As oft advocated, the Intramuralist believes in an intentional, careful, news source selection. It’s not that we shouldn’t be subject to bias; however, we can’t claim to possess an accurate, objective perspective if we rely on a singular side, voice or source.
Hence, today’s post was originally set to share a short sampling of my recent reading — written by respectful authors who made me think… for example…
From Richard Wolf in USA TODAY, in an editorial entitled “Donald Trump stood no chance in front of a conservative Supreme Court. Here’s why”:
“The Supreme Court’s refusal to help Donald Trump change the result of the 2020 election should come as no surprise for the very reason the president hoped to win the case: The court is conservative… ‘The hallmark of conservative jurisprudence is respect for established law. No one should be surprised that the justices, like the Trump-appointed lower court judges in all these election cases, followed the law.’”
From Aaron Tang, professor of law at UC Davis and a former law clerk to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the Los Angeles Times, in an editorial entitled “The new Supreme Court is sending surprisingly centrist signals”:
“How far will the Supreme Court’s new conservative supermajority go? …Surprisingly, comments in three major oral arguments held since Justice Amy Coney Barrett took her seat offer significant clues. Across these cases, several conservative justices asked questions revealing a desire to find compromises that, to some degree, could satisfy both sides of the partisan divide…”
From Jonathan Chait in NY Magazine, in an editorial entitled “How Michael Anton’s ‘Flight 93 Election’ Essay Defined the Trump Era”:
“That is the power of Anton’s chosen analogy, which urges his audience to overlook all of Trump’s complete unfitness to handle the job (‘You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane,’ he concedes) on the grounds that the alternative means imminent national death…”
From David French in The French Press, in an editorial entitled “The Case Against Xavier Becerra”:
“If I had to sum up my objection to Becerra in a single sentence, it would be this: He’s a punitive progressive culture warrior. I realize that Biden is pro-choice and will pick a pro-choice HHS secretary. But the man he picked has a pattern and practice of pushing progressive cultural causes beyond the constitutional red line…”
And then I found The Thread. Follow me here.
With 13 federal prisoners scheduled to be executed by the end of Pres. Trump’s term, debate on the death penalty has increased. I knew, therefore, I needed to find a source that’s better… better than CNN, FOX, or pretty much the Daily anything. There are legitimate arguments for and against its use. I don’t want anyone’s bias to be the basis for my thinking.
Directed by AllSides, I found an article on The Thread entitled “Should We Resume Capital Punishment Federally?”
And fascinatingly, they didn’t try to talk me into anything.
First, they state the context. They then ask, “Why does this question matter?” Next is a factual account of the differences between state and federal application. Trends were concisely shared. And then they actually wrote the words that the CNN’s, FOX’s, etal.’s rarely seem to utter: “What do you think?”
To quote Jim Carey in the iconic “Bruce Almighty,” “B-E-A-Utiful!!”
The Thread then took a respectful look at both sides.
With all the quieted, affirmed accounts of who was allowed to talk about what in the weeks leading up to the election, note the contrasting approach of TheThreadWeekly.com…
“Welcome to a fresh take on news built by researchers who were feeling frayed. We’re frayed from 24/7 sensational headlines, biased reporting, and an endless drone of opinions that either make you want to cry out in despair or punch someone. We call it, ‘living in the fray.’”
“The fray doesn’t feel good.”
They’re right. And so The Thread boldly aims to “be the first thread of change” — “the go-to resource for factual and politically diverse commentary on some of the most important issues we face. We represent the independent thinkers and the politically exhausted. We believe that research and data empower us to face our most pressing challenges. That arming people with knowledge will help us to look beyond political silos and form our own opinions.”
Wow… one more word…
“Our goal is simple: We want to get factual information into the hands of thoughtful people, so that they can shape our future. It all starts with a thread.”
Oh, this is good, thoughtful people.
No, it’s not just good. It’s better.
Respectfully…
AR
Great article, thanks Ann!!!