Comments

7 responses to “Watching the Watchers”

1. 

   Independent Thinker

   2024-11-20

   “What do you need?”

   For you to not criticize journalists who don’t attribute an act to a particular group without evidence. Stating that they don’t know what side the despicable group of neo-nazis come from, while also acknowledging they most often come from the far-right, is perfectly valid and indicative of a journalist who has integrity — a person who is supposed to report the news shouldn’t be making claims without direct support for that claim.

   If it comes out that they are in-fact, aligned with the far-right (which I suspect is the most likely case), then update the story to state as much.

   Dana did a good job here attempting to rebuild trust in her networks trustworthiness.

   Reply
   1. 

      Jeff

      2024-11-20

      Sorry, I.T., but my criticism of her being deferential to *literal* Nazis stands. Her ham-handed attempt (and truly, many similar attempts before and after the racist “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville in 2017) to find a “both sides” equivalence was venal and amoral, and a hallmark of the failure of modern journalism to call a spade a spade. Or really, to call a Nazi a right-wing racist.

      Reply
      1. 

         Independent Thinker

         2024-11-20

         What you’ve done is taken a small segment of her full comment out of context and attempted to pin her as a Nazi sympathizer, which is neither fair nor accurate. Her statement, in its entirety, clearly acknowledges that neo-Nazis are “typically from the far right.” This demonstrates that she understands their ideological alignment. However, as a journalist, her role is to report accurately, which includes not making unfounded claims, even if the group’s alignment seems obvious to most observers.

         She also broadened the discussion by noting that antisemitism and extremism can manifest in other forms, such as the protests outside Representative Landsman’s home. While this could have been phrased more effectively, it doesn’t amount to “both-sides-ism.” Instead, it’s an attempt to address the reality that hate and bigotry are not always confined to one side of the political spectrum, even if neo-Nazis clearly align with the far-right.

         To suggest that her comment is deferential to Nazis is a gross mischaracterization. Deference would involve excusing, justifying, or minimizing their actions, which she absolutely did not do. Her use of phrases like “paraded through the city waving swastikas” clearly indicates her condemnation of the group.

         Criticizing modern journalism is fair, but it should be based on a thorough and honest evaluation of what was actually said, not an out of context snippet that distorts the intent. Dana Bash’s measured approach here reflects an effort to ensure factual reporting and maintain journalistic integrity — not an attempt to excuse or equate ideologies. If we want journalism to improve, we need to recognize when someone is responsibly avoiding unverified claims rather than vilifying them for doing so.

         Reply
         1. 

            Jeff

            2024-11-20

            To suggest that her comment is deferential to Nazis is a gross mischaracterization. Deference would involve excusing, justifying, or minimizing their actions, which she absolutely did not do.

            Incorrect. Her misstatement was indeed deference, in that it was a gross mischaracterization of Nazis. They are right-wing, and need to be called out as such. Extreme right-wing ideology is synonymous with fascism, and must be identified as such. Otherwise, we are lost as a democracy.

            Reply
            1. 

               Independent Thinker

               2024-11-20

               Your response seems to sidestep the actual substance of what I said, so let’s go through it again.

               Dana Bash explicitly stated that neo-Nazis are “typically from the far right.” That’s not deference; it’s recognition of their ideological alignment. Her decision to avoid definitively attributing this particular group to the far right, without direct evidence, is consistent with journalistic integrity. While the alignment seems obvious, a journalist’s role is to report confirmed facts, not assumptions, no matter how likely they may be.

               I agree that extreme right-wing ideology, synonymous with fascism, must be called out when it’s present. But we can’t conflate the broader fight against extremism with criticism of a journalist who is following the principle of accuracy. If the facts about this group emerge confirming their far-right ties, then Bash’s reporting can and should reflect that. To claim that her careful framing is deference to Nazis, however, stretches the interpretation of her words to an unfair extreme.

               If we’re talking about the preservation of democracy, isn’t trust in accurate, fact-based journalism a key part of that equation? I’d encourage you to reconsider whether condemning a journalist for responsibly qualifying her statements really serves the larger goal of holding extremists accountable.
            2. 

               Jeff

               2024-11-20

               I sidestepped the majority of what you said because it’s window dressing.
               “Her decision to avoid definitively attributing this particular group to the far right” is only consistent with television journalists trying to find a false sense of “fairness” and “balance” since Fox News co-opted and corrupted those terms. It’s not journalistic integrity; it’s saying, “Some people say the emperor is wearing very fine clothes,” when he’s naked as a jaybird.
               And if we don’t call out small examples of letting the right control the narrative — which is precisely what this is an example of — then we’ve ceded far too much territory. The whole point of my post — which *you*, I.T., have attempted to sidestep — was that journalists *must* be held to a higher standard, or risk becoming subservient to the impending regime.
2. 

   Independent Thinker

   2024-11-20

   I have to push back harder here because your framing of this conversation is fundamentally flawed. You argue that Dana Bash is “letting the right control the narrative,” but that ignores the fact that she explicitly said neo-Nazis are “typically from the far right.” That’s not narrative control — it’s calling out their ideological alignment while adhering to the journalistic principle of reporting only what is verified about this specific group.

   This isn’t a case of false equivalence or deference. It’s a journalist responsibly stating what is known without overstating. Far from controlling the narrative, this approach dismantles the potential for bad-faith actors to dismiss her reporting as partisan. If anything, her integrity strengthens the argument against extremism.

   I also want to address two troubling elements in your previous response. First, your use of “both sides” to critique Bash seems like an attempt to tie her to the debunked claim that Trump called neo-Nazis “very fine people.” Let’s be clear: that narrative has been repeatedly disproven, and using it as shorthand for false equivalence undermines the credibility of your critique.

   Second, your use of “venal” implies that Bash’s actions were motivated by personal gain or corruption. That’s a serious accusation, and it’s entirely unfounded. If you’re not implying bribery, I’d ask you to clarify what you mean, because the word choice here borders on hyperbolic rhetoric rather than constructive critique.

   Finally, let’s not lose sight of the goal: combating extremism and preserving democracy. Misrepresenting Bash’s statement doesn’t serve that purpose. If you’re serious about holding journalists to a higher standard, the standard must include honesty in how we engage with their words. Otherwise, we risk losing the very credibility necessary to push back against the ideologies we both oppose.

   Reply