Both are self-righteous religious wackos (passionate about a set of beliefs), which makes them the lowest scum on earth, but which is worse? Yes, there is a relationship between the two,but they are still two distinct groups.
Over the last couple decades, lawyers have become the common profession to bash, but a lawyer is nothing more than a gun, there must be first a pissed-off client to fire it. Journalists on the other hand make-up news or add their own pathetic editorial to the 'news'. They destroy lives and jerk public opinion back and forth with their every pseudo-intellectual ephiphany.
Public opinion is sculpted by these hacks. Elections and policy is driven by the public. So who really holds the strings, or the most strings? Do politicians on either side not jump like a monkeys when public opinion decries a certain result?
If journalists were genuises, I suppose I wouldnt complain as much about their influence, but they amazingly ignorant.
2006-08-17 06:49:48 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Without Journalists, terrorism would not exist.
If the USMC could conduct a clean up job without being watched by the media there would not be a terrorist left on earth.
Go big Red Go
2006-08-17 06:55:26 · answer #1 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
First thought is journalists. But not all journalists are like Rather, Cronkite etc. Some actually do their job and report the news as it happens instead of how they want you to believe how it happened. They just dont work for outlets like the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.
This is a great question and deep. Some journalist are little more than terrorists with a pen. The liberals all cry about Fox News but in my opinion, its the most factual source. And its the most watched so that in itself should say a thing or two.
2006-08-17 07:17:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ignorant because you feel they don't do their jobs well, or ignorant because they don't agree with you? Have you seriously examined the possibility that they may disagree with you because you're actually mistaken? I'm not saying that you are, as you haven't stated many of your beliefs, but it's always important to check.
As to the question in the header: Are you seriously asking whether people who commit horrible violent crimes to make a "religious statement" are somehow equivalent with people who write down stories to share? That's easy, violent maniacs are far more dangerous than even an irresponsible journalist. The blame must always fall on the trigger man, even if he's a lawyer.
And exactly how would passion for what one believes make anybody "the lowest scum on earth"? Many people are passionate in their beliefs on Art, Justice, Benevolence, Philanthropy, Smaller Government, Abortion (both sides), Environmental Responsiblity, Woman's Rights, Human Rights (including the right to bear arms), secularism, and so forth. Do you really believe that a world of impotent (powerless) convictions would somehow be better? That sounds like a population easily overrun to me.
2006-08-17 07:08:47 · answer #3 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What is wrong with you? Are you so so brainwashed that you are afraid of the truth? Journalists are just like everybody else. Some are very good and some are pushing an agenda. However there are those that seek the truth and want to let the populace know that they are being hoodwinked. Pull your head out of your a** you sound like a terrorist and you can't even hear yourself think. Fu*k, man that's some scary sh*t coming out of your head.
2006-08-17 07:18:27 · answer #4 · answered by Thomas S 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I will vote for the jounalist because, it is said that a wound caused by pen is more injurious than a wound caused by the sword.
Terrorist may cause disturbance to a limited people with limited harm but its the journalist who adds spice to the disturbance so that he gets big bucks for his spicey story, thus creates alarm and fear.
A journalist is a white collared criminal who pollutes the minds (without being noticed) and can cause more casualities than a terrorist.
2006-08-17 07:07:23 · answer #5 · answered by Ash 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually they have to be accurate. Or they get sued.
There are dozens of journalists out there reporting on the same story. So you get many peoples opinions on one event.
Try reading different newspapers. Different news channels and on the internet.
They really are quit accurate, maybe they are not saying what you want to hear. That is like answers we chose who pleases us.
2006-08-17 06:56:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sometimes I wonder what the difference is. Both can kill and both spread lies and hatered so both can be bad. Journalist the good ones anyway try to show both sides of an issue but lately that has not happened very much and where the good ones try they are scoffed at and not allowed to print the truth.
2006-08-17 06:56:18 · answer #7 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A bad journalist is worse because they have much more influence.
The media is a terrorist's most powerful tool, without media, no one would listen to terrorists.
There are legitimate journalists but they are few and far between. Most have personal agendas and abuse the power they wield.
2006-08-17 06:56:51 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
this is a good one....both will employ any and all dastardly means to accomplish their objective.however,terrorists are the most stunning example of zealot psychopaths;journalists are self-ego massaging insignificants who wish to wield power through "reporting". case in point:geraldildo rivera
2006-08-17 07:02:50 · answer #9 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Conservatives are worse by far than even a snake in a Garden.
They exclude by nature and that's against the Divine law which is inclusive by nature.
2006-08-17 07:03:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