I think of that as the weaponization of "objectivity", especially by the right wing.
For decades, many journalists have maintained an air of being somewhat above the fray: reporting on the facts, while not *overtly* taking sides. Of course, in most cases that was never true -- they took sides (as almost everyone does), but more subtly. But still, this idea only grew when you got Fox News and everyone was outraged about how partisan it is, so there was a lot of spluttering that that is inappropriate.
This has turned out to be a trap, though. That meme has been morphed by a lot of people into a notion that reporters need to be soulless automatons, with no opinions at all, and if you say or do anything that could be construed as an opinion, you're betraying your calling.
One of the many reasons I adore _The Economist_ is that they've never come anywhere near this trap: they actually present topics more completely than the vast majority of American media, diving deep into the nuances and compromises, while still having a passionate and outspoken (and wonderfully sensible) editorial stance. It's a much better approach.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2020-06-27 03:03 pm (UTC)For decades, many journalists have maintained an air of being somewhat above the fray: reporting on the facts, while not *overtly* taking sides. Of course, in most cases that was never true -- they took sides (as almost everyone does), but more subtly. But still, this idea only grew when you got Fox News and everyone was outraged about how partisan it is, so there was a lot of spluttering that that is inappropriate.
This has turned out to be a trap, though. That meme has been morphed by a lot of people into a notion that reporters need to be soulless automatons, with no opinions at all, and if you say or do anything that could be construed as an opinion, you're betraying your calling.
One of the many reasons I adore _The Economist_ is that they've never come anywhere near this trap: they actually present topics more completely than the vast majority of American media, diving deep into the nuances and compromises, while still having a passionate and outspoken (and wonderfully sensible) editorial stance. It's a much better approach.