- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
I think you did, too.
I only wish that newspapers, tv news, and online censorship were the only purveyors of false news and statist propaganda. There isn't a movie or tv program made in the past 10 years that hasn't foisted socialist, racist propaganda on the viewers.
If I was POTUS I'd be tempted to terminate the broadcast licenses of every network and cable company for overwhelming bias.
Additionally, this journalism may not advocate anything, but simply purveys negativity and hatred towards the selected target.
Edit add: Here's an example of subtle "advocacy journalism" in my hometown rag from the early '90s. The paper was totally in the tank of the D party. As election day came near, out of the 20 or so positions up for election the paper advocated the D candidate in all but the one R running unopposed. There were actual descriptions like this: If the incumbent was a D the editorial would say "experience counts" so vote D, and if the incumbent was a R the editorial would say "a fresh viewpoint is needed, vote D". I kid you not, LOL!
As for "advocacy journalism," I prefer to call it "public relations" (one course that I took) or "free adviertising." And there's "pandering" or being a "paid puppet."