Sure, you got me! How can I possibly respond to such elegant logic?

With few (and usually obvious) exceptions, print and broadcast types are rather dedicated to putting out stuff that’s as accurate as possible at the time and giving their audience not only what they want to know but what they need to know - within the time/space constraints inherent to both businesses these days.

The only anchors making that much are ones at the top markets.

Yea, ok, thanks.

I absolutely know the difference between a journalist and an actor. Don’t blame me if for the last 40 years networks have pushed their talent to the audience as actors and not journalists.

Of course you think I “have no idea what journalism actually is” because you’re dismissive of anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs. Strange, this is exactly your argument with Sinclair yet you have no problem being hypocritical.

You say ‘news folks’ like it’s different than ‘entertainment actors’, which is exactly what they are. They’re there to entertain while that particular station presents whatever it is they, not the public, determine to be ‘news-worthy’.

This is all bullshit. Regardless of how anyone feels about whether or not an employer, who pays you to read scripts in front of a camera every single day, should be able to force you read a script in front of the camera. Hmmm.... I’m not seeing any difference here....

It really sucks that these poor anchors get paid 6-7 figure yearly salaries + bonuses + plentiful paid time off + paid travel for stories + the ability to jump to larger and larger markets and increase their pay.

MediaBiasFactCheck???

First, you’re using FactCheck.org which is has a known and documented political bias. I’m not saying you shouldn’t use them, I’m saying don’t use only them.

Seriously? Did you even read that article?

Ok, thanks for proving my point. I never compared shootings to drownings or bicycle accidents. That study used that comparison to show the hypocrisy of people who say “school shootings are increasing and we must do something, anything!”.

Yes, and it’s true but not dismissive. If you don’t understand why this is true, you’ve got deeper problems than I can point out here.

OMG, there actually are a large number of independent studies (not NRA-funded so you can’t easily dismiss them) that prove with actual statistics and real crime numbers that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a deterrent to crime. The numbers completely shred what you just said!

How about you fuck off! Read the actual studies and do a little research, like I did, to learn about the actual problem and not the fake one you liberals keep espousing.

Clearly you’re an absolute idiot who doesn’t bother to read anything. Point me to where I dismissed ‘these kids’ (many of whom are 18 years old so, you know, not kids).

Wow, thanks for the insight comment! Now, prove it.

You quoted a comment from someone who went thru a traumatic experience only a few weeks ago. Of course they would say something like that and it’s entirely expected. None of our children should die simply because they attend school.

Gun sales are up which is why less crime is being committed. All the research as shown that more guns = less crime. Just do a little research on your own and you’ll see the studies.