She is not validating Kirk. Her arguments are for journalistic integrity. It’s a challenging moment to take that stance when everyone’s so divided, but she is holding her ground and I respect that. The New York Times and other outlets resorting to viral meme quotes, that are not vetted or truthful, is not good journalism. It’s just stoking the fire for clicks. So I agree with what her take is.
The basic element of propaganda is not lying, it is focus.
When they’re focusing on the good points of a horrible bloated monster of a human being, you should recognise someone who is manipulating you. The problem is that you hold “journalism” so highly that you’ve made yourself into a gullible rube.
Her take is “he never said that” wrt saying gay people should be stoned or that children should watch public executions and she’s right, what he said was “Gay people being stoned to death is God’s perfect law”, to an audience of Christian nationalists. And he didn’t say children should watch executions, he agreed with someone else saying it. Paraphrasing opinions is indeed exactly the same as outright lying about them, and you’re very smart for noticing that.
He never said he would refuse to board a plane a black pilot was flying, he merely said “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified”.
Her point is basically that people are using the wrong quotes to report on Kirk’s political views, and while that is an issue of journalistic integrity, it’s not particularly relevant here. What would be the difference if she got her way? That we learn that Charlie Kirk was, in fact, a Nazi, just not in the exact way that he’s being portrayed now?
Cherry-picking quotes and presenting them out of context is a serious problem when it’s used to misrepresent a person or issue. In this case, any misrepresentation is practically negligible. Charlie Kirk was a proud fascist, and no one reading these articles about him is going to get a different view of him by being more “fair” towards him.
It’s not that she’s wrong, it’s that this is a dumb hill to die on. She should be making this argument when media outlets are using these tactics to actively obscure or manipulate the truth, as they do all the time, and not when they’re just being lazy but otherwise getting the point across. She’s actively helping the fascists right now by clogging up the field with her pedantic bullshit. That’s part of how propaganda works, and if you can’t see that then it’s working.
This focus on not “misrepresenting” people is always directional, too. It is only ever aimed toward right-wing figures. They will distort the words of leftists to try to demonize them, but right-wing figures can literally do a Nazi salute on live television and people will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Point in case, Elon is currently on a khole bender claiming the Nazis were leftists because they have socialist in the name. If that’s the case Elon why did you do Nazi salutes on stage to a bunch of Republicans?
Atlantic
She is not validating Kirk. Her arguments are for journalistic integrity. It’s a challenging moment to take that stance when everyone’s so divided, but she is holding her ground and I respect that. The New York Times and other outlets resorting to viral meme quotes, that are not vetted or truthful, is not good journalism. It’s just stoking the fire for clicks. So I agree with what her take is.
Journalistic integrity is when you lie about who someone is because it’s inconvenient to speak the truth
The basic element of propaganda is not lying, it is focus.
When they’re focusing on the good points of a horrible bloated monster of a human being, you should recognise someone who is manipulating you. The problem is that you hold “journalism” so highly that you’ve made yourself into a gullible rube.
Her take is “he never said that” wrt saying gay people should be stoned or that children should watch public executions and she’s right, what he said was “Gay people being stoned to death is God’s perfect law”, to an audience of Christian nationalists. And he didn’t say children should watch executions, he agreed with someone else saying it. Paraphrasing opinions is indeed exactly the same as outright lying about them, and you’re very smart for noticing that.
He never said he would refuse to board a plane a black pilot was flying, he merely said “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified”.
Her point is basically that people are using the wrong quotes to report on Kirk’s political views, and while that is an issue of journalistic integrity, it’s not particularly relevant here. What would be the difference if she got her way? That we learn that Charlie Kirk was, in fact, a Nazi, just not in the exact way that he’s being portrayed now?
Cherry-picking quotes and presenting them out of context is a serious problem when it’s used to misrepresent a person or issue. In this case, any misrepresentation is practically negligible. Charlie Kirk was a proud fascist, and no one reading these articles about him is going to get a different view of him by being more “fair” towards him.
It’s not that she’s wrong, it’s that this is a dumb hill to die on. She should be making this argument when media outlets are using these tactics to actively obscure or manipulate the truth, as they do all the time, and not when they’re just being lazy but otherwise getting the point across. She’s actively helping the fascists right now by clogging up the field with her pedantic bullshit. That’s part of how propaganda works, and if you can’t see that then it’s working.
This focus on not “misrepresenting” people is always directional, too. It is only ever aimed toward right-wing figures. They will distort the words of leftists to try to demonize them, but right-wing figures can literally do a Nazi salute on live television and people will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Point in case, Elon is currently on a khole bender claiming the Nazis were leftists because they have socialist in the name. If that’s the case Elon why did you do Nazi salutes on stage to a bunch of Republicans?
Journalistic integrity is when you hold your ground on your preconceived beliefs against all contrary evidence.
Counterpoint: he was a Nazi who openly and proudly punched down while advocating for horrible things, he deserves to have his name dragged and worse.
Pee pee poo poo
Sybau