Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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 can't figure out what his point is. What's the criticism? It's a bunch of drive-by shootings on separate topics that other people have done more with.
Quote:
|
I'm still wondering, however, what is a "traditional" journalist?
|
Who are you quoting?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, or what crazy ideas you attribute to me.
I think your "objectivity" is a charade, a pretense that is used to hide choices being made by journalists, editors and publishers. When the New York Times pretends that it published Cotton to present all sides, it avoids acknowledging why it published Cotton instead of, say, another GOP Senator who didn't go to Harvard and isn't close to Bill Kristol, or why it presented those views unedited on its op-ed page instead of reporting on them. More generally, political reporting is full of all sorts of conventions that are designed out of a pretense of objectivity that is more about not making either party unhappy, especially Republicans, who constantly work the refs. When CNN reports that Trump is lying, you call them biased, because how can they know what Trump is thinking? But when CNN similarly reports on what Trump is thinking about trade policy, neither you nor anyone complaint that they can't really know what he's thinking. Trump lies constantly, as well all know, but you and so many others have some concept of "objectivity" that stands in the way of simple reporting on that objective truth.
Here's a good example. Another example that I'm sure you will agree with has to do with the contortions that reporters will go into in order to avoid saying that a cop hurt someone. Objectivity? Hardly.
