Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
Who are you quoting?
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. |
Read Henry’s
In Defense of Elitism. I don’t disagree with the concept of lack of objectivity. I disagree with who should be considered elite.
Trump should certainly not, and nor should his staunchest detractors.
The media holds a candle for a competing idiocy. If you give me two idiocies and demand I pick, I pick a drink, and not voting.
