Tuesday, May 03, 2022

“Appears “?

Is it a violation of journalistic ethics to state plainly in the chyron what everyone can hear?
"We've endorsed Dr. Oz. We've endorsed JP, right? JD Mandel, and he's doing great. They're all doing good," Trump said.
To be fair, Salon reported it the same way. Apparently naming someone who is not running/may not exist cannot be reported as what it really is: a really stupid error by a guy who just got through (baselessly) bragging about how smart he is because (he says) he passed a dementia test.

Maybe he needs to take the test again.


Well, except for this guy, who doesn't say "it appears" that MTG put these words into a Facebook post, or that it "appears" these words are anti-semitic:
“This is your post under your name,” the reporter said, “and you’re talking about the Rothschild family, which has been at the center of anti-Sematic conspiracies since the 19th century.”

“I did not know that,” Greene interjected. “I have no idea. I’m telling you.”

The congresswoman said that in 2018, she was just “a regular American. Never been in politics. I couldn’t have told you some people back in politics or families names, don’t know their backgrounds.”

 
“But now that you do know,” the reporter pressed, as Greene became visibly frustrated. “Now that you’ve been told… anti-Semitism is on the rise at an alarming rate.”

“I’m fully against anti-Semitism,” Greene said. “You’re mixing two things together. You’re accusing me of something I did not do, and then you’re trying to blame me for anti-Semitism.”

So which does it appear to be?  MTG is dumber than a box of rocks?  Or she knew (how could she not?) the Rothschilds have been a source of conspiracy theories for 400 years, and are Jewish?  Or is she "fully against anti-semitism" but also fully against the Rothschild's using "space lasers" to start fires in California?

Or does it just appear that she's a liar? And trades freely in anti-semitic conspiracy theories?
One never quite realizes how deep the rabbit-hole goes, until the floor opens up beneath your feet. Hedges' argument here is that you can be a little bit anti-semitic (or racist), without really being anti-semitic (or racist). How racism is different from pregnancy is not explained. Most of us agree it's pretty much an all-or-nothing condition. Hayes seems to be relying on the old: "I've got nothin' against 'em, I just don't want my daughter to marry one!" exception. Not really a good look; at all. Nor a good argument. Yeah, that's pretty much where it winds up. Right next to "MTG appears to be anti-semitic." Which really isn't a thing anybody says, ever; about anybody. We've all come to agreement that you are either not anti-semitic, or you are. We're still struggling to apply that to racism. Consider carefully why that is.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)