I feel like the current political situation in the US is going to accelerate the demise of traditional media. They have not been able to adapt to a changing information landscape and were stuck on models that worked in the past, like "both sides"ing issues sort of reflexively. That works great with a lot of things like "how much should we tax companies?", but not so much for some more fundamental questions like whether someone supports democracy.
I'm not sure what will emerge in its place. It's a big problem, and has hit hardest and first among local newspapers which are increasingly hollowed out husks of their former selves. This has a real cost to society that's actually quantifiable in dollars and cents:
Things like social media don't really take the place of people paid to do the hard work of, say, sitting through local city council meetings and making sense of what's happening there. A friend of mine tried doing that for fun and it lasted a few years, but he got burned out because of the tremendous amount of work.
> stuck on models that worked in the past, like "both sides"ing issues sort of reflexively. That works great with a lot of things like "how much should we tax companies?", but not so much for some more fundamental questions like whether someone supports democracy.
As someone who worked for years as an investigative reporter, I feel like this comment fundamentally misunderstands what it is that journalistic organizations strive to do.
Generally speaking, the goal is to report the facts about newsworthy events. They are not trying to tell people what to think, or even what the reporter thinks. That is what opinion pieces and editorials are for.
Would you be more specific about what you think should be done differently? For example, in reporting about whether someone supports democracy?
Generally speaking, the goal is to report the facts
about newsworthy events. They are not trying to tell
people what to think
I think (good) reporters are going to do this in the micro, yeah.
Taking a slightly broader view, though, surely we can see that there is a myriad of implicit editorialization in any publication, no matter how factual they are.
There can be no "neutral" media because the people controlling it still make a wide range of choices regarding those facts. They make choices regarding which stories and beats receive funding and staffing, the presentation of those facts (which stories are at the top of page 1, which ones are buried on page 83 next to the obituaries?) and which facts are not reported.
Imagine a newspaper that only investigates the private lives of Political Party A, looking for fraud or salacious incidents. We then draw attention to them and put them "above the fold." We do not tell lies either privately or publicly and follow strict journalistic guidelines. You can see where this is going: the catch is that we never investigate Political Party B. Not exactly a balanced presentation of the truth, even though we never lie.
For example, having a debate about climate change with one scientist from each side of the debate is insane because there's scientific consensus on only one side of that debate. Trying to cast equal light on both sides of a topic tips the scale in favor of the minority opinion.
Or take some reporting about DT's insane idea to take over Greenland, treating it like a legitimate idea and polling people about their thoughts just further legitimatizes absolute insanity.
Let's look at the coverage of California's requirement that Type 48 license holders provide drug testing kits to patrons. Because the article/reporter wanted to provide a look into both sides of the issue (those who like the requirementand those who don't) they included this quote:
"While I've heard about drink spiking, I suspect that it's extremely rare, at least here in the Palm Desert area."
If the reporter had been providing all the facts, they would have immediately followed that with the rate of occurrence of drink spiking. If it was "extremely rare", they could have then followed up with a government official's thoughts on why the requirement is necessary even if the drink spiking is "extremely rare".
There was no such information provided, leaving the reader with one man's opinion that is clearly only conjecture but given credibility by being included in the article. In an effort to present both sides, but surely on a deadline that prevented proper research, they left the reader with the idea that drink spiking is rare and that the government is simply overreaching.
I didn't know what the OP meant about "both siding" but I feel like the biggest problem is the lack of journalism, the lack of "report the facts."instead it is about supporting a particular narrative, about reporting only the facts that lend to that narrative, even going so far as to manufacturer them.
As far as local newspapers, they just lost the ad war.
> Would you be more specific about what you think should be done differently? For example, in reporting about whether someone supports democracy?
No, because I'm not a news person myself. I can see there's a problem, but I don't know how to fix it; I don't know the job or the business behind it well enough.
