely to die without an abortion as from one, this question wouldn't be so stupid and presumptuous. It's clear you worship at the altar of abortion, offering up thousands of dead innocents daily. So much so that I can't honestly recall you ever offering to give up that 99% of most abortions in order to save these children. No. You're simply exploiting them like all pro-aborts do. You don't care about these children or any other woman considering death for their unborn.
"Molech-Worshiping ghouls, indeed."
Absolutely indeed, Dan. Thousands of children per day. You're worse than a Molech-worshiper. You're just wacking kids left and right without the pretext of pagan devotion in defending these pro-abortion laws. Thousands of innocents per day!
"Girls may labor for days; many die."
This is true for women, even in this country, to say nothing of the country your source highlighted.
"Their babies often don't survive labor either."
This is one of the most egregious ploys. feo used a similar angle, which proves it's bad. Sometimes, babies die from difficult pregnancies where abortion wasn't even considered. Sometimes, people die on the operating table. Honorable doctors and surgeons...and obstetricians...lose patients they worked desperately to save. That's no excuse to murder any of them. Imagine someone saying, "He didn't survive the by-pass surgery. Should've just killed him in the first place!" That's what that quote is saying. Because the baby didn't survive, they should have killed it in the first place. Talk about monstrous!! That's pure evil!!
"Most people would grant that in my example of a pregnant 10 year old who
is pregnant as a result of rape that abortion should be allowed. This
includes, I believe, most anti-abortion thinkers"
So you'd no doubt like to believe. But you're speaking of three groups of people. The first is the heinous pro-aborts who would grant that ANY example of ANY KIND is sufficient to allow abortion, so this example is just another on an endless list. The second is pro-lifers who either believe that there are actually legitimate reasons to abort that must be considered and permitted. The third is pro-lifers that begrudgingly agree to allow this -1% of examples in order to prevent the murder of the other 99%. The third isn't willing that any should die (where have I heard that before?).
"It's
because most of us recognize there is a fundamental difference between a
two-year-old baby and a two-day-old zygote or a 2 week old fetus."
I doubt there is anyone who would argue that there isn't a fundamental difference. However, real Christians argue the difference is only a matter of age, size, and location, not that one is "more human" than the other because of those differences. Only pro-aborts looking for whatever cheap rationalization they can put over on people pretend that is so. Speaking of which:
"Both
are on the human life spectrum, BUT, the one IS indisputably fully a
human indisputably deserving of a right to life, while the
two-day-old zygote is not fully a human. It's literally a human zygote."
Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager, young adult, middle aged, geezer. All are people, fully human but at differing stages of human development, as every biology textbook states. Thus, the human zygote is literally a person, fully human, at the zygote stage of human development.
"And that is a significant, significant difference."
No. It's not. It's a cheap rationalization invented to protect the ability to gratify one's self sexually without consequence.
"8. Do you recognize that there are huge differences
(especially/specifically in terms of any rights we might consider/a
presumed right to life) in a two day old zygote, a three week old
blastocyst, a five week old embryo, a ten week old fetus and a two month
old baby?"
The only right of any concern in this discussion is the right to life. Physical differences have no bearing on that right and do not diminish that right for anyone. So the question is stupid, as aside from the question of that unalienable right, all other differences between people of each of those stages of life are irrelevant to the discussion.
"9. Or do you think that, as far as rights go, that a zygote and a baby are pretty much exactly equivalent?"
No. A baby can drink hard liquor, but as far as the unalienable right to life, absolutely identical.
"10. IF you think that a zygote and a baby are equivalent, do you think
that all those people (the vast majority of us) who'd be supportive of
the ten year old rape victim getting an abortion (if that was the
family's choice) are monstrous to support such a case?"
Pure evil would be a more accurate term. This is especially true in this extreme case you want to use to push your evil agenda. Not only are you murdering an innocent for the sins of its father, something you pretend you oppose, you're teaching the girl that such a thing is acceptable. You're teaching her that if someone makes her life more difficult, killing that person is a legitimate option. Or, you're teaching her that she can deny another person's humanity on whatever subjective criteria benefits her to do so. The next thing you know she'll be hating transsexuals.
"11. Do you recognize that probably most people would find the position
that a ten year old rape victim being forced to have a possibly deadly
pregnancy to be a monstrous position to hold?"
Do you recognize that you could have made the question much more rhetorically inflammatory if you just exerted a little effort?
