Journalists are now having bricks in their pants right now.
Hedging their bets on the Left for the most part, they have proven they cheering goobers that they absolutely know are no different than the ones on the other side.
But even their seeming about face is just as manipulative: you do not admit flaw as you state that neither side is trustworthy, but suddenly, your unchanged methods are to be trusted?
It is a way to pivot and bridge by means of misdirection, and it’s not working.
Once upon a time, however, it did work.
In 1996, for example, the Toronto Star won an award for their reportage on a con woman who lied about being mugged in order to get drugs.
The problem is that they were the ones who first reported her yarn as fact. Only after people recognized the anonymous woman’s shadow and called in to the paper that they suddenly change what they were reporting.
The Star should not have won any award. They should have been fined for public mischief: the people who recognized the woman and called the newspaper should have gotten the award.
This was before Facebook and Twitter where people could expose hucksters without a middleman to get the credit and the glory.
My goal has always been to create manuals of combatting deception by various means. Much of how we are raised in rote memorization of rigs, rules, and roles that isn’t education, but indoctrination. Specifically, into accepting patriarchal structures as reality.
Question things as a radical centrist, and that isn’t something you can fake, wing, steal, or make up.
I have done my research and thoroughly so, but I have respect for my labour and my talent. I demand credit where credit is due. Online, I give nudges, here and elsewhere. You may be trying to throw a brick to get a jade, but that’s not going to work with someone who builds manuals.
In book form, I spell it out with sources and plenty of them. There is a huge difference.
But journalism tries to hedge their bets. I like this passage from Ann Coulter very much:
What viewers don't understand is how lazy media personalities are. They are merely quoting what someone told them. They don't know. Their expertise consists of memorizing a set of talking points, like ABBA memorizing the syllables to English words without knowing what they meant.
If journalists allowed follow-up questions and you could ask, "How do you know that?" The answer would be, "I heard it from a guy at Vox."
The media go to extremely biased sources; they know nothing, so they're not in a position to challenge them; and even if they were, they wouldn't, because they're on the same team.
Yes, but I would add they also steal ideas from people and then appropriate them as their own.
And this happens because journalism was never an empirical social science or science.
If you have to show how you have come to your conclusions, and can have your work replicated, you are going to take a very different approach. You are not going to steal from other people because all eyes are on you. Journalism is one of those professions where personalities dominate and hog the attention, but their actual methods and practices fly under the radar.
My work has been to spotlight those practices and methods. Left, Right, Centrist, it is all the same game.
Radical centrism is a different perspective. You are not sitting on the fence. You travel in all directions while finding and maintaining yourself in the core.
Not the middle, but the core.
Journalism could have been a powerhouse academic discipline for a general audience.
It chose laziness and ego, and there is no place in the information stream for that kind of pollution…