3 ms·

I get the idea, but I just fundamentally disagree with it. Writers who don't make efforts to maintain partisan neutrality will inevitably leave major gaps in th

I get the idea, but I just fundamentally disagree with it. Writers who don't make efforts to maintain partisan neutrality will inevitably leave major gaps in their readers' understanding of the world, because they won't be able to help readers understand perspectives the writers don't personally agree with. For a concrete example, there was a recent initiative in my state (California Prop 16) which was reasonably unpopular and ended up losing by a 14 point margin. But most journalists strongly favored it, and reported from that perspective - they didn't want to buy into the "view from nowhere". So a lot of my news-consuming friends had no idea there was honest, well-intentioned opposition to it, and to this day I see people argue the voters must have just been confused.

lazulicurio 6y ago
> For a concrete example, there was a recent initiative in my state (California Prop 16) which was reasonably unpopular and ended up losing by a 14 point margin. But most journalists strongly favored it, and reported from that perspective - they didn't want to buy into the "view from nowhere". So a lot of my news-consuming friends had no idea there was honest, well-intentioned opposition to it, and to this day I see people argue the voters must have just been confused. I think that Rosen would agree that that's bad reporting. Dispensing with the "view from nowhere" isn't about discarding arguments from all but a favored side. It's about discarding "neutral" framing devices that don't inform the reader (such as the "he said/she said" and the "horse race"). "X said A. Y said B" is factual and neutral, but it doesn't help the reader develop a deeper understanding of the parties involved or the topics at hand.