Y'all suckers can't stop a chick with a memory, though I do appreciate the odd workout - note, save a copy. (Non-sequitur - LTDT.)
There are times when I wonder if I'm being hidebound in my own training, specifically when it comes to my aim. I have to look at ways to improve my flexibility. I'll start with using Search instead of links for interesting article titles.
For example, this article that I can access to read, and these articles that came up in the same search as the first. I wonder what common points all three articles share, and what that wee technocrat from earlier thinks about places in which such a philosophy is ingrained into their policies. 豺狼 政权 的 女人 好不好? But I digress.
There are certain ways in which I'm quite content to stay stony. For instance, I keep my stance on Cable Opinion Network where it's been since before its timing in releasing pandemic news in relation to its counterparts, as well as its use of aquarium chemicals to aim at a political adversary instead of informing on how the related drug was connected to the disease itself.
I can see that, despite a change in the network's administration, at least one 'artless' talking head hasn't - the target's changed, as has the ammunition, but the aim is the same. It's the same for those around him as well, with article titles that imply an apology still unsaid and spin that emphasizes the gulf between a wise old alien bartender and the human associated with her. (Huh. I like that better than what I had down before I lost my first copy.) Adding this because, just because I agree with the argument made regarding a party's selection criteria, it's an eyeroll moment when I read of any usage of that carrot argument.
I write in part as a reaction to this article, in which the writer uses two separate quotes to explain a speaker's view on his industry:
"in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel [objectivity] negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work."
"his 'goals for [their] journalism were accuracy, fairness, nonpartisanship, accountability and the pursuit of truth.'"
If I understand correctly the point the writer's trying to make (one with which I agree), having journalists who are unable to separate "their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts" goes against, at the very least, the stated goal of nonpartisanship. The desire to hold accountable one side or the other makes them already partisan, and therefore hidebound, which affects their accuracy and fairness as well; and their pursuit of truth turns into a blinkered chase.
Once again, I'm reminded of broadcasts that showed the events of the day separated from the newscasters' opinions of them, ensuring that the journalists air what makes them what they are apart from what happened. Give me the facts, because I can put my own emotional spin on them without help, thanks ever so.
Needless to say, I'm not immune, not when I'm keeping a stance because of a memory of information withheld, and of presenting information in a manner that makes one doubt one's view of events. What incentive do I have to do otherwise?
If nothing's perfect in this round and round, I think I'll keep looking for straight lines.
A note on strategic silence - at what point does that turn into complicit silence?
Ending with this because if international cuisine is the cheapest way to travel, this one's specific to beans and rice.