Ah yes. You always know things are getting dumb when you hit the line-by-line reply stage.
I actually just like it, it is not a part of the patented Doom-tech arsenal.
I quoted it because there were three more posts between yours and mine. Woo.
thatsthejoke.jpg
Nothing of value was lost
Doom, if they abolished all current journalism, what would you think?
Doom: And nothing of value was lost.
Doom, you just want to blow it all up! Isn't there another way?
Doom: If we are not Mad Stan, I guess I could go for some reform.
AH HAH, YOU ARE A TWO-FACED FELLOW.
Doom: :( ): Oh no.
Is this the part where I mention that you are also known for winning arguments with yourself?
The fact that Playboy broke a story once over something insufferably retarded
Sup personal bias. "Just because they did it doesn't mean I have to value it objectively." I thought you might appreciate the one time I bothered to reply to your half-assed "well, JUST PROVE ME WRONG THEN :smug:" questions.
I don't support Fox
So when I say reform and oversight is good, and that we can probably get a lot more good from "amateurs" then from professional hacks, did you make a colossal typo in agreeing with me?
It was sort of the first serious thing I said, so let me say it again: The News needs business support to run. I get that. The News should not allow itself to become engulfed by such and become exclusively a Business. This is what I really believe!
Yes. You ARE being a prick. And it's stupid because you're looking for an enemy where there isn't one. I already agreed that we have a serious problem.
I'm not looking for an enemy, but just so you believe me:
If I was being more of a dick, I would call that cop-out, but i don't have the answer either - that's why I asked: to put the damn question up for discussion.
You know what I would propose in this discussion? Reform and Oversight! At best I could hope for as neutral a government body as we could hope for(Ha!) or more realistically one of those actually neutral think-tank groups. Real power in the hands of scholars and the unbiased? madness
I think I replied to this collected gabble above.
By equating journalism to a service that is literally impossible without a crack legal team and a private jet I guess, also by "it doesn't matter to ME so it doesn't matter."
I'm not talking about tabloids. I'm talking about most news these days. Look at how large and hideous the celebrity pages have become. It's almost inescapable.
If we displayed even half the obsession for our leaders every word and action that we do for some of these random china dolls, our democracies would be a hell of a lot healthier.
Example of tabloids is that tabloids are bodies of information that
can rarely convey breaking information, but the average consumer will recognize their shoddy average.
Now just go Reform and Oversight the current body of The News so that everyone knows what is tabloid-bad and what isn't and we're cooking with gas.