Stew

This practice of laundering ideology through curation of anonymous "analysts" hinders ability of readers to evaluate the experience and motives of the people being offered as experts. It also hinders ability of readers/editors to hold those people accountable when they are wrong.

There are numerous serious problems with this. For one, it suggests some kind of unanimity. People who "analyze" these issues believe this! Either Weisman chose not to interview any analysts with a different view or he did and he chose to hide from readers what they said.

Weisman chose experts who lined up with his own views as reflected in prior reporting. But check this out: he hid the identity of the experts he used under the broad term "analysts."

THREAD. The New York Times reporting on the Chicago Mayor race has repeatedly raised ethical problems. But one aspect of Jonathan Weisman's reporting is particularly egregious misinformation. Other reporters should be concerned about the integrity of the paper.

I have written about the ethical problems with how some New York Times reporters use vague and anonymous terms like "analysts" and "experts" to hide who they are talking about, a practice that has severe consequences for accuracy and accountability. equalityalec.substack.com/p/…