Just heard an NPR promo for a segment on the 1619 Project that went something like "Some say it's important. Some say it's an insult." Reminded me that both-sides-ism isn't always about fake balance. Sometimes it's about creating the appearance of controversy for clicks/ratings
-
your point about critics feels broader, and the anti-vax comparison is not apt. this isn’t a question of testable science, and the argument the nyt is making is new. it therefore bears a burden of proof.
seems the question you are really asking is “should journalists care about people who are wrong?” but you assume there is a “right side” in this extremely nuanced conversation. npr is merely accepting the nuance and trying to report. hard, important job, and i respect it honestly
-
-
You’re right, it’s a deliberate attempt to challenge popular understandings of US history. But I haven’t seen any serious disagreements with NYT’s framing, just a lot of unserious ones (“an attack on Trump,” etc.) maybe you’ve seen more thoughtful ones
-
Yeah it's true. I haven't seen any serious, thoughtful rebuttals. Most are of the quality that Newt Gingrich gave on Fox the other day--very weak
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Now I’ll have to listen to the segment to see if it highlights serious criticisms and not “attack on trump” criticisms
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.