Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47

Score 41

@NTKriss The issue wasn’t the politician, but that even if you disagreed with Cotton, it was a legit editorial. It fit the traditional journalistic aim of the opinion page, i.e. to explore and explain differing viewpoints. Much of not most of the country agreed with Cotton then.

2/27/2024, 4:27:45 AM

In reply to:

NKriss

@NTKriss

584d

@mtaibbi Matt, don't pretend you wouldn't be agreeing with him if he were talking about a politician you don't support instead of one you do support.

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

584d

Amazing re NYT: “Correspondent Edward Wong wrote… that he typically chose not to quote [Senator Tom] Cotton in his own stories because his comments ‘often represent neither a widely held majority opinion nor a well-thought-out minority opinion.’” https://www.theatlantic.com/idea…

The statement is part of a conversation about journalistic practices and the representation of differing viewpoints on an opinion page. The tone is informative and seems to aim at clarifying a point about the role of opinion pieces in journalism. It does not appear to be harmful, disrespectful, or unconstructive.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not seem to intend harm and is focused on discussing journalistic principles. [+1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement respects the dignity of others and does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding of journalistic aims and the importance of exploring differing viewpoints. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement engages in constructive dialogue by explaining a perspective on the issue at hand. [+1]