71–80 of 835 posts
I can imagine animosity from the leadership, for example classifying most journalists as "fake news", contributing to violence from the front line against them.
You're assuming most cops support Trump?
EDIT: Ok, downvoted for inductive reasoning, here is data point.
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1267883609886728193...
I think it would show more nuanced sentiment to say, that on 110 occasions journalists ended up caught in aggressive police action since May 28. Current wording would have an implication for many people, that journalists were deliberately chosen as targets.
I just want to say that we have to do the things necessary to differentiate ourselves from places like China or Saudi Arabia. Nothing is implicit.
When people are driving cars full speed into policemen, executing officers, throwing incendiary devices at people, covering for looters, and major media outlets are bending over backwards to justify it (which I suspect is, at the managerial/editorial level, naked self-preservation).
This is not grieving, it's a civil war; many journalists have chosen a side and you know it, and there is no moral principle that you will be able to uphold on that matter from your apartment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming most cops support Trump?
Given how certain kinds of rhetoric from the political left demonizes police offers, it seems likely that many of them have found a home on the right.
If you slander and dehumanize 40-60% of the population with accusations of white supremacy, you're going to create a white supremacist movement where one did not previously exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which in turn was perhaps caused by "the news" going from being mostly journalists to mostly pundits with the rise of mass media.
Most news isn’t that, just cable news.
I've started watching foreign news coverage of the US. It seems better, but I can't yet tell how much; all news still love the sensational stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current wording is correct. The journalists are in fact being deliberately chosen as targets.
This is not the first article claiming that on HN (the previous one was flagged to death). Like the previous one, this one does not show anything objective to support this interpretation.
I don't think you're here to actually argue in good faith at all.
I can imagine animosity from the leadership, for example classifying most journalists as "fake news", contributing to violence from the front line against them.
That, and the journalists are literally there to record evidence of their abuse. Police don't like it too much when you record evidence of them, say, beating a peaceful protester, or forcing a weapon into the hands of someone already pinned to the ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which in turn was perhaps caused by "the news" going from being mostly journalists to mostly pundits with the rise of mass media.
Most news isn’t that, just cable news.
In my personal experience, even most written news is junk. It just seems like it's not junk because it uses intellectual language and doesn't feature a man in a suit speaking loudly. All news leaves out key details and editorializes.
But some people don't see it this way, and it's scary that we are this fractured because it's hard to reconcile. If two people are reading the news and come to dipolar conclusions, how do they come to an agreement? For the sake of argument, let's say that one perspective on the news is accurate, and the other is inaccurate; the chances that the more correct person will be able to persuade the person with the less accurate view seems close to nil.