that divvies up the responsibility this way normally, I think it's reasonable for that to be the way they work. 2/2
-
-
Replying to @wycats
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg @wycats
In any case, on the other issue, my point is just that I think perspectives should be transparent, & the "news" label isn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg @wycats
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg @wycats
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg
I don't think it does, and I think this kind of attitude from the left fuels the
#AlternativeFacts point of view.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
That's total nonsense. I insist on actual facts all the time. That doesn't mean pretending that "news" reporting is objective.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BenSpielberg
no air-quotes news reporting ATTEMPTS to be objective. This is a real thing that differentiates NYT/WSJ from Breitbart.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
I obviously agree that most of what Breitbart produces is garbage. But The Intercept is also much more responsible than the NYT.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
sorry, I should delete that, but I think your bias is showing.
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.