Journalists or Lawyers? - Who are worse?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
naaaaiiiiillllll!!!

naaaaiiiiillllll!!!

Null thought I was British, lol
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
I have boomer (and silent gen) relatives who tell lawyer jokes. Stuff like difference between roadkill critters and lawyers is that you see skidmarks on the road with roadkill critters, also the "lips moving" joke. However, recent convos have shown normies hate journalists just as much as we do (maybe this was always the case?). Personally, lawyers help with taxes and other benign legal issues while journoscum basically want to destroy society (but lawyers can still be nasty).

So here's the age old question: who is worse. Lawyers or Journalists? I think I'm getting my normie friends on the "journoscum is scum" side, but I'm curious if y'all Kiwis agree with this sentiment. We might be biased because of the US Today/Byuu BS right now, but lets see if we can look beyond that for this important question.

@AnOminous because we all know he's a True and Honest lawyer here. :P 😜🤪
 
Solution
AnOminous
Doctor of Journalism Hunter S. Thompson once stated the truest thing ever said about journalism.

"The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits—a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage."
Sort by date Sort by votes
naaaaiiiiillllll!!! said:
So here's the age old question: who is worse. Lawyers or Journalists? I think I'm getting my normie friends on the "journoscum is scum" side, but I'm curious if y'all Kiwis agree with this sentiment.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm biased, but journalists are worse. At some point in your life, you'll need a lawyer. I can't think of a single situation in reality where I'd ever say "wow I could really use a journalist right now."
 
Upvote 3 Downvote
Depends on how you define a journalist.
Mainstream journos are trash but these days, the "indie scene" is enormous with how easy it is to publish videos and articles.
Anybody with a Youtube channel who goes around filming events and interviewing people is a journalist, some of them are pretty good.
For example, i can't go to Brazil and witness some riots or whatever but I can watch videos by multiple indie journos who live there and get a good non-corporate view of things.

With lawyers... do we really need them?
Anybody can just study the law, it's available for anybody to learn.
Most people don't because it takes time but technically, we don't need a 3rd party to settle legal matters for us we just choose to use a 3rd party.
It's like eating in restaurants and ordering food in general - you can cook it yourself but most people are lazy.
I know i'm in the minority on this.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Journalists, lawyers at least can make bullshit into an art form.

Social media and the internet has certainly made any use that journalist had near redundant.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As much shit as lawyers get, they provide an essential service and typically do their best to represent their clients in the most positive light they can, even if that means being deceptive at times.
A journalist does provide an essential service on paper, but a lot of them are just partisan hacks vomiting the party line for a paycheck. They'd be politicians if they were competent.

In both cases: when they're good, they're great. A (morally) bad lawyer will lie to keep the guilty from punishment and the innocent oppressed. A bad journalist will lie to to destroy people's lives and keep the veil over the eyes of the public in cases of actual wrongdoing.
I'm gonna go for journalists here.
 
Upvote 2 Downvote
Lawyers are, at the very least, beholden to the interests of their clients, and chances are at some point in your life you are going to have to pay for the services of a lawyer. There are also regulations in place that at least theoretically hold lawyers to a certain standard of behavior and practice - if a lawyer fucks up, there is at least a system in place to bitch to someone about it and possibly get them disbarred.

Journalists, on the other hand, have nothing but disdain for normal people, have no financial obligation to provide truthful reporting to the best interest of the public, and whose only standard for quality is their own conscience (of which we know journos do not have). They have no incentive to act in our best interest, and face no consequences for refusing to do so. These two factors alone make them infinitely worse than lawyers, who can at least theoretically face consequences for their misdeeds.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Journalists hands down.

While cheap/scummy/sleazy lawyers exist, there are still good lawyers who get decent people out of bad shit, and make sure shitheads get what they deserve.
Meanwhile a decent journalist is a rarity, its an entire industry built on half-assed gaslighting (it might work if they weren't so blatant about it), not a semblance of anything resembling a peer-review process, and they have active disdain for us normies.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Doctor of Journalism Hunter S. Thompson once stated the truest thing ever said about journalism.

"The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits—a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage."
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom