I learned more about journalism, how it operates, and what to look for in a few years of reading Get Religion than in a lifetime of reading the news. \u00a0I used to make GR one of my daily stops. \u00a0Why did I end that tradition? \u00a0Well, because its greatest benefit \u2013 that it was managed by professional journalists \u2013 was its greatest bane. \u00a0Time and again they would unpack a story that promoted the gay acceptance agenda, pro abortion agenda, get hip to Eurocentric Socialism agenda, all religion is inspired not revealed agenda, or a host of other obvious advocacy pieces. \u00a0OK. \u00a0They would typically focus on the progressive leaning media (since that\u2019s pretty much all there is with few exceptions), so most posts were looking at issues like those above. \u00a0Fine. \u00a0But then, somewhere in almost every post, or in the comments section if people got too close, the moderators would swoop in to ask the fateful question: how can the Times, Tribune, Globe, or whatever other publication possibly write such a piece? <\/p>\n
Really? \u00a0And when people would \u00a0point out the stinking obvious, the various moderators would then correct them, stating that such accusations are overblown, inaccurate and not representative to true journalism. \u00a0Sorry, but that\u2019s too much to handle. Maybe it\u2019s changed over the last few years, and now is more about lamenting the passing of true journalism and the replacement by the thing that is out there today. \u00a0But it got so I just couldn\u2019t handle seeing that end tag of \u2018how could the LA Times frame the story that way?\u2019 when the answer was so stinking obvious.<\/p>\n