As a public service, we'd like to offer a yardstick by which to measure whether an organization that purportedly practices journalism is succeeding or failing in addressing the current political terrorism being practiced by the Republican Party. That yardstick is provided by James Fallows, in The Atlantic:
As a matter of journalism, any story that presents the disagreements as a "standoff," a "showdown," a "failure of leadership," a sign of "partisan gridlock," or any of the other usual terms for political disagreement, represents a failure of journalism*** and an inability to see or describe what is going on. [snip]Now, here's the
This isn't "gridlock." It is a ferocious struggle within one party, between its traditionalists and its radical factions, with results that unfortunately can harm all the rest of us -- and, should there be a debt default, could harm the rest of the world too.
Ultimately, the grown-ups in the room will have to do their jobs, which in a democracy with divided government means compromising for the common good. That means Mr. Boehner, his counterpart in the Senate, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), minority leaders Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the president. Both sides are inordinately concerned with making sure that, if catastrophe comes, the other side takes the political hit. In truth, none of their reputations stands to benefit.So we're back to "Both sides..." Derp.
That paragraph reeks of Bezos Bugle editorial page editor Fred "Both Sides Now" Hiatt. Is it possible to be sentient and write that paragraph? Is it possible to call journalism your profession and write that paragraph? We think by Fallows' yardstick, or by any other reasonable measure of what constitutes the most important hallmark of journalism -- honesty -- that paragraph, and the paper that published it, failed.
UPDATE: More offenders.
