Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
lol, Peter Schweizer is criticizing Leslie Stahl for not rushing out a story about a subject that they can't verify?"The story was censored. Reporter Peter Schweizer spoke with Michael Shellenberger about the laptop, where he torched CBS News, adding that they could have easily verified it before the Trump interview:"
There needs to be a shake-up in the major media--integrity needs to be restored.
The argument he makes in the video (or at least in the 1:11 that's shown in the TH piece; I haven't bothered looking for the rest of it) is that the media could have run with some amount of the laptop story much sooner based on limited on information. Maybe that's true to some degree, but it's also true Schweizer's journalistic standards are significantly lower than those of the mainstream media and, as such, his opinion should not be given much weight in regards to what should and should not be published when the goal is producing good journalism.
That would be true if he were arguing dry facts (e.g. water is wet, the sky is blue), but he's not. He's mostly arguing his opinion about the steps that the MSM could have been taken to verify the story to a a sufficient degree to justify publishing it. Within that argument, he makes points about the substance or depth of information they could have published, and me makes points about how quickly they could have done so. All of that is based, ultimately, on his journalistic standards - or at least on what he perceives the journalistic standards of the MSM to be (because you can't very well argue that Person A can do X Work to meet Standard Y without having some sense of what Standard Y is). But it's clear from his body of work that his personal journalistic standards are garbage. I don't know how accurate his perceptions of the MSM's journalistic standards are, but knowing how bad his are, I wouldn't blindly trust his take on theirs.
If his argument was made by someone you trusted, would it change?
Would what change? Would my opinion of the argument change?
So your objection has nothing to do with Schweizer.
On the contrary, my objection has every to do with Schweizer. My objection is to him being the judge of whether the MSM was too slow. My objection is to him being presented as a respectable opinion on this subject in the first place. IMO, it would have been more credible to use as justification for this argument a video of a dog pooping, because, unlike Schweizer, at least the dog hadn’t built a career undermining the very thing he was critiquing.
If someone you respected made the exact same argument, would you agree with that person?
Not as clearly as you think. It’s somewhat ambiguous.
