“Heated exchange”
White man yells at Black woman in a mixture of reactionary rage and bad faith, intending to undermine and sabotage her candidacy for a position for which she is supremely qualified; Black woman answers calmly and substantively. “Heated exchange.”
Just bizarre.
White man yells at Black woman in a mixture of reactionary rage and bad faith, intending to undermine and sabotage her candidacy for a position for which she is supremely qualified; Black woman answers calmly and substantively. “Heated exchange.”
Just bizarre.
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1506668797293432841
This is a major issue. This type of framing is not only factually inadequate, it also builds on and perpetuates the pervasive idea of #BothSides being to blame for “Washington” being a dysfunctional mess - a narrative that strongly privileges the Right’s assault on government.
It’s getting really hard for me to believe that there should still be people at these media outlets who are simply unaware of what they’re doing and oblivious to the disastrous effects. A lot more plausible to assume that this type of framing is the result of a deliberate choice.
I don’t think this type of active complicity in undermining a Black woman’s rise is necessarily the result of an individual decision to not make Lindsey Graham look bad - more the effect of a system that incentivizes #BothSides “balance” above all else.
What’s on display here is mainstream journalism’s eternal quest to achieve “balanced” coverage, its overwhelming desire to signal “nonpartisanship” - it’s the result of journalists following an ethos of “neutrality,” which they define as keeping equidistance from both sides.
If the goal were to cover, assess, and interpret this situation as objectively, accurately, and adequately as possible, this would never be described as a “heated exchange.” If, however, the overriding goal is to not be seen as “partisan,” then “heated exchange” works just fine.
The job should be to cover, describe, assess, and interpret politics as objectively, accurately, and adequately as possible. Under current circumstances, that task is very much in conflict with established norms of “neutrality,” “balance” and “nonpartisanship.” Make your choice.
Addendum: So. Very. Much This.
Excellent deep dive by @LarryGlickman into the distorting effects of this kind of euphemistic framing that is still so pervasive in mainstream media coverage.
Excellent deep dive by @LarryGlickman into the distorting effects of this kind of euphemistic framing that is still so pervasive in mainstream media coverage.
https://twitter.com/larryglickman/status/1506944199530270721
Every day brings more evidence that the mainstream media is happily being complicit in the reactionary project to undermine a Black woman’s rise if it allows them to frame the issue in accordance with their bizarre ideas of “neutrality” and “balance.” They are failing the public.
https://twitter.com/kirstenpowers/status/1506963035415588873
If your professional “values” won’t allow you to cover politics truthfully, in a factually adequate way, lead to such bizarre distortions, and keep you from acknowledging that one side is staging an unprovoked, utterly disingenuous assault, it’s time to ditch those values.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
