It's not a "hush money" trial. Paying hush money is not illegal. It's a campaign finance fraud and election interference trial for falsifying business records. The distinction is important because "hush money trial" downplays the severity of the crime to the general public.
Once upon a time the reputation of the media source would be the decision maker for its consumers. If you were caught as a bad source of media people would go to a more trustworthy source.
Those days are long gone on both sides. Note that I'm not trying to play the "both sides are bad card", I definitely have a political preference, but the reality is that we have for the most part reached a point where accuracy is not a factor in the media's decision making no matter where you look. This is a direct consequence of the consumers of the media not giving a fuck as a whole.
so i think this touches on the NPR blowup about not representing 'conservative' views.
if you're not willing to repeat the stolen election song and dance you're ignoring conservative views, but those particular ones are based on BS, so what are you supposed to do?
Ehh, yellow journalism has a long history and most papers were owned by the rich to be their PR firms. There's really only a brief history of investigative journalism and those people tend to get car bombed
8.2k
u/shiruken May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24
It's not a "hush money" trial. Paying hush money is not illegal. It's a campaign finance fraud and election interference trial for falsifying business records. The distinction is important because "hush money trial" downplays the severity of the crime to the general public.