A "journalist" explains why reporting "both sides is "dangerous" for democracy. Seriously.

Shame on you if you believe that journalists should report both sides of a political issue. That's because journalists are supposed to protect you from stuff you don't need or shouldn't know by not reporting the bad stuff.

That's the premise from the exulted heights of the Poynter Institute, a self-appointed guardian of truth and beauty. You'll find that's the highlighted opinion by its chief media critic, one Tom Jones under the headline: "CNN 'hewing toward the center' is not necessarily good for our democracy." He wrote:

"Pushing for fairness and completeness in journalism as well as fewer “hot takes” is never a bad idea. But that’s not the same as making sure you present both sides. Sometimes, the other side shouldn’t be given a voice, particularly if that side’s argument is based on lies or pushes harmful agendas." 

Jones wrote that as a tsk-tsk he awarded to for a Chicago Tribune editorial that boldly violated the wisdom currently infecting "journalism" as practiced by today's media: "CNN is hewing toward the center? That's good for our democracy."

Indeed it is. After echoing MSNBC's liberal bias for years, the new CNN boss thought it was a good idea just to present the news instead of slanting it. That leaves MSNBC and FoxNews to clearly represent the opposing ideologies. That's a reflection of 18th and 19th century American newspapers that were openly partisan. You'd read the paper that best represents your views and basically ignore the other side. Eventually the racket became a profession as it adopted the principle that you should report both side or, more realistically, all sides.

So, now we have returned to the old, discredited "journalism" of reporting only one side. When I broke into the field decades ago, it was acknowledged that there is a certain degree of subjectivity is selecting what should be included in the story. Especially if it was a short story of just a few hundreds words. The decision wasn't based on the reporter's biases, but on the idea that readers are justified to demand reading all sides. 

Now the "journalist's" decision is based only on what he believes is the "truth." (How odd, when a liberal principle has been there's no objective truth.) 

So, according to Jones' dictates, here's how I should report his view of journalism: Not at all.  It must be so, because I haver determine that he's passing out "misinformation" or "disinformation." You the reader must be protected from his erroneous beliefs. They must not see the light of day. They must not be allowed to show up on social media. 

He'll no doubt reply that his view is the truth and mine is not. Except in my perspective, my view is the truth and not his.  Here's a lesson:: So much of the reporting on the cause and effects of the Covid-19 pandemic were wrong. Does that mean that they shouldn't have been reported? Shouldn't the media have been more diligent in reporting the "truth" about shutting down classrooms instead of allowing themselves to be the voice of the "wrong" side? 

At best, this leads to a stand-off in which some readers are denied the entire story. Well, here's another truth: poorly informed citizens of the wide range of views among all Americans isn't good for democracy. Even if some of those views are harebrained. 

With all the woke/liberal/progressive/Democratic rhetoric about how democracy is in danger these days, perhaps they'd do us all a service and strengthen democracy by climbing down from their exulted throne and finally listen with a curious, patient and open mind to the rest of us.