[001]
RoseAndHeather
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Oh, I totally get that. It's a giant tangled mess that will take months to sort out, if not years. But I think it at least bears ''mentioning'' that he's under criminal investigation. Something simple like
to:
Oh, I totally get that. It\'s a giant tangled mess that will take months to sort out, if not years. But I think it at least bears \'\'mentioning\'\' that he\'s under criminal investigation. Something simple like \"As of June 2017, it has been reported by [reputable news organization(s)] that he is under federal investigation for obstruction of justice, collusion with Russia in interfering with a federal election, and money laundering\" ought to do it. Given that it\'s very, very relevant to current media.
And yes, I skew liberal, but as Ana Navarro could tell you, it ain\'t just the liberals. So what if the facts come across as bashing him? I\'d say it\'s far more dangerous (and wrong) for us to \'\'ignore\'\' the facts -- the very established and indisputable facts, as reported by the \'\'Washington Post\'\', the \'\'New York Times\'\', CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and every network news organization in the Western world -- in the service of appearing impartial. Especially given that true impartiality doesn\'t involve (and \'\'shouldn\'t\'\' involve) making both sides look equally good -- it involves reporting the facts, without bias (and \'\'not\'\' mentioning these things, in the service of making him look better than he is for some wrong notion of impartiality, \'\'is\'\' bias).
I\'m sorry. I\'m really not angry at you at all, except about the fact that you have an excellent point. I\'m angry with site policy and, er, also the whole damn universe right now. And God knows \'\'I\'\' don\'t want to take responsibility for this headache (nor should I, given my well-known pro-Hillary bias). I just think it\'s really, \'\'really\'\' important that we don\'t cover this shit up in the service of looking impartial, because especially right now, that is really, \'\'really\'\' dangerous. We can take the time we need to figure out how to report it, but it \'\'needs\'\' to be reported.
And yes, I skew liberal, but as Ana Navarro could tell you, it ain\'t just the liberals. So what if the facts come across as bashing him? I\'d say it\'s far more dangerous (and wrong) for us to \'\'ignore\'\' the facts -- the very established and indisputable facts, as reported by the \'\'Washington Post\'\', the \'\'New York Times\'\', CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and every network news organization in the Western world -- in the service of appearing impartial. Especially given that true impartiality doesn\'t involve (and \'\'shouldn\'t\'\' involve) making both sides look equally good -- it involves reporting the facts, without bias (and \'\'not\'\' mentioning these things, in the service of making him look better than he is for some wrong notion of impartiality, \'\'is\'\' bias).
I\'m sorry. I\'m really not angry at you at all, except about the fact that you have an excellent point. I\'m angry with site policy and, er, also the whole damn universe right now. And God knows \'\'I\'\' don\'t want to take responsibility for this headache (nor should I, given my well-known pro-Hillary bias). I just think it\'s really, \'\'really\'\' important that we don\'t cover this shit up in the service of looking impartial, because especially right now, that is really, \'\'really\'\' dangerous. We can take the time we need to figure out how to report it, but it \'\'needs\'\' to be reported.
