WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

Said without the slightest irony!

With the media taking a hard right wing slant, that is why IQ45 is still even talked about. Any media with any kind of integrity would never allow any discussion of IQ45 in its media.

[henry quirk]

I can understand, Al, why you might not wanna name your boy, here, in this viper's pit, but -- merely to back your assertion of having intimate knowledge of many reporters in the mainstream media, all of whom have exemplary journalistic ethics, none of whom cow tow to the economic interests of their employers, and all of whom report without fear or favor -- would you please name some of these exemplars of courage you have personal knowledge of?

I'd like to see for myself if any cut the mustard.

[Alexiev]

Since you ask, the following is intellectually dishonest.

One requires a Magic Decoder Ring to make sense of things in our present. Though it is true that The Media (the legacy media), because they are corporations which are in turn owned and managed by other corporations and these constellations of corporations are, essentially, the entities that own things, run things, determine things in a macro-economic sense -- how could one realistically expect that these corporate newsrooms, and their employees, could come out against the interests of those who control the mechanisms of information distribution?

Thr rhetorical question suggests that we cannot expect employees to come out against the interests of their employers. But this is nonsense. Employees have their own interests -- in the case of reporters this includes reporting the news without fear or favor. (Of course unions are formed to protect the interests of employees, and their very existence belies the implication of your rhetorical question.)

(

[Peter Kropotkin]

Said without the slightest irony!

With the media taking a hard right wing slant, that is why IQ45 is still even talked about. Any media with any kind of integrity would never allow any discussion of IQ45 in its media.

K: its 2024... along with god, Irony is dead..... get with the program....

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

Since you ask, the following is intellectually dishonest.

One requires a Magic Decoder Ring to make sense of things in our present. Though it is true that The Media (the legacy media), because they are corporations which are in turn owned and managed by other corporations and these constellations of corporations are, essentially, the entities that own things, run things, determine things in a macro-economic sense -- how could one realistically expect that these corporate newsrooms, and their employees, could come out against the interests of those who control the mechanisms of information distribution?

Thr rhetorical question suggests that we cannot expect employees to come out against the interests of their employers. But this is nonsense. Employees have their own interests -- in the case of reporters this includes reporting the news without fear or favor. (Of course unions are formed to protect the interests of employees, and their very existence belies the implication of your rhetorical question.)

First, I do not think my statement was dishonest and if anything you might have said prejudiced or badly-informed.

An opinion with integrity.

You have 2 requests, from excruciatingly humble forum-fellows, asking for a link to at least one article that exemplifies honesty and integrity according to you.

Tick-tock tick-tock …

[Alexiev]

First, I do not think my statement was dishonest and if anything you might have said prejudiced or badly-informed.

An opinion with integrity.

You have 2 requests, from excruciatingly humble forum-fellows, asking for a link to at least one article that exemplifies honesty and integrity according to you.

Tick-tock tick-tock …

I will not link an article for three reasons: 1) the tick-tock is obnoxious, 2) I'm out of town, typing on my phone and it doesn't copy urls well, and 3) there are so many of them you can find them yourself. Any straight news story (the senate enacted such and such a law, pedestrian killed in hit and run, etc.) qualifies.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Horse shit.

No, it doesn’t qualify because a news report on street closures or the opening of a new mall involves little or no controversy.

In our present we are swimming, and drowning, in controversial topics.

You were asked to supply an article by implication on a hot, controversial topic — not about someone’s lost cat.

And you cannot supply such an article because, quite obviously, everyone tends to a slanted position.

BTW we might see Glen Greenwald as operating in that zone of integrity and honesty since he is allied to progressive politics but talks often about the general dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here is an example of what I said dome posts up:

In media news, the Washington-based news outlet The Hill has fired Briahna Joy Gray, the co-host of “Rising,” The Hill’s daily morning show. Gray has been a vocal critic of Israel’s war on Gaza. Last year, The Hill also fired the political commentator Katie Halper after she called Israel an apartheid state.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BTW we might see Glen Greenwald as operating in that zone of integrity and honesty since he is allied to progressive politics but talks often about the general dishonesty and hypocrisy.

But he is dis-associated from MSM since he has his own publishing platform.

[Gary Childress]

Horse shit.

To be fair, shortly after COVID came on the scene, there was speculation that the WIV was somehow responsible. At that point it was speculation and probably just based on the coincidence of the facility's location and the nature of the virus.

I couldn't see the major media jumping on something like that due to the international relations implications. It seems best that things have progressed as they have with some reluctance and caution but nevertheless it is now being investigated more closely. Jumping the gun on something like that doesn't seem like it would have been a very wise or responsible reaction by the mainstream press. Their main duty as they may have seen it at the time was to protect the public and they got much of their news from professionals within the government.

There were missteps and inaccuracies and from the sounds of it there were people who weren't willing to implicate themselves or others in things going on behind the scenes, at least not at that point. We are seeing that change and the press is correcting itself and it seems to me that taking our time on that, was the responsible thing to do instead of jumping the gun and creating a huge international scandal during the outbreak when the media was perhaps better employed to focus on keeping people safe according to mainstream professional advice and guidelines.

There were nay sayers and they turned out to be more accurate than first thought, but thinking about it, it seems to me that erring on the side of caution was probably understandable.

When I think of controversial and biased media, I think of media that supports union busting, civil rights abuses or policy that enables unjust wars and human rights abuses. To say that experts miscalculated during a pandemic, is not quite as controversial to me as oppressing ordinary people who need to make difficult decisions in order to afford to live from one day to that next.

[Gary Childress]

Here is an example of what I said dome posts up:

In media news, the Washington-based news outlet The Hill has fired Briahna Joy Gray, the co-host of “Rising,” The Hill’s daily morning show. Gray has been a vocal critic of Israel’s war on Gaza. Last year, The Hill also fired the political commentator Katie Halper after she called Israel an apartheid state.

Well, according to IC, that might not be as scandalous to him as it is to others. I can imagine left wing pro-Palestinian "woke" protestors in agreement with you on that.

[henry quirk]

Al,

I can understand, Al, why you might not wanna name your boy, here, in this viper's pit, but -- merely to back your assertion of having intimate knowledge of many reporters in the mainstream media, all of whom have exemplary journalistic ethics, none of whom cow tow to the economic interests of their employers, and all of whom report without fear or favor -- would you please name some of these exemplars of courage you have personal knowledge of?

I'd like to see for myself if any cut the mustard.

Pretty please?

[Alexiev]

Horse shit.

No, it doesn’t qualify because a news report on street closures or the opening of a new mall involves little or no controversy.

In our present we are swimming, and drowning, in controversial topics.

You were asked to supply an article by implication on a hot, controversial topic — not about someone’s lost cat.

And you cannot supply such an article because, quite obviously, everyone tends to a slanted position.

BTW we might see Glen Greenwald as operating in that zone of integrity and honesty since he is allied to progressive politics but talks often about the general dishonesty and hypocrisy.

90% of journalism is straight reporting of the facts. You asked a question, I answered it. It's not my fault that your question was silly, that the answer was obvious, and that if you wanted to ask a different question, you could have.

Your penchant for demanding other posters to do what you want them to do is mere silliness. You write your posts; I'll write mine.

[Alexiev]

Al,

I can understand, Al, why you might not wanna name your boy, here, in this viper's pit, but -- merely to back your assertion of having intimate knowledge of many reporters in the mainstream media, all of whom have exemplary journalistic ethics, none of whom cow tow to the economic interests of their employers, and all of whom report without fear or favor -- would you please name some of these exemplars of courage you have personal knowledge of?

I'd like to see for myself if any cut the mustard.

Pretty please?

I haven't given much thought to his point of view, but one of my favorite long form journalists in recent years is David Grann. The movie Killers of the Flower Moon is based on his book (which I've read). It certainly is controversial, as are his other books and New Yorker pieces.

https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/david-grann

[Gary Childress]

Al,

I can understand, Al, why you might not wanna name your boy, here, in this viper's pit, but -- merely to back your assertion of having intimate knowledge of many reporters in the mainstream media, all of whom have exemplary journalistic ethics, none of whom cow tow to the economic interests of their employers, and all of whom report without fear or favor -- would you please name some of these exemplars of courage you have personal knowledge of?

I'd like to see for myself if any cut the mustard.

Pretty please?

I find this site to be a good source of information generally. It's definitely not CNN. And I think it's generally held in higher esteem by "mainstream" journalism such as the Washington Post and NY TImes. https://thebulletin.org/

There's also the opinion piece posted above which was in the NY Times. It seems to give a pretty good argument favoring the hypothesis that the outbreak likely originated with the WIV. Here it is again: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... -leak.html