> The New York Post has produced valid journalism. The Washington Post has produced bad journalism. Individual examples of these are not useful for making broad claims about the merits of these organizations because they produce such a huge volume of journalism. Continuing to complain about the Covington case until the end of time is not a productive way of arguing that all media outlets are garbage and doubling down by insisting that people who disagree are just sheep crushes any possibility of useful discussion here.

I would 100% agree with you if the same feeling is accorded to outlets like New York Post or any other right leaning media organization. I am not saying that the right leaning organizations are epitome of journalistic credibility. I am just like you calling bullshit as bullshit. But when you start standing on a high pedestal and start claiming "journalistic credibility" as some sort of differentiating factor while at the same time peddle in blatantly false news I will call you out. No matter if it hurts sentiments. I am not saying that New York Times or Washington Post did not produce valid journalism. They perhaps did a good 60% of the time. I will give them that. But to say they follow "actual journalistic standards" is straight out false. "Actual journalistic standards" entails that you verify your source of information before putting it out. That is for every story. No exceptions. If you have some stories that are going out being fact checked and some not then where is the "journalistic standard"? You set a standard to ensure that you never waver from it nor do you apply it selectively.

You fact check any information you put out. Not pull it down after others have fact checked you. Then what is the reason for your existence? I can get unverified news from social media directly! Why do I need a media organization then? I want to rely on media because it is a publisher which verifies stuff it puts out. That is the main job for media. If media is itself indulging in propaganda then what is the need for media? Especially in this social media age?

In that all organizations have failed. Not just left wing but right wing too. Sensationalism always triumphs. But there are some who take it too far: calling a kid racist without verification of facts. This is where I draw the line. You want to do politics do so between yourselves. Fight it out as adults. Don't involve children in your fights. This is a big red line that I don't want anyone crossing. I hope we both can agree on that. Anytime I see children being used as props for propaganda it turns me the F-off. Even if the Covington case was racial in nature it should not have been shown on TV let alone live TV. This is something that must have been dealt with at the school level. This is an age where the child is still growing. And while growing you make stupid decisions too. You have to give that benefit of doubt. To make him a media spectacle for your own benefits is not the way. You are causing mental trauma to the child. And in this case it is far worse because the kid was not racist at all! I have watched the 1.5 hours video in full length and couldn't find even 1 place where the Covington kids were racist. In fact, the kid actually stops his friend from arguing with the Native American and asks his friend to shut up while the Native American speaks. And we have media which turns around and makes this innocent kid into a racist and we should all be okay with it? No effing ways! I'll speak up even if I am in the minority!

Btw, Covington case is not an isolated one. We all know too well what happened to the Russian collusion hoax. None of it could be proved conclusively and moreover it ultimately resulted in the opposite: now we have evidence being unearthed that it was literally a planted story. Look up on what is happening with the Steele Dossier. Why is no one talking about it now? Because it was complete fabricated nonsense that was peddled by the media. A proper witch-hunt not based on any fact. Only innuendos.