More on how their desire to control the narrative led journalists to ignore alternative voices:
That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement. Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological. That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong. —Will Rahn, CBS News
Post was last modified on 7 Dec 2016 2:03 pm
“Aw, man, you know the brother um takin’ ‘bout. He always be up at Eddie’s,…
Former Washington Post cartoonist Ann Telnaes — who resigned in January over the paper spiking a…
The newest and most powerful technologies — so-called reasoning systems from companies like OpenAI, Google and the…
It has long been assumed that William Shakespeare’s marriage to Anne Hathaway was less than…
View Comments
Light bulb moment? Sadly, probably not.