Torn Mind
Lifer
My point is what is the difference between watching, say, ABC's content on Youtube vs watching World News Tonight at a set time like everyone did before 2006? Or at least setting the VCR program to record Nightline or whatever else there was?
So genius, why don't you infer another potential point most consistent with the context of the discussion before jumping on the one that is most convenient for you?
In fact, I've never had cable in my life so Youtube is the only way to get MSNBC, Fox, or whatever else there is out there that get into the cable watchers' eyes and ears. Fuck, I even watched ESPN for quite a bit via these illegal livestreams and got acquainted with the likes of Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, etc.
Then there's the international broadcasts, which certainly wouldn't be accessible to American ears readily.
The most prestigious journalists in terms of benefitting the public are the investigative ones. The talking heads who frame and opine are not much better than frauds like Tim Pool(a fraud in the sense that he panders to conservatives but it is doubtful he really believes what he is saying given where he originally started. He is in short, saying shit for the money. He was a journalist proper), but they are entertaining for the suckers, who cater to a public that are insufficiently aware that journalists will never educate but will "present" facts. They are basically "credentialed" propaganda to support the two mainstream flavors of framing: the Fox frame or the "mainstream" frame".
And don't think the corporate culture necessary supports jouranlism. The investigate journalist, Lowell Bergman, was obviously stuffed in his attempt to expose the truth of cigarette smoke and its effects by higher ups. The term "tortious interference" became ingrained in my head after watching Al Pacino's movie, which was Hollywood's take of that story.
Journalists de jure say they are ethical, but de facto have pressure to compromise ethics in pursuit of "sales".
