The media is SUPPOSED to show both sides, to be objective, not partisan

True

I used to find her kinda hot, but now I wouldn't do her with someone else's dick.

She has a point. Objective journalism isn’t about every story having “two sides” but rather stating the facts. When you apply opinions or bias to a story, then yes, it might be appropriate to get some perspective.

But if a story has two sides, then "both sides" should be objectively reported. This is what she's objecting to, and is precisely the /opposite/ of how MSM handled the Covington Kids story.

I agree. It’s objective to interview all not just some in the story. It’s not objective for journalists to insert their own opinions into a story. It’s the latter she’s arguing against and you might agree with her since that is precisely what journalists did in the Covington story.

No, she was objecting to some of the media outlets backpedaling and doing more balanced (ie "both sides") reporting on the story. Inserting their own own opinion is essentially adding a /third/ side.

No.

The definition of objective is to not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. “Both sides” journalism is subjective, the opposite of objective. It’s counterproductive to give false equivalence in every case. That is to not say their can’t be multiple perspectuves in some cases but when journalists apply their personal bias, they lose that objectivity.

She has some of a point. I wouldn’t say she practices this at all having looked at her tweets but she is allowed to have an opinion on stories. It would be best if she didn’t while reporting though.

"Objective" means to report all facts of a story, from both sides if applicable, and do it impartially (ie without interjecting your own biases.)

It's the same in court cases. Judges are supposed to look at the case objectively, to allow "both sides" to be heard, and make an impartial judgment based on all available facts.

"Both sides" journalism is NOT subjective. Being subjective is picking ONE side.

Let me be clear, I think she is wrong about the backpedaling of MSM to report "more" of the facts. Nor do I think she's being particularly objective. However, I do agree that "both side" journalism is not objective journalism either.

We're in agreement that subjective journalism is bad.

We disagree about "both side" journalism being objective. You think it is, I don't think it is.

What you need to understand is that facts don't have a side. They are just facts. So when you tell me there are sides to facts... it makes me think you don't know what objectivity is. Which is why I gave a definition to help you.

I like your comparison to court cases, but it falls apart with one important flaw. The judge does not present the case, but the prosecution/defense do. That would make the judge the audience and not the reporter in your analogy. The judge is us. Which is precisely why "both sides" journalism is ridiculous if the objectivity falls to the audience. And it is not in the best interest of the prosecution/defense to be objective, so they present only the facts that support each of their subjective case.

Which is exactly why "both sides" journalism is actually subjective. It's two subjective view-points instead of a singular objective presentation.

The judge SHOULD be the reporter in your analogy but that judge is only going rule on ONE side. Which should be the side with all the evidence and facts that support their case.

Missed this before, sorry. And I think the problem is we're using different contexts when we say both sides.

You're right in that facts don't have a side, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how you have to look at both sides (when there are two sides to a story) to get ALL the facts.

If you only look at one side, you're not going to get all the facts. That's what happened with Covington, and that what she was objecting to. To her, things like the /fact/ the Philips approached the kid and got in HIS face, and the /fact/ that Philips lied about the "harassing and threatening" behavior of the Covington kids, and the /fact/ that Philips lied about being both a Vietnam vet and a tribal Elder - to her facts like those, facts that come from the "opposing side", shouldn't matter, shouldn't even be considered.

To her, all that should matter is "some white kids were wearing maga hats and were being disrespectful (in her opinion), and downright racist (despite being proven a lie) to the old man confronting them and drumming in the one kid's face."