My suspicion is that many center-left readers will focus on the more provocative passages in Matthew Continetti’s new essay on “combat journalism” and neglect his broader argument. That’s a shame, as I think all readers, regardless of political coloration, have much to learn from it. I greatly look forward to reading the Free Beacon. (As a New York city resident, I took particular interest in Patrick Howley’s story on Indian Point, which is the kind of story I’d like to see more of.)
You're right, it's hard not to think that the last statement, "do unto them," is a rather sad testament to the fact that even conservatives seem to think truth is relative. It seems strange that we can't have a journalism that looks at the entire picture...
At the same time, his argument does seem correct in many ways, except he's a bit more into conspiracy than I think is reality. At the same time, as a progressive myself, I do think that for the sake of truth no one should be spared.
Yet even in the story you link to, the writer completely discounts alternative motives even while he reports them. It very well may be that (yes) the donor money is influential, but do politicians only have one motive for action? Does the fact that one of the other power plants Cuomo may end up supporting is trying to get "clean" energy? Does it matter that the Japanese melt-down might factor in?
This is the problem with combat journalism: we rely on journalists to make these types of judgments. Unlike you, Reihan, they are not so equanimous in their presentation of other arguments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse