Read on Twitter
First three images: how the NYT covered a single brief meeting between the ex-president spouse of a presidential candidate and the AG.
Last image: how it’s covering an overt, years-long campaign by the AG to control investigations and prosecutions for the president’s benefit.
Last image: how it’s covering an overt, years-long campaign by the AG to control investigations and prosecutions for the president’s benefit.
At some point, observing reality requires a willingness to make judgements. The newsworthy thing about Barr’s DOJ is not a new “approach,” but that the agency is thoroughly corrupt. Why can’t the headline be “Under Barr, a Corrupt DOJ Bolsters Trump”?
News people seeing this tweet are no doubt scoffing at the notion that this could ever be a headline. Stop yourselves for a second and ask why.
It’s not that the Times refuses to ever identify corruption. And it’s certainly not that Barr’s acts don’t meet the universally accepted standard of years past.
It’s that calling Barr corrupt would overrule partisan assertions to the contrary. That would look non-neutral.
It’s that calling Barr corrupt would overrule partisan assertions to the contrary. That would look non-neutral.
Of course, the Times recognizes that what’s happening at DOJ is important. It’s writing about it! It’s just using unclear, obfuscatory language. It can’t bluntly and honestly describe what’s happening, and why it matters. Journalistic norms have given partisans a veto over truth.
