on it's own there is nothing there. There is no quantification of views or specific activity that she finds objectionable. Who is this person, looks like just another hack "journalist" Bjorn and flounder will say is totally credible and unbiased.
Nah, Bjorn wouldn't. She isn't a journalist and as Hastur points out her "research" is just a game of guilt by associations. You're much better at playing ridiculous games of guilt by association, clubby. Or at least more entertaining.
It's not about the guilt by association it's about the narrative being put forward. It's the flounder storybook note for note.
Razorfist had a pretty good rant on this.
TLDR version:
The MSM relevance and trustworthiness are vital to the health of the first amendment and through no fault of their own this vast right wing conspiracy by putting out honest journalism with all the bias laid bare they are slowly eroding the foundation of the first amendment. You can say they "took the gloves off." So for the health of democracy they have to be shut down and deplatformed. The English Flaggots of the world have to censor views they dont like.
This is what "journalism" is and has become you may mourn and wish it to reform but it too far gone for that. It must burn, it must be defeated.
on it's own there is nothing there. There is no quantification of views or specific activity that she finds objectionable. Who is this person, looks like just another hack "journalist" Bjorn and flounder will say is totally credible and unbiased.
Nah, Bjorn wouldn't. She isn't a journalist and as Hastur points out her "research" is just a game of guilt by associations. You're much better at playing ridiculous games of guilt by association, clubby. Or at least more entertaining.
It's not about the guilt by association it's about the narrative being put forward. It's the flounder storybook note for note.
Razorfist had a pretty good rant on this.
TLDR version:
The MSM relevance and trustworthiness are vital to the health of the first amendment and through no fault of their own this vast right wing conspiracy by putting out honest journalism with all the bias laid bare they are slowly eroding the foundation of the first amendment. You can say they "took the gloves off." So for the health of democracy they have to be shut down and deplatformed. The English Flaggots of the world have to censor views they dont like.
This is what "journalism" is and has become you may mourn and wish it to reform but it too far gone for that. It must burn, it must be defeated.
That is only what journalism is, if you choose to surrender the very meaning of the word to those English flaggots of the world. Journalism is what it's always been. The idea that only your biases in media reporting should get a platform and competing biases denied platforms, that's got nothing to do with journalism, and anyone promoting such ideas are simply afraid of intellectual competition and themselves intellectually lazy. If those people work as journalists, that doesn't mean that what they do is journalism.
The standards for what reasonable people should call journalism should not change, and you should not accept anyone trying to change it, even if journalism is supposedly what their job's about. What you're doing is letting them own what journalism is, letting them dictate what "journalism" is.
I don't wish journalism to "reform". Your journalists don't need "reform", what people need to do is stop treating them as journalists if they can't handle ideas and ideals they disagree with getting a platform. Journalists still exist in the world, they still do investigative journalism. They all have their biases, to some extent, since no one can avoid having biases, but the good ones try to be aware of them and reduce how those biases affect their research and dissemination of information. I don't know any American examples of that, but they do exist in Denmark.
That being said, YouTube, Twitter, etc. don't need to be fair towards all people of all political beliefs who want to post their views. They're not a democratic government, they're a business. If you don't want your site to be used to disseminate antisemitic conspiracy theories, calls for jihad, white supremacy monologues or similar, you shut them down. Your house, your rules. It's like if an Antifa anarchist got angry that his anti-capitalist, anti-"racist" manifesto didn't get published in the National Review. Well, *womp womp*. Don't like it, learn to compete.
Thus no one has a right to a platform online. If you want that "right" you should either create some sort of nationalized American online community, where you'll be a de facto co-owner and should be able to voice whatever you like, or you make your own platforms. It would be nice if there were more people with Martin's mindset, because that would mean people could actually (try and) debate each other, but absent that, if you're kicked off someplace for having views that aren't tolerated there anymore... settle your digital self someplace else. Someplace you own.
And if your political opponents try to take even that away from you, you shoot them in the throat, because that'd be both an assault on freedom of speech AND the right to private property.
But really, from my POV it's all about the guilt-by-association. As much as I can fault Ben Shapiro for, I think he's an impressively sharp, intellectual guy, and putting him in the same boat as someone like Richard Spencer in terms of beliefs... It's what you get from that whole "THE Left" vs "THE Right" way of thinking. People use someone on the extreme end of the scale to de-legitimize someone on the moderate end of the scale. It's thus that guilt by association way of thinking that LEADS to media figures trying to shut down non-MSM media.
Victimhood culture doesn't help either. Everyone in America seems to want to be a victim (not that trend is exclusive to you, anymore). Can't declare yourself a proper victim by simply describing your political opponents as what they actually are.. they need to be racists, Nazis, white supremacists.. who want to gas you. Or as Marxists who want to gulag you, for that matter. It's the saddest sort of competition, but it is probably part of the motivation for making hyperbolic guilt by association claims to begin with. If you feel the only way you can "win", is by being seen as an oppressed party, you can simply "connect the dots" and your opponent becomes "literally Hitler".
The Virtual Civil War rages. There are new video platforms that cater to non-SJWs coming along. InfoWars has already gone there, as have most of the Intellectual Dark Web folks. As those platforms get bigger, SJWers will use Twitter, YouTube, etc., and the rest of us will be somewhere else.
Have you heard about the new anti-Starbucks Conservative coffeeshops, like Black Rifle? They're the fastest growing in the nation. More and more traditionally Leftist businesses, like Whole Foods, will be challenged by "No Democrats Allowed" Conservative stores. This isn't even going to take 10 years.
The scary ones are the Mastercards and Citibanks that have been cutting off service to businesses whose politics they don't agree with. And chains like Dick's Sporting Goods who self-select who they will sell guns to. Lefty activists have been getting on the boards of these giant international organizations, and in kahoots with Diversity hires, have been flanking The Patriarchy. OWGs who warned what was happening were shamed, called names, their kids followed to school, etc. We got cucked.
On the DCF, anytime anybody said anything about the takeover of culture, there were 1000-page screaming matches. Anybody with a decent argument posted once, maybe twice, then got blown out in the noise. No one can possibly post on Facebook, and YouTubers are running scared of being deplatformed and having their Patreon accounts shutdown. OWGs took their money and ran, and Millennial men are so Low-T that the creeps attacking them had more. Thank god Trump was elected.
That is only what journalism is, if you choose to surrender the very meaning of the word to those English flaggots of the world. Journalism is what it's always been. The idea that only your biases in media reporting should get a platform and competing biases denied platforms, that's got nothing to do with journalism, and anyone promoting such ideas are simply afraid of intellectual competition and themselves intellectually lazy. If those people work as journalists, that doesn't mean that what they do is journalism.
The standards for what reasonable people should call journalism should not change, and you should not accept anyone trying to change it, even if journalism is supposedly what their job's about. What you're doing is letting them own what journalism is, letting them dictate what "journalism" is
Nope, it is already lost the MSM has used the goodwill and taken over the J schools and they own it now. They have damaged it. Your desire for an old used up whore based on glamorous black and white photos from 40 years ago doesn't change that. Burn it down, put the whore of her misery.
Or at least more entertaining.
It's what you get from that whole "THE Left" vs "THE Right" way of thinking. People use someone on the extreme end of the scale to de-legitimize someone on the moderate end of the scale. It's thus that guilt by association way of thinking that LEADS to media figures trying to shut down non-MSM media. 
