“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.'” ― St. Anthony the Great
apparently there is a difference of opinion as to what constitute a body slam.guessing the chicken shit nature of the journalism profession, i'm going to go with said journalist interpretation which is a follows...Gigantor got on the journalist face, invaded his personal space if you will, a startled journalist shook his head back violently, glasses went flying.Gigantor never picked him up off the ground and body slammed him WrestleMania style.
Wouldn't it be funny if the journalist set out to trigger Gianforte to assault him, perhaps hoping to propel himself into something better than the Montana gig and, who knows, knocking off the Montana republican chances to win the election.And then it backfired.
That's exactly what he attempted to do, Lem. He intended to make himself part of the story, not report on a story. Success! It worked. But not the way he and his employer imagined. This story cheers me tremendously. A tide has turned. And the antagonists are left wondering what happened. They are not equipped to process how their tried and true well proven approaches all don't work anymore. And pumping up the jam on their proven techniques makes things worse for them. They cannot effectively correct. For example, the only way media can recover any semblance of reputation requires they deliver the news straight and they cannot do that. It's not in their DNA. So they're behaving as resource for Democrats only. And that's very stupid thing to do. They do still have their faithful. I read them every hour. And how perfectly retarded they sound at this point spouting their nonsense, still, with their certainty about Trump impeachment. Such incredible dopes.
The disgraced journalist went to the Robert Creamer school of journalism.
Creamer of course is a "get in their face" acolyte of the Obama/Clinton wing of the DNC.
The whole silly charade could be ended by the release of the video the journalist was making up until the scuffle. It must be pretty damning or at best ambiguous. I suspect e reason the owners won't release it is that they want wild speculation to continue. Hopefully it survives and will be reviewed should any litigation ensue.
I myself am beginning to think that I should question most of the entire history that I've ever learned, up to and including the American Revolution and well more, way beyond, for example, on account of the standard "video, or it didn't happen."So it goes, onward ho.
"Video, or it didn't happen."Contemplate that as a standard, not to mention the standard.
Rcommal: If I understand you correctly (and that is no easy feat), you're asking why use such a phrase as "video or it didn't happen"? It is an absurd standard to use for events in the past when such recording devices did not exist. In the present case, if witnesses are to be believed, the reporter had a video camera. Presumably, the video was the source of the audio. The phrase "video or it didn't happen" is apt in this case. In cases of disputed events when there was no camera present, it is absurd. Betcha judge would rule that it must be submitted as evidence were this to come to trial.
The reason you need video is because you can never believe what a journalist reports. They just make shit up. No tape means it didn't happen.
I can think events where I would not want to see the video. Someone claims to be a parent, I will accept that without needing to see the moment of conception. Or birth.
But you can take a DNA test that gives you comprehensive proof. Of course you can prove who the mother is but the father is a mystery.For example I have no doubt that Chelsea Clinton is Webb Hubbell's daughter.
Post a Comment