The state of American journalism

[MaverickWellington]

How so? How can you say that when I'm one of the people who criticized OP's footing? I posted early in the thread that one of the examples they gave did not support their conclusion.



What are you talking about dawg? Xzi's post is about Trump's media coverage. They don't agree with OP's conclusion that the coverage is sensationalist. If you want to be in an echo chamber you can go to the /r/the_donald where they censor any dissenting opinions.



How can you say that this is not about journalism???

Further, "journalism itself" doesn't exist. Journalists report on subjects. You cannot separate these two things.

And again, OP brought up Trump as a subject of reporting we can use to draw the conclusion that the reporting is bad. If you don't agree that the reporting is bad, what would be a better way refute OP's conclusion?


please cut it out with the ad hominem attacks. You're smarter than that. Bernie was mentioned once and was never responded to. Chill out.

Amazing that you pick out the singular line in the post that mentions journalism and write the entire post off as if it's solely about it. I don't know if you're doing this intentionally or not at this point but regardless it's getting pathetic.

The OP was not about the focus on Trump, it was just about how stupid the media has become. Xzi's post was to whine about our "status as world leader" which isn't even correct to begin with since we are still a world leader, regardless of the fact that we have a man some people dislike as president.

You're going to some impressive lengths in mental gymnastics here, I'll give you that. They aren't making your argument stronger though, just dumber.

A better way to refute the claim that the media has become entirely sensationalist (or mostly) is to bring up news sources that are *not* sensationalist, which several other people in the thread have brought up, specifically the ones about local news, or other sites, while pointing out the flawed sites. Notice how I have not had any problem with these posts. This is how you make an argument. Bitching about Trump is not. Mental gymnastics centered around "w-well the post *said* journalism in it, s-so it's about journalism!!!" is also not an argument.

I'm not going to derail the topic further with you on this. You're clearly not capable of understanding the issue and where it lies as well as where the responsibility of it does. I'm not going to encourage this further.

 

[Whole lotta love]

Amazing that you pick out the singular line in the post that mentions journalism and write the entire post off as if it's solely about it. I don't know if you're doing this intentionally or not at this point but regardless it's getting pathetic.

Bruh their whole post was about journalism.

"Trump is the biggest news since Nixon, it's not surprising that they mostly focus on him"

^I wonder who Xzi is referring to with "they"? can't be journalists because apparently the only way to reference them is to say "journalist", even in a thread about journalism.

"I wish they would vary it up more, sure, but it is important to understand the damage he's doing both at home and on the world stage."

^Again, the subject of this next sentence is the media. Xzi then goes on to try and justify the media coverage with context

"Say what you want about Obama, but the fact of the matter is that the US was still a world leader while he was in office. Now the US is at the back of the short bus."

and now, back to explicitly talking about journalists:

"Journalism did not bring us these new lows, they're only following the lows of Trump's daily life.

And for the conclusion. I know this is scary because Xzi is not saying "journalists" or "the media" in every sentence but I hopefully we can connect the preceding sentence with the following sentence, you know, like a a paragraph:

"To some extent we get dragged down into the mud with his lows [by who??? can't be journalists...], but that's to be expected since he's president."

The OP was not about the focus on Trump, it was just about how stupid the media has become.

EXACTLY, my point is that not everyone agrees that the media has become stupid!
It's still well within the bounds of the conversation to disagree with the original premise. Otherwise it's just an echochamber of people who all think the media has become stupid and ideas aren't challenged.

If I make a thread about how terrible Democrats are, and use Hillary Clinton as an example of Democrats being terrible, it is acceptable and actually healthy for the discourse for someone to come in and say "well actually Hillary did X,Y, and Z which were good so I don't agree that Democrats are bad"
(I don't know what you could put in for X,Y, and Z but just take it as an example)

A better way to refute the claim that the media has become entirely sensationalist (or mostly) is to bring up news sources that are *not* sensationalist

This STILL requires agreement on who IS sensationalist. Xzi made it clear that they don't believe there be a problem with the mainstream media, so in order for them to follow this advice, they would just bring up news sources like CNN which you believe to be sensationalistic.

This is our sticking point dawg. Not everyone agrees with OP's conclusion.

Like, if I started the same exact thread, but said whatever news source(s) you like is sensationalist, you would be very much justified in saying that they're not sensationalistic and do good journalism.

Mental gymnastics centered around "w-well the post *said* journalism in it, s-so it's about journalism!!!" isalsonotanargument.

No, it absolutely is an argument. Your claim was that Xzi's post was not about journalism. Xzi making the paragraph you have issue with primarily focused on the media directly refutes that claim.

I'm not going to encourage this further.

Yes daddy.