How you know the ppl who claim to be upset by Fox's 'state TV,' as they call it, don't actually mean anything they say 
WaPo media team, which spends much of its time on Fox and Trump, has been cheering them on, including its media writer who is the former NYT ombud. Ppl in my mentions pretending this isn't the case: I can't make you read the newspaper, but I recommend it. washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/medi…
So I understand ppl's defensiveness and instinct to say 'LA LA LA IT'S NOT TRUE' but the problem with jumping in before reading is that you miss an opportunity to quietly address your ignorance instead of broadcasting it.
NYT did mostly a puff piece on it while waving away the ethics issues as "Crises often transform the broadly accepted rules of media. And for a century they’ve pulled news toward emotion and connection." nytimes.com/2020/04/05/bus…
Here's Ben Smith asking a German journalist about it and the German's like how are you ppl cheering this on? Don't you understand how unethical this is?
It would be considered "corrupt" in Germany he says, but here in America journalists on twitter are applauding it. He doesn't understand how his American peers could possibly keep slobbering over it.
Here's the question: As Ben acknowledges, CNN used to forbid it. So... why is something that CNN execs considered unethical in 2013 considered ethical now? Would genuinely love to know the answer, considering the network spends most of its time sweating conservative media.
Here's CJR listing various high profile pubs that praised the Cuomo-and-Cuomo routine, in a piece that treats it with kid gloves as well. cjr.org/the_media_toda…
NYT, WaPo, AP, CNN's media team, Guardian, Vanity Fair all slobbering over it, and ppl on here respond by saying 'ah but you're wrong because folks on twitter make jokes about it.'
Guys, get outside the bubble where there's more oxygen.
Guys, get outside the bubble where there's more oxygen.
