Why You’re Wrong About Journalists And If You Disagree You’re Toxic!
Some of you may have avoided the toxic cesspool of Twitter, but let me tell you it’s been rough on some of the journalists because, well, sometimes people disagree with them.
Let me be clear here, I am aware that there are comments that go too far and rather than address the area of disagreement, they attack the person in ways that they probably wouldn’t do, if they were face to face or even if they used their actual name instead of something like Suckitupsnowflake. However, I’ve noticed a definite pattern when it comes to certain journalists which goes like this:
-
Journalist tweets about a Labor or Green politician complaining about something they’ve done or failed to do.
-
People on Twitter respond by suggesting that said journalist is not being even-handed. This is done on a sliding scale from calmly pointing out that the journalist does not seem to applying the same standards to the Liberal or National Parties all the way to suggesting that if the particular tweeter had their way, said journalist would be subject to such indignities that Vlad the Impaler would seem like a humanitarian. Somewhere, in between there are people accusing the journalist of some combination of bias/being part of a protection racket/lacking in basic humanity.
-
Said journalist responds by saying that any criticism fails to understand that the job of the journalist is to hold people to account and that people criticising them are just part of the cancel culture who don’t want to hear anything against their side of politics.
-
At this point, people respond asking them why they don’t ask Scott or Gladys difficult questions.
-
Journalist laments what a terrible place Twitter is, gaining the sympathy from other journalists who agree that there was no bias and that they were simply asking the hard questions, and all the journalists commenting will completely ignore that the particular controversy began – not from a question – but from a statement on Twitter suggesting that the aforementioned politician had been responsible for a massive failure. While this may sometimes be true, it’s also true that not everyone will necessarily agree. I mean when I say, for example, Barnaby Joyce is the most honest politician in the country, I should expect that some people may point out that he has been known to keep the odd secret from the electorate.
Now I’m not suggesting that all of the comments made to/about certain journalists are always fair and well-considered. I’m just suggesting that if you stick your head up and say something that not everyone agrees with, you’re bound to get some sort of response. Over the years, I’ve tended to find that responses about what I’ve written fit into five basic categories:
Category 1: Praise, thanks and admiration. (I suspect that no journalist complains about these. Certainly I don’t so keep it up!)
Category 2: An intelligent comment about what I’ve written which basically agrees but may add something or pick out a point where they disagree or an intelligent comment that has nothing to do with what I’ve written but the writer had an idea and couldn’t think what else to do with it. (There’s probably no need to respond to these because I’ve already had my say, but if the mood takes me, I might. I certainly don’t object to people having theirs.)
Category 3: Someone who disagrees with me but is actually mounting an argument which enables me to see why they disagree and gives me the opportunity to understand where our points of difference are. (It may be worth responding to such people even if you are Chris Uhlmann or an ABC journalist but one shouldn’t be upset that people actually have an different opinion even if it is about a federal minister that you’re having a close personal relationship with… On a strictly platonic basis!)
Category 4: Someone who disagrees with me and has a completely different world view and tells me that either that I will burn in Hell, if they believe in the concept of an afterlife, or that I should go to hell, if they don’t. (In both cases, merely pointing out that I have no way of knowing where it is, so could they please lead the way is the only appropriate response and to expect them to do anything other than enter into a slanging match is rather silly.)
Category 5: The trolls. (The aim of these people is to deliberately throw you off and disrupt your game. A number of years ago I created a “How to” guide for dealing with such people but there is no point in trying to reason with them. Neither is there any point abusing them. These people are Sam Newman. The only reason they exist is to either count our blessings that we are not them or to make us angry. Their aim in making us angry is to us into fellow travellers, so that they are not the only misshapen creatures turning away from the light of reason.)
To me, it seems so simple. If the only reason that you’re on Twitter is to complain about all the other people on Twitter complaining about what your say on Twitter then I suspect you should get off Twitter…
Unless you enjoy complaining.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
16 comments
Login here Register here-
Viki Hannah
-
Roswell
-
RomeoCharlie29
-
Geoff Andrews
-
wam
-
Jaq Lane
-
leefe
-
Rossleigh
-
mark delmege
-
Gangey1959
-
Ita B
-
Glenn Barry
-
Brozza
-
Matters Not
-
paul walter
-
Anne Byam
Return to home pageNot sure what the point of this is rather than to excuse or justify inept journalism.
Sorry but there’s no way Credlin, Bolt, Jones can be considered unbiased or professional.
They have an agenda & surely you cannot explain away their comments?
Their comments incite hate in my opinion.
Viki, you might not be aware but Rossleigh is a satirist.
Well doneVicki, category two, with pike.
Category 3, ViKi?
Newman is too conservative(geelong grammar) to be a troll he is a genuine black or white and his choice is definitely not black.
There are no longer journalists the people who call themselves journalists, silly sam, carl baby, tlob, uhlmann are opinionists. Their opinions wander from fact to fake, taking advantage of opinions can legitimately be based on opinions. The response that stunned me was from a prominent businessman, star footballer and administrator whose posts contained some atrocious septic and pommie far right lies. He said I like the words. He likes the words of the rabbott, murdoch and scummo because there is no need to think just nod assent.. He is typical of armed men and women whose training is to salute the flag of status quo.
What journalists? I can count the real ones on the fingers of one hand….um. one…two………three…
Jaq and wam are on the money here. Journalists are supposed to tell us what happened, in clear, non–judgmental language. Most so–called journalism these days is more about trying to tell us what to think. No. Just give me the facts. I can make up my own mind about the implications.
Even facts can be dodgy. For example, how would you feel if your boss logged the following: “X arrived at work on time and was sober!”? It may be factual but the subtext is that this is unusual.
The ABC has gone to the dogs.
Last night it claimed Milosevic was found guilty of war crimes – he wasn’t.
Today they ran a BBC smear on Assange.
“Here is the News.
Today, at (insert time here) the Sun appeared above the Horizon in the East.
Everything else that follows is to be considered Opinion, and has been coloured by editorial pressure and political bias.
Fifteen people were killed today when a bus ran off a bridge and fell into the river below.
Two babies were born in the city hospital. According to all reports, both mothers and babiesare well, and will be going home in two days time.
The Sun will set this evening.
That was the News.
We thank you for watching”
mark, ‘ABC gone to the dogs’ = yep. The ABC followed suit some years back and now shadows the commercial channels whereas once it was a leader in offering balanced news. When a political coup goes down in a 3rd world country rebel groups of armed thugs stroll into news rooms and shocked viewers get the picture. In the West the operation has been much more sophisticated, so much so that Joe and Flo Average think news channels are trustworthy sources of info. Up until a year ago Murdoch and the anti-humanist satanic cult were running 36 years behind schedule. Now they are back on schedule.
Well you’re WRONG about everything you Soros backed lefty and everyone that isn’t Alex Jones is just another leftist media flog with their Coronavirus hoax trying to control my thoughts with 5G
You’ll see, the truth will be revealed
#MAGA
4 more years
tRump won and Biden stole the election
p.s I’m Captain_Chaos_X on twitter and the only reason I’m not my own identity is because my real identity did something naughty and got suspended and it was all my actual fault
Viki Hannah – why mention those three morons, after all, this was a satire about journalists.
Re:
Perhaps. But maybe not. Isn’t that what reporters do? Further – wouldn’t it be so much easier and cheaper just to reproduce press releases? Or is that what happens now – most of the time – at least in some sections of the media?
As for the (mantra) nonsense of – just give me the facts. In that regard refer to Rossleigh January 5, 2021 at 9:34 am for some comic relief.
All the TV channels now available as promised. yet mainly junk. you can go days without any thing relevant.
I nearly fell off my chair when the ABC actually ran an old Attenborough last night, just wanted to know who the programmer was so I could shake their hand and wish them a happy eternity.
ABC also ran an old doco on the down ful of Radio Australia recently, then thought about the sad joke that is ABC 24 coverage.
As for the commercials, we wont even bother about them, will we, Glenn Barry.
I enjoy the ABC and watch many of their shows. A few are indeed right wing leaning and need to be polished up for decent viewing, but in the main there is a wide choice, and at least some way less hysterical reporting on their news channel.
Recently they have done a series ( just last year ) called “Australia Re-mastered” … narrated by Aaron Pederson who does a damned fine job. It is a superb show and always ends up in the narrative ( in various ways as written ) to promote strongly the utter importance and urgency for the world ( and particularly Australia ) to stop the pollution, use renewable energy, cease trashing the place, protect the flora and fauna and to respect the land we are fortunate enough to live in.
Punches however are not pulled when Aaron speaks about the endangered species of our land, when he visits and introduces many aspects and areas of Australia, including our surrounding seas. In my opinion, that is the ABC doing totally the right thing – certainly not the right ‘ wing ‘ … The programmes are re-mastered from their archives and must have taken months to research before presenting even older footage for digital remake, as relevant as it needs to be.
Good stuff – and certainly a big plus for the ABC.