Attention all adversarial journalists:

Yes, there's validity in being contrarian to the main narratives. It helps stop authoritarians. However, if you use the terms "establishment", "the powers that be", "the authorities" and so on as signals; you must acknowledge you (cont)

willingly took on the task of fighting the worst forms of authoritarianism. You didn't do it for clicks, views, just to be contrarian, or to hold grudges against politicians. You did it to act as a buffer for the people. That means you have the responsibility to accurately...

... assess what the greatest threat of authoritarianism is. You chose to swim in a toilet for the people. As the water swirls you might find yourself temporarily allied with people you oppose. You chose to be a pragmatic voice...

... letting your personal bias interfere with that mission is a dereliction of an important duty. If you chose to battle authoritarianism, and you currently just want to write hit pieces on Biden because that admin was mean to you, you've lost your way....

.... I was once caught on a live mic referring to a certain candidate as "a f*cking war mongerer". That candidate is less of a threat to the world than Trump.

When you decide to be that hedge, people come to trust you. You cannot ethically bank that trust to support an overt...

... authoritarian. Those around you, still committed to their mission, will rightfully refuse to platform you.

If you were an adversarial journalist and people are telling you to go write for propaganda outlets. They aren't the problem, you are....

They heard the signals and understood them. If they're pissed, it's because the person who taught so many what those signals mean apparently went to the other side...

Sorry for the vague tweet, but I think this little rant might be informative to a lot of non-journalists.