Funny how a reporter can just write that political figures “will have to contend with” an image, without noting that journalists themselves would play a fundamental role in forcing any such “contending.”
Editorial choices don’t make themselves, you know.
Editorial choices don’t make themselves, you know.
https://twitter.com/thebradmielke/status/1426990363462537219
Narratives don’t just materialize. They’re in part the product of biases that journalists may not have acknowledged, let alone critiqued — such as looking at 20 years of botched nation building and deciding to hold Biden personally responsible for that effort’s failure.
See how this scribe blames the chaos in Kabul on voters’ naïveté—laying the failure of the Afghan gov’t at the feet of those who grump about ‘forever wars’?
That’s a choice: a decision to make this tragedy about a failure of ‘resolve,’ rather than a poorly thought-out mission.
That’s a choice: a decision to make this tragedy about a failure of ‘resolve,’ rather than a poorly thought-out mission.
https://twitter.com/declanwalsh/status/1426783561483530240
As the thread below documents, reporters and news orgs have long overlooked their role, as observers, in shaping how America “contends with” wars.
Even at the outset, news orgs approached the “forever wars” by effacing the case against them. Plus ça change …
Even at the outset, news orgs approached the “forever wars” by effacing the case against them. Plus ça change …
https://twitter.com/peteddavis/status/1427010475699675137
“Republicans have an opportunity to turn America’s longest war into something Democrats own” — okay, why?
Why adopt this storyline, which makes a foreground of partisanship rather than focusing on the facts of the conflict? That’s a choice — a perverse one.
Why adopt this storyline, which makes a foreground of partisanship rather than focusing on the facts of the conflict? That’s a choice — a perverse one.
https://twitter.com/byamberphillips/status/1427283154398814214
Journalism is a profession in which one must impartially assess facts, without bias or favor skewing one’s observations in any way. And now, let’s look at Afghanistan, wher–
https://twitter.com/glennkesslerwp/status/1427336922352001029
At WaPo, per a recent memo, newsroom staff only appear in the public square as witnesses and observers. They can attend Pride observations, march in Puerto Rican Day parades — or strongly imply, apparently, that the Afghanistan war was winnable and good.
https://twitter.com/maxwelltani/status/1389301664482533378
Hm … according to whom? Why? Who, precisely, has decided that the last week’s events reflect on the president’s competence?
https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1427336918702899207
Look: I’m practiced at implying, when I write neutrally, what I don’t want to state outright. It’s a skill I appreciate.
If journalists believe that the Afghanistan war was actually winnable and good, however, it would be of service to their audiences if they would just say so.
If journalists believe that the Afghanistan war was actually winnable and good, however, it would be of service to their audiences if they would just say so.
https://twitter.com/richardengel/status/1427361468501172226
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
