Journalistic quandry: You want to call something improper or illegal, but it isn’t. In fact, it is entirely normal.
The Washington Post put this in my email.
The article contains this gem:
So, the writer notes that the action is legally defensible. But it raises fresh questions about the president’s commitment to the rule of law.
Elbow.
Now, I’m no hotshot Washington Post writer, but if something is legal, it really does not raise fresh questions about a commitment to the rule of law. Actually, doing things legally reinforces a commitment to the rule of law.
The crap about the campaign is just unrelated junk. Only the weak-minded and Trump-haters will fall for this.
__________________________________________
These headlines raise fresh questions about the Washington Post writers’ ability to tell their asses from their elbows.
__________________________________________
The American people are increasingly walking away from news sources like the Washington Post, exactly because of this nonsense.
Advertisements
Rather, her determining that because she doesn’t agree with the policy that she won’t do her job in regards to it, would, if anything, make you question her “respect for the rule of law.” Firing her when her respect is in question given her job is more like a commitment to the rule of law.
LikeLike
Every day is opposite day at the WaPo.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ultimately 98% of the value of news is as an entertainment, so news that makes people dissatisfied with the instrument itself is of low value. Terrible things can be reported and amazing things, but that is only for objective truth. For that which is subjective, interpretation, forecast, etc, there will be a strong bias toward versions that match reader inclinations..
Unfortunately (for them), the value of speculation that matches your biases only remains when, in the event of new information, the speculation remains reasonable. Once they start developing a reputation for speculation which fails, readership drops, particularly in this era of vastly broadened entertainment choices. That, along with their present alignment towards speculation vs objective fact. More and more news is just editorializing.. but largely driven by people who aren’t fit to be editors…
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is not only perfectly legal, it is ROUTINE. They are all political appointees. Clinton fired 93 AGs. When Bush did exactly what Clinton did, they raised a massive stink. All ways quiet when Obama did the same. This is normal and completely expected by all of these people.
LikeLiked by 1 person