“As it stands, the Firstlook story is almost entirely comprised of analysis and a lack of objectivity. Not to say that’s necessarily a bad thing—in fact, the Firstlook story by Greenwald is, at least in my opinion, a great piece of investigative journalism.”
This, honestly, seems like a perfectly reasonable response.
It does sound like a perfectly reasonable response. But any competent censor would be able to justify his actions with a reasonable sounding response.
We want to hear a response like this, since it sets our minds at ease. But we should resist that urge and be objective ourselves. We can ask:
* Is the article in question, in fact, composed entirely of analysis and does it lack objectivity?
* Does the article lack objectivity to the same degree as other articles banned from r/new?
As to the first question, my opinion is that the article in fact contains significant objective reporting. A major component of the article consists of the slide themselves, which are inherently objective. There are additionally quotes, responses, and factual contextual information presented on the parties involved.
But the article also contains some analysis. Though the content analysis itself doesn't seem particularly bold or controversial, it does present a viewpoint.
So if r/news only allows articles that present a litany of facts and provide no analysis, I suppose this article wouldn't fit the bill. But I'm not familiar enough with r/news to know whether if that's the case.
This, honestly, seems like a perfectly reasonable response.