Wright is wrong: I was bounced off Reuters fairly recently for not meeting their "standards." Well, I don't crop photos to fit a narrative. And unlike Dean Wright, I never worked for MSNBC - no paragon of objectivity and elevated standards. The threadbare default argument that certain language "offends" or fails to comport with "standards" is in itself code for bias and censorship.
Plainly, I was removed from posting for my point of view, conservative. I've seen a trend in America the last many years that reveals leftists are generally the least tolerant and least disposed toward debate. Liberalism, the American left, is Marxist by nature. And it's all about control. When I come across intellectually dishonest vermin like Dean Wright, I find it affirming and actually vindicating that I pushed his buttons enough, tweaked his thin-skinned sensibilities to merit removal from his tiny parcel of the internet. But, like it or not, I am not chastened, nor am I restrained from speaking truth to power, albeit media power.
Any further comment would be superfluous.Wright and his ilk clearly do not realize that many of us who fail to meet his subjective "standards" have been dealing with leftist mental Lilliputians for decades. I studied in Boston, often taught by open Marxists and Harvard Ph.Ds (usually one and the same). I know the game. One thing I've found, when the heavy hand is used and intolerance applied, it signals frustration at being on the losing, ultimately soon to be irrelevant side. Truth is revealed from the airing of opposing opinion; its product and yield are there to be examined by the consumer of information. People are smart enough to see through the sophistry and subterfuge through their own intellectual capacity and common sense. It is always preferable to err on the side of more information than less, that is if truth is your goal. At Reuters, Wright is Wrong.