There is power to slow news. Taking time to consider what to say next and how to reply, especially if you are wrong, is very important. That also applies to when you should stop commenting, even if you are wrong. Eventually every story needs to end because the resources needed to constantly follow up on old stories, and comments on them, need to be balanced with keeping up with new things. Basically, I am saying that comments sections, even if they occasionally point out important things, can be detrimental to keeping a higher level, slower paced and more thoughtful approach to journalism.
“Journalism” isn’t failing to report a story because of who it might offend. If it happened, it’s valid. Even worse, journalism isn’t telling the opposite story because the real story might offend.
That’s the problem with the Guardian. They spend a lot of this time writing defensive stories, while missing the real ones.
Didn’t Guardian write a single story about how Kamala Harris got her political start under the patronage of Willie Brown? I don’t recall a single Guardian story critical of anything Kamala Harris did once she became the candidate.
Some but certainly not as much criticism as was written about Trump. Mentioned negatives include her support for Israel, lackluster interview performance, poor performance in 2020 primaries, and previous stances as a prosecutor.
Quantity vs quality. Journalism faces the question of 'how to present in an unbiased way' and the answer often comes out as 'equal coverage' which is, as answers go, terrible. Most of the time one 'side' isn't equal to the other when comparing statistics and doesn't deserved to be covered 'equally'.