Do you recognize that you're presuming her pregnancy is deadly in such a way that abortion is the only possible option when that's most likely untrue? (I'm being generous. I don't believe it's true at all.)
Do you recognize that if all the world favored murdering the unborn for this or any other reason it wouldn't mean jack shit to a true Christian, as numbers don't determine morality?
You getting the point here?
"Can you understand why?"
I think I've already proven that I would understand why. It has nothing to do with compassion for the 10 year old girl, and everything to do with preserving the ability to abort when convenient to do so.
"12. If you think that a zygote and a birthed baby are the same (as far
as a right to life is concerned) do you recognize that this is only an
opinion that you can't prove, and not an established fact?"
I recognize that if you truly want to run that crap then you'd be a liar to pretend the reverse wasn't as true. But here's the thing: I don't have to prove it. The onus is on you to prove that there is a scientifically viable excuse to draw your arbitrary line for determining when one becomes a person with the unalienable right to life that is any time after conception. But you can't. I know that it is a full person with that right simply because it is a person, regardless of whatever stage of development to which you choose to point. It's true because it came into existence by the very means by which a person is brought into existence. It can't be anything BUT a person.
The fact is that people like you are inventing reasons to deny that humanity. You damned well know there is no such line of demarcation without you inventing one. But it all comes down to the same reality: that line, wherever you decide to draw it, is to satisfy your convenience...not because it actually makes sense. What's more, your arguments, especially this one, are specious. Use your own bullshit idea and just tell males not to rape. That should do it, right?
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Friday, May 10, 2019
A Loose End
While I await Dan's response...or deletion...to my response at his blog following my last post, I now wish to demonstrate how his rectal itch, feo, lies once again. In this case, he had insisted I hadn't provided my definition for what makes one human or a person or whatever term he chooses to use to further pretend he's "winning". The fact is, he continued to make this false claim well after he had received my definition. It is as follows:
It's pretty cut and dried. A person is the product of the procreative act between a man and a woman. It is a person by virtue of the fact that it took two persons of the opposite sex to unite their procreative donations for the purpose of bringing forth a new person.
This comment was posted on March 23, 2019 at 1:03 PM in the comments of this post. By
It's pretty cut and dried. A person is the product of the procreative act between a man and a woman. It is a person by virtue of the fact that it took two persons of the opposite sex to unite their procreative donations for the purpose of bringing forth a new person.
This comment was posted on March 23, 2019 at 1:03 PM in the comments of this post. By
Thursday, May 09, 2019
Media Lies---The Enemy of the People
"Just a note that I created this post entirely to give Marshall a chance
to prove his enemy of the people claim about the media and answer
relevant questions about the topic. Despite his assurances that he can
prove it (he literally can't, as it is a stupidly false claim), it has
now been over a month since he's even tried.
The silence says it all. "
So says Dan Trabue in one of his final comments following his post RE: False Claims (This One's For Marshall...) (BTW...I haven't used that spelling for my nom de plume for some time. I guess if I chose to be referred to by a female pronoun he'd show more respect---but I digress already) Despite having already proven the point in previous posts with examples in support, Dan pretends clicking on his mouse a couple more times to get the answers at my blog, where I won't be deleted for the least little infraction he invented for the purpose, is just too labor intensive. And my "silence" is the result of life getting in the way. He has no problem when it does so for him, but apparently my more important distractions suggests I'm unable to answer his questions. He's an idiot.
Anyway, I have chosen to prove my point here where he can't delete me when I succeed in that endeavor...which I do now. I could not get assurances from his cowardly ass that he would NOT delete me if I went through the effort. Why the hell would I try? So I've done so here, and I will simply link to it at his blog where he can click on it as he would any other linked info...should he have the honor, integrity and courage...or just delete it like the weaselly fake Christian he is. His choice.
So without further ado, I present evidence that the mostly left-wing media is indeed the enemy of the people with the following examples of their malfeasance and laziness.
1. "Immigrants are animals"
This lie was perpetrated by Julie Hirshfield Davis of the New York Times, Andrea Mitchell of NBC and Scott Neuman of NPR, to name three "journalists". The charge is blatantly false and anybody with the resources available to them as they are to each of these liars could easily find out exactly what Trump said and about whom he said it. The transcript of him describing MS-13 members as animals is clear and unequivocal, regardless of lame excuses that he made the statement in the context of a discussion of immigration, and thus one could be excused for confusing his words for a general statement about all immigrants. That's what we in the real world call "crap". What's more, even if such confusion existed in others, a real journalist, for whom truth and objectivity is paramount, would be quick to set the record straight, by reporting on the exact words of Trump spoken in the context at the time he said it.
