Now you know how we feel.

Sums it up well

for a precise definition

I would love a definition of journalist now, versus back in the days of Edward R. Murrow.

Is that specific enough?

"And we're telling you that because we totally don't want you to get laughed at. I mean seriously, we NEVER run articles that rely primarily on namecalling, mockery, or other forms of lowbrow childishness. It really has NOTHING to do with us being a major media organization that realizes that everyone ELSE has realized that the jig is up, which is totally why we're responding as a big name that only has any meaning or significance because it is the media.

Sure thing, guys.

I know this is snark, but "the media" is the only private business mentioned in the Constitution (called The Press at the time).

The Media was given special protection and privileges in the Constitution because a well informed Electorate (We the people) are necessary for us to exist and pick our representation.

Everyone knows what "the media" means.

In that there is no single media. The media is made up of lots of individual outfits big and small.

"Some of these stories — too many — were not given prominence and, in the case of newspapers, didn’t make the front page. But it wasn’t impossible for skeptics of the war to connect the dots."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-iraq-journalists-didnt-fail-they-just-didnt-succeed/2013/03/22/0ca6cee6-9186-11e2-9abd-e4c5c9dc5e90_story.html?utm_term=.6e7444204faf

They didn't make it impossible for skeptics of the war to connect the dots, they just made sure that average Joe never heard from those skeptics.


Here's another Great® opinion piece from this journalist.
"Trump gets way more TV news time than Clinton. So what?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-gets-way-more-tv-news-time-than-clinton-so-what/2016/09/21/719d1bac-7ea9-11e6-8d0c-fb6c00c90481_story.html

Two days later he writes this garbage, the responses must of got under his skin.

How about: stenographers, propagandists, 5th column, manufacturers of disinformation, dispensers of rumor and innuendo, gossip columnists, writers who would make Hedda Hopper and/or Louella Parsons blush, an institution envied by wanna be dictators, competition for the national enquirer and/or its foreign cousin; the daily mail...


for a start.

public?
"Media" sounds appropriate to me

What a tone deaf thing to say.

So our choices are extremely limited, and we didn't make this shit up!

Example: AP writes a story....and where does it end up? Every fucking where.....
I called that a conglomerate media monopoly which gives us the "illusion" of having many choices
as to where we get our news, when we really have very few choices.

It's really not that complicated WAPO guy!

The author of that tripe featured by the OP, thinks he knows something. I wonder if he honestly believes the media establishment doesn't frame the political narrative in the US.

It is incredibly cumbersome to always have to say "the mostly Republican-controlled print and broadcasting apparatus for disseminating reporting and commentary, and mostly a right-wing slanted mixture of the two."

It is SOOOOOOOOO much easier to just say "the media." We all know the meaning is the same in either case.

whores. I'll just call you that from now on, k?

Pot, meet Kettle!

I just happen to trust written words more than I do spoken words.

Because there is more thought and introspection in written words.