The fact Parnas, as someone who has never actually written it researched his own stories, made a huge fuss about putting an application for the new media press seat that was announced was already weird.
But then, if you read the comments, someone says that he probably won’t get it, because of a prior relationship with Trump, and he says, (I swear to god) that he never had any kind of relationship with Trump. Like ok. Maybe they weren’t playing golf every weekend…but he worked for Giuliani’s law firm and *he wrote a book about Trump screwing over his family*
I tried to be fair in this article. But honestly, that destroyed all credibility he could ever have
I fully agree that the MSM is basically worthless. I haven’t watched or listened to MSM to get the news in a long time. I will watch some interviews. Or read something if I’m already researching it and it’s pertinent. But I get the same word for word headlines from Reuters and the AP, without the emotional manipulation and theatrics of Aaron. For me, that’s why I refuse to call him a journalist. An anchor? Sure. I’d go that far. Curator, absolutely! And like I said..there is a place and a need for that..it’s important work. Rachel Maddow doesn’t investigate every story herself either. But that’s why she’s a TV personality and not a journalist by title.
I think it’s a slippery slope to conflate being given the news vs journalism, if that makes sense
Thank you. I do think that we need to be critical, but also recognize that there is a market for the style. At what point though, do we let so many people claim the journalist title, that the word has almost no meaning. I don’t know that I have an actual answer to that question. But, I think the conversations are important.
I don't subscribe to Parnas, though as someone with an interest in anti-Trump politics here, it was inevitable that he'd end up in my feed. So I see him that way.
I've chosen not to engage with his stream simply because I basically do not engage with video online and never do so on my phone. For no other reason than I don't like to try to and decipher tiny moving images on my tiny phone screen. I'm an old man.
Having said that, I'm not quite as angry as you are at him. I do realize that there is a demographic that wants the stories presented as he presents them. A much younger demographic than mine, as it happens.
To each his own, I suppose. And Jesus Christ, whoever might help.
Taking issue with Parnas 'cause everything is "breaking" is kind of silly, as the practice of overdramatizing any particular piece of news long predates him. The first time I came across it was shortly after my own political awakening, in 2004, and it was text-based, on Daily Kos. It was bullshit then as it's bullshit now. But of course it gets engagement. It gets engagement for Parnas, as it gets engagement for the other lion here, Meidas. And lesser lights certainly copy.
The issue of plagiarism is a more serious one, just because you should cite as a matter of course, but perhaps not as serious as you suggest because news feeds like Headline News, say, predate even the internet.
The biggest issue, seems to me, is that with the New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN and USA Today and the rest sliding into obeisance, there is now a void where they used to be. But the fact that Parnas isn't truly a replacement for them shouldn't be held against him--it's certainly not his fault.
Like I said I don't engage with the guy's stream. But does he even call himself a journalist? If so I'd agree he should stop it.
Yes, repeatedly he has called himself an “independent journalist”. And I do think that it’s not accurate. The breaking news thing, I am not necessarily angry about….but I do think that if one is to have media literacy and discernment, it’s important to note that it is a manipulation tactics. It happens other places as well, and I don’t agree with it there either.
Indeed. I left that out because I wanted to focus on the journalism aspect, and I know people would focus primarily on that..when I do think his grift leads to a larger conversation about who and what we consider as journalism. I don’t think it’s tied to a university degree necessarily, but I do think that there are some constraints on who it should actually apply to.
I think a lot of it has to do with privilege too. It’s a different world when you’re super smart and poor or middle class, than when you are in circles where anything you want is available to you, on top of being treated like you’re amazingly special. It just is. But please don’t mistake me…you can’t blame someone for the environment they were raised in. Still, I think it’s an important piece of the puzzle.
Exactly. He has zero credibility. I just replied to another comment here about him saying he has never had a relationship with Trump. Um, he worked for Giuliani 5/6 years ago. And he wrote a whole book about Trump. Maybe they weren’t playing golf every weekend. But that is a bold faced lie.
