The author is being criticized for writing a paean to a virtue that he himself, as a shaper of NR's editorial vision, is manifestly not offering in his own pages.
But it is possible that this criticism rests on an assumption, an assumption that may or may not be correct: that the way entities like NR have decided to operate is a function of how they think the media *as a whole* should operate.
In other words, I don't know that we can reason backwards from "This is how NR chooses to do things: they basically only platform conservatives" to "This is how these NR architects think media as a whole should look like: only conservatives."
I think their narrow focus on *conservatism only* may instead be a function of what they see is lacking from the ecosystem. They see the liberal and leftist positions as being well covered already.
So they're happy to fit into their ideological skin more rigidly.
For example, the sites that do conservative reporting don't cover the breadth of issues that the "MSM" does—not because they lack the funds but because it's somewhat redundant.
The few sites that do genuine conservative reporting don’t tend to approach it from a parallel position to mainstream reporting. They approach it as a filling-in-the-gaps effort from the right. (Possibly, @thedispatch is an exception.)
The best way to view mainstream outlets is not as liberal ones, but as places populated by liberals, who are naturally going to veer in a liberal direction, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously.
Viewed this way, these publications aren't wittingly in the service of liberalism or progressivism, yet at the same time, elements of that orientation can’t help but act as a filter through which the journalistic operations are carried out.
In this sense, you could more accurately see conservative outlets as a desk within the larger mainstream media newsroom, like sports or entertainment, that exist to fill in the gaps and bring in eyes where there previously were blind spots.
So *of course* these conservative outlets are going to pursue stories conservative readers will want to read.
But they can still decry that *the system* is insufficiently open to a diversity of views—even while they themselves exclusively focus on conservative interests.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In a sense, this column articulates the other side of the pitch frequently made about what the promise of a Biden presidency would bring: the idea that Biden represented a recovery of the boringly normal.
I'm in favor of Trump's impeachment for lots of reasons.
One is that as we continue to be plagued by political movements that defiantly resist tethering themselves to reality, one thing we can no longer allow is for politicians to enable them without meaningful accountability.
Obviously legal accountability, like the kind Smartmatic and Dominion have pursued, provides a massive disincentive to engaging in defamatory nuttery.
But bad actors will learn from this. They'll smarten up. They'll steer clear of invoking specific companies in the future.
We need accountability that disinclines politicians from doing things like fomenting insurrectionist fantasies.
Mollie Hemingway is a genuinely despicable person. Never forget how utterly vile this crowd showed themselves to be.
To suggest that applying political accountability to a literal assault on our democracy is some sort of masturbatory lib fantasy is the kind of trash take that could only come from a person with a genuinely broken brain.
Stop wanking to this obvious political theater attempting to <checks notes> hold accountable the person who got five human beings killed and hundreds badly hurt.
“As I understand the science, masks should have taken our COVID death count to like three or four 100 year olds dead, total. The fact that we have half a million dead instead means they don’t work. Change my mind.”
One of the reasons Crowder’s “Change my mind” challenge is a sham is he would have to literally have a different brain, he would have to be a different person, for his mind to be changeable in the first place.
Now that I've written this piece, which includes a rousing call for those of us #onhere to be far more measured in the way we substantively criticize, I want to show the other side of the coin. The side that suggests we won't actually be able to do this.
One of my greatest concerns, for the ongoing viability of social media to function as a genuine platform for discussion, is that it may be too late to turn away from discourse catastrophism. Sometimes I fear there may be no remedy for it.
It's of course possible that I'm being too pessimistic. Couldn't we just learn to be more careful about the way we frame things? Couldn't we enter into a mutual pact of cross-partisan charitable engagement?