AP news is not news, it's paid for marketing. "Affordable Propaganda"

submitted by iamonlyoneman from (boriquagato.substack.com)

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]cunninglingus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Anyone want to read this and include any reasonable arguments, or basic grammar, or logic of any sort?

It's as lame as the other juvenile blog comments on this website. One could develop an anti-AP (or anti-Reuters) argument with their pro-Israel reports, but no, we have this child's comments instead.

The Associated Press and Reuters sell news reports, often because they have the original reports. It's not more complicated than that. They and the buyers determine the newsworthyness of a report. It's literally a ticker-tape machine. But juvenile influencers (like the OP's) of today won't have a clue about this.

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I would argue that any specific entity funding reporting explicitly on a single issue is not news, it is propaganda, and to the author’s point, advertising.

That is, if the source of the funding stands to realize material gain from the results of the campaign beyond readership, it is not reporting. It is a commercial.

We called a spade a spade when tobacco companies paid for “research” in the 80s and 90s. What makes this different?

[–]cunninglingus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

any specific entity funding reporting explicitly on a single issue is not news

Reporters should be paid.

Bloggers are also paid, even if they have nothing newsworthy.

Anyone providing newsworthy content supposedly for "free" normally has a political, social, or religious agenda they are trying to promote.

Reporters helped share the news about the abuses of Big Tobacco, as well as the Sackler/pain killer scandal.

Numerous reporters have lost their lives while in the process of gathering information around the world.

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I believe you are misinterpreting what I wrote, willfully or not.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

shut up nerd

[–]cunninglingus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Got it - there should be only stupid responses to stupid posts by users with stupid usernames.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

stupid usernames

LOL