But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know—fiction.
I have absolutely no idea how this is relevant, but I think that the volume of discussion encompassing whether Reuters is presenting propaganda is worth no one’s time.
So how does this new, different US strategy differ from what they’ve been doing this entire time? letting the atrocities play out has been their strategy, is it because they’ve officially given up on calling for a cease fire?
The article is not justifying the war, and I won’t entertain unsourced speculation as though it is fact. It is not propaganda.
Would you know propaganda if it walked up and bit you?
Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Noam Chomsky: The five filters of the mass media machine
I have absolutely no idea how this is relevant, but I think that the volume of discussion encompassing whether Reuters is presenting propaganda is worth no one’s time.
Unsourced speculation is a weird way to say “reading the article and citing what it said”
Yea, like where I read it and it isn’t justifying the war.
I’m bored now. Goodbye.
Edit: reiterating goodbye.
So how does this new, different US strategy differ from what they’ve been doing this entire time? letting the atrocities play out has been their strategy, is it because they’ve officially given up on calling for a cease fire?