I think it's reasonable to work on a story that you believe is "hard news" in a context that discourages casual opinions. I think it's 1/
that divvies up the responsibility this way normally, I think it's reasonable for that to be the way they work. 2/2
-
-
Understood, but that just gets back to my point that, when you're editing, it's not hard at all to also ask about the title.
-
In any case, on the other issue, my point is just that I think perspectives should be transparent, & the "news" label isn't.
-
Aspiring to be as objective as possible is great - I shoot for that! - but I should still let you know where I'm coming from.
-
The label of "news" lulls readers into a false sense of security when the bias could be noted; that's the point I'm making.
-
I don't think it does, and I think this kind of attitude from the left fuels the
#AlternativeFacts point of view. -
That's total nonsense. I insist on actual facts all the time. That doesn't mean pretending that "news" reporting is objective.
-
no air-quotes news reporting ATTEMPTS to be objective. This is a real thing that differentiates NYT/WSJ from Breitbart.
-
I obviously agree that most of what Breitbart produces is garbage. But The Intercept is also much more responsible than the NYT.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
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.