I thought the article was great and thought provoking. I will tell you that I really like Parnas' newsletters because I think the rapid fire, bullet points are a way for the reader to absorb facts only and then look up more. That's how I see it and I DO look up more and fact check. I don't rely solely on what he writes. I don't think anyone does in this crazy political climate. Parnas is refreshing, honest and stark with his information. He touches the nerve we have right now, and his audience respects him because he earned it. Not a lot of journalists can be respected these days. 🤷 I can't wait to read more from you. 💓
I'm glad you look deeper. I wish more people did, but many people are not media literate.
As the article said, he's not actually a journalist. So, while convenient, his newsletter is not a collections of facts. It's just an aggregation of headlines. Still useful, but I personally find it exhausting and nearly a full-time job to sort through it all.
Yes. And lately he’s been getting bolder. It’s one thing to aggregate headlines. If that’s the schtick..fine. Not my cup of tea, but I don’t begrudge it. A few weeks ago he did a whole video on TikTok, where he read, word for word any entire article. I mean verbatim. And he never once cited his source. I was floored.
Yes. It’s so hard to keep up to date with everything. But, fact checking is so important, as much as we can. I know I’m exhausted. And I’ve been doing policy for a decade. I’ve never been this tired. 🤣
Parnas does interviews too, but again I don't think anyone should strictly get their news from one source. I read a variety of sources and then fact check the big stuff. I grew up in a household where I was encouraged to watch the news and read the newspaper. Im 50 now, so I've passed it down to my son. I fear it just isn't done this way as much now. Its just too confusing... So much misinformation, or what we used to call it LIES. AI mucks it up too, but where's the common sense? If Trump "cut billions" out of all these programs, why would he plan on sending out $5000 checks to people? If you see this all over social media, don't you think you should do some fact checking there? Critical thinking? And if migrant workers are the predominant workers on farms and construction, why would you vote to have your workforce deported? (In some areas, up to 80%) Its as if common sense doesn't exist any more now that trump economics is our currency.
The fact Parnas, as someone who has never actually written it researched his own stories, made a huge fuss about putting an application for the new media press seat that was announced was already weird.
But then, if you read the comments, someone says that he probably won’t get it, because of a prior relationship with Trump, and he says, (I swear to god) that he never had any kind of relationship with Trump. Like ok. Maybe they weren’t playing golf every weekend…but he worked for Giuliani’s law firm and *he wrote a book about Trump screwing over his family*
I tried to be fair in this article. But honestly, that destroyed all credibility he could ever have
I fully agree that the MSM is basically worthless. I haven’t watched or listened to MSM to get the news in a long time. I will watch some interviews. Or read something if I’m already researching it and it’s pertinent. But I get the same word for word headlines from Reuters and the AP, without the emotional manipulation and theatrics of Aaron. For me, that’s why I refuse to call him a journalist. An anchor? Sure. I’d go that far. Curator, absolutely! And like I said..there is a place and a need for that..it’s important work. Rachel Maddow doesn’t investigate every story herself either. But that’s why she’s a TV personality and not a journalist by title.
I think it’s a slippery slope to conflate being given the news vs journalism, if that makes sense
Fam, this was SOOOO GOOD. Well done!
Wow. Great writing. I agree about sources. You gave me a lot to think about.
Thank you. I do think that we need to be critical, but also recognize that there is a market for the style. At what point though, do we let so many people claim the journalist title, that the word has almost no meaning. I don’t know that I have an actual answer to that question. But, I think the conversations are important.
Totally agree.
I don't subscribe to Parnas, though as someone with an interest in anti-Trump politics here, it was inevitable that he'd end up in my feed. So I see him that way.
I've chosen not to engage with his stream simply because I basically do not engage with video online and never do so on my phone. For no other reason than I don't like to try to and decipher tiny moving images on my tiny phone screen. I'm an old man.
Having said that, I'm not quite as angry as you are at him. I do realize that there is a demographic that wants the stories presented as he presents them. A much younger demographic than mine, as it happens.
To each his own, I suppose. And Jesus Christ, whoever might help.
Taking issue with Parnas 'cause everything is "breaking" is kind of silly, as the practice of overdramatizing any particular piece of news long predates him. The first time I came across it was shortly after my own political awakening, in 2004, and it was text-based, on Daily Kos. It was bullshit then as it's bullshit now. But of course it gets engagement. It gets engagement for Parnas, as it gets engagement for the other lion here, Meidas. And lesser lights certainly copy.
