3 ms·
Sure that's great. There was clearly plagiarism. But the topic at hand is a partisan dispute about a cartoonist quitting because she can't run an anti-trump c
by gotoeleven 2y ago
Sure that's great. There was clearly plagiarism. But the topic at hand is a partisan dispute about a cartoonist quitting because she can't run an anti-trump cartoon and you're saying the wapo is terrible because it is both-sidesing all the time, with the clear implication that wapo should be more often calling foul on whatever trump is doing rather than reporting on both sides. So I'm asking, where is all this both-sidesy, faux-fair, reporting on trump from the wapo or any mainstream media outlet that is so heinous?
Trumps first term was non stop media driven hoaxes, from russia russia to the hunter biden laptop. Reporters at these places clearly start with what they want you to believe, and then present some mishmash of fact-ish sounding language to try to get you to think it. Arguing that the media was too both-sidesy to trump makes me honestly wonder what the heck you are talking about.
- davidw 2y agoHere's an article from Margaret Sullivan that goes into the details of one recent example of "both sides" from the NYT: https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/an-ugly-case-of-false-balance-in https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/an-ugly-case-of-fals... But it's hardly isolated. Once you start to see it, you start to realize how pervasive it is in a lot of reporting. As above, it's the kind of thing that makes sense when you have two sides who, looking at the same facts, have different opinions on them. But when one side is rapidly divorcing itself from the facts, well... it's become a problem.