Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
I have said that two (2) journalists in the press conference showed an agenda. I have also extrapolated that and suggested the media needs to fix itself.
Why attack an alleged overstatement with an overstatement?
Edit: I've been working on the idea to write a paper to argue that the election of Trump is as much a failure of the media as it is of American democracy. It makes little sense that Trump is president. It is the mistrust of the media that allowed him to become elected and he is now exploiting that. I have floated this idea among quite a few people and its interesting how much push-back I have received. I'll keep plugging away and everyone feel free to attack the idea but let's not make it personal.
|
Where did I make it personal?
By pointing out that your method to prove your point was ineffective in silly?
I don't know how that is making it personal.
You are using the "media" has a broad catch-all term. So what exactly are you referring to?
And as many have pointed out - certainly at least one of the questions you object to was 100% valid for that journalist to be asking.
I would also strongly suggest that you clearly have a biased making your "paper" nothing more than an opinion piece.