I'd look to people like Jay Rosen and Margaret Sullivan for good critiques and perhaps some suggestions of what should be done differently.
But it's tricky! Because not only is the reporting part of it struggling right now, the whole business aspect is in trouble as well, which compounds problems - like I mentioned with local news. And once again, I have no idea how anyone fixes that. Perhaps some enterprising person on Hacker News will figure out something that works, although I suspect it's more of a people problem than a technology one.
Facts are uninteresting. Our highly empirical world produces more facts by the minute, and people get a natural resistance. You can line up 10 facts and maybe indicate some truth. Viewers can come up with 10 different fact (a fact for them at least) against this. It is the narrative that forms opinions. Single impactful facts can move public opinion, but to produce those you don't need some big conglomerate with hundreds of employees.
> They are not trying to tell people what to think, or even what the reporter thinks.
There is increasingly small amount of venues with this kind of attitude (regional TV or some EU state media comes to mind) and besides this never being really true (what is report-worthy?) it's so mind numbingly boring that no wonder it's dying out. In a world where people can customize content 100% to their preference it is a naive concept.
> the goal is to report the facts about newsworthy events
The main point remains -- who is going to do this now, with local news a shell of its former self, and national news orgs circling the drain, and tech companies caring about clicks (and click-bait "news").
> Generally speaking, the goal is to report the facts about newsworthy events.
I disagree; I think "reporting the facts" has taken somewhat of a backseat in journalism these days. Instead, it is much more just "this is what each side says"; while one might argue that, yes, the quote of what each side said is itself a fact, it's a pretty poor quality fact, worse than witness testimony since the witnesses aren't under oath and if politicians, are well known to be unreliable. Worse, it feels as if it doesn't matter if one side is uttering absolute bullshit, it just gets quoted & printed, giving equal weight to each side's statements regardless of how absurd it might be. And because the truth is usually harder to put pithily and often takes longer to even determine, it usually loses out, and it becomes competition of "who can scream the loudest?" or first, or the most convincingly. (“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”)
Deeper questions such as "what does science say?" or "what are the actual facts" (not just what people say the facts are) or "what would someone knowledgeable in these matters ask about this situation?" are left unreported.
(And yes, I acknowledge that science itself can have inherent bias, or come to an erroneous result. But are you asking a physicist about the physics, or are you asking a politician about the physics? Are you making an attempt to get beyond the sound bite and determine the actual nuance to the topic, or is it the same "A screams A, B screams B" stances & the societal debate on the topic shall go nowhere?)
> They are not trying to tell people what to think, or even what the reporter thinks.
But by simply quoting people without putting things into the context of facts, the media becomes a mouthpiece for those being quoted, usually politicians. No, the reporting isn't telling us what to think, the politician is.
For example, in one topic that I'm knowledgeable on¹, journalists routinely print what are lies, full stop, from one of the political parties. Now, again, "X say Y" is technically a fact, and could be printed. But I've seen it followed up with "Science has no evidence about Y" — which is patently false, and is at best a confused conclusion by the reporter (science has a strong result about Y — Y does not occur; but you if write "there is no evidence about Y", people read that as "we don't know", but we do know, and it's ¬Y.)
Let's take another example, where I'm not an expert: the recent Korean air crash. Reading the reporting left me wondering things like "Why did the EMAS not arrest the aircraft? How did a bird strike take out the landing gear? If, e.g., there was a hydraulics failure in the landing gear, why did they not gravity drop the landing gear? ATC transcripts?" I saw no reporting even questioning any of those things; most of it was surface level: a crash occurred, here's the death toll thus far.
Even simpler: 9/10 times a court is involved, there's no link to the ruling. Or, quite often, I can be reading article A, which makes claim 1, and I think "claim 1 is a surprising claim; I would not have expected claim 1 to be true". Thankfully, claim 1 is a link! And I click it … and the linked article does not support claim 1. But by having claim 1 be a link, the upstream article's claim feels legitimate and cited, when in reality … it isn't.
