Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The Editorial "Should The Times be a Truth Vigilante?" Proves They Are Nothing But Glorified Stenographers!!

When I first something about this on the intertubes, my first thought was; This has got to be something from The Onion, Right???

Here's an editor asking if the reporters should report on facts or not.  Now we know facts have a nasty tendency to have a liberal bias and that tends to piss off conservatives.  Gin and Tacos has an interesting post about this where he sums it up by saying, 'Editors are not editors because they understand journalism particularly well; they are in positions of authority because they understand the publication's need to market itself to the widest possible audience. They are gatekeepers who exist not to enforce the standards of good reporting but to screen every story through the question, "How can we write this story without conservatives getting mad at us?"'
I think that hit the nail on the head!! 


  1. Last paragraph pretty much sums it up. one does not work for the public good; one works for your paymaster's good.

  2. By any other name, it's called profit motive. Pure and simple.

  3. I don't give a fuck who gets mad at me. But sometimes I have to shut them up by turning comments off.


No Anonymous comments,it's not that hard to think of a nom de plume.