What I find troubling is not only what's in the article, but what's left out. There is no call to action, there is no information provided as to what a reader can do, to help fix this disaster.
It leaves you feeling deflated, because now what? Now you go about the rest of your day with this burden of knowledge.
This is very common with these types of stories - it's not enough to complain, you need to provide a set of potential solutions or else people begin treating these stories the way they do homeless people - they just learn to ignore them.
Maybe that's what these newspapers want or are coerced into - that'd be the darkest and most sinister interpretation.
Reuters is just a newswire agency: it just does research and provides the facts. Downstream news outlets like Fox and NBC are the ones that will put the spin on it, and boutique outfits like commondreams and Mother Jones will give you the call to action if they cover it. The problem with Mother Jones and publications like it is that they have a pretty strong slant (they are trying to persuade you, not inform you) and they also don't run stories that go against their narrative, thereby omitting information that may inform you/provide greater context or nuance.
In any case, the solution here is the same as always; write to your representatives or get involved in a protest (all variations on "advocate for change").
> Reuters is just a newswire agency: it just does research and provides the facts.
Reuters isn't some neutral-fact agency. Reuters does tons of editorial, and has an overall editorial slant, but its customers are news outlets, not readers. Articles written from vague perspectives can run in a wider variety of publications.
What you're reading here is highly editorial (though I like it.) Reuters is choosing to report on an issue that could be interesting to people by highlighting a few individual stories of lesser appeal. They could have not covered this and covered anything else (there was no "news" event.) They could have taken the position that too many judges had been removed from the bench, implying that there was a bias against judges. The reporter made a journalistic choice to investigate the crimes of judges. The reporter then made the editorial choices to report it though these particular examples, and to highlight criminal judges still serving rather than criminal judges that have been removed, or even the relatively low crime rates in judges as a demographic as compared to many other demographics. Reuters then made the editorial choice to publish the piece - which may have been preceded by sending it back with suggestions to change previous editorial choices, or maybe even handing it off to another journalist to finish.
The idea that there are neutral fact-delivering voices of god somewhere is destructive, and easily taken advantage of by the people who own these voices of god. The Moonies bought UPI.
What I find troubling is not only what's in the article, but what's left out. There is no call to action, there is no information provided as to what a reader can do, to help fix this disaster.
It leaves you feeling deflated, because now what? Now you go about the rest of your day with this burden of knowledge.
This is very common with these types of stories - it's not enough to complain, you need to provide a set of potential solutions or else people begin treating these stories the way they do homeless people - they just learn to ignore them.
Maybe that's what these newspapers want or are coerced into - that'd be the darkest and most sinister interpretation.