top | item 38359399 (no title) machdiamonds | 2 years ago "journalism" discuss order hn newest davidw|2 years ago The government isn't in the business of deciding what is or isn't good "journalism". That's kind of the point.Also, if it were so far from the truth, maybe those companies wouldn't have pulled their ads. They probably verified it themselves. smitty1e|2 years ago > The government isn't in the business of deciding what is or isn't good "journalism".Need to let the facts come out in court under oath for better insight into which is the victim and which is the oppressor.The line between government, party, and activist seems to have blurred in the last couple of decades.
davidw|2 years ago The government isn't in the business of deciding what is or isn't good "journalism". That's kind of the point.Also, if it were so far from the truth, maybe those companies wouldn't have pulled their ads. They probably verified it themselves. smitty1e|2 years ago > The government isn't in the business of deciding what is or isn't good "journalism".Need to let the facts come out in court under oath for better insight into which is the victim and which is the oppressor.The line between government, party, and activist seems to have blurred in the last couple of decades.
smitty1e|2 years ago > The government isn't in the business of deciding what is or isn't good "journalism".Need to let the facts come out in court under oath for better insight into which is the victim and which is the oppressor.The line between government, party, and activist seems to have blurred in the last couple of decades.
davidw|2 years ago
Also, if it were so far from the truth, maybe those companies wouldn't have pulled their ads. They probably verified it themselves.
smitty1e|2 years ago
Need to let the facts come out in court under oath for better insight into which is the victim and which is the oppressor.
The line between government, party, and activist seems to have blurred in the last couple of decades.