When news comes out, it ought to be reported. There shouldn't be a moratorium based on legitimate news, just because it may or may not affect one candidate or the other. That's just absurd.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The news is what it is. It's going to be good, it's going to be positive, it's going to be negative. It's going to have all sorts of effects on candidates always.
There has to be news at a place called Fox News.
The news used to be to report facts and allow you to make the decision.
I guess the issue that I have with all the news organizations that have a political MO, if you will, attached to them is that they sometimes jump to conclusions about what this will mean. Get ahead of themselves.
People can get their news any way they want. What I love about what's happened is that there are so many different avenues, there are so many different outlets, so many different ways to debate and discuss and to inquire about any given news story.
Everyone should get their news however they want to and in whatever form they want. I'm not going to sit back in judgment of other people and the way they do it.
News reports don't change the world. Only facts change it, and those have already happened when we get the news.
Reporters do decide what is news, but they don't invent it, even if they sometimes become part of the story by risking their lives in a danger zone, as in the case of ABC's Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt.
Okay, I'm not in the news business, and I'm not going to tell anyone how to do their job. However, it'd be good to have news reporting that I could trust again, and there's evidence that fact-checking is an idea whose time has come.
I have always argued that newspapers should not have any civic purpose beyond telling readers what is happening... A reporter who doesn't quickly tell readers what they most want to know - the score - won't last long. Better he should teach political science.
No opposing quotes found.