![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
halialkers posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIt wasn't that long ago that it quite willingly poured the lime and scent remover on the mass graves of the victims of another tyranny:
https://www.nytco.com/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/
US papers weren't exactly all that different with the guys with the swastika as opposed to the hammer and the sickle, either:
https://newspapers.ushmm.org/
It was easier to profess views of economic hitmen working for the Wilson Administration than to admit Hitler really might be the savage his foes said he was.
So given this long-attested pattern of reporters to bend over backwards to exculpate the murderers and tyrants of yore, why precisely do people expect otherwise now?
For that matter, given the refusal to admit clear and attested faults in these cases are faults, why should anyone profess to be deceived now? And why do people believe the same people who defended and excused and denied torture for specific people will condemn it now?
https://www.nytco.com/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/
US papers weren't exactly all that different with the guys with the swastika as opposed to the hammer and the sickle, either:
https://newspapers.ushmm.org/
It was easier to profess views of economic hitmen working for the Wilson Administration than to admit Hitler really might be the savage his foes said he was.
So given this long-attested pattern of reporters to bend over backwards to exculpate the murderers and tyrants of yore, why precisely do people expect otherwise now?
For that matter, given the refusal to admit clear and attested faults in these cases are faults, why should anyone profess to be deceived now? And why do people believe the same people who defended and excused and denied torture for specific people will condemn it now?
(no subject)
Date: 19/5/18 02:07 (UTC)2017: 91% of media coverage of trump is negative
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/09/12/study-91-percent-of-recent-network-trump-coverage-has-been-negative/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d589bdab5ffc
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage-of-trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents
And it's too early for 2018 but nothing has visibly changed.
(no subject)
Date: 19/5/18 02:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/5/18 02:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/5/18 06:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/5/18 07:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/5/18 07:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/5/18 08:29 (UTC)