Dance Under The Rainbow

ughHhHHH

Someone only has to tell a guy no for him to go from ‘potential date’ to ‘murderer’ in 3.5 seconds!

PSA: journalists aren’t supposed to put names in the headlines if the person isn’t a public figure. It’s not a matter of maliciously not giving credit

As someone in a journalism course, I can confirm this 100%. It’s like, one of the first things they teach us.

Why?

My personal theory is that all of his stories are true, all talking about the same, bizarre heist.

THIS IS SUCH AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF CATS IF CATS COULD TALK THIS IS WHAT THEY WOULD SAY

CANNOT REBLOG FAST ENOUGH

Because its safer to be nobody than a woman

opening up in therapy feels like snitching on myself

Unbiased journalism is not pretending both sides are equally valid. Unbiased journalism is reporting the facts even if those facts include that one side is irredeemably awful. False neutrality is propaganda.

Repeated for emphasis: False neutrality is propaganda.

if 99 experts say one thing, and 1 expert says another, presenting both sides as equal is misinformation

Years ago I went to a lecture by a science journalist, who talked about why so much science reporting is terrible, and this was the crux of his argument. Science reporters aren’t scientists, so they try to be “unbiased” and end up validating bad science in the interest of “giving both sides of the story.” But this is no longer just a problem for science journalists. When the media doesn’t take a stand on what is factual, or at least supported by evidence, it contributes to its own implosion and the destruction of critical thought and democracy. I am not even joking here. False “let’s heard from both sides” neutrality contributes to the idea that there are no facts, only different kinds of spin.