I think it's funny how they cite the LA Times as a definitive source...like they do field research or think tanks studies. Not to say I don't agree, I just kinda found that a little funny.
That's like saying the media is "biased" without actually demonstrating the bias.
I didn't say they were biased. But if you look at the types of sources they cite before that and then compare them to a columnist in the LA times? That doesn't look a little...threadbare to you?
The thing about journalism is that you're given the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. That's why somebody like David Brooks is obviously a tool, but I just assume the LA Times columnist is referencing factual information.
Post a Comment
4 comments:
I think it's funny how they cite the LA Times as a definitive source...like they do field research or think tanks studies.
Not to say I don't agree, I just kinda found that a little funny.
That's like saying the media is "biased" without actually demonstrating the bias.
I didn't say they were biased. But if you look at the types of sources they cite before that and then compare them to a columnist in the LA times? That doesn't look a little...threadbare to you?
The thing about journalism is that you're given the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.
That's why somebody like David Brooks is obviously a tool, but I just assume the LA Times columnist is referencing factual information.
Post a Comment