tinydancer
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #101
I'm not a fan of "banning" things, so that to me is not an option. Would I would like to see, however, is a highest possible percentage of actual reporters rather than advocate journalists at these things. Digging for factual information is one thing, engaging in impromptu debate is another.All speech that offends The Great Donald must be banned!
That's not it at all. Twice now we have witnessed two so called journalists wanting to be the star of the show. To take the headlines.
Because these egomaniacs like Kelly and Ramos believe that their views are more correct/important than the freaking candidates that are actually running for office.
They can spew all the shit they want on their shows but not in a press conference setting.
They aren't journalists. They are activists and therefore should be banned from pressers or interviews.
But what about freedom of the press? If candidates ban all journalists and reporters who ask tough questions about a candidate's proposals (e.g., deporting children who are citizens and building a wall 1900 miles long), why should we support that candidate? The people want answers and rely on the press to dig for those answers.
Do we really want to see a bunch of Sean Hannitys or Ed Schultzs standing up and fighting with politicians at regular "press" conferences? No, not me. Grandstanding and partisan bellowing don't appeal to me much.
.
Perhaps both Ramos and Trump acted badly, but tinydancer is playing the part of "Chicken Little" and declaring that the sky is falling and suggesting that conservatives behave like "fascists" (which is the word conservatives fling at liberals). Our divisiveness as a people is problematic.
Playing the part of chicken little I think not bitch.
I am telling our side to get some balls against these so called activist journalists.
Knuckle sandwich them.