Originally Posted by
CBreezy
The advent of a neutral press is actually a very recent idea. The reason why every city in the US had two or more papers is because they often had competing editorial ideologies. It has always been incumbent on the reader to have the appropriate media literacy.
Just looking back at the Ferguson coverage in the NY Times, there absolutely was competing narratives based solely on eye witness accounts of Brown's friend and from the officer. It was literally a "he said/he said." It took nearly 5 years for several investigations to come to the conclusion that both the police officer and eye witnesses weren't telling the whole truth.
Much of the reporting I've seen surrounding the "don't say gay" bill have identify the phrase as what critics are calling it. And they are calling it that because it eliminates classroom instruction or discussion of sexual orientation in the classroom. If you're doing a family tree project and a student has two moms or two dad's, discussing that in the classroom could be illegal and the school could be sued. It is outright banned until 4th grade at which it is limited to the incredibly vague standard of "age appropriate" until HS graduation. A school isn't going to risk getting sued and will likely remove all LGBT books from libraries and discourage any discussion of it in the classroom. THAT is why it's called don't say gay.
Also, the NY Times published a long article in Sept 2021 that discussed everything we knew at the time of the laptop. Sounds like you're getting suckered into opinion click bait.
Funny, sounds like your onboard with the narratives of the day.
It's fact that the "media" went with, promoted, and fully pushed the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative right from the beginning. Heck the FIRST story I saw about the incident was how a young, college bound African American was innocently walking down the sidewalk, and a police officer told him to stop and put his hands up, which he did, but the officer shot him anyway. That was promoted by an adoring press as they watched football teams walk into the stadium with their hands up. Not once did I hear even an announcer say, "well you know, the officer claims that he was being wrestled for his weapon before he shot the suspect". It's always months and months of narrative that cements false facts into peoples minds. Tha narrative that was pushed for a good long time until, thankfully, we have a judicial system that demands facts. That's why 1/2 of America thinks everything is racist is because if I lived in Ferguson, and all I heard was the narrative, I'd be ticked as well that people weren't immediately in jail. But that's what makes the narrative so sexy, it sells papers and attention to keep saying that everything is racist and the city should burn. Heck the NYT reporters don't have to live where the repercussions will be felt.
I live in Florida, know all about the bill, know how the press/democrats, cultural heroes lie to malign the bill/idea. I don't want educators in my Public Schools discussing any sexual content (gender issues, whatever you want to call it) with my PreK thru 3rd grade grandkids. It's not their job! If Johnny has two moms, two dads, so what. Let their two whatevers explain it to them. Little Johnny doesn't have to be indoctrinated into the gender ideology of their current teacher. If the PARENTS are so concerned that their kids be learning primary colors and how to become another gender as 1st graders, than the parents should teach that to them, it's not the schools place. People are done with indoctrinations. If we want public school to survive, it's going to have to get back to the basics of the three R's because a growing number of people of means just take their kids out of the system to private schools, virtual, homeschool etc.
The NYT, until last week when were now told that Hunter might be finally indicted for just some of his shenanigans, held that the laptop was a Russian disinformation story.
I agree though that the press has always had a viewpoint, and I wouldn't even care if the 10 people who actually watch CNN thought it was somehow non biased, but the scariest part of this is now the so-called "liberals" are the ones calling for govt to regulate any speech they disagree with, calling on the tech companies to deplatform any publication that they disagree with. Used to be the "conservatives" were the ones that wanted bans on books (for morality reasons) but tables have turned on that accord. Seems kinda absurd to ban any book nowadays when you can have instant porn on the WWW, so now we have people throughout the govt that want bans on people who don't agree with certain climate change prescriptions, or gender ideology, or even any sort of sexual morality.