- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I only wish that newspapers, tv news, and online censorship were the only purveyors of false news and statist propaganda. There isn't a movie or tv program made in the past 10 years that hasn't foisted socialist, racist propaganda on the viewers.
If I was POTUS I'd be tempted to terminate the broadcast licenses of every network and cable company for overwhelming bias.
I think you did, too.
As for "advocacy journalism," I prefer to call it "public relations" (one course that I took) or "free adviertising." And there's "pandering" or being a "paid puppet."
Additionally, this journalism may not advocate anything, but simply purveys negativity and hatred towards the selected target.
Edit add: Here's an example of subtle "advocacy journalism" in my hometown rag from the early '90s. The paper was totally in the tank of the D party. As election day came near, out of the 20 or so positions up for election the paper advocated the D candidate in all but the one R running unopposed. There were actual descriptions like this: If the incumbent was a D the editorial would say "experience counts" so vote D, and if the incumbent was a R the editorial would say "a fresh viewpoint is needed, vote D". I kid you not, LOL!