As a red diaper baby whose father helped defend Black families seeking a home in Levittown PA in the 1950s, as an ardent opponent of the wars in southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, as a youth worked for McGovern and Mo Udall, who became a civil rights lawyer and public defender, as an activist who often felt the self-referential Left was less principled than ideologically rigid, and as a Democrat who voted for Christie Whitman twice due to her pro-choice views when she ran against boss driven Democratic Party candidates for NJ Governor, and as a father raising daughters who thought Cheney and Bush the epitome of evil until Trump shattered that paradigm, and this year who supported Warren, and then Biden, I find your views consistently refreshing, positive, sensible and centered in the intelligent and moral political universe. Thanks for all you do.
This piece is spot on and all Americans need to understand this problem. The bias actually lies with the ridiculous mainstream media requirement to "balance" reporting with the "both sides do it" nonsense. Treating specious, fact-less, irrational, illogical, fallacious, propaganda material as equally important in any media-covered discussion serves no citizen in a democracy. I used to work in a high school library where the head librarian insisted on having literally equal numbers of articles and books for use in researching "controversial topics." I could not persuade her that all articles and sources are absolutely not academically equal or valid, and that many "controversial topics" are controversial only because much of their "supporting" arguments and opinions are based on fact-less, scientifically specious, illogical misinformation. The controversy is often only evidence-based fact versus fiction or a total lack of actual evidence. The research collection should have reflected this truth in the relative sizes of the sides of each topic. Propaganda does not deserve the outsized place it has in today's media, either.
Ben, if you're pleasing everybody, you wouldn't be doing your job!
As a non-Democrat who disdains the woke left and years to see common-sense prevail in politics, I can tell you that the writing here at Banter is incisive, original and much beyond simply "reporting the news." Your reader who wants "both sides" can subscribe to the New York Times and read David Brooks and Ross Doutthat til he's sated with pompous Republican blather.
As a red diaper baby whose father helped defend Black families seeking a home in Levittown PA in the 1950s, as an ardent opponent of the wars in southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, as a youth worked for McGovern and Mo Udall, who became a civil rights lawyer and public defender, as an activist who often felt the self-referential Left was less principled than ideologically rigid, and as a Democrat who voted for Christie Whitman twice due to her pro-choice views when she ran against boss driven Democratic Party candidates for NJ Governor, and as a father raising daughters who thought Cheney and Bush the epitome of evil until Trump shattered that paradigm, and this year who supported Warren, and then Biden, I find your views consistently refreshing, positive, sensible and centered in the intelligent and moral political universe. Thanks for all you do.
This piece is spot on and all Americans need to understand this problem. The bias actually lies with the ridiculous mainstream media requirement to "balance" reporting with the "both sides do it" nonsense. Treating specious, fact-less, irrational, illogical, fallacious, propaganda material as equally important in any media-covered discussion serves no citizen in a democracy. I used to work in a high school library where the head librarian insisted on having literally equal numbers of articles and books for use in researching "controversial topics." I could not persuade her that all articles and sources are absolutely not academically equal or valid, and that many "controversial topics" are controversial only because much of their "supporting" arguments and opinions are based on fact-less, scientifically specious, illogical misinformation. The controversy is often only evidence-based fact versus fiction or a total lack of actual evidence. The research collection should have reflected this truth in the relative sizes of the sides of each topic. Propaganda does not deserve the outsized place it has in today's media, either.
Ben, if you're pleasing everybody, you wouldn't be doing your job!
As a non-Democrat who disdains the woke left and years to see common-sense prevail in politics, I can tell you that the writing here at Banter is incisive, original and much beyond simply "reporting the news." Your reader who wants "both sides" can subscribe to the New York Times and read David Brooks and Ross Doutthat til he's sated with pompous Republican blather.
"Is there a “balanced”, “non-biased” and “unskewed” way to report this?"
Media outlets should not worry about being "balanced" or "non-biased". They should worry about being accurate and informative.
"Is what we're reporting fair to both sides?" - NO
"Is what we're reporting factual and reality-based?" - YES