He could have demanded a seasoned professional journalist preferably with a medical degree with a track record for objectivity and honesty. Many journalists these days are just free lancers paid per job. A major public personality should have a right to know who will interview them and then decide based on that with rational reasons pr…
He could have demanded a seasoned professional journalist preferably with a medical degree with a track record for objectivity and honesty. Many journalists these days are just free lancers paid per job. A major public personality should have a right to know who will interview them and then decide based on that with rational reasons provided on why a given writer is unacceptable. How about demanding a journalist cover them who is well versed in the subject matter such as those who have been covering the lab leak story at Vanity Fair? Do former NY Times journalists ever get rehired for stories such as Greenwald, Chris Hedges or David Cay Johnston? What is the basis for fake objectivity we see with papers who demand only the person they choose at editorial discretion can do an interview?
I remember the libertarian, Gary North, talking about how good the NY Times was in getting his unlisted phone number, they wanted to interview him, but the ally of Ron Paul realized it would be biased and he refused as there was no economic benefit to him by doing so.
I rarely find myself agreeing with presstitutes, pardon me, journalists. To refine comments I earlier, or to restate the obvious. Publicity can be beneficial, neutral or negative. A paper's motive in theory is to profit, but in practice it has subtler motives, to shape narratives and above all to act as gatekeeper and censor to protect favored (often hidden) powers. I'd agree that Malone doesn't "deserve" an interview. But consider that the NYT doesn't deserve one either. Yes, the press has every right to print what it wants (subject to relatively few legal prohibitions.). What it DOESN'T have the right to do is to deceptively interview a subject, often one who was acting in good faith and for no personal profit, and cherry-pick, distort or completely derange what was said. In most cases, a "celebrity" is doing the paper a favor: giving it a potential story, for free. What Malone or indeed anyone deserves, however, is fair and honest reporting. And that's damned rare these days. You guys are a bunch of jackals and anyone who may interact with the media should keep the risks in mind.
EC, I very much DO have the time. I read what you and others said this morning, commented ("snarked" might be more accurate) and I came back in late afternoon for the additional comments. I am often rather sharp of tongue. I meant no specific offense against you, you might be at the top of your profession for all I know. But as you may have gathered, neither I nor many others here exactly hold the media in very high esteem. 😎 Yet an argument could even be made that is how the game is played, angels and devils, I believe you said. My name-calling aside, thank you for your insights and opinions.
He could have demanded a seasoned professional journalist preferably with a medical degree with a track record for objectivity and honesty. Many journalists these days are just free lancers paid per job. A major public personality should have a right to know who will interview them and then decide based on that with rational reasons provided on why a given writer is unacceptable. How about demanding a journalist cover them who is well versed in the subject matter such as those who have been covering the lab leak story at Vanity Fair? Do former NY Times journalists ever get rehired for stories such as Greenwald, Chris Hedges or David Cay Johnston? What is the basis for fake objectivity we see with papers who demand only the person they choose at editorial discretion can do an interview?
I remember the libertarian, Gary North, talking about how good the NY Times was in getting his unlisted phone number, they wanted to interview him, but the ally of Ron Paul realized it would be biased and he refused as there was no economic benefit to him by doing so.
I rarely find myself agreeing with presstitutes, pardon me, journalists. To refine comments I earlier, or to restate the obvious. Publicity can be beneficial, neutral or negative. A paper's motive in theory is to profit, but in practice it has subtler motives, to shape narratives and above all to act as gatekeeper and censor to protect favored (often hidden) powers. I'd agree that Malone doesn't "deserve" an interview. But consider that the NYT doesn't deserve one either. Yes, the press has every right to print what it wants (subject to relatively few legal prohibitions.). What it DOESN'T have the right to do is to deceptively interview a subject, often one who was acting in good faith and for no personal profit, and cherry-pick, distort or completely derange what was said. In most cases, a "celebrity" is doing the paper a favor: giving it a potential story, for free. What Malone or indeed anyone deserves, however, is fair and honest reporting. And that's damned rare these days. You guys are a bunch of jackals and anyone who may interact with the media should keep the risks in mind.
Here is a good example once again of the government and the NY Times engaged in criminal actions against another journalist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMq7qL0EHhI
EC, I very much DO have the time. I read what you and others said this morning, commented ("snarked" might be more accurate) and I came back in late afternoon for the additional comments. I am often rather sharp of tongue. I meant no specific offense against you, you might be at the top of your profession for all I know. But as you may have gathered, neither I nor many others here exactly hold the media in very high esteem. 😎 Yet an argument could even be made that is how the game is played, angels and devils, I believe you said. My name-calling aside, thank you for your insights and opinions.