Hypocrite Journalists

1

All rich people i.e. bourgeoisie are evil and all poor people are oppressed. Peter Thiel is rich, so must be evil. We are not as rich as him, so we are oppressed.

2

Peter Thiel used his money to shut journalists. So, to shut him down, we’ll gather people who think like us and we’ll discredit him & we’ll subject him to the mob justice.

3

Valley is against Gawker because it succeeded without any VC money.

4

We’re journalists and hence, we are also omniscient revolutionaries leading humanity at the forefront guarding democracy. Hence, we are also the judges of morality — we decide what is good and what is bad, who to idolize and who to diss. We’re of noble births. We’re pure. We are perfect. By that we mean, whatever we say, whatever we do, we’re always right.

5

Articles without bias — convey no meaning. We must write click bait titles. We need traffic dammit!

6

We are revolutionaries. Asking us to write something neutral / unbiased / less-hateful — well, that’s rage, you’re taking our freedom away. We can’t properly execute `dissent` without channelizing our anger into hateful-bullying-and-shaming words. Our objective is to destroy the wrongdoer and we’ll do that by attacking them one at a time, smearing their character into murkiness.

IMO-

  • Hundreds of Journalists coming together — well, what you just created was nothing less than a mob. The IQ of an individual often drops by 100 points as soon as they participate in one. Now, is it the mob that will decide Thiel’s integrity?
  • You can’t beat goodness into someone. And the mob just believes in actions similar to it, isn’t it? If the right to determine someone’s integrity lies in the hands of a mob, we’ll have to live by what the mob decides. That’s what your convoluted definition of democracy stands for?
  • Calling in 100s of participants, writing 100 articles against Thiel and potentially destroy 1000s of hours of productive time of such 100 people — that’s fair (read fair use of creating a mob). But, a single person, using his own money, potentially saving such hours of so many people to shut down a bigot whose contribution to society is debatable, and bringing peace of mind to many more — is unfair use of money?
  • The moment you support Gawker, you also stand by their work ethics. You’re advocating their rights to bully individuals even if it means sharing & spreading links to pornography. You’re advocating that all of what they did was right.
  • People toiling in the valley, burning their cashes and asses to take humanity a step ahead, if don’t deserve a pat on the back, at least do not deserve a kick in the butts, at least not from bullies. We’re not a perfect society, but are in pursuit of it. If we keep bullying people at the forefront of humanity, we’ll be a perfectly civilised, but backward society. And we must not cross that thin line between Criticism & character assasination.
  • VCs are not mere cheque books. Taking VC money also stands for accountability. Succeeding without VC money means zero accountability and full autonomy and it is intimadating.
  • The hypocrite journalists — They are the same class of people who idolize the likes of Theranos despite their questionable methods. Why they make hero of them without verification? What is it they are scared of? Future streams of revenues? Where were the journalism ethics while reporting about Theranos? Before you accuse me of whataboutism, make sure you’re not hypocrites.
  • The hypocrite journalists, again— They are the same class of people who perpetuate the notion of so called ‘subject matter experts’ and hire a person with personality, presumably knowing a-little-to-nothing about the subject.
  • The hypocrite journalists — are often driven with Bias — probably the bias lies with the individuals and this, some how manages to pass through the filters during scrutiny. Perhaps because it finds a balance between the publisher’s notion of goodness and the general-acceptance-by-masses? To nullify any kind of bias, organizations of bigger stature e.g. BBC and Reuters adhere to their editorial guidelines, as big as dictionaries, and they’re public FYI. No doubts that people writing against the popular notion face flacks for any kind of aberration.
  • The Revolutionary Journalists’ freedom of speech and expression — If that means destroying another individual’s freedom, then do hell with it. People make mistakes. Rich people are no exception. Valley is no exception. Press/Journalism is no exception. You can’t hold your rights with higher regard than someone else’s.
One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.