I’m in an agreeable mood, so sure. Like Trump. Please media types and virtue signaling celebrities who hope to leverage their “wokeness” into a few more dollars, don’t be like like Trump.
It’s celebrity news: the news media is filled with stuff which is only covered because it has to do with “celebrities”. You don’t come across titles of articles about the Kardashians and think to yourself the media should not waste space on this garbage?
“Virtue signaling” is a nothing criticism. Advocates for public policy are generally, by definition, advocating for policies they think will make the world (or their country, state, or locality) a better place. Unless you’re a mind-reader, there’s no possible way to know if someone is genuinely advocating for good policy or trying to tell everyone around them about how awesome they are (or both!). Applying it to whatever happens to be the latest story about liberals (or purported liberals) who you think made a mistake in something is, at best, the height of laziness. At worst, it’s just another handy tool to try to denigrate even the possibility of rationally discussing the ideas of liberalism/progressivism.
In short, I’m sure there’s reasonable criticism of how some segments of the media handled the Smollett story. Spouting buzz-phrases like “virtue signalling” isn’t one of them.
You are the third or fourth poster to chime in to say why the MSM fell for a hoax without determining whether they fell for any hoax. Posters in this thread have asked multiple times now – can you provide an MSM article that actually fell for it? Or, another article written at the time of Smollett’s apparently false story that didn’t fall for it?
Maybe the hoax is that the MSM fell for a hoax. Why did you fall for that? There’s no evidence in the OP that the MSM fell for anything.
That’s a much better question. But again, we must ask first if something has happened before we ask why it happened.
Has there been a lot of people defending media and celebrities who tweet before they think? I would agree media types and celebrities do this, but I’m not sure they get defended much (beyond defending their “right” to do so under the first amendment)
It absolutely is virtue signaling. It’s a cheap way for people to demonstrate wokeness and show they belong to a certain ideological tribe. That’s all it is. Mind reading has nothing to do with it. Or it has as much to do with this as all the intention and motivation ascribing that occurs here that is directed at conservatives.
CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times etc. are available for examples of the “MSM” falling for some kind of hoax…but the example given is of an interview on Good Morning America that doesn’t really show any support for the story given.
Pathetic. Got anything better?
Did the media get hoaxed? Who is the media? Of course the media should report news. It’s when the entertainment and editorial portions of media, IMO that’s the majority of the media, opines without knowing the facts that real harm is done. I, for one, am thrilled whenever they are embarrassed.
I don’t think embarrassment or being wrong will ever change this nasty behavior though because it’s economically disadvantageous to be slow and right compared to being fast and wrong.
That describes following Fox’s lead and jumping, like a pack of hyenas, onto a negative assertion about the lamestream media without actually checking to see if it’s factual. Except for the “wokeness” part; that crack is describable as simply denigrating awareness of the world rather than trying to join in it.
More vagueness. Got any specific examples?
What is the “it” you’re referring to?
And by your last sentence, you seem to be admitting that your criticism is baseless (yes, “intention and motivation ascribing” is largely as baseless as assertions of mind-reading when applied to any large, nebulous group, no matter the ideology). Though I’m still unclear on what you’re actually criticizing. AFAICT, broadly speaking, the media reported on the Smollett incident factually. They reported what he said, what the police said, and now the latest findings of the police. Which part was “virtue signaling”?
Not sure. It seems within the realm of possibility major networks could run with something from them. Wikipedia:
What I’m wondering is if the media reporting was mostly okay, what is the disconnect with those prominent Democrats who tweeted that this was an attack that happened rather than an attack being investigated.
There is no “disconnect” because the attachment is artificial in a thread about the supposed “MSM” supposedly falling for some hoax. The fact that no actual “MSM” can be shown to have fallen for this hoax isn’t a signal to widen the net until you find some non-“MSM” source that supposedly did fall for it.
Just like happened with those terrorist attacks in Sweden and Bowling Green.
Maybe the fact that his injuries were severe enough to require an overnight hospital stay made his story believable.
Same question as for WF - show me an example of a contemporaneous story that you would say handled the story the way you think they should have.
I’ll hazard a guess that anyone who holds a negative view of the media after this story broke already had a negative view of the media.
Yet all the complaints boil down to “they shouldn’t report the news.” B-List actor claims racist assault in downtown Chicago is news, by any definition.
To the OP: Do you have any examples whatsoever to support this thread’s premise?
For what it’s worth I am pretty sure I have heard some crunchy liberals describe themselves as woke. It makes me shudder because it holds all the self-righteousness of Veganism without any of the effort.
And I am typically on their side.