So the governor’s outright false claim that Disney didn’t get building permits should just be repeated as fact? His claims that they didn’t pay taxes should just be repeated as fact? If Randolph starts making outlandish claims about DeSantis trying to get more taxes that he can misappropriate for himself those should just be repeated as fact? Please, you’re making excuses and you know it.
No. The claim should be presented, and if there are any facts to back up or refute the claim, they should be presented alongside it. Just like the example you gave wherein the hypothetical report says that Gov. DeSantis plans to work with the legislature to avoid the tax burden, requiring a special session at taxpayer expense.
This statement shows bias as well. There is nothing to say that the governor's office will actually do this (considering that there are a lot of limitations on what they can do). At most,.it can be said that the governor's office claims they will work to ensure that county taxpayers aren't hit with Disney's obligations, but have not offered any specifics on how this could be accomplished.
Journalists aren’t transcriptionists. Their job isn’t just to write down what was said - it’s to get to the facts of the matter. The fact is, DeSantis claims he has a plan but hasn’t provided any evidence at all that he actually does. Not a single shred. The fact is, too, that DeSantis has repeatedly lied about this situation. His claims can’t just be repeated as fact.
If you consider stifling free speech and doing something that will hurt the state so you can advance your national political ambitions the right thing,
If you read the last few pages, you will see that I have repeatedly criticized the governor and his team for keeping the plan secret. I have also repeatedly stated that it should have never happened like this. That doesn't excuse the media from it's usual routine of carrying water for it's favored political party.
Agreed. The bolded part is a fair statement, and I like it better than the original that @lazyboy97o and I had agreed on a page or two back. It reads to me like actual journalism.
So we should just repeat the claims of partisan figures like Scott Randolph without any chance to respond? If so, I wish you the best in finding a replacement for CNN+.
Of course there should be a chance to respond, but it should be with specifics. Randolph presented specifics. Either refute those specifics with facts or offer some specifics of your own.
What exactly is he doing that is the right thing here. Violating the first amendment? Harming the citizens of Florida? Attacking one of the states economic engines and one of their largest employers? Marginalizing entire groups of people?
His affiliation does not matter. What has he said that is untrue or even suspect? Are his statements part of a pattern of false statements regarding this issue?
Ok then support a bill that actually deals with that “problem”
Respond? You haven’t even bothered to make a single specific or factual statement.
When did I say there was no right to respond? Of course there is. But so far, nobody has actually debunked his claims and statistics. The other side has certainly been given ample opportunity to do so. But, all they’ve given us so far is vague assurances that it’ll all work out somehow by a person who has repeatedly lied to advance his position. The statements can’t be treated equally becsuse the substance isn’t equal.
I agree that the governor's office can do themselves a favor for their own credibility and offer up some specifics, but as far as the issue of reporting goes, I'll take it a step further and say that in the absence of specifics, they should still mention, as you suggested earlier, that "the governor's office claims they will work to ensure that county taxpayers aren't hit with Disney's obligations, but have not offered any specifics on how this could be accomplished."
His affiliation very much matters as this is an overtly partisan issue, and he represents a specific party. When presenting one side of the political argument, it has been tradition and best practice to present the "other side." That's why Fox News has liberal commentators on staff to serve on panel discussions, and the same can be said about CNN vice versa.
Nobody is claiming that he is incapable of stating untrue or misleading information. But unless you can dispute his statements then his affiliation is irrelevant.
Wow, it’s crazy to see the right suddenly supporting socialism - cheering on the government taking away control from a company and giving it to the state. Not to mention that it’s all done in punishment for the great crime of saying something the governor didn’t like. Normally, you have to go somewhere like China or Russia to get that kind of fascism. Never thought I’d see “patriots” supporting it.
Take off the tinfoil hat.
Now do the other side
My point is that it is for the consumer to decide that the statements aren't equal, not the reporters.
His affiliation is relevant in the sense that, when it comes to journalism, it is tradition to allow the "other side" the chance to respond, and give voice to their response. Again, that's why Fox News has liberals like Juan Williams and Jessica Tarlov on staff; they are routinely on panel discussions during "straight news" and even opinion shows to ensure that the "other side" can still have their say. The same is true, I'm told, of CNN.
Oh boy.
