Thread by @ericuman

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.

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”

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/…