3 ms·
Whatever this is, it is not objective journalism. "It is one thing to swing and miss on a major story. Unfortunately, it happens. You follow the wrong leads, y
by chasil 3y ago
Whatever this is, it is not objective journalism.
"It is one thing to swing and miss on a major story. Unfortunately, it happens. You follow the wrong leads, you get misled by sources you trusted, you’re emotionally invested in a narrative, and bits of circumstantial evidence never add up. It’s bad to blow a big story.
"What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas, no self-reflection. Especially when you expect high standards of transparency from public figures and institutions, but don’t practice those standards yourself. That’s what shatters trust and engenders cynicism about the media."
EDIT: NPR is presenting to us information, masquerading as objective journalism, that is not. There is a certain amount of groupthink that maintains this functional fascade.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoIt's clearly an opinion piece. Why do you hold that to the standard of "objective journalism"? It seems to me to be at least relatively thoughtful and honest.
- delichon 3y agoIt sounds like an opinion piece and looks like one. It's on a site that specializes in opinion essays. Is there something wrong with that? I don't see any misrepresentation here.
- richrichie 3y agoIt is true though? The Russia collusion story is the biggest hoax of my lifetime. There is no remorse, no post mortem by any credentialed journalist who peddled that hoax for years.
- nullindividual 3y agoWhich Russian collusion with the Republicans are you speaking of? There are simply so many!
- chasil 3y agoThe original was the Steel document/dossier. Most likely flow from it. The Finn prosecution might be an exception.
- nullindividual 3y agoOh right, that document with confirmed information that Trump and Putin have close ties and Putin's Russia actively attempted to influence the 2016 election, backed by US Intelligence and various legal investigations/cases.
- chasil 3y agoOn the question of truths in the document, from the wiki: "Some have been publicly confirmed, others are plausible but not specifically confirmed, and some are dubious in retrospect but not strictly disproven." Why was this fit to publish, while the laptop details were not? There was no objectivity here. It is possible that such objectivity is gone forever. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
- richrichie 3y agoList 2.
- qwertyuiop_ 3y agoThe one where Obama, Clinton and others planted and got the ball rolling https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russia-trump-collusion-investigation/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russia-trump-c...