Journalism schools should teach this article as a egregious example of false equivalence in an age of asymmetric polarization. The reporter & editors do not provide sufficient context nor verification to inform the public, rendering “both sides” the same. nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/… 
Compare to @isaacstanbecker’s piece, focused on the social media bubble of illiberalism surrounding the impeachment hearings, which accurately reports on the dynamic of facts vs partisan distraction, deflection, & furor washingtonpost.com/politics/fact-… False equivalency masks this dynamic
I'd flag this to a public editor, if the Times had one. (Sadly, @sulliview has left the building.)
The @NYTimes did neither itself nor the public favors by reporting out the dynamics of impeachment this way. Making "both sides" equivalent in this debate implicitly favors the GOP.
The @NYTimes did neither itself nor the public favors by reporting out the dynamics of impeachment this way. Making "both sides" equivalent in this debate implicitly favors the GOP.
@Sulliview @nytimes Meta Coda: Journalism professors may note AN egregious error I made with the article in the first tweet. It's a painful reminder that everyone needs an editor, and to seriously consider reading every paragraph out loud before you hit send.
@Sulliview @nytimes "But if the passion was similar, the substance was not."– @shearm
This should be the focus of the analysis. Bad faith distraction, deflection & outright lies shouldn't be contrasted in quotes from "both sides." Editors should cite facts in-line linking to documentary evidence.
This should be the focus of the analysis. Bad faith distraction, deflection & outright lies shouldn't be contrasted in quotes from "both sides." Editors should cite facts in-line linking to documentary evidence.
This journalism professor (whose class I've visited: pressthink.org/2014/11/how-to…) concisely pulled out all of the rhetorical tells to illustrate how asymmetric political polarization has bedeviled the @NYTimes:
