[hnracer]

I would've liked to see this quality of journalism regarding the recent election fraud allegations. With some exceptions the most common style has been to dismiss it as bad faith and cite election authorities who say there's insufficient evidence.

While I agree, it would've been much more illuminating, persuasive, engaging and educational to do a deep dive into the substance of the claims and show why they're likely incorrect. This is really the best way to assuage belief in related conspiracy theories too. We would learn both why the allegations are false and learn about how these false beliefs start and spread. Combine academic rigor (without its stifling formality) with the distribution of journalism. Be less verbose and more numerate and logical. Many bloggers do this but it's missing from the majority of mainstream journalistic outlets.

I somehow think the business model will preclude this though. They're providing outrage entertainment for the masses. Not everyone is a balanced individual with 130 IQ seeking detail and illumination.

[rayiner]

I agree with you strongly. I’m a lawyer and I still don’t really understand why Trump’s cases are so weak, because I haven’t had time to read most of the decisions. I assume it’s true, but the news coverage has been totally unilluminating.