I like what you're trying to do: categorize and attach labels to separate true jourmalists from the imposters.
If CNN would simply tell everyone that it's a partisan organization that works for Leftist candidates, most of this controversy would go away. But they won't do that. They'll tell us they are doing strictly objective journalism. That's the big lie.
So one question I'd like to ask a Jake Tapper is: how would you distinguish what you're doing from a Rush Limbaugh? Actually, way more people get their news from Limbaugh than they do from a CNN.
The categories I would give you are:
- Parrot journalite - Takes orders from the boss on what points to stress as in "Let's get back to the Russian story to boost our ratings."
- Opposition journalite - Scores points by how many times he can embarrass a target person.
- Sophomoric journalite - A reporter who doesn't make sense or can't get their facts straight or hasn't done proper research for the story.
One trend that seems undeniable in today world of journalism is that they are expected to do a bit of interpretation as opposed to simply regurgitating facts. Certainly the news story writers of the Wall Street Journal have mastered this art. Their editorial writers continue to sling the bull, especially that ex-Reagan speechwriter whose name I forget right now.
But pointing out how they are partisans and willing accomplices with Clinton during the election is a great way to get some revenge.
Trump is effectively poking holes in their resumes and profession. The impact will felt in less students going into the journalism profession. Before Trump, the Fake News considered themselves God's gift to the world. Now they get a lot less respect when they go home for Thanksgiving. Their cousins laugh at them behind their backs.
Today your average American believes journalites are nothing more than presstiutes for a partisan cause. People like Chuck Todd:
