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
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Now I’ll have to listen to the segment to see if it highlights serious criticisms and not “attack on trump” criticisms
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.