I mean it’s exactly what you’ve said. They hem and haw and refuse to report news that could warrant a future retraction—which, by the way, is a stupid take, as news is temporal and current and what they’re reporting currently is in the interest of some unknown future verdict rather than the one before us now. So, given that they choose to report whatever is most favorable for future corporate interest despite damning current events, I have to conclude that it’s because journalists are prevented from doing their actual jobs by media conglomerates who will always side with capital. How does that twist your words exactly?
I mean it’s exactly what you’ve said. They hem and haw and refuse to report news that could warrant a future retraction—which, by the way, is a stupid take, as news is temporal and current and what they’re reporting currently is in the interest of some unknown future verdict rather than the one before us now. So, given that they choose to report whatever is most favorable for future corporate interest despite damning current events, I have to conclude that it’s because journalists are prevented from doing their actual jobs by media conglomerates who will always side with capital. How does that twist your words exactly?
You infer malice, by twisting my words, which I’m not doing.
Sometimes bad things happen for reasons that aren’t malicious, understanding that will help.