As a news organization, the positions of any given national politician should not be characterized as an attack on people. Words aren’t attacks on people, they are statements of positions. We can agree and disagree with words, statements, and positions. They can be analyzed and falsified. But half the problem that prevents any kind of meaningful discussion on many topics is the tendency of everyone to always characterize (because it makes a good headline) anything anyone says as “an attack on X”. And to use the language “X attacks Y’s daughter” is the most disgusting kind of manipulative, exaggerative, emotional reporting I could possibly imagine.
Please attempt to maintain some semblance or journalistic integrity. Also, the extensive reporting on social media feuds between congresswomen is a lot more like gossip than meaningful reporting. “This person said this about this person, this person got mad, this person slagged them back, what a b#$%!” is essentially the nature of this whole story and this whole genre of reporting. These aren’t events, these aren’t meaningful debates. This is just people antagonizing one another and squabbling on social media, posturing and denigrating and shaming one another.
This isn’t news. And your obvious use of it to attempt to compel your readers into a political position on proposed legislation is reprehensible. Your job is to report the news, not interpret it. People are capable of making their own judgements about the information, which it is your job to present as cleanly and fairly and without bias or exaggeration or attempts at story-making as possible. That is the role of the press in a liberal democracy.
If you feel compelled for monetary and social currency reasons to report on this kind of gossipy non-story, the least you can do is attempt to keep your headlines and reporting more professional and neutral. Does that make for a less exciting and clickable headline than “X attacks y!”? Yes, it does. But it also make you sound less like a gossip rag and more like a real news organization.
I am a long and loyal patron of your channel. But if this is the direction that your reporting is going, I will have to add you to the pile of sites that have lost their mission and lost my respect and interest. I understand the temptation. I used to be a journalist myself. The question being asked now is, “Who can win the race of advancing the narratives and become the voice of the nation?” But there is still real value in old-fashioned journalism. Yes, everyone is running toward becoming editorial and entertainment news and having the juiciest headlines and most sharable perspectives and topics. But that only shows their desperation and degeneration and loss of belief in their role and mission. And it does not serve the public interest.
Your role, your value, is in detailed reporting on local events and non-partisan reporting on national events. That’s where you can succeed and have real value. That is where you can be a precious and increasingly rare resource. Reporting. Not gossip, not exciting reactions, not advancing a cause, not jumping on juicy stories, not exaggerating, not characterizing. Just reporting. It really is worth it. Your readers will respect you for it.
I want to raise this warning for your own sake, to save you from the natural temptations that many, if not most, media outlets have fallen to. All you’ll do is to take away one more source of neutral information from your readers. Which will just drive people on the other side of the editorial slant into the arms of opposing value-laden reporting. And that’s not a good end for them either. Value-laden reporting is the problem on both sides, regardless of editorial prejudice. Don’t deprive your readers of what you could offer. We need good media outlets so desperately.
Mr Nobody's Patented Blog 