Finally, Real Journalism: Tell Me Best

[Carborendum]

@NeuroTypical linked to a news website recently (https://www.tellmebest.com/).  It is now on one of my preferred lists of "neutral" journalism sources. It is slightly left-of-center.  But it reminds me of how journalism was in the 70s and 80s.  They were on the liberal side.  But they were journalists, not activists.

Here is an example article.  https://www.tellmebest.com/cdc-shigella-infection/  Look at the careful wording of the following sentences:

Quote

The infection has the susceptibility to infect anyone regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

According to the CDC, it is more likely to affect children, travelers, and men who have sex with men.

How can these statements both be correct?  Notice the word "susceptibility".  Then compare "more likely to affect".  They seem contradictory.  But it is the detailed description further in the article indicates the intended meaning of those phrases.

• The first sentence is talking about the chances of infection should you get the bacteria on you.  (Once you have the bacteria on you, it doesn't matter who you are.)
• The second sentence is about who tends to get the bacteria on them in the first place. (Depending on your personal habits, you are more or less likely to get the bacteria on you in the first place.)

No politics.  No wokeness.  No cancelling.  No condemnation/virtue signalling.  No bashing any side of any argument.  This is high praise coming from me because I recognize the site is still a slightly left-of-center.  They avoided mentioning any politicians or poltical party.  They didn't use party-affilliated language (Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, etc.)

I did NOT like their article about the Walgreen boycott because it argued in favor of abortion.  But I still have to give credit to the author who avoided using invective when stating their position.  So kudos to them.

They also wrote fairly even-handed words on the state of America today. https://www.tellmebest.com/life-in-the-us-best-worst-changes-past-20-years/  They did mention that Republicans and Democrats seem more polarized.  Well, duh.  I think everyone agrees with that.  So, nothin controversial there.  And, yes, they mentioned environmentalism and LGBTQ advancement.  But they didn't "sound" like activists.  They simply stated that they thought it was a good thing.  And that's ok. 

You're allowed to be honest about your opinions/positions.  It is only when I begin hearing things as if the "journalist" is an "activist" that I begin to roll my eyes.  And I just didn't get that vibe here.

[Carborendum]

As I've been reading more on the site (Tell Me Best) I've come to understand that their journalists are not monolithic.  I've noticed that while many are fairly neutral, and I believe only a few are "activist journalists" the site tends to have journalists from across the spectrum.

This is an admirable trait if it is applied correctly.  If they are only randomly assigning stories to individual journalists, the level of bias is random.  But if they take care to assign a far right and far left journalist to a topic, we get to hear both sides of the story.  Even if they are biased, we at least get to hear both sides.  And that is really all I want -- both sides.

In the meantime, I have realized that The Hill is fairly centrist.  I had been going back and forth on whether they were left or right -leaning because I agreed and disagreed with so many articles.  But then it occurred to me that they were being fairly consistent in the middle.  But I was being biased a whole lot more than they were.  So, I'm adjusting myself a bit.