¹I don't want to name it, as it's a charged topic, and would certainly derail the thread.
“They are not trying to tell people what to think, or even what the reporter thinks.”
What a joke. Literally 80% of MSM reporting is framed from a leftist viewpoint of what’s right/wrong. For years now it plays dirty by leaving out key facts or misrepresenting a situation to favor lefist ideology (e.g. “1 Killed after Tesla Cybertruck Battery Explodes” headline rather than “Explosive Device Detonated from Vehicle…”, since the media now hates Elon since he helped Trump win). I can often feel the seething hatred of the right coming off the words written by the journalist. It’s crazy to me that people on the left are blind to this. You should really re-analyze your level of objectivity if you don’t see this (or maybe read all the “Twitter Files”, etc released on X over the past year or 2).
Once you started to see the "both sides" and sanewashing from some big media outlets, it became quite noticeable. There's some nuance to it: it's not like every article was some kind of ham-fisted propaganda worthy of Pravda, just that they really weren't up to the moment.
There's a reason people love the "NYT Pitchbot" so much.
Their fact-checker is on record as saying that he has to present equal amounts of fact-checking for democrats and republicans. That is quintessential "both sides". Fact-checking should be pretty agnostic to political party, you shouldn't feel like you have to present examples of incorrect facts on both sides unless they're actually there.
> The Washington Post is definitely not a "both sides" kind of paper.
That's a surprising perspective. The controversy over Bezos changes at the Post is that he's changing it from a paper that aggressively reported on and criticed Trump to an extreme form of 'both-sides regardless of the facts'.
And that change has greatly damaged credibility with many in the public and within journalism.
A good litmus test is whether they refer to what happened at the Trump hotel in Vegas as a “Cybertruck Explosion”.
Obviously, the vehicle itself did not explode, the explosives packed into the truck bed did.
It’s deliberately misleading language like this was turned me off both WP and NYT. Any other vehicle and they would have just referred to it as a car bomb.
There are a number of really good reporters at places like the Washington Post and the New York Times. As much as those institutions do have problems, and are declining, they still have the money and resources to do good work.
So, no, they are not dead, but certainly not headed in a good direction.
We're giving "both sides"ing too much benefit of the doubt.
No sizeable newspaper came out of the woodwork to both side the Huawei ban for instance. It will only happen on issues they don't want to criticize too much, and need to muddy the water.
The biggest problem with the US media IMO is access journalism and corporate ownership. You got some of the best journalists, but what does it help if their work environment makes it impossible for them to dedicate time to (for the general public) important stories?
Journalism (be it traditional or grassroots) and activism are the only things that can keep corporations (and their paid poltitical wings) in check. If Journalism dies or has perverse incentives, that isn't just a "Haha well go with times dinosaur", this is a very dangerous time for any democracy.
How will you know what is happening in the world? Who will generate that information? Will you read social media - owned by, and much more easily controlled by, billionaires?
That's an odd claim in this context: The journalist in the OP resigned because they were criticizing one side and the people protecting Trump stopped them.
"I've worked for the Washington Post since 2008 as an editorial cartoonist."
"The cartoon that was killed criticizes the billionaire tech and media chief executives who have been doing their best to curry favor with incoming President-elect Trump."
"The group in the cartoon included Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook & Meta founder and CEO, Sam Altman/AI CEO, Patrick Soon-Shiong/LA Times publisher, the Walt Disney Company/ABC News, and Jeff Bezos/Washington Post owner."
When I read the parent comment it does not seem to have anything to do with the submission. Instead it changes the subject away from the newspaper owned by Bezos killing a cartoon with Bezos in it to something about "the demise of traditional media".
The continued demise of MSM has nothing to do with the current political situation, even though left wing echo chambers such as hn will blame it on that.
