Choosing Where to Look and What to Say

Reader comment on: Illegal To Tell Workers To Be Positive

Submitted by Joshua Stein (United States), Nov 4, 2016 17:27

The Times article is really an example of how journalists choose what to say and what to look at. Those choices in themselves reflect bias, filtering and the goal orientation of many modern journalists, who are in the business to try to improve (as they see it) the world rather than to report on it. I often get calls from journalists interested in a particular area. It is often obvious to me that their "reporting" is just an effort to make a particular point about something. They set an agenda by choosing what to report on. Shifting gears, I remain shocked and awed at how far the current federal bureaucracy is taking multiple forms of social legislation. The NLRB example cited here is just one example. It's the functional equivalent of the transgender bathrooms announcements and the announcement from the Dept of Education requiring Star Chamber prosecutions for alleged sexual harassers. It is inconceivable to me that Congress had these things in mind when they passed the alleged enabling legislation. Of course, if Congress is unhappy with the bureaucrats, then Congress should control them through more legislation. On your final point, however, I jump to the defense of the Times. The Albrechts' situation has no relevance to this article. One could probably suggest a thousand other things the Times could have mentioned in this article of equivalent relevance. Why not mention that employees at Trader Joe's wear red Hawaiian shirts? It is just as relevant to this article as the Albrecht comment.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Comment on this item