Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 76,791

                1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                  Just because someone else is (literally!) demonizing a politician doesn't mean you should give them uncritical amplification.
              1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                Either you believe religion is pointless and this response is interesting because you don't respect it as a reporter.
            1. …in reply to @Chronotope
              In which case this manages to both be demeaning to the source and your own coverage.
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            Or you treat it seriously and interview some other sources. Like any other thing you report on.
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          Like hey, why not pick up a phone and call a priest? Or an exorcist, or demon hunter or some other thing.
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        I mean, if we were to treat this story seriously, I think many of us would consider it to be ridiculous. But if we're not, why run it?
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      This just manages to disrespect reader, the source, & every other bit of coverage of the event. If you don't respect a source, don't run it
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    This article is the journalistic equivalent of pointing a finger and going 'haha laugh at this yokel" and it only gets air b/c situation.
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      I mean... people were accusing Hillary Clinton of demonic possession for a decade and it (rightfully) got zero coverage.
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        I don't give a shit about journalists showing their bias, but to do it in this indirect bullshit way undermines trust in all of us.


Search tweets' text