One of the acid tests for journalism is its focus and its tone. Does the reporter care about the truth, or is he/she more interested in watching people fight, or identifying traitors to the great god liberalism? Sadly, most journalists fall into the latter camp, as this piece from Bloomberg shows. In it, the journalist interviews Richard Weinstein, the guy who has dug up the clips of Matt Gruber, one of the Obama advisors who helped craft the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
I came away from the piece with a sense of fundamental unseriousness, as if the writer wanted an epic robot battle and so he provoked the two ‘bots until oil spilled. He viewed the content through the lens of “he said/she said”. He had no concern over how the ACA was written, even when that would be the very first question most people would ask. Otherwise, Gruber could speak all day and it wouldn’t matter. Why didn’t he ask if what Gruber said is true? Weirdly, he left that elephant in the room untouched and you can feel its hulking, lurking presence throughout the article. The journalist is not only a poor journalist, but he is a coward. He’s all about exposing Weinstein’s methods (so the left can plug the holes) and questioning his motives. The article is a desperate attempt to personalize the opposition (a la Alinsky) so that it can be destroyed.
Exhibit Z904, journalism in decline.