3 ms·

If someone at reason is doing unbiased investigative serious journalism then they aren't doing their job because that's not what that organization does. It'd b

If someone at reason is doing unbiased investigative serious journalism then they aren't doing their job because that's not what that organization does. It'd be like an employee of McDonald's marketing department posting press releases about what a great choice meal prepping is from local farmers markets. A core, essential part of media literacy is understanding what the goals of the organization are and that the people working there are doing their job. Some do journalism and everyone else knows the value of wearing it as a costume.

skissane 2y ago
> If someone at reason is doing unbiased investigative serious journalism This article isn't claimed to to be "investigative journalism", it is a blog post. Judging it by the standards of "investigative journalism" is unfair, because it never claimed to be that. But is there any evidence that the factual (as opposed to matter of opinion) claims of the blog post are untrue? I haven't seen any. And NYTimes, WaPo, whatever, publish opinionated blog posts too (or at least they used to, blogging isn't what it once was.) And at least some of the "unbiased investigative serious journalism" they do publish turns out to be biased error-ridden hit pieces. > Some do journalism and everyone else knows the value of wearing it as a costume. The author of this blog post isn't a journalist and isn't claiming to be one. They are a lawyer posting about their own case. What's wrong with that?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Nothing's wrong with it. But don't take it as an overview of what the case is actually about, because it's not that. It's an overview of one side's position in the case, which is not at all the same thing.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > But don't take it as an overview of what the case is actually about, because it's not that. The focus of the blog post was not the case as a whole, it was to call out one specific argument made by a DOJ attorney in a legal brief. In fact, it quite explicitly eschews going into the ultimate point of the case ("The specifics of what the government claims Saine did wrong (in short: arcane labor law) are beside the point"). It isn't fair to judge the post as an "overview of what the case is actually about", because it was never attempting to be that.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      OK. But don't take it as a fair overview of what that one specific argument is about, either. A lawyer on a case, during the case, isn't going to give you a fair treatment of any aspect of the case - not in public.
      - skissane 2y ago
        It is an opinionated blog post. Who ever claimed it wasn’t? Of course a blog post by an attorney about a case they are actively involved in is not going to be entirely neutral and objective - and that’s not just true if they work for IJ or other libertarian or conservative-aligned lobby groups or “public interest law firms”, it is equally true if they work for ACLU or EFF or SPLC or Lambda Legal or whatever. Stating the obvious implies it isn’t obvious to others, but I don’t think that’s fair or true

skissane 2y ago

> If someone at reason is doing unbiased investigative serious journalism This article isn't claimed to to be "investigative journalism", it is a blog post. Judging it by the standards of "investigative journalism" is unfair, because it never claimed to be that. But is there any evidence that the factual (as opposed to matter of opinion) claims of the blog post are untrue? I haven't seen any. And NYTimes, WaPo, whatever, publish opinionated blog posts too (or at least they used to, blogging isn't what it once was.) And at least some of the "unbiased investigative serious journalism" they do publish turns out to be biased error-ridden hit pieces. > Some do journalism and everyone else knows the value of wearing it as a costume. The author of this blog post isn't a journalist and isn't claiming to be one. They are a lawyer posting about their own case. What's wrong with that?

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Nothing's wrong with it. But don't take it as an overview of what the case is actually about, because it's not that. It's an overview of one side's position in the case, which is not at all the same thing.
- skissane 2y ago
  > But don't take it as an overview of what the case is actually about, because it's not that. The focus of the blog post was not the case as a whole, it was to call out one specific argument made by a DOJ attorney in a legal brief. In fact, it quite explicitly eschews going into the ultimate point of the case ("The specifics of what the government claims Saine did wrong (in short: arcane labor law) are beside the point"). It isn't fair to judge the post as an "overview of what the case is actually about", because it was never attempting to be that.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    OK. But don't take it as a fair overview of what that one specific argument is about, either. A lawyer on a case, during the case, isn't going to give you a fair treatment of any aspect of the case - not in public.
    - skissane 2y ago
      It is an opinionated blog post. Who ever claimed it wasn’t? Of course a blog post by an attorney about a case they are actively involved in is not going to be entirely neutral and objective - and that’s not just true if they work for IJ or other libertarian or conservative-aligned lobby groups or “public interest law firms”, it is equally true if they work for ACLU or EFF or SPLC or Lambda Legal or whatever. Stating the obvious implies it isn’t obvious to others, but I don’t think that’s fair or true