The other day, I go about my business in the gym when I heard something on
the TV stuck in my ears like a sharp knife, I heard a journalist ask an
intelligent question Donald Trump. I stopped for a moment to hear his
answer, because it was something I was actually curious. I quickly found
the source of my confusion. This reporter was a foreign journalist, not the
body of the White House.
I did it a few years of my rule for national news from foreign sources.
Although he did not rule bias, and there is always the problem this new
undeclared, or omission and distortion, the foreign press has some skin in
the game, and a lot less reason to lie the local press. Of course,
globalism is changing all that, but for now it remains true.
The reverse is also true. I want CNN International in high esteem, and if I
am outside of America, would turn to them to find out what is happening in
the world. CNN still has most of the new office stations worldwide, and the
international edition is a completely separate network from its domestic
propaganda.
Example: I was abroad when US General Stanley McChrystal was fired for
speaking his mind and make critical comments about his bosses, including
President Obama. CNN International Foreign reported this as looting, but
when I got home, the national media, including CNN all said the general had
resigned. You know, spend more time with his family.
Foreign publications such as The Guardian published on fraud and exposes
political malfeasance by Greg Palast (American investigative journalist
living in the UK), as well as being instrumental in the Edward Snowden
revelations. Today, Russia has revealed important facts about Syria and
Ukraine as the national press does not want to discuss. D and Justin
Martin, a journalist working in Qatar, regularly publishes interesting
stories not covered by the national press.
The White House Body: Fools In Action
For years, I am unable to watch the White House press briefing without
being angry at the stupidity and waste opportunities to challenge the
powerful. Journalists generally ask questions whose answers are obvious and
serve only as softball configurations for the press secretary for
propaganda respond with full of nothingness blabbery mouth.
A taxi driver could both ask and answer the question honestly and sincerely
that one of the parties at a press conference. Just watch the presidential
debates of City Hall, where the audience members asked pertinent questions
from the official debates where journalists have devised questions for
candidates. This raises the question: If you t ask a better question that
Ken Bone, why you are a professional journalist?
The national main tool Press distortion does not lie outright, but
distortion and omission. And they not only make in their reports do not
fully cover stories, as detailed in the 2004 book Into the Buzzsaw, which
documents the stories and censorship doped, but only related parts without
essential context or explanation .
A good example is how the media never asks why so many refugees following
the Syrian war (Lauren South investigates and is struggling to find real
Syrians in a refugee camp). Instead, after time, as violent crimes are
committed by foreigners, the answer is a vague Islam is responsible instead
to trace the problem to the Syrian war underway and West of complicity in
support for violent extremist rebels, a common theme of American foreign
policy which results in chaos and destruction on all sides.
Journalists regularly squander the opportunity to ask important questions
to powerful personalities. I speculated that the American public would be
better served by replacing the entire press corps with a random network of
men in the street. The quality of the questions would be higher, and
off-topic too long answers would not be tolerated by your typical plain
spoken, American working unemployed.
Test Theory: Roosh 2016 Press Conference
When the unwashed masses ask more intelligent questions that professional
journalists trained, there is a serious problem. To test this theory, I
review Roosh press conference there last year, where journalists who chose
to come to the Washington DC press conference to cover the history of
tracksuits that have been marked by traditional media as & # 8220 rape
clubs and # 8221; had the opportunity to ask questions directly Roosh. Let
look at the 35 choice questions they wasted everybody's time with.
Before you start, think about a question you would ask Roosh from the top
of your head, and see how it compares to the quality of the questions.
Why do you think people think of you a rapist & # 8221 ?;
Really? We're at a press conference on the media calling jogging rape
events, and you sat by Roosh s dress the word down the media to lie and
slander. And that's the question you yet?
Obviously, people think that just because you are in the media had said!
Could anyone be still unclear about it? Kudos for keeping part Roosh after
this silly question.
Do you recognize some of your writing is offensive & # 8221 ?;
Almost all smart writing may interfere with someone. The obvious answer is
yes, some people are probably offended something. What a stupid question.
Do you consider yourself as a victim & # 8221 ?;
Who really cares what word is used to mark the target of a media
assassination? This is the question of typical media Gotcha. It seems
important, but ultimately it is quite meaningless that we can draw any
significant conclusion of any possible answer. If Roosh thought he was a
victim, or didn t, which means all this have on the story?
Do you have any regrets about your edition & # 8221 ?;
semi-interesting question. Hindsight is always 20/20, and if one may ask
whether, knowing what we know now, we could take some other action. But of
course it is a matter entirely meaningless because no one is omnipotent.
What's done is done & # 8212; you live and learn.
Even if we made a mistake and regretted it later, or didn t, how this
question to all those who, apart from self-improvement for the person
himself? Roosh treats later, simply stating You took me here [and raised
over me], based on a lie. I'd rather you not do that, but it happened, and
that is the life & # 8221.
No takebacks. Life 101.
Why did you originally wrote & # 8221 ?;
That's pretty obvious if you read the article in question. Stupid question.