2. "Good people on both sides"
This is another snippet of Trump's words, falsely and purposely used by the leftist press to smear his character. It is another example of that which a true and complete reading of his words would show that, despite the press' desire to paint Trump as having praised white nationalists, is in fact simply an acknowledgement by him that among those who were protesting against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue were average citizens of Charlottesville with absolutely no connection to the racists who also sought to protest the statue's removal. Truthful and objective journalists would not have tried to use this out-of-context snippet to portray Trump in a bad racist light. Both of these first two examples demonstrate a willful desire to misinform the public who relies upon the press for facts alone, upon which it can form its own opinions.
3. "Where's Martin?"
"Journalist" Zeke Miller published that the Trump people removed the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the White House. That was a lie. He later tried to claim it was obscured from his view. Well...why not say nothing until it's confirmed one way or the other? Because he wanted to smear Trump.
4. "Snubbing a special needs child"
It was reported that Trump wouldn't shake the hand of a disabled boy and a clip of the event where this horrid action took place showed Trump ignoring the outstretched hand of the tyke as he shook the hands of others. But a full version of the very same handshaking showed that the boy was THE VERY FIRST PERSON whose hand Trump shook, and the boy's mother explains that what was shown originally was the boy showing off to Trump the badge he was given. The piece was purposely cropped to portray Trump as dismissive of the disabled boy.
5. "Mocking a disabled reporter"
From Investor's Business Daily:
The incident in question is Trump supposedly mocking New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, whose hand and arm movement on his right side is impaired due to arthrogryposis. Video from 2015 seems to indicate that Trump was indeed cruelly imitating the man.
But the media are too lazy and those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome are too nasty and small-minded to look deeper. The truth is, Trump has often used those same convulsive gestures to mimic the mannerisms of people, including himself, who are rattled and exasperated.
This was simply another attempt by Trump-haters to portray Trump in as negative a light as possible...in this case that he has no compassion for the disabled. It is truly reprehensible and another indication that too many in the media are NOT "friends of the people".
6. "Lazy and unprofessional reporting"
Just the previous five points alone should be evidence enough that too many in the media are appropriately labeled "enemies of the people" given their willful disregard for truth. That disregard extends to how dedicated they aren't in securing the truth before going to press. Sharyl Attkisson compiled a list of 75 media "mistakes" that include every level of media malfeasance with regard to covering Trump. Gavin McInnes did a smaller one that is just as illustrative of the prevalence of media lying and misinformation. (Some of his examples have been mentioned already, others haven't) All of these involved some degree of laziness on the part of the media that shouldn't be tolerated, even by those leftist buffoons who so badly want to believe all of it.
But it isn't just about Trump. The media has lied about other things as well. Here are just a few:
7. "Covington Kids"
So egregious was the lame reporting on the incident involving Nick Sandmann and his classmates from Covington Catholic school, that there are now lawsuits pending against various news outlets, such as NBC, MSNBC and the Washington Post. This is a situation where just a little effort would have prevented the story being told as it was. Instead, a 16 yr old boy was defamed, while at the same time, Nathan Williams was falsely portrayed as the victim. There was little to no effort by these and many others to see if there was more to the story, as a longer, unedited video clearly showed. This isn't how "friends of the people" do news.
8. "Zimmerman the Racist"
The George Zimmeran/Travon Martin incident is one that is a two-fer.
First, NBC
went way out of its way to portray Zimmerman as a racist, purposely editing his 911 calls to do so. They were intent on making the incident a matter of racism on the part of Zimmerman, thereby misinforming their viewers.
Secondly, reports from both television and newsprint purposely chose to print pictures of Trayvon Martin from several years prior to the incident, from when he was around10-12 years old, looking like a fresh faced innocent. This served to frame him as an innocent victim of the evil George Zimmerman. But there were plenty of more recent pictures of Martin that were far more accurate indications of who he became by the time he met is untimely end. They would have shown him as the thuggish, gangsta wanna-be he really was. There's no way to describe this disparity as other than a purposeful desire to tell consumers what to believe about the incident, as opposed to simply informing with the facts and nothing but the facts. Kinda something an enemy-like entity would do.
