This article is a comprehensive failure. It illustrates the thesis that Republicans and Democrats can't "agree" on basic facts by pairing TRUE Dem claims with FALSE Republican claims, without making any effort to inform readers about what reality is. nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/…
Who's right, Mike Johnson, or Steve Cohen? The Times will only say they live in competing realities.
(Steve Cohen is correct.)
(Steve Cohen is correct.)
Who's right, Hank Johnson, or Matt Gaetz? Times readers will learn that they inhabit different factual universes.
Readers of my Twitter feed should know that Hank Johnson is right (and also that Gaetz is one of the most notoriously dishonest members of Congress).
Readers of my Twitter feed should know that Hank Johnson is right (and also that Gaetz is one of the most notoriously dishonest members of Congress).
Who's right, Biggs or Swalwell? The Times might say it's impossible to read Trump's mind, making this dispute unresolvable.
A real effort to inform consumers would make note of Trump's lengthy record of corruption/opposition to anticorruption efforts, and that Swalell is right.
A real effort to inform consumers would make note of Trump's lengthy record of corruption/opposition to anticorruption efforts, and that Swalell is right.
I get it: it's uncomfortable for reporters who fear bias accusations and must be able to build sources bases in both parties to just say it when one party is being dishonest and the other is not.
But there's only one impeachment process. It pertains to extremely serious accusations that have been proved. Trump can only be acquitted if a large number of Republicans decide to vote to absolve him for the conduct.
There is no alternate factual universe in which they are protecting someone innocent.
If journalists can't find the words to convey what's happening in the impeachment, they should find new lines of work. If outlets won't allow their reporters to convey it faithfully, they should get out of the news business.
It can be done.