If a woman has been raped, she did something wrong & # 8221 ?;
Well, it depends entirely on the woman and the circumstances, he wouldn? In
some cases, this would be true, and others false. Stupid question.
And we can do good or bad things, without justifying extreme consequences
happening to them. If I forget to turn off the gas on my stove, I did
something wrong. It doesn t mean that I paid for my apartment to explode in
flames. But there is a potential result of my negligence.
What was the thought experiment specifically & # 8221 ?;
Again, obvious if you took five minutes to read the article. These
journalists have taken hours of their day to cover this story, and are
physically delivered to the press conference in a hotel, but apparently
failed to read the subject, they wrote.
Can you break the heart of your argument & # 8221 ?;
Hahaha. Can you read?
You made a suggestion in this article that was what & # 8221 ?;
It's obvious from the title alone, if the item is too difficult to read.
How can you be a journalist if you can t report on things without having
explained?
Is it like a point over several years well? What about return of the Kings
& # 8221 ?;
What? There are many ideas presented here. They are presented by different
authors and in different contexts to provide arguments and ideas. What do
you ask? This is the kind of thinking the pseudo-psychological press likes
to practice. Let's assume here all authors agree that we cooperate as the
Borg make a greater point of hive mind on society. What is the implication
of this? It is an open question without conclusion.
The mainstream press made a point several years? Why so many of your
articles speak of (((feminism)))?
The contempt ISN t just an article. Many people find it shocking that you
write about women being submissive. Is this something you think & # 8221 ?;
Questions compounds are a linguistic tool used to distort the other party's
response. This one gets bonus points for at least the display of nominal
skills. Ask yourself if people make an opportunistic attack based on
preconceived hatred Roosh and that this rape story is just a ruse to attack?
Or ask yourself if Roosh believes that women are subjected?
Or ask yourself if women are to be submitted?
The reporter can turn the answer in the most condemning way. And all three
of these questions are unnecessary. What Roosh think the motives of
journalists of mass group is his subjective reaction to a group of
individuals with different motivations, all spread the same lie.
You are the media, why don t you tell us where the outrage origin, or why
you felt personally offended enough copy and paste hateful article instead
of asking Roosh to speculate about your motives?
& # 8217 What is your justification for why you believe that women should
be subject & # 8221 ?;
Here we have a second question to halfway decent, but a wild tangent of the
subject at hand, and not a matter that can be adequately addressed in this
forum (that's what this site and it is for).
People who read your works say that you raped a woman if you have had sex
with her when she was drunk. You say they were literally too intoxicated to
consent & # 8221.
No way. I do not know anyone who believes that having sex with a woman
drunk is like rape. There are people who believe that. They are crazy. What
is the question?
Some call into unintelligible nonsense question from a golf course & #
8221.
Roosh has no idea what he is talking and nobody has any idea how this is an
insightful question.
What are your personal political & # 8221 ?;
Interestingly gently, but I usually t care about non-political politicians.
ROK is notably more political content if it could be justified. Of course,
many prefer to keep their politics to themselves, and I wouldn t say what
any journalist my politics are. In a two-party system, there are only
imperfect answers, anyway.
Do you regret threatening DOX protesters & # 8221 ?;
typical framing falsehoods form of a question. Do you regret beating your
wife? It is a ridiculous question, even if the principle was true. Can
anyone imagine an answer other than yes? It's absurd.
Do you regret distort facts about our Meetup groups like pro-rape events?
That's a response I really hear from you! Do you regret that you are wrong
and labeled thousands of rapists men?
Some stupid questions about whether Roosh lives with his mother and who
owns the house, it was doxxed to & # 8221.
How all this is relevant is beyond me. Here you have the opportunity to
speak to a man with interesting and different ideas and want to talk about
where he sleeps.
That lately? Have you received dozens of pizzas? Your parents are home?
Where did you Office & # 8221 ?;
Office is not a verb. And seriously. What is the journalistic content of
this? You people should interview the Kardashian to The Hollywood Reporter.
This is not a gossip column or discussion on this Roosh favorite coffee.
Can you confirm that you need to update your safety Web Site & # 8221 ?;
Boring. As. Shit. Nobody cares about that. Can you imagine pitching a story
based on what your editor? Hey this guy accused of launching a pro-rape
group needed to improve its Internet servers to handle lately increased
traffic. ISN t that fascinating? Maybe we can make a technical writer to
talk about how many web pages per second means the server can provide, and
have a sketch artist rendering of Internet traffic path takes a viewer's PC.
I hope you're now convinced that the quality of journalism can be easily
measure the quality of the examination that takes place. Without asking the
right questions, how can you begin to discover the facts, which is supposed
to be what it is journalism? If you want to attribute the cause to the
hiring or deliberate plan feeble evasions, it s clear that the US media no
longer fulfills its duty to inform the public.
Read more: Australian media defaming Roosh Inks Landmark deal with China's
Ministry of Propaganda
No comments:
Post a Comment