The holiday elongated weekend brought few stories for the public to digest. There was one that you probably missed. The New York Times was hosted by UCLA as part of a series the Times puts on for their subscribers. The introduction made by Professor Gary Segura was quite interesting. You should watch it for yourself before continuing reading.
Interesting to say the least. You could describe the introduction as a poorly disguised lambasted soliloquy.
What is two-sided journalism? The articles you can find out there will largely criticize the subject matter. It makes sense. The journalists who refuse to side exclusively with one particular bias for the sake of their readers would not write a piece adoring their own objectivity. Journalists who do not appreciate others in their field staying one-sided, and therefore, polarizing their pieces would be the ones to openly critique their selected adversaries.
Two-sided journalism should not be looked at in negative light. It should in fact gain your trust. The writer, or the particular editorial doesn’t always side with a particular group, party, or ideology. That bolsters the trust and objectivity for their readers. The editors and writers are constantly examining each issue in the present day and writing about the topic based off of an ever changing and expanding group of variables relevant at that moment. This is the evolution of though in action. This is responsible journalism.
Why target the New York Times? Some on the left are still disappointed with the Times for what they believed was blatant misuse of two-sided journalism leading up to the 2016 election. Some Liberals will argue that reporting from the Times led to Trump’s victory. It’s worth a thought.
What seemed like ages ago; the Times was the editorial that originally advanced the Hillary Clinton email scandal. The New York Times walked a delicate tightrope leading up to Election Day with criticism and praise for both candidates. The Times never really endorsed either candidate, moreover, they never took an official stand against Trump.
A lot of journalists on the left still take issue with this, and find ways to make the claim, today. You can view a recent article doing just that, below.
Readers should welcome objectivity and diversity in their reading. Reading material from a writer who has similar bias to you will not expand your intellect. It is self-gratifying, and will not provoke your thought. We should welcome an editorial or journalist that refuses to take a stand one way or the other in this polarizing time we live in.