Vance Debate — Bigger Picture, So-Called Journalists are Marxist Trash

It’s time to take the MSM up on their claims to objectivity.  Accept for argument’s sake that they are all as pure as the driven snow, without a common ideological axe to grind.  You know, just to make the rest of this argument go.  Then look at the questions they ask and the “clarifications” they issue.  Why would a “debate” “moderator” say such a thing?  What is the worldview which would cause an honest journalist to ask such a question, or to emit such a brain-dead reply?

This analysis will show that the honest and hard-working talking heads of the Democratic People’s Republic of TheNews are all thoroughly mal-educated Marxists.  Regardless of whether they are committed or merely caught up in the rush, every single one of them is unfit to organize a substantive debate, to ask questions, or even to report on the following day.  And remember that we arrived at this conclusion by first giving them the benefit of the doubt.

More to follow, but maybe on the weekend.

Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Vance Debate — Bigger Picture, So-Called Journalists are Marxist Trash

  1. MJBubba says:

    Mollie made her way to the high levels by accepting for argument’s sake that ‘journalists are not ideologues.’ Then she trashed them thoroughly for violating the principals that they all learned and signed up for in the sophomore class on “Journalistic Ethics.”

  2. AdministratorAdministrator says:

    I took a journalism class in high school. I did not recognize it for what it was at the time, but it was utterly soaked in leftist cant. Like taking Sociology in my freshman year of college, I realized that it was a fascinating field populated by dishonest morons, and that I wanted nothing more to do with it.

  3. AvatarDjango says:

    About thirty years ago when KQED was a decent NPR radio station, I listened to a college professor of journalism complain that his students were not interested in becoming objective reporters. Instead, they wanted to have a platform for spreading their views. He called it “advocacy journalism”. He made some dire predictions about what that would mean.

Leave a Reply