Thank you for an interesting piece. My reservation is that it doesn’t seem to apply to Mr Wallace’s article, which, as I read it, asked reporters to consider their own biases. These can be masked in facile ways with increasingly surreal results, most notably in the false equivalencies that pit one side’s claim against the others, regardless of the validity of the various statements and, on NPR, too often without a fact-check embedded in the broadcast.
Thank you for an interesting piece.
Emily Green

You make a really good point. I was prompted to write my response to the headline that Lewis Wallace chose. It is that overarching idea, as opposed to the feelings expressed in the article, that I disagree with. As an NPR listener, I’d like to make up my own mind. Commentary and analysis are fine, but should be labeled as such. All of us — including reporters! — are deeply flawed. I cringe at some of the assumptions that I made in the past. Objectivity is so very difficult to achieve — in most cases impossible. But that is no reason to abandon it as an ideal of excellence for reporters. Thank you for your response.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.