Christiane Amanpour summed up the need quite succinctly: that journalists ought to be truthful, not neutral. Truth -- even truth we don't like -- is essential not only in keeping us informed, but in building trust among audiences of all kinds.
Hi Steve, thanks so much for this article. Here's the only part in which I think you get it wrong. I think Robert reich's comments and criticisms are spot on on this topic. I don't think progressives are criticizing the press and demanding that they be pro-democracy as you have put it. I think the more pressing issue is to criticize the press for being neutral and engaging in both sides-ism. Suggesting that both parties are guilty of the same thing, and that they are both to be criticized for the same things. The press has to be willing to identify and call out the fact that we have one party that has allowed itself to become anti-democratic, and another party which is the one defending democracy. It seems some in the press feel that pointing that out puts them in too much jeopardy of not being neutral or taking a stand on things. When in reality it seems this is simply a fact, and not pointing that out does a disservice to your readers.
WaPo has increasingly been called out on comment threads for this false equivalency in their reportage. I too wondered that Mr Inskeep did not write of this pretense of neutrality as a pressing issue in media.
What are you making of this Semafor article? “They’re also using it as an opportunity to tell them what they’re getting wrong. Two people with knowledge of the situation told Semafor that during meetings with reporters from outlets like The New York Times, the Washington Post, and others, [Biden] campaign officials have invoked a coverage spreadsheet laying out areas where the team believes their reporting has fallen short.”
I don’t know how reliable Semafor is, I understand the article doesn’t mention NPR, and I might be reading too much into this story, but the fact that a political party tells some journalists what they’re “getting wrong” and what they should should cover is incompatible with the notion that their reporting is “independent.”
When Donald screams for attention by tricking a judge in New York, is it OK for a media site to reward him with attention?
WaPo had a Ginormous article, with tons of pics, entitled "See how Trump is making his court appearances feel like campaign stops"
I suggested an alternative title "Traitor Cultist Violates Law and Court Rule in Attempt to Get Our Attention. He Fails. NO Pics or Words Attached here.
Subheader
We Have More Integrity than Fox"
Perhaps I am wrong to suggest legitimate media refusal to cover his court-room-based campaigning.
(I do not consider NewsMax and Faux etc to be legitimate)
Hi Steve, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on where NPR/the media more generally may have fallen short in Trump's first 2 campaigns and what it can do differently?
Christiane Amanpour summed up the need quite succinctly: that journalists ought to be truthful, not neutral. Truth -- even truth we don't like -- is essential not only in keeping us informed, but in building trust among audiences of all kinds.
Hi Steve, thanks so much for this article. Here's the only part in which I think you get it wrong. I think Robert reich's comments and criticisms are spot on on this topic. I don't think progressives are criticizing the press and demanding that they be pro-democracy as you have put it. I think the more pressing issue is to criticize the press for being neutral and engaging in both sides-ism. Suggesting that both parties are guilty of the same thing, and that they are both to be criticized for the same things. The press has to be willing to identify and call out the fact that we have one party that has allowed itself to become anti-democratic, and another party which is the one defending democracy. It seems some in the press feel that pointing that out puts them in too much jeopardy of not being neutral or taking a stand on things. When in reality it seems this is simply a fact, and not pointing that out does a disservice to your readers.
Brandon, well said.
WaPo has increasingly been called out on comment threads for this false equivalency in their reportage. I too wondered that Mr Inskeep did not write of this pretense of neutrality as a pressing issue in media.
> To report independently and accurately
What are you making of this Semafor article? “They’re also using it as an opportunity to tell them what they’re getting wrong. Two people with knowledge of the situation told Semafor that during meetings with reporters from outlets like The New York Times, the Washington Post, and others, [Biden] campaign officials have invoked a coverage spreadsheet laying out areas where the team believes their reporting has fallen short.”
I don’t know how reliable Semafor is, I understand the article doesn’t mention NPR, and I might be reading too much into this story, but the fact that a political party tells some journalists what they’re “getting wrong” and what they should should cover is incompatible with the notion that their reporting is “independent.”
https://www.semafor.com/article/01/07/2024/biden-campaign-brings-top-journalists-to-wilmington
When Donald screams for attention by tricking a judge in New York, is it OK for a media site to reward him with attention?
WaPo had a Ginormous article, with tons of pics, entitled "See how Trump is making his court appearances feel like campaign stops"
I suggested an alternative title "Traitor Cultist Violates Law and Court Rule in Attempt to Get Our Attention. He Fails. NO Pics or Words Attached here.
Subheader
We Have More Integrity than Fox"
Perhaps I am wrong to suggest legitimate media refusal to cover his court-room-based campaigning.
(I do not consider NewsMax and Faux etc to be legitimate)
Hi Steve, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on where NPR/the media more generally may have fallen short in Trump's first 2 campaigns and what it can do differently?