Journalism has had its loss. Too often, writers today fail to maintain neutrality. Open the paper today. "Conspiracy theory-fueled conference lands in Salt Lake," says the headline above the article.
Of course, those at the conference would not consider it to be a meeting for conspiracy theorists. So, why does the article say that? If the writer is to be impartial, he doesn't brand it that way. If he quotes someone saying the conference was for conspiracy theorists, that is different, but he should not be passing judgement on his own.
The event "offered up a large helping of misinformation about COVID-19, vaccines and the 2020 election" says the story. Is that impartial? Those at the conference do not believe it was misinformation. Should a straight news story be passing such judgement? Once again, if the reporter finds someone who calls it misinformation, let him quote that person's judgement. That is offering both sides and the story and covering both sides of the story is journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment