Politics, as a business, sucks.
The observance of politics is frequently toxic to the extent that the anger and frustration one feels when those who have a public position that is, allegedly, requiring of some level of trust, fairness, and journalistic tenets deposit those elements of their profession into the toilet with their respective processed lunches.
Recently, the democrat newsletter known as the local paper, for example, felt it "newsworthy" to publish the sniveling whines of someone who didn't like a fundraising letter.
Do I even have to mention the party that sent the letter out?
Of course not. Anyone reading the tripe this rag publishes knows automatically which party provided the letter.
The abandonment of journalistic fairness took place throughout the entirety of what we can laughingly call "the story."
Even the moron writing this article had to admit that ALL political parties engage in what some will call "objectionable" verbiage in their fundraisers:
Democrats have been just as guilty, according to Portland pollster Mike Riley, quoted in Tuesday's Columbian: "Both parties do that. They are using some of the hot-button issues to see what activates the voters. It's politics as usual within the party faithful. No one that I know puts any credibility in thesetypes of polls."
The idiots publishing this slop knew that before they published it.
So... why did they publish it? What was the point?
It was, of course, part of their ongoing effort to rehab our Cowardman's image.
It failed, of course, because nothing this waste of pulp has, is, or will do can achieve that.
And where these scum failed... again... was when they failed to get a fund-raiser from the leftists at the same time... say, any one of those demonizing President Bush (who, compared to the Empty suited, anti-American racist bigot currently running the country is starting to look more and more like Abe Lincoln) and stopping just short of demanding his assassination; and doing the same thing to the authors of THOSE efforts.
Since these leftists agreed with that kind of nonsense, and since an institutional double-standard for leftists is just company policy around there; well, fat chance that would ever happen.
All of which begs the issue: Why didn't it happen? Why didn't these morons go out and get a leftist fund raiser to compare this with?
IF you're going to do such a moronic story, the ONLY way it works, in the interest of fairness, even-handedness and JOURNALISM is to do it for BOTH parties, PARTICULARLY when your own source TELLS you that BOTH PARTIES DO IT.
But that would be yet another instance of this rag allowing facts to interfere with it's agenda.
And they can't have that... can they?
Their bogus editorial goes on to spew:
Much like the definition of "journalist," the true meaning of "survey" often can be a little blurred. Our advice: Check the source, make sure it's genuinely identified and decide if it's got an agenda.Given the trainwreck that is your paper, and given your obvious hatred of anything to the right of Lenin, why don't you take your advice and jam it where the sun don't shine?
The definition of journalist is sunk in stone. There's nothing blurry about it, except to those who've abandoned the definition... the science... and the principles of what a journalist is SUPPOSED to be.
You know... like this paper?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment