Three cycles back:https://politi.co/2VK3jzI
Afficher cette discussion
There's a quadrennial journalism discussion around whether to vote or not. @peterbakernyt on why he doesn't https://nyti.ms/2wixqnw pic.twitter.com/9a0rbmZLNN
-
-
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
-
People died so that I can vote. So I vote.
-
My grandmother didn't get to vote until she was 36 and never missed an election for 50 years afterward. She taught me to never walk away from a responsibility.
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
"As epidemiologists, our job is to observe, not participate, and so to that end, I do not wash my hands."
-
Awful analogy.
- 4 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
So he will never make up his mind that one side can be right or wrong? Sounds helpful.
-
It's worse than that He has made up his mind, but he'll pretend he's objective and use the fig leaf of "I don't even vote" into tricking people into thinking he's objective, when he just plain isn't
- 1 réponse de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
That’s a disturbing quote. Goes a long way to explain the type of journalism that just passes along whatever a politician is saying without placing it in context or verifying.
-
That is absolutely wrong. It means they’re not stuck to the same ideologically-defined context. I admire
@peterbakernyt ‘s stand on this and think it makes him a more credible and rigorous reporter. - 2 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
This isn't neutral. We're in an environment where one party actively benefits when turnout is lower and that same party actively exploits the journalist religion of "not taking sides" to exploit crimes without consequence. Baker is taking is a pro-Republican position.
-
Very definitely the case.
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.