1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Taibbi: The News Media Is Destroying Itself

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Alma, Jun 12, 2020.

  1. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Link?
     
  2. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    No links to hypotheticals, sorry.

    But the point/counterpoint approach to editorials is pretty well and widely known.
     
  3. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    So the op-ed section hadn't run any piece in support of the protests/rallies before or after that op-ed?

    How would Cotton's opinion, as an example, not have been a threat had it run beside an opposing editorial?

    The problem, to me was two-fold:

    1. Cotton had a bad opinion. (It really was.)
    2. He had a bad opinion that was also Trumpian/ultra-conservative in nature.

    There are lots of bad progressive opinions. They're just not going to get anyone to resign from the Times.
     
  4. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member


    You can't just assume that the specific counter-opinion is out there floating in the ether somewhere.

    ie, what's the rhetorical opposite of sending in the army?

    And the piece was a bad one. You're right.

    But there are lots of bad opinions on the opinion page. Including bad pieces from NYT house conservatives.

    Bennet had to resign once he admitted he hadn't read it before running it.
     
  5. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Not sending in the army? Defending the protests as peaceful?

    I think the beef comes down to it being a bad opinion and the wrong political opinion. Which is fine. The NY Times does what it did, and so it goes.

    But a guy resigned because of a newsroom revolt over it. The implications there are the newsroom has the power to veto any opinion it doesn't like. I'd extrapolate that out to: The newsroom can also call for any opinion it wants, lest it revolt or anonymously leak concerns to another media outlet, or an email, or a text, or an audio recording? The precedent has, in essence, been set.
     
  6. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Disagree.

    But that's OK.
     
  7. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    "Anyone who defies the narrative will be silenced." -- Tucker Carlson last night
     
  8. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    srsly?
     
  9. BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo

    BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo Well-Known Member

    And yet Tucker keeps prattling on and on and on.
     
    garrow likes this.
  10. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Some of his recent segments have been pretty good like last night's.
     
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member


    Thoughtful thread here in answer to the Lowery piece.

     
  12. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    You disagree that the NYT newsroom has been empowered to veto or call for any opinion it pleases? Seems pretty clear to me.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page