The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role

Re:The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role by matt4077 on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:12PM (#14464798)

The polls were off, and/or the race moved in last few days. If you can't see the difference between a statistical model's prediction and a journalist's factual claims, you're unlikely to find the sort of "objectivity" you're looking for.

And, fwiw, your sort of political "objectivity" just doesn't exist. What you want is the sort of fake equivalence as in "Yesterday, 10 people died in an earthquake in Northern Italy, according to local accounts. But Jeff from Kansas writes on Twitter that there was no earthquake and the cause of death was the LHC's creation of a black hole. What's the truth? You decide! Back after this...".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The New York Times Is Eliminating Its Public Editor Role by cocktailpeanuts on Thursday June 01, 2017 @08:50PM (#14466521)

Just because something doesn't exist, doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it, especially if you're in journalism.

It's like saying "Nobody is perfectly ethical. So trying to be ethical is just being fake."

Also you are using a funny example to make a point that's not relevant to this instance. That has nothing to do with news organizations siding with certain political party and pretending to be unbiased.

[ Parent | on HN ]