It is weird — or laughable — that the New York Times publisher and owner chose to write the op-ed mentioned in this Substack in the Washington Post and not his own paper.
The jokes aside?
The substance?
"Both sides" reporting is still good, Pinch says. Well, sure. It prompts subscribers.
That said, the Substack IS Kevin Kruse, a good librul Democrat type who has no problem with his party putting thumbs on scales against third-party and independent candidates. Having 2-starred his most recent book, I know that.
The complaints against the NYT are valid, and on a LOT more than electoral politics.
For example, beyond not doing "both sides" on climate change, how seriously does the NYT report on and about and from climate scientists more alarmed than climate change Obamiacs Michael Mann, Katharine Hayhoe and their ilk? You know that.
How much does it really report about the reality in Gaza? You know that.
The reality of American exceptionialism that Kruse accepts? You know that.
This is Kruse working the refs first, with serious concerns about journalism a distant second.
But, this is about journalism, not BlueAnon and duopoly politics, which I did elsewhere.
What issues get covered, as well as how many sides of them get covered, is itself an issue.
There's a multitude of sins the NYT commits and I'd be typing out 5,000 words if I enumerated them all in detail.
As for Kruse, he either knows that, which shows his piece is about working the refs, or he does NOT know that — which, per his book, may be the case, at least in part — and that's an even bigger problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment