The money-shot is in the last paragraph: > That is the lesson of this entire saga. The New York Times defends themselves in the name of journalism. They are j

The money-shot is in the last paragraph: > That is the lesson of this entire saga. The New York Times defends themselves in the name of journalism. They are journalists they tell us, not religious propagandists. And with that declaration they reveal the truth: to be a journalist is to write, and to write, and seek credit for what you write even though you know nothing about those things which you write about. The point of a journalist is not to write your perspective as a member of a group, it is to write as one outside a group. This person was expecting the article/comment/tweet to be written as if from that group, and that is not journalism, that's more like a documentary. Imagine if all journalistic articles were written from the perspective within that group, would that really be a more informational and educational read? If you disagree with how journalism sees your particular group then perhaps it's time to think about if this is how that grouping is actually seen from the outside. If there is a clear dissonance between how you see your group and how it's seen from the outside, ask yourself why that is.