> stuck on models that worked in the past, like "both sides"ing issues sort of reflexively. That works great with a lot of things like "how much should we tax companies?", but not so much for some more fundamental questions like whether someone supports democracy.
As someone who worked for years as an investigative reporter, I feel like this comment fundamentally misunderstands what it is that journalistic organizations strive to do.
Generally speaking, the goal is to report the facts about newsworthy events. They are not trying to tell people what to think, or even what the reporter thinks. That is what opinion pieces and editorials are for.
Would you be more specific about what you think should be done differently? For example, in reporting about whether someone supports democracy?
As someone who worked for years as an investigative reporter, I feel like this comment fundamentally misunderstands what it is that journalistic organizations strive to do.
Generally speaking, the goal is to report the facts about newsworthy events. They are not trying to tell people what to think, or even what the reporter thinks. That is what opinion pieces and editorials are for.
Would you be more specific about what you think should be done differently? For example, in reporting about whether someone supports democracy?