Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47

Score 41

Reposted by Matt Taibbi

@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

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 privacy and dignity of others, with no evidence of cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
While not explicitly promoting understanding, empathy, or compassion, the statement does advocate for the representation of differing viewpoints, which can lead to a better understanding.
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 criticism by explaining the traditional aim of an opinion page and implies a dialogue about differing viewpoints. [+1]