,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ This article should be taught as a case study in the Cult of Both Sides & how poorly it serves journalism nyti.ms/2zuTx6l
2/ Let’s start with the first sentence
“Blame it on”... actual humans, not leaders w/ names, but rather something nobody can object to.
“Blame it on”... actual humans, not leaders w/ names, but rather something nobody can object to.
3/ political guardrails have come off, wiped out by “distrust on all sides.” Any particular people responsible? They have names? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
4/ Or wait, how about let’s just blame the “acid political climate”?
5/ The Cult of Both Sides also means avoiding the centrality of race.
6/ In Cult of Both Sides, underlying facts are secondary to the narrative
Eg. Wilson didn’t speak it bc of facts but bc she’s “resistance”
Eg. Wilson didn’t speak it bc of facts but bc she’s “resistance”
7/ Now in fairness, the piece does flag Kelly’s false statements. And, as always, the kicker is a tell about the writer really stands.
8/ Problem isn’t the writer. It’s the conceit: journalism predicated on avoiding *perception of bias* is often journalism that avoids facts
9/ I actually think there’s a better way — and it’s about not letting your opinions fly. It’s kinda my golden rule: be evidence-based.
10/ Rather than mushy writing based on fear of “bias,” follow the rule of writing based on evidence. Video shows Kelly BS’d? Great, say it!
11/ The truth is Cult of Both Sides, the conceit of objectivity, is slowly...dying. Social media is one reason. The Q is what replaces it
12/ My sugg for new god: evidence. including what I think @davidfolkenflik has dubbed “earned conclusions.” Assessment based on evidence.
13/ I’ve been noodling for, oh say, 11 months, on writing a column or essay laying this stuff out. And now, maybe I will. THE END.
P.S. Meant to screenshot this. Curious to assert Wilson spoke out not b/c of facts but b/c..."resistance" nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/…
