Gregory's Server
@davew @mastodonmigration Or just don’t interview a known habitual liar in the first place. The only reason I can see for doing that is the sensationalist promotion of misinformation. It doesn’t matter if the person in question is a political candidate, presidential or otherwise. Promoting any candidate’s lies along with their disgusting ideology isn’t required of private companies by the First Amendment.
|
3 comments
@deriamis @davew @mastodonmigration Correct. You're asking a question, a few guys raise their hands, opinions may differ, but in all other settings, you never let the known, notorious idiot and liar answer it. Never, ever. What the media are doing here is the active promotion of lies and they know it pretty dammn well, because they're all professionals. Shame on 'em! »What the Media Are Doing to Our Politics« by John Lloyd probably describes it better, BTW...  @deriamis @davew @mastodonmigration Sure but isn't the point of the journalist to counter the lies and to report the truth of a situation? The habitual liar will lie unrelentingly as is their nature but letting them go unquestioned seems like an abdication of responsibility. It's less effective promotion when you're getting countered on your position and made to face your lies. Anything else is a fluff piece. |
@deriamis @mastodonmigration
absolutely. 100% agree.