9. "This is getting tiresome"
There really are so many examples of the media printing false information. So many, in fact, that to list them all myself would be more time consuming than this post has already been. So, I'll simply let others do it for me. Here, here's more Trump stuff, here as well, still more here and here. While a lot of what these links provide are duplicates, each seems to have that which the others don't. In other words, there's LOTS of stuff that could be produced, and it all suggests that the mainstream press isn't exactly what the consuming public expects them to be. Sure, some of it is honest mistakes. But then there's that issue of how the corrections are presented...that is, with the same degree of attention, or on page 13 in some small box in the corner where it is easily missed? And of course, most of these "mistakes" are the result of ignoring proper journalistic standards of news gathering, generally the result of the source's extreme bias.
To pretend the press is our friend, or to feign outrage that President Trump would regard many in the press as "enemies of the people" is to one's self be dishonest and dismissive of the needs and desires of the average citizen to be well informed. It is an attack on the people to allow them to be otherwise when it is within one's power to inform properly and objectively as is the duty of the press. The press has rightly been described as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, but as many of these examples show, their shortcomings don't restrict themselves to botching the political. Whatever their motivations, if it strays at all from providing objective, fair and accurate reporting on the most important issues affecting us all, they are indeed our enemies, and where I initially found the use of the phrase to be questionable, my humble research for this post only proves it accurate.
The silence says it all. "
So says Dan Trabue in one of his final comments following his post RE: False Claims (This One's For Marshall...) (BTW...I haven't used that spelling for my nom de plume for some time. I guess if I chose to be referred to by a female pronoun he'd show more respect---but I digress already) Despite having already proven the point in previous posts with examples in support, Dan pretends clicking on his mouse a couple more times to get the answers at my blog, where I won't be deleted for the least little infraction he invented for the purpose, is just too labor intensive. And my "silence" is the result of life getting in the way. He has no problem when it does so for him, but apparently my more important distractions suggests I'm unable to answer his questions. He's an idiot.
Anyway, I have chosen to prove my point here where he can't delete me when I succeed in that endeavor...which I do now. I could not get assurances from his cowardly ass that he would NOT delete me if I went through the effort. Why the hell would I try? So I've done so here, and I will simply link to it at his blog where he can click on it as he would any other linked info...should he have the honor, integrity and courage...or just delete it like the weaselly fake Christian he is. His choice.
So without further ado, I present evidence that the mostly left-wing media is indeed the enemy of the people with the following examples of their malfeasance and laziness.
1. "Immigrants are animals"
This lie was perpetrated by Julie Hirshfield Davis of the New York Times, Andrea Mitchell of NBC and Scott Neuman of NPR, to name three "journalists". The charge is blatantly false and anybody with the resources available to them as they are to each of these liars could easily find out exactly what Trump said and about whom he said it. The transcript of him describing MS-13 members as animals is clear and unequivocal, regardless of lame excuses that he made the statement in the context of a discussion of immigration, and thus one could be excused for confusing his words for a general statement about all immigrants. That's what we in the real world call "crap". What's more, even if such confusion existed in others, a real journalist, for whom truth and objectivity is paramount, would be quick to set the record straight, by reporting on the exact words of Trump spoken in the context at the time he said it.
2. "Good people on both sides"
This is another snippet of Trump's words, falsely and purposely used by the leftist press to smear his character. It is another example of that which a true and complete reading of his words would show that, despite the press' desire to paint Trump as having praised white nationalists, is in fact simply an acknowledgement by him that among those who were protesting against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue were average citizens of Charlottesville with absolutely no connection to the racists who also sought to protest the statue's removal. Truthful and objective journalists would not have tried to use this out-of-context snippet to portray Trump in a bad racist light. Both of these first two examples demonstrate a willful desire to misinform the public who relies upon the press for facts alone, upon which it can form its own opinions.
3. "Where's Martin?"
"Journalist" Zeke Miller published that the Trump people removed the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the White House. That was a lie. He later tried to claim it was obscured from his view. Well...why not say nothing until it's confirmed one way or the other? Because he wanted to smear Trump.
4. "Snubbing a special needs child"
It was reported that Trump wouldn't shake the hand of a disabled boy and a clip of the event where this horrid action took place showed Trump ignoring the outstretched hand of the tyke as he shook the hands of others. But a full version of the very same handshaking showed that the boy was THE VERY FIRST PERSON whose hand Trump shook, and the boy's mother explains that what was shown originally was the boy showing off to Trump the badge he was given. The piece was purposely cropped to portray Trump as dismissive of the disabled boy.
