This is a good personal policy for a journal to have, for sure! And in an environment where one is writing to a diverse audience where both side have differing opinions in good faith, it's of course good to report on and know the full spectrum of the discussion and discourse.
The current of anti-both-sidesism that runs through the left-of-center folks right now, though, isn't a rejection of reporting like the above (though that's not to say there isn't a tic on leftist Twitter of decrying any form of both-sidesisms); it's a rejection of major publications--like the NYT--clinging to an ardent centrism that, by the very nature of centrism itself, is being drug further to the right along with the acceptable discourse, all in the name of avoiding being seen as biased by those on the right.
This centrism-at-any-cost mentality forces publications like the Times to frame Lefist excesses as comparable to Rightist excesses; in most cases, that is not the objective reality of the situation. The irony in this is that centrism-at-any-cost is meant to burnish a publication's objective credentials, but it often does the opposite.
I wrote this recently. "One of the bigger struggles I've had during the Trump Era has been with how to identify people -- the folks with whom I disagree, the ones who are doing things I sometimes even find harmful -- who are nonetheless acting in good faith."
I try not to start from the assumption of bad faith, except in obvious cases. And sometimes that means I haven't spotted bad faith until too late. That's a weakness for me that I should acknowledge.
But I think a lot of people use "bad faith" to mean merely "bad" and I don't think that's correct either.
And I'm not sure I have a great definition of "good faith," except to say this: There are people with whom I disagree, whom I also think are pursuing the truth as best they can *by their lights.* You can identify these people -- I'm thinking of the David Frenches of the world, over on the right -- by their willingness to diverge from the party line of whatever their party happens to be, from time to time. It's different from reflexive contrarianism: It's a willingness to follow their premises to conclusions, and to grapple with how those things can sometimes diverge.
Not what you're talking about, quite. You're right that reflexive centrism that suggests false balance is not in service of the truth! Not what I'm trying to do! But if I do, call me out on it!
This is a good personal policy for a journal to have, for sure! And in an environment where one is writing to a diverse audience where both side have differing opinions in good faith, it's of course good to report on and know the full spectrum of the discussion and discourse.
The current of anti-both-sidesism that runs through the left-of-center folks right now, though, isn't a rejection of reporting like the above (though that's not to say there isn't a tic on leftist Twitter of decrying any form of both-sidesisms); it's a rejection of major publications--like the NYT--clinging to an ardent centrism that, by the very nature of centrism itself, is being drug further to the right along with the acceptable discourse, all in the name of avoiding being seen as biased by those on the right.
This centrism-at-any-cost mentality forces publications like the Times to frame Lefist excesses as comparable to Rightist excesses; in most cases, that is not the objective reality of the situation. The irony in this is that centrism-at-any-cost is meant to burnish a publication's objective credentials, but it often does the opposite.
Mike:
I wrote this recently. "One of the bigger struggles I've had during the Trump Era has been with how to identify people -- the folks with whom I disagree, the ones who are doing things I sometimes even find harmful -- who are nonetheless acting in good faith."
I try not to start from the assumption of bad faith, except in obvious cases. And sometimes that means I haven't spotted bad faith until too late. That's a weakness for me that I should acknowledge.
But I think a lot of people use "bad faith" to mean merely "bad" and I don't think that's correct either.
And I'm not sure I have a great definition of "good faith," except to say this: There are people with whom I disagree, whom I also think are pursuing the truth as best they can *by their lights.* You can identify these people -- I'm thinking of the David Frenches of the world, over on the right -- by their willingness to diverge from the party line of whatever their party happens to be, from time to time. It's different from reflexive contrarianism: It's a willingness to follow their premises to conclusions, and to grapple with how those things can sometimes diverge.
Not what you're talking about, quite. You're right that reflexive centrism that suggests false balance is not in service of the truth! Not what I'm trying to do! But if I do, call me out on it!