washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/medi…
Flatly asserting what “the core question” of any given topic is, rather than explaining how you arrived there, is a tell.
That is an unconvincing strawman, as indicated by most/might/something.
“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.
“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.
He’s a *senator*, not a flack, and he’s talking about a real-life law.
“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.”
So it is written.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't be so confident about the future of “prized real estate.”
I agree! But those concepts aren’t up-down policy switches. The issues are contested, thorny.