The issue of plagiarism is a more serious one, just because you should cite as a matter of course, but perhaps not as serious as you suggest because news feeds like Headline News, say, predate even the internet.
The biggest issue, seems to me, is that with the New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN and USA Today and the rest sliding into obeisance, there is now a void where they used to be. But the fact that Parnas isn't truly a replacement for them shouldn't be held against him--it's certainly not his fault.
Like I said I don't engage with the guy's stream. But does he even call himself a journalist? If so I'd agree he should stop it.
Yes, repeatedly he has called himself an “independent journalist”. And I do think that it’s not accurate. The breaking news thing, I am not necessarily angry about….but I do think that if one is to have media literacy and discernment, it’s important to note that it is a manipulation tactics. It happens other places as well, and I don’t agree with it there either.
And he’s a Zionist so……
Indeed. I left that out because I wanted to focus on the journalism aspect, and I know people would focus primarily on that..when I do think his grift leads to a larger conversation about who and what we consider as journalism. I don’t think it’s tied to a university degree necessarily, but I do think that there are some constraints on who it should actually apply to.
Agreed! Thankyou
Maybe I'm the judgmental asshole, but I see pushing pro-zionism propaganda as a big red flag. "Bye, Felicia."
It’s always dangerous when people are too smart too early and their emotional maturity doesn’t have time to develop.
I think a lot of it has to do with privilege too. It’s a different world when you’re super smart and poor or middle class, than when you are in circles where anything you want is available to you, on top of being treated like you’re amazingly special. It just is. But please don’t mistake me…you can’t blame someone for the environment they were raised in. Still, I think it’s an important piece of the puzzle.
He shows up on my feed but I stopped listening to him. He starts every Broadcast asking for money.
He lost me when he was reading and said that the Rump had retaliated the hostages (I think that was the word) when hebfredd the 1500.
People called him out on it and he only said he was repeating Rumps words. THAT piece of info should have been in the orginal.report.
So I no longer listen to him.
Exactly. He has zero credibility. I just replied to another comment here about him saying he has never had a relationship with Trump. Um, he worked for Giuliani 5/6 years ago. And he wrote a whole book about Trump. Maybe they weren’t playing golf every weekend. But that is a bold faced lie.
I thought the article was great and thought provoking. I will tell you that I really like Parnas' newsletters because I think the rapid fire, bullet points are a way for the reader to absorb facts only and then look up more. That's how I see it and I DO look up more and fact check. I don't rely solely on what he writes. I don't think anyone does in this crazy political climate. Parnas is refreshing, honest and stark with his information. He touches the nerve we have right now, and his audience respects him because he earned it. Not a lot of journalists can be respected these days. 🤷 I can't wait to read more from you. 💓
I'm glad you look deeper. I wish more people did, but many people are not media literate.
As the article said, he's not actually a journalist. So, while convenient, his newsletter is not a collections of facts. It's just an aggregation of headlines. Still useful, but I personally find it exhausting and nearly a full-time job to sort through it all.
Yes. And lately he’s been getting bolder. It’s one thing to aggregate headlines. If that’s the schtick..fine. Not my cup of tea, but I don’t begrudge it. A few weeks ago he did a whole video on TikTok, where he read, word for word any entire article. I mean verbatim. And he never once cited his source. I was floored.
Yes. It’s so hard to keep up to date with everything. But, fact checking is so important, as much as we can. I know I’m exhausted. And I’ve been doing policy for a decade. I’ve never been this tired. 🤣
Parnas does interviews too, but again I don't think anyone should strictly get their news from one source. I read a variety of sources and then fact check the big stuff. I grew up in a household where I was encouraged to watch the news and read the newspaper. Im 50 now, so I've passed it down to my son. I fear it just isn't done this way as much now. Its just too confusing... So much misinformation, or what we used to call it LIES. AI mucks it up too, but where's the common sense? If Trump "cut billions" out of all these programs, why would he plan on sending out $5000 checks to people? If you see this all over social media, don't you think you should do some fact checking there? Critical thinking? And if migrant workers are the predominant workers on farms and construction, why would you vote to have your workforce deported? (In some areas, up to 80%) Its as if common sense doesn't exist any more now that trump economics is our currency.