Those journalists, the ones who get whacked, they usually don’t write analysis. They usually just report facts that are very dangerous. That’s the difference for me. Some people use analysis to chase down the facts and report the facts that create incontrovertible narrative. Others use cherry picked facts as cover for their desire to publish paper thin analyses in order to fit their own brain wormed narrative.
I agree that most analysis done in the West is shite. I just wish more journos actually reported what was happening and stayed out of wish casting and doom saying.
True, for me I’ve always felt that journalistic analysis isn’t actual analysis because they never begin their piece with any actual facts to extrapolate from but much rather utilize subjective viewpoints and treat them as facts to “analyze” (for instance not stating the facts on climate change that the scientific community agree on, but instead doing a analysis on “public feeling” on “climate change” or the viability of small businesses to “survive” with new climate policies or some other trite wash).
For the journos that get whacked I feel that they start from the facts and their overall reporting then leads to a cocnrete conclusion of “oh hey the CIA is demonic”, or “US imperialism is a net negative to the world at large”.
Those journalists, the ones who get whacked, they usually don’t write analysis. They usually just report facts that are very dangerous. That’s the difference for me. Some people use analysis to chase down the facts and report the facts that create incontrovertible narrative. Others use cherry picked facts as cover for their desire to publish paper thin analyses in order to fit their own brain wormed narrative.
I agree that most analysis done in the West is shite. I just wish more journos actually reported what was happening and stayed out of wish casting and doom saying.
True, for me I’ve always felt that journalistic analysis isn’t actual analysis because they never begin their piece with any actual facts to extrapolate from but much rather utilize subjective viewpoints and treat them as facts to “analyze” (for instance not stating the facts on climate change that the scientific community agree on, but instead doing a analysis on “public feeling” on “climate change” or the viability of small businesses to “survive” with new climate policies or some other trite wash).
For the journos that get whacked I feel that they start from the facts and their overall reporting then leads to a cocnrete conclusion of “oh hey the CIA is demonic”, or “US imperialism is a net negative to the world at large”.
Cosigned.