Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #NewYorker
Most recents (2)
My two cents.
Here's a checklist worth considering before deciding to invite an extremist onto a platform for a 1-on-1 interview or a "debate":
1. Does doing so risk giving the extremist a significant platform from which he/she can grow/reinforce his/her audience?
Here's a checklist worth considering before deciding to invite an extremist onto a platform for a 1-on-1 interview or a "debate":
1. Does doing so risk giving the extremist a significant platform from which he/she can grow/reinforce his/her audience?
2. Has the extremist already been substantially covered/exposed?
3. Would a traditional investigative piece with full context be a better way to cover/expose the extremist?
4. Would the extremist be able to exploit a combative/aggressive interview for his/her own purposes?
3. Would a traditional investigative piece with full context be a better way to cover/expose the extremist?
4. Would the extremist be able to exploit a combative/aggressive interview for his/her own purposes?
5. Is there a chance the interviewer might not be as prepared as the extremist or not be able to fully refute/debunk on the spot any allegations made by the extremist?
6. Is there a chance the interview is being sought more because of the notoriety/"get" value of the extremist
6. Is there a chance the interview is being sought more because of the notoriety/"get" value of the extremist
The @RonanFarrow @NewYorker piece is cathartic. It speaks to the integrity of the people who decide what counts as news. Not just at CBS. 1/
What Ronan describes is a kind of moral corruption that exists at the highest levels of many newsrooms. I’ve seen it up close. 2/
There’s a unique awfulness to experiencing and witnessing workplace harassment as a journalist. You go into the field to get to the truth. You see your news managers tell the public that they’re dedicated to exposing abuse, holding power to account. 3/
