> 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

> 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.