It began when they lost their revenue source of selling physical newspapers and were forced to rely on ad-revenue, which didn’t cover costs. This allowed leftist billionaires to take over major media outlets and weaponize it to support their agendas and political views. Hence the constant seething hatred of any non-left-leaning viewpoint on the news, blatant attempts to help Kamala look good while making Trump look bad during the election, non-coverage of things that make the left look bad. This is why Trump calls it “fake news” and why Elon bought Twitter.
It blows my mind how out of touch the left is with the current state of media censorship and corruption.
They're dying because we all saw the lying for the last 4 years. Morning Joe said Joe Biden was sharper than anyone he knows. Not much needed after that to shut off the TV and go on YT from here on out. Lately I might be switching to TYT to get a more middle of road view of things.
Do you have an example of a specific article that you thought was too both-sidesy? Every time I hear this argument, it actually turns out that the arguer's problem with the article at hand is it was not left-wing enough--like taking a conservative argument at face value instead of just calling it racist and moving on. So, if you think WaPos problem is that it is not left-wing enough then I can only conclude that you are very left-wing yourself and so probably don't give good business advice.
Here's a thorough critique from 2014, well before the current election or even the 2016 election, about an article in the NYT. It doesn't mention T---p. It's illustrative of the problem:
This style of journalism continued to prevail through all kinds of pronunciations from certain people that were all-out lies, prevarications, misinformation and various and sundry other assaults on the truth.
The professor who wrote the article, Jay Rosen, is quite insightful with regards to the press and some of their current failings.
I applaud the cartoonist's principled stance, but she greatly overestimates how free the press is (or was) just because she'd never had a point of view censored. In the words of Noam Chomsky:
I don't say you're self-censoring - I'm sure you believe everything you're saying; but what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.
Yes, her viewpoint wasn't censored up until now, but on the other hand, the Washington Post sure didn't employ anyone remotely similar to e.g. Jared Taylor or Keith Woods.
That's kind of true, but also, there really is a difference between everything is allowed all the time and the current situation the cartoonist is gesturing at.
I read it as "the Overton window for what is acceptable discourse has shrunk in a way that is dangerous", which I quite agree with.
> she greatly overestimates how free the press is (or was) just because she'd never had a point of view censored
I don't know if she had any illusions about it being completely free before, but the point is that it's clearly heading in the direction of "less free" as a direct consequence of corporate interests owning media and concerns about financial blowbacks from a vindictive president not against the news org itself but other companies held by the news org's owners. That is a huge problem.
I certainly believe it would be an issue. When your boss is one of the supplicants depicted in the cartoon it makes for an uncomfortable conflict of interests for the editor. We are not a post-oligarch society. We have a thin veneer of democracy now, but the decisions that really matter are made while rolling around in giant piles of $$$.
Why wasn't such cartoon made when Mark Zuckerberg donated $400 million to essentially increase Get-out-to-vote in essentially largely democratic areas.
Delusional to think the WP and NYT journalists are coming at this at a highly non-partisan way.
The entire mainstream media is Anti-Trump, Anti-GOP.
I remember how MSM treated Javier Millei as the next hitler
> Why wasn't such cartoon made when Mark Zuckerberg donated $400 million to essentially increase Get-out-to-vote in essentially largely democratic areas.
Somewhat difficult to notice in a skim the article (but important) is that one of the figures criticized is Jeff Bezos, who owns the newspaper in question.
I didn't feel that way, since she specifically points it out and also explains (quite correctly) why this matter is to be treated differently for a newspaper than for any other business
I mean, if anything that _should_ make the paper _more_ wary about spiking it. It’s a bad look. Like, even the WSJ, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, not known as one of the more committed-to-integrity media magnates, didn’t spike the Theranos story, even though Murdoch was one of Holmes’ dupes.
I told my daughters this when they were growing up: Never forget that the purpose of news media is NOT to inform. The purpose of news media is to sell advertising. Once you keep that in mind, you should become a lot less gullible about accepting what you see in the media.
I like the concept of the cartoon, and the message, but it lacks something - humor, a surprise, something unexpected? It seems kind of bland. I wonder if it was rejected because it was just not interesting enough.
If newspapers started rejecting political cartoons for not being funny then barely any would be left standing.
I imagine that coming up with a good topical joke every day that can be told in exactly one picture is not easy, so I can believe that it's more about a good average.
At least this one respects the reader. Other artists would probably write "privacy" and "consumer rights" in the money bags.
It's not a 10/10; I've seen better. But if the person in question quit over it, I suspect it wasn't just because they were asked to rework it, something they've probably been asked to do in the past because something wasn't clear or funny or something.
Readit News
I'm not sure what will emerge in its place. It's a big problem, and has hit hardest and first among local newspapers which are increasingly hollowed out husks of their former selves. This has a real cost to society that's actually quantifiable in dollars and cents:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-closures-of-local-new...
Things like social media don't really take the place of people paid to do the hard work of, say, sitting through local city council meetings and making sense of what's happening there. A friend of mine tried doing that for fun and it lasted a few years, but he got burned out because of the tremendous amount of work.
As someone who worked for years as an investigative reporter, I feel like this comment fundamentally misunderstands what it is that journalistic organizations strive to do.
Generally speaking, the goal is to report the facts about newsworthy events. They are not trying to tell people what to think, or even what the reporter thinks. That is what opinion pieces and editorials are for.
Would you be more specific about what you think should be done differently? For example, in reporting about whether someone supports democracy?
Taking a slightly broader view, though, surely we can see that there is a myriad of implicit editorialization in any publication, no matter how factual they are.
There can be no "neutral" media because the people controlling it still make a wide range of choices regarding those facts. They make choices regarding which stories and beats receive funding and staffing, the presentation of those facts (which stories are at the top of page 1, which ones are buried on page 83 next to the obituaries?) and which facts are not reported.
Imagine a newspaper that only investigates the private lives of Political Party A, looking for fraud or salacious incidents. We then draw attention to them and put them "above the fold." We do not tell lies either privately or publicly and follow strict journalistic guidelines. You can see where this is going: the catch is that we never investigate Political Party B. Not exactly a balanced presentation of the truth, even though we never lie.
Or take some reporting about DT's insane idea to take over Greenland, treating it like a legitimate idea and polling people about their thoughts just further legitimatizes absolute insanity.
"While I've heard about drink spiking, I suspect that it's extremely rare, at least here in the Palm Desert area."
If the reporter had been providing all the facts, they would have immediately followed that with the rate of occurrence of drink spiking. If it was "extremely rare", they could have then followed up with a government official's thoughts on why the requirement is necessary even if the drink spiking is "extremely rare".
There was no such information provided, leaving the reader with one man's opinion that is clearly only conjecture but given credibility by being included in the article. In an effort to present both sides, but surely on a deadline that prevented proper research, they left the reader with the idea that drink spiking is rare and that the government is simply overreaching.
No, because I'm not a news person myself. I can see there's a problem, but I don't know how to fix it; I don't know the job or the business behind it well enough.
I'd look to people like Jay Rosen and Margaret Sullivan for good critiques and perhaps some suggestions of what should be done differently.
But it's tricky! Because not only is the reporting part of it struggling right now, the whole business aspect is in trouble as well, which compounds problems - like I mentioned with local news. And once again, I have no idea how anyone fixes that. Perhaps some enterprising person on Hacker News will figure out something that works, although I suspect it's more of a people problem than a technology one.
> They are not trying to tell people what to think, or even what the reporter thinks.
There is increasingly small amount of venues with this kind of attitude (regional TV or some EU state media comes to mind) and besides this never being really true (what is report-worthy?) it's so mind numbingly boring that no wonder it's dying out. In a world where people can customize content 100% to their preference it is a naive concept.
The main point remains -- who is going to do this now, with local news a shell of its former self, and national news orgs circling the drain, and tech companies caring about clicks (and click-bait "news").
Deleted Comment
I disagree; I think "reporting the facts" has taken somewhat of a backseat in journalism these days. Instead, it is much more just "this is what each side says"; while one might argue that, yes, the quote of what each side said is itself a fact, it's a pretty poor quality fact, worse than witness testimony since the witnesses aren't under oath and if politicians, are well known to be unreliable. Worse, it feels as if it doesn't matter if one side is uttering absolute bullshit, it just gets quoted & printed, giving equal weight to each side's statements regardless of how absurd it might be. And because the truth is usually harder to put pithily and often takes longer to even determine, it usually loses out, and it becomes competition of "who can scream the loudest?" or first, or the most convincingly. (“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”)
Deeper questions such as "what does science say?" or "what are the actual facts" (not just what people say the facts are) or "what would someone knowledgeable in these matters ask about this situation?" are left unreported.
(And yes, I acknowledge that science itself can have inherent bias, or come to an erroneous result. But are you asking a physicist about the physics, or are you asking a politician about the physics? Are you making an attempt to get beyond the sound bite and determine the actual nuance to the topic, or is it the same "A screams A, B screams B" stances & the societal debate on the topic shall go nowhere?)
> They are not trying to tell people what to think, or even what the reporter thinks.
But by simply quoting people without putting things into the context of facts, the media becomes a mouthpiece for those being quoted, usually politicians. No, the reporting isn't telling us what to think, the politician is.
For example, in one topic that I'm knowledgeable on¹, journalists routinely print what are lies, full stop, from one of the political parties. Now, again, "X say Y" is technically a fact, and could be printed. But I've seen it followed up with "Science has no evidence about Y" — which is patently false, and is at best a confused conclusion by the reporter (science has a strong result about Y — Y does not occur; but you if write "there is no evidence about Y", people read that as "we don't know", but we do know, and it's ¬Y.)
Let's take another example, where I'm not an expert: the recent Korean air crash. Reading the reporting left me wondering things like "Why did the EMAS not arrest the aircraft? How did a bird strike take out the landing gear? If, e.g., there was a hydraulics failure in the landing gear, why did they not gravity drop the landing gear? ATC transcripts?" I saw no reporting even questioning any of those things; most of it was surface level: a crash occurred, here's the death toll thus far.
Even simpler: 9/10 times a court is involved, there's no link to the ruling. Or, quite often, I can be reading article A, which makes claim 1, and I think "claim 1 is a surprising claim; I would not have expected claim 1 to be true". Thankfully, claim 1 is a link! And I click it … and the linked article does not support claim 1. But by having claim 1 be a link, the upstream article's claim feels legitimate and cited, when in reality … it isn't.
¹I don't want to name it, as it's a charged topic, and would certainly derail the thread.
What a joke. Literally 80% of MSM reporting is framed from a leftist viewpoint of what’s right/wrong. For years now it plays dirty by leaving out key facts or misrepresenting a situation to favor lefist ideology (e.g. “1 Killed after Tesla Cybertruck Battery Explodes” headline rather than “Explosive Device Detonated from Vehicle…”, since the media now hates Elon since he helped Trump win). I can often feel the seething hatred of the right coming off the words written by the journalist. It’s crazy to me that people on the left are blind to this. You should really re-analyze your level of objectivity if you don’t see this (or maybe read all the “Twitter Files”, etc released on X over the past year or 2).
This happens very rarely though. The Washington Post is definitely not a "both sides" kind of paper.
There's a reason people love the "NYT Pitchbot" so much.
That's a surprising perspective. The controversy over Bezos changes at the Post is that he's changing it from a paper that aggressively reported on and criticed Trump to an extreme form of 'both-sides regardless of the facts'.
And that change has greatly damaged credibility with many in the public and within journalism.
Obviously, the vehicle itself did not explode, the explosives packed into the truck bed did.
It’s deliberately misleading language like this was turned me off both WP and NYT. Any other vehicle and they would have just referred to it as a car bomb.
So, no, they are not dead, but certainly not headed in a good direction.
Dead Comment
No sizeable newspaper came out of the woodwork to both side the Huawei ban for instance. It will only happen on issues they don't want to criticize too much, and need to muddy the water.
Journalism (be it traditional or grassroots) and activism are the only things that can keep corporations (and their paid poltitical wings) in check. If Journalism dies or has perverse incentives, that isn't just a "Haha well go with times dinosaur", this is a very dangerous time for any democracy.
A actual relevant business case for a trusted AI solution...
Behind every sports team and media outlet is a billionaire. Trust me.
That's an odd claim in this context: The journalist in the OP resigned because they were criticizing one side and the people protecting Trump stopped them.
"The cartoon that was killed criticizes the billionaire tech and media chief executives who have been doing their best to curry favor with incoming President-elect Trump."
"The group in the cartoon included Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook & Meta founder and CEO, Sam Altman/AI CEO, Patrick Soon-Shiong/LA Times publisher, the Walt Disney Company/ABC News, and Jeff Bezos/Washington Post owner."
When I read the parent comment it does not seem to have anything to do with the submission. Instead it changes the subject away from the newspaper owned by Bezos killing a cartoon with Bezos in it to something about "the demise of traditional media".
It began when they lost their revenue source of selling physical newspapers and were forced to rely on ad-revenue, which didn’t cover costs. This allowed leftist billionaires to take over major media outlets and weaponize it to support their agendas and political views. Hence the constant seething hatred of any non-left-leaning viewpoint on the news, blatant attempts to help Kamala look good while making Trump look bad during the election, non-coverage of things that make the left look bad. This is why Trump calls it “fake news” and why Elon bought Twitter.
It blows my mind how out of touch the left is with the current state of media censorship and corruption.
Dead Comment
https://pressthink.org/2014/08/when-quoting-both-sides-and-l...
This style of journalism continued to prevail through all kinds of pronunciations from certain people that were all-out lies, prevarications, misinformation and various and sundry other assaults on the truth.
The professor who wrote the article, Jay Rosen, is quite insightful with regards to the press and some of their current failings.
I don't say you're self-censoring - I'm sure you believe everything you're saying; but what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting.
Yes, her viewpoint wasn't censored up until now, but on the other hand, the Washington Post sure didn't employ anyone remotely similar to e.g. Jared Taylor or Keith Woods.
I read it as "the Overton window for what is acceptable discourse has shrunk in a way that is dangerous", which I quite agree with.
I don't know if she had any illusions about it being completely free before, but the point is that it's clearly heading in the direction of "less free" as a direct consequence of corporate interests owning media and concerns about financial blowbacks from a vindictive president not against the news org itself but other companies held by the news org's owners. That is a huge problem.
Delusional to think the WP and NYT journalists are coming at this at a highly non-partisan way.
The entire mainstream media is Anti-Trump, Anti-GOP.
I remember how MSM treated Javier Millei as the next hitler
untrue.
You are on the wrong side of democracy. More votes, even votes of people who disagree with you, is always a good thing!
Fox Corp, News Corp, Sinclair Broadcasting, and Newsmax would like to have a word with you about your lack of recognition.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/ann-telnaes/
It must be pretty boring drawing donald trump twice a week for the majority if your career....
I imagine that coming up with a good topical joke every day that can be told in exactly one picture is not easy, so I can believe that it's more about a good average.
At least this one respects the reader. Other artists would probably write "privacy" and "consumer rights" in the money bags.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/ann-telnaes/
Inane bland partisan slop.
https://www.firstpost.com/india/drop-cartoon-take-photo-cart...
India has since slid many slots down in the World Press Freedom Index, and now stands almost near the bottom end.
Dead Comment