Any story will loose its general value, when irrelavant information is introduced into the context. One must rationalize what the story is about and then cut out all the irrelavancy out of it.
Quote:
Now this would be a juicy story under any circumstances. But Mr. Blair is black, so there is the additional spice of race, to which so many Americans are terminally addicted.
Listen up: the race issue in this case is as bogus as some of Jayson Blair's reporting.
|
Ergo, what is more important in this story? Is it more interesting that the Times (or any other media: Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC, etc.) hire a bunch of lying sacks of shit that time and again, prove themselves to be nothing but lame liars? OR was more interesting that it was a "black" journalist that brought the scandal unto them?
In this article, I see three "stories":
1) The Times has extremely bad judgement in finding qualified/competent journalists to do their work.
2) A "black" journalist (vs. all the white ones) has gone nuts and lied out his ass to the whole Times-reading nation.
3) 1+2 = 3 ~ Since both stories are true, they have to create yet another distraction so that the readers forget what happened in the first place!!
....please don't shoot me Ror.............
Hybrid Mode
