The “liberal media” is not “tripping over themselves to talk about this like it’s some complicated issue”.
The Washington Post called bullshit:
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ruling is a remarkable win for Trump, whose lawyers have thrown longshot argument after longshot argument to dismiss the case. Other courts have rejected similar arguments to the one that he made in Florida about the legality of Smith’s appointment.
…
Cannon’s decision comes as Trump is preparing to be formally nominated as the Republican presidential nominee in this year’s election, with the Republican National Convention beginning in Milwaukee on Monday.
…
The legal theory that Smith was illegally appointed and funded has generally been considered far-fetched. Trump’s legal team didn’t adopt the argument in court until conservative legal groups pushed it.
This is as far as they can go in saying that “this decision is unhinged” while still maintaining their aura of objectivity. They’re not going to do it explicitly in the main article, that will come in the opinion pieces that will be released in a few hours, surely
Nowhere do they explicitly connect this to her political ideology. That’s exactly my point, they’re soft-selling it.
The liberal media (no quotes needed, they’re corporate neoliberal) refuses to actually call a spade a spade.
This is not a critical article, this is just them shrugging and being like “Oh, well, it seems like tenuous grounds for dismissal but thems the licks.”
Without intent to offend, perhaps neutral reporting isn’t for you. They reported all the facts and leave you to come up with your own opinion, which is a mark of high-quality journalism.
They are a news agency. They are not here to tell you what to think of the news. You want your news to tell you what to think. I want my news to tell me what happened and give me the information necessary to form my own opinion.
If they said explicitly or implied that she did this because of her ideology, even if that is likely true, that would not be unbiased.
This is an important detail often missed when discussing journalism, objectivity, bias, and, unfortunately, integrity. It’s a necessary piece of fabric that has been fraying for years. As another lemmy post some month ago put it, with the loss of the Cronkite era folks lost faith in the fourth estate.
The tragedy is that the stratification of news by party and by medium is that anything right of CNN, most of the fringe blogosphere, and nearly all of the AM stations is that they are presenting opinionated hot takes as journalistic facts. Moreover, this tends to galvanize an already consitent voter base. It seems like without an emotional appeal to resisting consrvative ideologues the rhetoric and relative baseline just keep slipping.
There is no such thing as neutral, unbiased reporting. Believing that there is is a mark of media illiteracy. Making the choice not to discuss the obvious conflict of interest is a choice, it is a form of bias. Journalists cannot be unbiased, that’s not a possibility with the job.
We should not be allowing a dismantling of our democracy because “you have to be fair to bothsides”.
On the one side, this man is accused of murdering 30 people. On the other side, he’s been called a lover of puppies. Let’s meet in the middle and say he’s a bad driver.
The “liberal media” is not “tripping over themselves to talk about this like it’s some complicated issue”.
The Washington Post called bullshit:
This is as far as they can go in saying that “this decision is unhinged” while still maintaining their aura of objectivity. They’re not going to do it explicitly in the main article, that will come in the opinion pieces that will be released in a few hours, surely
Nowhere do they explicitly connect this to her political ideology. That’s exactly my point, they’re soft-selling it.
The liberal media (no quotes needed, they’re corporate neoliberal) refuses to actually call a spade a spade.
This is not a critical article, this is just them shrugging and being like “Oh, well, it seems like tenuous grounds for dismissal but thems the licks.”
Without intent to offend, perhaps neutral reporting isn’t for you. They reported all the facts and leave you to come up with your own opinion, which is a mark of high-quality journalism.
They are a news agency. They are not here to tell you what to think of the news. You want your news to tell you what to think. I want my news to tell me what happened and give me the information necessary to form my own opinion.
If they said explicitly or implied that she did this because of her ideology, even if that is likely true, that would not be unbiased.
This is an important detail often missed when discussing journalism, objectivity, bias, and, unfortunately, integrity. It’s a necessary piece of fabric that has been fraying for years. As another lemmy post some month ago put it, with the loss of the Cronkite era folks lost faith in the fourth estate. The tragedy is that the stratification of news by party and by medium is that anything right of CNN, most of the fringe blogosphere, and nearly all of the AM stations is that they are presenting opinionated hot takes as journalistic facts. Moreover, this tends to galvanize an already consitent voter base. It seems like without an emotional appeal to resisting consrvative ideologues the rhetoric and relative baseline just keep slipping.
There is no such thing as neutral, unbiased reporting. Believing that there is is a mark of media illiteracy. Making the choice not to discuss the obvious conflict of interest is a choice, it is a form of bias. Journalists cannot be unbiased, that’s not a possibility with the job.
We should not be allowing a dismantling of our democracy because “you have to be fair to bothsides”.
On the one side, this man is accused of murdering 30 people. On the other side, he’s been called a lover of puppies. Let’s meet in the middle and say he’s a bad driver.
“Maintaining an aura of objectivity” is itself blatant pro-fascist bias!
“objectivity” is bullshit and will end up getting hundreds of millions of people killed.