Apparently the New York Times is still unclear on what its fucking job is. For example, after getting criticism about last week’s voter fraud story, which was short on facts and long on the “both sides have a point” crap, the paper went on the defensive:
The national editor, Sam Sifton, rejected the argument. “There’s a lot of reasonable disagreement on both sides,” he said. One side says there’s not significant voter fraud; the other side says there’s not significant voter suppression.
“It’s not our job to litigate it in the paper,” Mr. Sifton said. “We need to state what each side says.”
Mr. Bronner agreed. “Both sides have become very angry and very suspicious about the other,” he said. “The purpose of this story was to step back and look at both sides, to lay it out.” While he agreed that there was “no known evidence of in-person voter fraud,” and that could have been included in this story, “I don’t think that’s the core issue here.”
Oh, really? Would someone like to tell what the core issue is, then? One side says voter fraud is a big problem, and the facts say that it is not. Meanwhile, one side is passing laws that take the Constitutionally-protected right to vote away from millions of people. That isn’t the core issue?
But no, the Times’ reporter and national editor both think the core issue is “one side says this and the other side says that.” End of story.
Seriously, people? And since when did reporting facts become “litigating the issue”? No wonder you suck.
Yes, do keep telling me how the internet killed journalism. Please.