Free propaganda? Sign me up!
You mean the BBC that employed "Sir", by the grace of the British Crown, Jim will fix it for half a century?
Not defending that horror story - simply making the point about the quality of the output, and that an informed viewer can form a rounded view of any story by consuming critically. Don’t believe all you see and hear (And same goes for any media outlet globally).
That horror story wasn't just a fluke, that's my whole point. When such people are at the very top of a governmental institution, there's no way you'll get the real story behind any occurence involving critical information for the populace.
I enjoyed their Roland Garros clash very much right until Alcaraz' cramps ruined the match. I still believe the cramps were provoked by Djokovic's strategic playstyle- draining the opponent's endurance - rather than it simply being an ordinary injury that was caused by, say, landing awkwardly on the wrong foot.
You don’t have a cable subscription that costs as much per month for the same thing? I thought you were in America.
Which is it? NPR is largely propaganda.
If you do feel that way, then what organisations do you consider to represent good journalism? I'm genuinely curious where that leaves you. Fundamentally, by what measure do you value a journalist's work?
Could you start by defining "journalism" as you see it?Haha, I'll just say I disagree with a passion.
