A year away from Election Day 2024, former President Donald Trump is set to testify in a civil fraud trial and separately faces more than 90 criminal charges, setting up the possibility that a convicted felon tops the Republican ticket next November.
But it’s President Joe Biden’s political prospects that are plunging.
In another extraordinary twist to a 2024 campaign season that is more notable for court hearings than treks through early voting states, Trump is expected to be called to the witness stand in New York on Monday. This is hardly typical activity during a post-presidency. But Trump was, after all, the most unconventional president.
Why does it have to be propaganda? You don’t think some random mook can be that stupid?
Sure. But why blast said mook in mainstream media? Why put him on the spotlight when there are much better people out there with better informed opinions?
That’s like a reporter approaching your local wacko at the corner of the supermarket, asking him a couple of questions, then putting “HITLER DID NOTHING WRONG, according to local wacko” as a headline in all the newspapers the morning after.
I think you might be vastly underestimating how representative said mook is of the general population.
It doesn’t matter. Just don’t give him a massive media platform to spew his stupidity. Do a survey instead.
Journalists are out there to report, not prevent the spread of stupidity. If a lot of people are stupid, the rest of us should know it.
Look, in all seriousness, I get your concern, but my point is that journalists don’t have an ethical requirement to silence views many people hold, but you and I find dumb. Quite the opposite, in fact. So, don’t hate the journalist, hate the mooks.
That’s a totally different argument.
A journalist can report on an increasing trend om stupidity.
It’s questionable to pick one sample and put it in the spotlight, giving it more attention than it deserves.
“Man scratched ass and concluded that we’ll all die of butt cancer. More on page 7.”
I don’t what to tell you. It’s fairly standard practice to pick someone who you think represents a group to provide readers with a living example of a larger trend. I don’t see anything odd or unusual about this case.