I understand that everyone has already dunked on this, but I am still trying to wrap my head around a Covid reporter for the NYT actually thinking this and then tweeting it out. It seems like it shouldn’t be possible to be this professionally incurious.
“Is that code beyond just calling me a clown?”
😂😂😂😂😂
Oof
I feel like I need to tweet an obligatory defense of the NYT since so many people use occasions like this to draw unwarranted conclusions about the publication. The paper has generally covered Covid exceptionally well.
People who say things like this tip their hand that they don’t actually do the reading. They don’t actually read journalism; they just talk about it. In the past year alone, I must have read over one hundred fantastic Covid write-ups from non-McNeil writers at the NYT.
I agree it’s incorrect to say the U.S. is intrinsically racist, but “it had to struggle its way out racism that existed when it was founded” is an indefensible whitewashing of the way in which the American founding intentionally weaved white supremacy into its social design.
Where’s the agency? Lindsay talks about the American founding as if it featured heroes of incorruptible character battling a hostile universe’s vile attempts to saddle it with the evils of slavery. Maybe the founding wasn’t a Marvel movie.
What are you talking about?
Of course the founding era contained "aspirations to rise above it." I never denied that.
My biggest problem with fake analysts like Skip Bayless is that their entire approach is to support pre-formed takes with cherry-picked statistics. It's the perfect grift because sports furnishes us with an opportunity to do just that, if we're shameless enough to try it.
In baseball especially, but also in basketball, football, hockey, and even soccer, there is always going to be some stat, some aspect of the game, that can be deployed to show that a player hasn't been flawless.
These are sports with enough statistical categories, with enough competitive complexity, that you can always isolate some statistic to fit a pre-formed narrative.
What Bayless does is the shock jock equivalent of p hacking.
Anyone who voted against certifying the 2020 election results should be permanently disqualified from serving as election officials in the future.
This is madness.
Of course, this minimal standard of election integrity is too reasonable to be implemented. So instead we get anti-democracy partisan superhacks positioning themselves to preside over our future elections. Not great.
Some galaxy craniums have read my opening tweet really weirdly. I am not saying voting against certification is always disqualifying. Nor am I saying these people should be barred from office.
News orgs engender trust from readers by projecting their capacity to reliably produce reporting that is accurate and fair. The world is fantastically complex, which means readers want it analyzed, and want to make sure it's being done from an intellectually honest vantage point.
I am generally against news organizations dropping personnel over political tweets, but you have to be completely ignorant of psychology to believe that a reporter publicly telegraphing his politics *isn’t* going to compromise his ability to convey impartiality in his reporting.
<tweets 10 things in a row about Israel being divinely mandated to destroy its enemies and Palestine being an evil people who are completely in the wrong>
<next day>
"Folks, here's my new report trying to make sense of the latest Israel-Palestine dust up."
Absolutely shambolic thread that slimes @conor64 throughout and fundamentally misunderstands the nature and role of objectivity in opinion writing. Completely embarrassing analysis here.
Warner tries to argue for the journalistic superiority of what he calls "illumination" (a posture he attributes to Serwer) over "objectivity" (which he says Friedersdorf tries but fails to achieve). But set this distinction, and the notion of "objectivity," aside for a second.
Both Serwer and Friedersdorf are attempting to analyze the episode correctly. If you ask Serwer if he's striving to get an accurate read of the situation, he'd say yes. Same with Friedersdorf. Their pieces are their best attempt at correctly evaluating the episode in question.