Ah, the “quotes” around “reporters” move. Even if I agreed with your underlying arguments about what is worthy of attention, @MichaelAvenatti, attacking members of the press by suggesting people aren’t “real” reporters isn’t the right way to go about things.https://twitter.com/michaelavenatti/status/1002540764058902528 …
-
-
You’re explaining my exact problem. You cover trump. That means you weigh the importance of possible ways to do it. And you’re choosing this way. While people of color die and corruption bubbles over. Weird priorities. Suspicious priorities.
-
No, I tweeted two tweets. You have made me spend far more time than I ever would have spent on this. I've moved on to other things and am doing my job. In order to help do so, since you don't care to look at my work and are making absurd assumptions, I'm going to stop responding.
-
No one is calling you a piece of shit. If I wanted to I would have no problem. Instead I’m criticizing specific behaviors and your response is to simply deny the reality we can all see. That’s not the domain of a journalist, it’s the domain of a demagogue.
-
Not pro Trump, but I prefer to face the raw truth wether or not to my liking. Imo
@chrisgeidner just points to an article which puts (partly) the story in a different light. As he says: he covers.. stipulating that Trump’s dealings are his specific task. -
He doesn’t cover well though, that’s in fact my exact issue, being exemplified by this smaller illustrative instance.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The priorities, many have said, helped to create this problem.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.