Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That’s the only comeback you’ll ever have to what he wrote.
You can’t get near it on substance. You can’t even try. And in a public square, you versus him? He’d scatter your teeth on this subject in a debate.
|
I think it's a stupid piece, mixing together a whole bunch of unrelated things, on some of which I completely agree with Taibbi and on others I think he is off the mark. What he really needs is an editor. His headline is about "the press" but then he also complains about "the left," which is music to your ears, I know.
On the fight between Lee Fang and Akela Lacy, why should we care? So lots of people liked a bad tweet.
"There were other incidents. The editors of Bon Apetit and Refinery29 both resigned amid accusations of toxic workplace culture." And this is bad? I've never heard of Refinery29 so I don't know why I should care, but I heard a lot of stuff about Bon Appetit and it sounds like the editor had it coming. So?
About Bennet, he says "The main thing accomplished by removing those types of editorials from newspapers — apart from scaring the hell out of editors — is to shield readers from knowledge of what a major segment of American society is thinking." Actually, many people said that Cotton's views should be covered by the Times as news. Then Times readers would know what he thinks. Taibbi doesn't seem to know that, suggesting that he has been shielding himself from what a major segment of American society is thinking. Also, Taibbi doesn't seem to know that Bennet admitted he never read Cotton's piece.
Quote:
These tensions led to amazing contradictions in coverage. For all the extraordinary/inexplicable scenes of police viciousness in recent weeks — and there was a ton of it, ranging from police slashing tires in Minneapolis, to Buffalo officers knocking over an elderly man, to Philadelphia police attacking protesters — there were also 12 deaths in the first nine days of protests, only one at the hands of a police officer (involving a man who may or may not have been aiming a gun at police).
Looting in some communities has been so bad that people have been left without banks to cash checks, or pharmacies to fill prescriptions; business owners have been wiped out (“My life is gone,” commented one Philly store owner); a car dealership in San Leandro, California saw 74 cars stolen in a single night. It isn’t the whole story, but it’s demonstrably true that violence, arson, and rioting are occurring.
However, because it is politically untenable to discuss this in ways that do not suggest support, reporters have been twisting themselves into knots. We are seeing headlines previously imaginable only in The Onion, e.g., “27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests in London.”
|
Where are the "amazing contradictions in coverage"? I have seen all of these things reported.
Get him an editor. That piece is a mess.
