I find this kind of thing strange. I actually agree that Trump is a threat to democracy in the US, but that's a political opinion I hold - it's not a "story" that can be presented accurately and objectively in straight news reporting. It belongs in an editorial. /1
https://twitter.com/DAcemogluMIT/status/1807151243439075469
The thing is, the mainstream, US media have been editorializing along those lines for years now, with seemingly little effect. If anything, they've simply damaged their own credibility because it's reached the point where they appear biased and motivated by self-interest. /2
Perhaps there was no choice - it depends on your judgment of just how fundamental a threat you think he is. But there's no new "story" available that Trump is a threat to democracy (and to much else, such as global trade). /3
I can certainly understand that in even more extreme circumstances you might have to do everything possible to oppose a potential tyrant, even to the point of sacrificing other values such as accuracy and objectivity. /4
If a media corporation such as the New York Times went all the way to doing that, thereby further damaging its own credibility, perhaps forever, that would be its choice. It has that right. But it's a very risky business to take that decision. /5
Once such institutions act in that way, they destroy much of their value as trusted sources of accurate, objectively presented information about the world & I think our liberal democracies need such institutions. If we no longer have them, that's also a threat to democracy. /6
I'm not claiming to know the right answer here. Again, what other values you're prepared to risk might depend on just how big a threat you think Trump is. /7
But I do think there's been a certain degree of insouciance about throwing other things of value away, irrespective of how much is thereby lost and how effective it is likely to be in any event. /8ends
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
