Just a rantette today. No time or energy for more.
Dig this tweet.
This is embarrassing: pic.twitter.com/rfJXNVXH1G— Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) April 3, 2020
Natasha Bertrand is a National Security correspondent. I have no idea what that really means, but it looks like she's some kind of reporter. Her take on the USNS Comfort is dead wrong. It should have been obviously wrong before she started. Where are her superiors? Where are her mentors?
When I was a pup and I made a serious mistake as a professional, there were a couple of people who would take me aside and teach me what I did wrong so I didn't do it again. It's not clear that anyone has done this with Natasha.
In a broader sense, once the gay pedophilia scandal broke in the Church, there were plenty of priests and lay people who lost their minds and raged at the corruption. Not only that, they still do. If a member of the clergy made a mistake on the order of Natasha's, the thread of replies would be filled with angry Catholics just blasting her.
Where are the reporters, journalists or other members of the press correcting Natasha in public? She's ruining their reputations and it doesn't seem to matter to any of them. Maybe Natasha is part of a completely separate organization the way the Presbyterians aren't associated with the Catholics. However, she's a member of the news media and the Presbyterians are Christians, so there's a natural, if ignorant association in the minds of the public.
That's the reason the Babylon Bee criticizes a lot of televangelists. It's done to defend the brand of Christianity.
Where is the similar defense of the brand of the news media? Until legit journalists start whacking people like Natasha, it's only natural for the rest of us to assume that the MSM is just one, big glob of corrupt weasels.
4 comments:
1) Why would no one "take her aside"? Maybe because they don't care. Maybe because if they criticize her, they would fear a harassment charge.
2) "Where are her superiors/mentors?" They don't care about accuracy, they care about the narrative. It is MSNBC that she works for.
3) But most importantly: "teach me what I did wrong so I didn't do it again". You are assuming (a) that she cares about being 'right', (b) that she thinks misleading stories are 'wrong', and (3) that she actually can think. I see no evidence of any of this.
Legit journalists?
I agree with the sentiments, but not the universality of them. On Twitter, I follow Ted Anthony, an AP writer. His work is beautiful and he's very professional. He is kind as well, having allowed me to be nasty with him numerous times as I use him as a representative of his profession. To me, his writing hints of a lefty bent, but he is a legit professional.
He also shares links to other excellent AP writers. They're the ones I was thinking of when I wrote this. Just as the Catholics who devote their free time to the prison ministry represent the Church, he and his friends represent professional journalism. The difference is that when Fr. James Martin, the Jesuit heretic on Twitter, posts something horrific, legit Catholics pile on him with a vengeance. We are policing our own.
Why aren't they?
This post is making me unreasonably angry, but not for the reasons you wanted.
So, you have this link to some guy on Twitter. He is angry with someone else. His "explanation" of what he is angry about is a context-free collection of four images. I cannot for the life of me figure out from those pictures what he is mad about. The only hint is some highlighted text pointing out that it is a white ship with a red cross. Yep, I can see that. White ship. Red cross. Check. Is that it? Probably not, but who the hell knows? Is it about the fact that it won't treat coronavirus patients, but will take in other patients to take the load off of the NYC hospitals? Maybe? Is that wrong? Is that right? Seems reasonable in any case, yes? None of the other pictures confirm or refute that. There is a discrepancy with one image saying 1000 beds, and one saying 750 beds. Is that it? Maybe, but in that case why didn't he somehow mark the values to be sure to point it out? One picture says it only has 20 patients so far. Is that it? Presumably that is either true, or not true, which is it? Does it matter? When was this? Would we have expected more, say, accident victims by now? When is "now", anyway? As far as that goes, who made this montage of uninformative pictures? The guy complaining? The reporter he is complaining about? Somebody else? It makes no sense.
And then you are no help. You just assume that I can see at a glance what the problem is. Well I can't. He's being needlessly obtuse, and you aren't doing a damned thing to make it in any way clearer. And when I click on the image. it sends me to Twitter, who won't let me view it unless I log into their misbegotten "service".
Twitter. GAH. If I wanted to read Twitter, I would read it. I wouldn't need you to point me at it. And yes, I looked into Twitter at one point. Couldn't see the point. Didn't like it. As near as I can tell, it is designed to promote the kind of "conversations" that you get at cocktail parties and mixers - short snatches of small talk with occasional attempts at one-liners by people who barely know each other, and are just tipsy enough that they no longer care if they piss each other off.
Just to be clear, I LOATHE cocktail parties.
So, if you are going to rant, could you at least have the common courtesy to take just one second, and state what the hell it is you are going on about?
Post a Comment