I appreciate the response! And my response here is: If you write a story about a theory, you have a responsibility to grapple with the substance of the theory.
Imagine writing a puff piece about Alex Berenson and his bold struggle to convince the world that vaccines don't work.
Imagine writing a puff piece about Alex Berenson and his bold struggle to convince the world that vaccines don't work.
https://twitter.com/jeannasmialek/status/1490719201648070664
No, I don't expect economics reporters to deeply understand these theories. But if you're writing about a theory, good reporting requires getting information about the theory from someone other than its leading proponent!
Just as you wouldn't take your info about antivaxers' theories directly from Alex Berenson if you were writing about antivaxers, you should call up some macroeconomists and ask them about MMT when writing a big feature story on MMT. It is simply the required due diligence.
I simply think it's journalistically inappropriate to write a narrative piece about the hero's journey of the leading proponent of a theory without addressing - or even learning much about - the theoretical debate! I believe the New York Times should not do that.
(end)
(end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
