Every major political journalist has heard the cries of protest about both-sides coverage. They're all aware of it & aware of the problems with it. But they also know that if they turn on it, they will face social & professional sanction from other journos, editors, VSPs.
The crappy truth is that, from a purely business point of view, both-sides is probably the smart strategy. Normies love it. More to the point, clearly identifying responsible parties would probably lose readers & generate political heat, and who needs that?
This is just a subset of a larger problem: journalism has been disaggregated & exposed more & more to market forces, and honest, in-depth, courageous journalism *is not a particularly smart biz strategy*.
Consumers might "want" more substantive & challenging journalism in some abstract sense, the same way they want to lose weight & exercise more, but if the market is run by in-the-moment clicks, it's going to be prior-affirming that wins.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
