[travmatt]

Case in point: in the Washington Post story regarding Jared Kushners attempts to bypass government oversight of diplomatic negotiations with Russia, both WaPo and NYT both received comments from Kushner confidants alleging these contacts were intended to facilitate cooperation of military actions in Syria. WaPo refused to publish these comments unless they could specify that they were Kushner confidants speaking in his defense. NYT had no such qualms, instead allowing these partisans to be presented as anonymous neutral parties, in exchange for their continued access.

Allowing Kushner to present his spin as neutral is a de facto false equivalence and shifting the 'objective' reality, which other organizations (WaPo) who practice investigative journalism, as opposed to access journalism, refused to allow themselves to be used for.

[pvnick]

Everybody is a political hack. There is no such thing as objective reporting. You are expressing a sentiment which reflects a suspicious and conspiratorial perspective on the Russia dealings. Rush Limbaugh would express a sentiment reflecting a dismissive attitude towards that topic. Both you and Rush believe that you are reporting the objective truth, but you would point out the false equivalence of comparing your enlightened and objective opinion with Rush's obvious partisan hackery. And so it goes.

[travmatt]

TIL that reporting on the potential conflicts of interest in a sources comments are signs of political hackery.

[pvnick]

You do yourself a disservice by misrepresenting my point. A lot of folks throw around the phrase "false equivalence" to mean that the current president is abnormally and objectively bad, and that those opposed to the administration posses some sort of moral and intellectual superiority. This is the broader hypocrisy to which I am referring.

[travmatt]

I said it's a false equivalence to present trumps detractors as detractors, and trumps supporters as a neutral party.