,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I love how a new barometer of “how much are you criticized” has emerged, and it’s taken as a judgment of the media rather than a judgment of how terrible the criticized person is.
I mean, Charles Manson was widely criticized in the media in the 60s and 70s. Coverage as close to 100% negative as you could get. Does that show media bias? Or media accuracy?
Would it have been LESS biased to strive for positive stories about Charles Manson as putative fairness and balance? Or would that have been MORE biased - because trying to make terrible people’s coverage “balanced” distorts the truth that they’re terrible?
And dangerous.
Unlike this Fitton character, I believe that it is our media’s duty to tell us when terrible and dangerous people are terrible and dangerous. And that it is biased to put a thumb on the scale of deception by planting puff pieces on a dangerous person.
