Gone are the days when a
person could watch a television newscast or read a story in the paper and get
the facts. "Journalism" as a profession is dead. In its place is a
career built on misinformation and half-truths designed to steer a reader or
listener toward a particular agenda. Just look what happened when the latest
Colorado shooter was described as a "socialist."

The news story describes how
Pierson bashes the capitalist economic theories of Adam Smith, saying, "I
was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn't the market
correcting itself? If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn't it be able to
overpower regulations?" The news story notes that Pierson describes
himself as "Keynesian."
The Denver Post also informs
us that Pierson "appears to mock Republicans" on Facebook where he
wrote "you republicans are so cute" and posting an image that reads:
"The Republican Party: Health Care: Let 'em Die, Climate Change: Let 'em
Die, Gun Violence: Let 'em Die, Women's Rights: Let 'em Die, More War: Let 'em
Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?"
But when another student,
Thomas Conrad, described Pierson as a "very opinionated Socialist,"
something quite interesting happened.
After initially appearing in print, the sentence was changed to,
"Thomas Conrad, who had an economics class with Pierson, described him as
very opinionated."
The shooter evolved from a
“very opinionated socialist” to simply “very opinionated.” “Opinionated” about
what? Well, the reader is left to put the pieces together himself.
This was not an unsupported
bit of reporting. The Associated Press backed up the Post’s findings. “Students
said Pierson held communist views and liked to discuss current events and
issues, offering his own solutions,” the AP reported. “None said Pierson was
bullied for his beliefs.”
When confronted about the
decision to stealthily cleanse the piece on this shooter’s politics, Denver
Post senior editor Lee Ann Colacioppo revealed a particularly insidious mindset
behind the decision: “We decided not to have another student apply a label to
the shooter — a label the student likely didn’t even understand,” she wrote.
Ok, please help me out here,
because I don't get it. It's ok to write a story and use talk about economic
theory and bash Republicans, but it's not ok to use the word Socialist? How
does the editor know what the student does or does not understand?
Here's another student
expressing the same opinion in a television interview:
-- That Karl "had very
strong beliefs about gun laws and stuff" is newsworthy, but what those
actual beliefs constitute isn't?
-- I mean, the entire article
is "WHAT HIS CLASSMATES SAID ABOUT HIS POLITICS". Why take that out?
-- did you ask the student to
see if he understood the wonders of Socialism, or did you just assume he
didn't?
-- It's not up to you to
decide anything if it's a direct quote. That's called reporting.
-- Then why ask witnesses for
opinions on shooter, at all? Not ur job 2 edit out their thoughts.
So what do you think? Why take out the word "Socialist" but leave in other phrases and descriptions that show a left-leaning mindset? It's sad that journalists have become advocates for an agenda... and they will defend that agenda to the disrepute of their profession.
Bobby Eberle, GOPUSA, December 17, 2013 7:13 am
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Não publicamos comentários de anônimos/desconhecidos.
Por favor, se optar por "Anônimo", escreva o seu nome no final do comentário.
Não use CAIXA ALTA, (Não grite!), isto é, não escreva tudo em maiúsculas, escreva normalmente. Obrigado pela sua participação!
Volte sempre!
Abraços./-