Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
Where are the "amazing contradictions in coverage"? I have seen all of these things reported.
Get him an editor. That piece is a mess.
|
On the lack of editing, I agree with you. It is too lengthy and pulls in items best discussed in separate stand alone pieces.
But as one of the few people writing the critiques he does, I'll take what I can get. If Taibbi gets hit by a bus tomorrow, the criticism he's offering near entirely disappears from public view.
I'm still wondering, however, what is a "traditional" journalist? I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you were suggesting there are now more enlightened newsrooms where objectivity cedes to the important narratives that progressive journalists want to emphasize, and anything that challenges them is potentially offensive.
