It's because you were starting to sound more like some vatnik. I couldn't understand why anyone but some sosach vatnik would take offense at journalism until I realized probably a lot of people are too retarded not to know difference between pundits and journalists. Journalists just go out and repeat the facts. It can be massaged so as to slant an image a certain way, such as omitting key details from a story, or reporting on one but not another, but that is mainly down to the editors and owners of the paper which in most cases is a private for profit enterprise. It's pretty well known how hard journalists butt heads with their editors.>>59767
No, they don't. What you mean are pundits. Punditry is not journalism. Some may have been journalists, but being a pundit is by definition not being a real journalist. Case in point, Tom Brokaw and Megyn Kelly are journalists. Tucker, Joe Scarborough, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher, these people are pundits. They inject their personal opinions and editorialize, and in the case of people like Maher, Jon Stewart, Colbert, these people also are entertainers also who mostly host late night talk shows. It's almost as if people seriously don't know the difference between some AM radio host and an actual journalist because so far as they see it's all "the media." In this country journalists frequently get sniped at by both sides for "not grilling them hard enough" as opposition candidate or "being too mean" when it's their candidate.
Basically, my view is if you're openly hostile to journalists either you've got something to hide or you're asshurt because they're willing to talk about some fact going in the face of your narrative you wished to be swept under the rug. Thus, people hanging off of Putin's nutsack get asshurt when people start questioning what happened to all the money they stole. Regimes passionately despise journalists for a reason, and it's clear at this point people who hate them either don't know the difference, or they do and that is why they hate them because they are regimists who want the country to look more like Turkmenistan with muh le strong leader.
I further think it's probably tied to the broader issue some people tried blaming on market liberalisation or neoliberalism that people wrongly act like all opinions are made equal: they are not. I do not know if this comes more from SocJus muh equity tiers, or wrong ideas about democracy and freedom of speech fundamental assumptionsdemocracy and freedom do not stipulate that everyone is equally right, but that the more correct, moral, or truthful idea will prevail in open competitveness with other amoral, untrue, or flat our retarded ideas
, or postmodernist garbage about moral relativism or assumptions that there is no objective truth, or some left or right or Protestant romanticization about the bydlo common man, or a combination of these or what, but it comes down to the assumption that your feefees and your retarded views should be given equal standing. It doesn't matter if you have fifty retarded people or fifty million, something objectively nonfactual is immortally wrong. It doesn't matter how much something gets massaged or spun, a polished turd is always going to be a polished turd, and some random pizza delivering bydlo's view on how galaxies formed does not ever deserve same consideration as an astrophysicist.
I think it is partly some bydlo outrage at expertise and their own fundamental sense of ineriority that fuels all this hate towards professionalism. Maybe also class resentments. If you're uneducated and untrained at X you are incompetent at X, simple as. The fundamentals of journalism if they do their job right is simply to state here X happened, and ask the who/what/why/when/how questions. Sometimes the answers to these questions is unflattering, which is particularly why this new breed of bullshit artists infesting the chans get so outraged by it.