That she does. ItтАЩs the fact that she is a тАШhistorianтАЩ but describes todayтАЩs political events (read: never Trump) through her own elitist bubble as factual rather than stating itтАЩs only her opinion. So, in other words, she either cherry picks to engage her readers, or she does so because she actually believes what sheтАЩs writing. To do the first is understandable, although not laudable. To do the latter is, unfortunately, what I fear to be the case, which is neither ethical nor laudable. So this is the long way to say she is incredibly biased, if not tone deaf, and needs to reframe her position as editorializing rather than positing examples of тАШtruth by historyтАЩ.
Mmm, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on the professor. I find her takes pretty straightforward. I'm sure she's selective on her topics, as she only has a few a day she can dive into out of the hundreds that cross her desk, but that's true of every news and opinion writer. I don't find her remotely elitist, either, and if she appears to be Never Trump, perhaps that's because she, and many of us, find little objectively decent to say about the man.
You donтАЩt have to like him, but you do need to report things that are factual, if in fact you choose to use your status as a historian to reach the many people who subscribe to what is considered a very popular blog. ThatтАЩs my beef with her. She should be intellectually curious, but she should also let the facts speak for themself. She reports her opinions as facts, and that is not good journalism. I found her at the beginning of her blog to be much less biased, but I just canтАЩt stomach her anymore due to her seemingly increased pandering to her subscribers, predominantly well educated upper middle class women (I myself fall into this category) and lack of objectivity. She has some merit, but personally for me she falls short of what I seek in gathering information and assimilating that information for myself.
Really, Bari? VDH? Now do HCR
WhatтАЩs wrong with HCR? I enjoy her writing and she shows her homework!
That she does. ItтАЩs the fact that she is a тАШhistorianтАЩ but describes todayтАЩs political events (read: never Trump) through her own elitist bubble as factual rather than stating itтАЩs only her opinion. So, in other words, she either cherry picks to engage her readers, or she does so because she actually believes what sheтАЩs writing. To do the first is understandable, although not laudable. To do the latter is, unfortunately, what I fear to be the case, which is neither ethical nor laudable. So this is the long way to say she is incredibly biased, if not tone deaf, and needs to reframe her position as editorializing rather than positing examples of тАШtruth by historyтАЩ.
Mmm, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on the professor. I find her takes pretty straightforward. I'm sure she's selective on her topics, as she only has a few a day she can dive into out of the hundreds that cross her desk, but that's true of every news and opinion writer. I don't find her remotely elitist, either, and if she appears to be Never Trump, perhaps that's because she, and many of us, find little objectively decent to say about the man.
You donтАЩt have to like him, but you do need to report things that are factual, if in fact you choose to use your status as a historian to reach the many people who subscribe to what is considered a very popular blog. ThatтАЩs my beef with her. She should be intellectually curious, but she should also let the facts speak for themself. She reports her opinions as facts, and that is not good journalism. I found her at the beginning of her blog to be much less biased, but I just canтАЩt stomach her anymore due to her seemingly increased pandering to her subscribers, predominantly well educated upper middle class women (I myself fall into this category) and lack of objectivity. She has some merit, but personally for me she falls short of what I seek in gathering information and assimilating that information for myself.