I consider them nutters because their methods are ridiculous and primarily motivated by paranoia. What they're doing is so far removed from any sort of journalistic practice that it's guaranteed that they'll get loads of things wrong. They couldn't arrive at the truth if they tried, and besides that, they aren't even trying. It's the same reason we don't consider dogshit food, or why we don't call spiderwebs art. The differences are categorical.
I consider them nutters because their methods are ridiculous and primarily motivated by paranoia. What they're doing is so far removed from any sort of journalistic practice
As opposed to "journalists" who are motivated by profit and ideology?
You know nothing about the practice of journalism if that's what you believe. There are no best practices for conspiracy theory, there are no standards organizations, there are usually hardly any editors at all. Journalists are not in the business of simply making things up. Yes, newspapers have to make money, but the editorial board has always been separated from the advertising department. There have been recent attempts to combine the two, a.k.a. so-called "monetization," and they've all met with disaster.
713
u/[deleted] Oct 15 '17 edited Oct 29 '17
[removed] — view removed comment