5. "Mocking a disabled reporter"
From Investor's Business Daily:
The incident in question is Trump supposedly mocking New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, whose hand and arm movement on his right side is impaired due to arthrogryposis. Video from 2015 seems to indicate that Trump was indeed cruelly imitating the man.
But the media are too lazy and those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome are too nasty and small-minded to look deeper. The truth is, Trump has often used those same convulsive gestures to mimic the mannerisms of people, including himself, who are rattled and exasperated.
This was simply another attempt by Trump-haters to portray Trump in as negative a light as possible...in this case that he has no compassion for the disabled. It is truly reprehensible and another indication that too many in the media are NOT "friends of the people".
6. "Lazy and unprofessional reporting"
Just the previous five points alone should be evidence enough that too many in the media are appropriately labeled "enemies of the people" given their willful disregard for truth. That disregard extends to how dedicated they aren't in securing the truth before going to press. Sharyl Attkisson compiled a list of 75 media "mistakes" that include every level of media malfeasance with regard to covering Trump. Gavin McInnes did a smaller one that is just as illustrative of the prevalence of media lying and misinformation. (Some of his examples have been mentioned already, others haven't) All of these involved some degree of laziness on the part of the media that shouldn't be tolerated, even by those leftist buffoons who so badly want to believe all of it.
But it isn't just about Trump. The media has lied about other things as well. Here are just a few:
7. "Covington Kids"
So egregious was the lame reporting on the incident involving Nick Sandmann and his classmates from Covington Catholic school, that there are now lawsuits pending against various news outlets, such as NBC, MSNBC and the Washington Post. This is a situation where just a little effort would have prevented the story being told as it was. Instead, a 16 yr old boy was defamed, while at the same time, Nathan Williams was falsely portrayed as the victim. There was little to no effort by these and many others to see if there was more to the story, as a longer, unedited video clearly showed. This isn't how "friends of the people" do news.
8. "Zimmerman the Racist"
The George Zimmeran/Travon Martin incident is one that is a two-fer.
First, NBC
went way out of its way to portray Zimmerman as a racist, purposely editing his 911 calls to do so. They were intent on making the incident a matter of racism on the part of Zimmerman, thereby misinforming their viewers.
Secondly, reports from both television and newsprint purposely chose to print pictures of Trayvon Martin from several years prior to the incident, from when he was around10-12 years old, looking like a fresh faced innocent. This served to frame him as an innocent victim of the evil George Zimmerman. But there were plenty of more recent pictures of Martin that were far more accurate indications of who he became by the time he met is untimely end. They would have shown him as the thuggish, gangsta wanna-be he really was. There's no way to describe this disparity as other than a purposeful desire to tell consumers what to believe about the incident, as opposed to simply informing with the facts and nothing but the facts. Kinda something an enemy-like entity would do.
9. "This is getting tiresome"
There really are so many examples of the media printing false information. So many, in fact, that to list them all myself would be more time consuming than this post has already been. So, I'll simply let others do it for me. Here, here's more Trump stuff, here as well, still more here and here. While a lot of what these links provide are duplicates, each seems to have that which the others don't. In other words, there's LOTS of stuff that could be produced, and it all suggests that the mainstream press isn't exactly what the consuming public expects them to be. Sure, some of it is honest mistakes. But then there's that issue of how the corrections are presented...that is, with the same degree of attention, or on page 13 in some small box in the corner where it is easily missed? And of course, most of these "mistakes" are the result of ignoring proper journalistic standards of news gathering, generally the result of the source's extreme bias.
To pretend the press is our friend, or to feign outrage that President Trump would regard many in the press as "enemies of the people" is to one's self be dishonest and dismissive of the needs and desires of the average citizen to be well informed. It is an attack on the people to allow them to be otherwise when it is within one's power to inform properly and objectively as is the duty of the press. The press has rightly been described as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, but as many of these examples show, their shortcomings don't restrict themselves to botching the political. Whatever their motivations, if it strays at all from providing objective, fair and accurate reporting on the most important issues affecting us all, they are indeed our enemies, and where I initially found the use of the phrase to be questionable, my humble research for this post only proves it accurate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)