[blucoat]

> [The media] simply do not see that as their role. For most of them, a posture of “neutrality” and “opinion-free” blankness are the highest values.

> ... that’s all one can expect from large sectors of the U.S. media: cowardly neutrality, feigned analytical objectivity ...

> Shortly before this article was published this morning, Cuomo re-appeared on Twitter and apparently had a change of heart from last night’s proclamation. ... Sometimes, social media shaming works.

Am I the only one really bothered by what the author of this article thinks news should be? As an instrument to shut down political ideas you don't like? I find it ironic that he criticizes the idea of limiting freedom of speech to fight terrorism, but then thinks we should turn around and silence bigots.

[shadowmoses]

I think journalists have opinions - and sharing those opinions is a big part of 'news' - whether you like it or not, that's constantly done, either through direct words, or through more subtle means. That's why you have 'conservative' and 'liberal' entities of the news.

Moreover, the media also decides what's important - think about how they've covered Trump vs. Sanders - Trump is selling ratings, they are promoting his message in a way that's unequal to other candidates, and then saying 'oh, we're being neutral.'

[blucoat]

I agree with you that Trump gets a ridiculously disproportionate amount of news -- not a surprise, considering how much money covering him makes -- but that's not how I interpreted the article's complaints. It read to me like the author was upset that the media weren't actively denouncing him, like they had some moral obligation to. If I've misinterpreted that then that's my error.

[shadowmoses]

Yeah, don't know. Agree w/ you that journalists/ reporters do not need to have moral obligations, though [unless they make moral statements, and are not electing to do so in certain cases] - but even that's a slightly different issue.