It is very hard to have respect for a profession when that profession behave like collective headless chickens running around, and yet still maintain the miracle of squawking. Just as you wonder how headless wonders can squawk, you also wonder how the hell those headless chickens wound up being messengers in the first place.
They all want to pretend to be “in the know”, but never bother with investing in knowledge or doing basic research.
Let us take the fate of Jamal Khashoggi, for instance.
Where is the Western media getting their intel?
And why aren’t journalists questioning that discredited source of information?
What a short memory journalists have. I guess doing all those drugs gave them all dementia.
And then you have bimbos the National Post wonder why was Khashoggi killed when he was opining benign criticism against Saudi Arabia.
Maybe it’s because it had nothing to do with journalism, you moron. Obviously, you are dealing with players, and one of whom got in over his head.
But so intellectually lazy are journalists as a collective and individuals that they absolutely cannot process information unless it is in a binary dynamic of good guy-bad guy.
They cannot fathom the idea that there are no good guys, and everyone in a certain situation is a villain — including themselves.
And spewing the propaganda of a president who has labelled peaceful people terrorists as he had imprisoned people and stomped on their rights makes you a villain. The end.
Thousands of regular citizens have lost their jobs and freedoms thanks to this man, and you just puke out what he says without question?
Shame on you.
What’s in it for Erdoğan? And why would the Saudis care for Khashoggi’s writing? Others have said a lot worse about that regime, including Canada, and those people were not lured and executed in such a horrific manner.
Something else happened, and is happening still. When one tyrant calls the other tyrant a tyrant, that is the point when critical thinking skills should go into overdrive, and neither one can be trusted.
There are no “sides” here. This isn’t a Hollywood movie or a fairytale. This is reality, and I worked as a journalist and I know from my own experience you have more than just one “good guy/bad guy” situation. Sometimes two very nice groups or people clash: it does not give the journalist the right to demonize one at the expense of the other. Sometimes one or both parties are a mix of both. And many times, both sides are equally putrid, and they would both destroy you in a heartbeat, even if you appease them.
Especially if you appease them.
That is why journalists were never supposed to take sides in the first place.
But it doesn’t mean you sit on the fence or not ask hard questions.
Or stick to narratives.
I have noted on this web site before, for instance, how many Canadian politicians have been heavily invested in cannabis companies long before it was legalized. This should have sounded alarm bells if we had a real journalism product, but then again, which media players are themselves invested in them, too?
But it has been all political parties at all levels. How did they, for instance, come into contact with these companies, get the funds to do so, and have any of these companies done lobbying or some shadier form of persuasion?
We don’t know.
We don’t know what kind of financial influence these companies have had, but it has sort of dawned on the CBC this late in the game that, gee, there are a lot of people who railed against pot in their political careers who are now cashing in on it.
Except they aren’t really asking questions. It’s all about the money and all that, right?
Yes, but how come so many of them got into the game long before this point? What kind of influence did this lobby have on every level of government?
This is a serious problem. How did drug dealers get such an influence on the government?
And who else has their grubby little fingers in our politicians?
On all sides of the political spectrum?
So why vote when it doesn’t matter who gets elected?
The old scripts obviously do not align with reality.
And the middle class can snap out of their slumber and get over themselves. They make no demands, and get no information despite their incessant temper tantrums when someone challenges their rote thinking.
There are no easy or simple answer or nice, neat scripts.
Meat doesn’t come in a sterilized little cardboard box with colourful patterns on it.
It comes from the slaughtering of animal life.
And that why journalism is garbage: it constantly looks at that perky little cardboard box and staring at the dressed-up piece of meat instead of going to the abattoir and seeing up close how that cheery meal got started.
Chaser is not going to present that little box.
It is not going to ignore truths or reality.
It will challenge beliefs — all of them.
But first, it will show you just how faulty perceptions can be in the first place…