dagblog - Comments for "Who does journalism serve?" http://dagblog.com/link/who-does-journalism-serve-34499 Comments for "Who does journalism serve?" en BREAKING NEWS: Two liberals & http://dagblog.com/comment/308581#comment-308581 <a id="comment-308581"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/who-does-journalism-serve-34499">Who does journalism serve?</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">BREAKING NEWS: Two liberals &amp; two conservatives asked each other thoughtful questions about their frustrations w/ media *and got thoughtful answers.*<br /><br /> Just another chat at the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BraverAngelsPodcast?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BraverAngelsPodcast</a> Roundtable<br /><br /> Would you have asked these Q's? (THREAD)<a href="https://t.co/dODTPpAL8p">https://t.co/dODTPpAL8p</a></p> — Braver Angels (@braverangels) <a href="https://twitter.com/braverangels/status/1423756470735171590?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> <p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">1. From red to blue:<br /><br /> Is there REALLY a difference between "journalists" and "commentators"?<br /><br /> Via <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnRWoodJr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JohnRWoodJr</a>: (2/5) <a href="https://t.co/OccCqulVJB">pic.twitter.com/OccCqulVJB</a></p> — Braver Angels (@braverangels) <a href="https://twitter.com/braverangels/status/1423756486052769794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> <p>thread continues.</p> <p>Braver Angels bills itself as <em>America's largest grassroots, cross-partisan organization dedicated to political depolarization. We're fighting the forces of division to build a house united. </em></p> <p>A main player in it is<em> </em><a href="https://twitter.com/JohnRWoodJr">John Wood, Jr. @JohnRWoodJr</a> who describes himself like this P<em>ublic intellectual? Something like a politician? Singer and musician, kind of. Philosophically inclined. Hero complex. National ambassador <a dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/BraverAngels">@BraverAngels</a></em></p> <p>.</p> </div></div></div> Sat, 07 Aug 2021 03:31:05 +0000 artappraiser comment 308581 at http://dagblog.com So fuck off already. http://dagblog.com/comment/308538#comment-308538 <a id="comment-308538"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/308537#comment-308537">You had a one in four chance</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>So fuck off already.</p> </div></div></div> Wed, 04 Aug 2021 19:44:38 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 308538 at http://dagblog.com You had a one in four chance http://dagblog.com/comment/308537#comment-308537 <a id="comment-308537"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/308532#comment-308532">This him, Jeff?</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>You had a one in four chance and got it wrong.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Wed, 04 Aug 2021 15:01:25 +0000 Jeff comment 308537 at http://dagblog.com More Fanone smearing - http://dagblog.com/comment/308536#comment-308536 <a id="comment-308536"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/308527#comment-308527">Not very curious are you?</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>More Fanone smearing - political?</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/i/events/1422639731498569730?s=20">https://twitter.com/i/events/1422639731498569730?s=20</a></p> <p>Right wing propaganda machine cranks it up?</p> <p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">Fact Check: D.C. police officer Michael Fanone was not pictured carrying confederate flag at the Capitol siege, as some social media posts claim <a href="https://t.co/87Wrs7VdFP">https://t.co/87Wrs7VdFP</a> <a href="https://t.co/Agl3n7dWz3">pic.twitter.com/Agl3n7dWz3</a></p> — Reuters (@Reuters) <a href="https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1422640779881820162?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 3, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> </div></div></div> Wed, 04 Aug 2021 06:13:42 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 308536 at http://dagblog.com More police political http://dagblog.com/comment/308533#comment-308533 <a id="comment-308533"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/308527#comment-308527">Not very curious are you?</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>More police political posturing i guess</p> <p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">The suspect in an incident outside of the Pentagon that led to an officer being killed was shot by law enforcement and died at the scene, officials said.<a href="https://t.co/TgiBuzDYQd">https://t.co/TgiBuzDYQd</a></p> — The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/1422627130039541760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 3, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> </div></div></div> Wed, 04 Aug 2021 00:49:49 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 308533 at http://dagblog.com This him, Jeff? http://dagblog.com/comment/308532#comment-308532 <a id="comment-308532"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/308527#comment-308527">Not very curious are you?</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>This him, Jeff? Your"smoking gun"?</p> <p><a href="https://edition.cnn.com/videos/media/2021/07/28/michael-fanone-laura-ingraham-award-newday-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/business-media/">https://edition.cnn.com/videos/media/2021/07/28/michael-fanone-laura-ing...</a></p> <p>So what do you get out of showing up here with half-assed disengaged comments and innuendo? Is this enough for you to feel smug and self-justified, or is there a more subtle reason I'm missing?</p> </div></div></div> Tue, 03 Aug 2021 23:57:00 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 308532 at http://dagblog.com You could create a user http://dagblog.com/comment/308529#comment-308529 <a id="comment-308529"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/308527#comment-308527">Not very curious are you?</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>You could create a user profile rather than post unverified, but you're lazy as fuck and would rather others do your scheming conspiracy bullshit for you. I'm curious why such a troll keeps coming back, since this is extremely boring and nobody here buys your nonsense.</p> <p>4th Capitol cop committed suicide yesterday - just being "political"?</p> </div></div></div> Tue, 03 Aug 2021 14:09:00 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 308529 at http://dagblog.com Not very curious are you? http://dagblog.com/comment/308527#comment-308527 <a id="comment-308527"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/308499#comment-308499">Try clarifying, Jeff - what</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Not very curious are you?</p> <p>You see if I tell you then you can simply dismiss the source and/or the information for whatever reason you wish.  Notice the qualifier "reasonable" on "facts".  What's a "reasonable fact"?  Is that different from an "unreasonable fact"?</p> <p>If you find it for yourself then maybe, just maybe, you might believe what you read.  There were were what, 4 officers who testified?.  Surely it's not that hard to find out which ones are overtly partisan and political.</p> <p>And of course nowthat you censor my posts that's another way to dismiss any argument you choose.</p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Tue, 03 Aug 2021 11:20:53 +0000 Jeff comment 308527 at http://dagblog.com Fox's limit is getting http://dagblog.com/comment/308514#comment-308514 <a id="comment-308514"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/308512#comment-308512">item on Clarke interesting!</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Fox's limit is getting arrested - like Clarke with Bannon's illegal campaign donations bit, of Fox's opening itself up for lawsuits tied to asserting election fraud.</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 01 Aug 2021 10:31:46 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 308514 at http://dagblog.com item on Clarke interesting! http://dagblog.com/comment/308512#comment-308512 <a id="comment-308512"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/308505#comment-308505">We&#039;ve always been at war with</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>item on Clarke interesting! Fox seems to have a limit to to how wack you can be? I guess because if you are 100% wack you you can't follow narrative instructions and talking points?</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 01 Aug 2021 09:25:50 +0000 artappraiser comment 308512 at http://dagblog.com