Discourses with the New York Times media columnist.
What's striking to me is just how far away ostensibly "neutral" news organizations really are from neutrality, even if it's not conscious or intentional. Every time the NYT or WaPo publishes a story with a headline that references a "false claim" from Trump, or a protester who "was struck by a police vehicle" or a "debate" about climate science, they're immediately putting the reader into a headspace of approaching what they're about to read as a debate with two sides, when it isn't one.
Trump didn't make a "false claim." He lied.
The protester wasn't "struck by a police vehicle." They were assaulted by a LEO.
And the only "debate" about climate science is whether or not there's still enough time to get a reacharound before we're finished being fucked.
The fact is that the mainstream media can't objectively report facts about political figures without softening the language enough to appease Certain People, and I haven't seen any widely-consumed medium even take an incremental step or two in the right direction in the Trump era. In fact, I'd argue it's gotten, and is getting, much worse.
My favorite interviews are the ones where a source says three paragraphs at a time without letting the reporter finish a sentence
I wish this interview had taken place after the Harper's letter. Would love to see his response to that.