Hi NI,
Well, your description of the 'process', leaves out the facts of the investigation.
As in every criminal prosecution there is a process. Sometimes the evidence produced in that process is found, in the end, to be upheld and someone goes to jail or pays a fine. The accused receives some sort of consequence. However, if the 'process' isn't begun, then there is no justice.
Similarly, in the few impeachment investigations that have been held in the history of our nation, the process begins. Witnesses are called and evidence is weighed and in the end a decision is reached. In this case, according to polls, and while I don't hold polls to be 'gospel', I believe they fairly well represent the general feeling of a group, somewhere just below half of the nation approves of President Trump being removed from office. Let me point out that a slightly lower percentage of 'just below half' disapproves of his removal. However, the evidence gathering process isn't completed yet.
I happen to still hold reasonable faith that most of the larger and long established news sources still do the job that they are paid and committed to do. Unlike you, I don't just throw out the bath water with the baby. Just because I've seen how news reports 'can' be twisted, doesn't mean that news reporting is all corrupt and we should then do away with that career choice. However, as an individual listening to or watching a news report, there are times that I am assured that I need to get more information about what is being reported and there are a number of sources that I just pretty automatically know aren't likely reliable. Super market rags like '
The Sun' or '
The National Enquirer' are the top of that list.
When I stand in line at the store and I read headlines like 'Alien abducted me', I'm pretty sure that's a crock. I also know that a source that would report such crock is not a trustworthy news source. However, long established news sources with paid reporting staff such as local newspapers, I find to be generally truthful in their reporting. That doesn't mean that they never have to retract a story or file a correction.
I'm fearful of this new attitude towards news that President Trump is trying to teach us. There have been at least a dozen people involved with government over the last couple of centuries who have issued the warning that when we lose freedom of the press and investigative news sources, we are in danger of losing a lot of our knowledge and control over what's going on in the world. I believe that to be true.
When I look at countries that have fairly strong control over news reporting, I see that there is generally more corruption in their governments than ours and usually a lot less freedom of the people. The old Russia, much like the N. Korea of today, kept a tight lid over new reporting. I don't think any American would last 20 minutes living under such controls after having tasted the freedoms that we enjoy.
Question: What's your proposal? Should we do away with news reporting? Should news reporting be government approved?
Finally you wrote:
All the republicans really have to do is wait things out until the next steps come at which point they will not vote to impeach him. Its why I really dislike the news. Many on the left say right news is biased (which is true), but it is no different on the lefts news.
Why does that possible eventuality make you dislike the news? Yes, we get sometimes conflicting reports, but that just means we have to use our own thinking caps. It is the news that allows us to know what the issues are and dig into the conflict and sort it out. The news isn't intended to do our thinking for us. It is merely intended to make us aware of what's going on and for anything that we're concerned enough to care about some future outcome, then we have to use our own thinking caps to sort through all the noise. Or, we could live under a regime such as N. Korea and let the government do our thinking for us. Let the government control 'what' we know.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
