When Radley tweeted this, I hadn’t read Margaret Sullivan’s piece, and was in the middle of my usual Monday madness. I now have a bit of time, so will talk a bit about why I don’t like it.
washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/medi…
washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/medi…
The hinge of her argument comes in two parts. 1) “The core question is this: In this polarized, dangerous moment, what are journalists supposed to be?”
Flatly asserting what “the core question” of any given topic is, rather than explaining how you arrived there, is a tell.
Flatly asserting what “the core question” of any given topic is, rather than explaining how you arrived there, is a tell.
2) “Pose that question to most members of the public, and you might get an answer something like this: ‘Just tell me the bare facts. Leave your interpretation out of it. And don’t be on anyone’s side.’”
That is an unconvincing strawman, as indicated by most/might/something.
That is an unconvincing strawman, as indicated by most/might/something.
Yes, there are *some* people who will say they desire a just-the-facts approach to journalism. But that is hardly the prevailing public critique of modern elite journalism, nor is it indicated by consumer preferences. She spends the rest of the column bravely boxing this shadow.
And I do mean battering that straw pinata:
“That’s why the simplistic ‘just the unadorned facts’ can be such a canard. And that’s why the notion to ‘represent all points of view equally’ is absurd and sometimes wrongheaded.”
Note the quotation marks.
“That’s why the simplistic ‘just the unadorned facts’ can be such a canard. And that’s why the notion to ‘represent all points of view equally’ is absurd and sometimes wrongheaded.”
Note the quotation marks.
Look, the piss-take against the false journalistic God of “objectivity” (a word, thankfully, you almost never hear anymore) is older than I am, and I was born when LBJ was president. This critique isn’t stale, it’s mummified. The world has changed significantly since then.
This right here is just embarrassing:
“Should the denialist views of, say, Alex Jones of Infowars on the Sandy Hook massacre be given a prestigious platform, too?”
Literally no one is arguing anything remotely like this, which you would think a top media critic would know.
“Should the denialist views of, say, Alex Jones of Infowars on the Sandy Hook massacre be given a prestigious platform, too?”
Literally no one is arguing anything remotely like this, which you would think a top media critic would know.
“But Cotton is a prominent political figure, you say? By that logic, the lies of White House adviser Kellyanne Conway should be welcomed on news-discussion shows daily because she’s close to the president.”
He’s a *senator*, not a flack, and he’s talking about a real-life law.
He’s a *senator*, not a flack, and he’s talking about a real-life law.
Her idea, tellingly posited:
“What if we framed coverage with this question at the forefront: What journalism best serves the real interests of American citizens? Make decisions with that in mind, and at least some of the knotty problems get smoothed out.”
“What if we framed coverage with this question at the forefront: What journalism best serves the real interests of American citizens? Make decisions with that in mind, and at least some of the knotty problems get smoothed out.”
On one level, this *kind* of thinking animates my personal approach: What’s the best way to use my meager talents to make the world a marginally better or at least smarter place? On another, 1) who am I to determine “the real interests of American citizens,” and 2) “smoothed”???
“Using that lens, Cotton’s views should be known, but not amplified and normalized within the prized real estate that is the op-ed page of the New York Times.”
So it is written.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't be so confident about the future of “prized real estate.”
So it is written.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't be so confident about the future of “prized real estate.”
“It’s more than acceptable,” she writes, that journalists “should stand up for civil rights — for press rights, for racial justice, for gender equity and against economic inequality.”
I agree! But those concepts aren’t up-down policy switches. The issues are contested, thorny.
I agree! But those concepts aren’t up-down policy switches. The issues are contested, thorny.
I have been writing for three decades that elite journalism should be more open & honest about its POV, in the ever-elusive search for something approaching truth. That does not mean I like mediocre arguments from overpraised columnists who dismiss worldviews unlike their own. /
