Readers needed to know that, when you visit Arlington, you might not know exactly what you’re supposed to do when confronted by those rows of headstones, but you damn sure know what you’re not supposed to do. But the coverage this week left many readers with the impression that the whole thing might have been a bureaucratic mix-up, or some tedious violation of protocol. It focused on bland horse-race coverage so common during election season, rather than clearly stating what really took place: an egregious and willful violation of long-standing norms. What was missing from the coverage was a willingness to quickly and decisively state what a grievous insult the whole debacle was to the dignity of Arlington. The sacred had been profaned.

Well fucking said.

  • @Passerby6497
    link
    English
    26
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    I disagree that the media is pro-trump.

    You can disagree all you want, but you’re fundamentally incorrect. Even when the media is ‘attacking’ trump, they’re giving him ratings and attention over every little thing, even shit that’s fairly normal (not this case, obv). Or did you forget all of the free media time he got with the media breathlessly reporting his every move, including his empty podiums before speeches?

    They’re still pulling this shit, though to a somewhat lesser extent, but the media didn’t learn a damned thing from the mistakes they made in 2020.

    • @CharlesDarwin
      link
      English
      317 days ago

      They keep doing it so often that I don’t think they are mistakes. It’s either built into the system (seeking eyeballs and clicks leading to the demons among us exploiting that to have “journalism” favor them.) or the inherent conservative bias of news outlets that are part of gigantic MNCs is going to come into conflict with with legitimate journalism and they consciously make choices to favor the cons. It’s probably a bit of both.