Impartiality or diversity. Pick one.

A news outlet like Fusion can never be impartial.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Impartiality or diversity. Pick one.

  1. Peter Varhol says:

    I cannot comment on Fusion, as you well know, as long as you limit your comments to Facebook members. I understand that you do that for convenience sake, but guess what? Not for diversity sake, as you purport to claim. So you are neither impartial nor diverse. Mirror, meet Felix.

    I suspect that you don’t read the comments on felixsalmon.com, but I try.

    All that said, I have a statement to make, in the first three weeks of our new President. I wrote this in response to an email from a friend. I don’t think it’s in any way perfect, or even adequate, but I would like to share, whether or not you want to.

    I appreciate the Trump presidency. I think it is giving the US the opportunity to decide what kind of country it wants to be, and what it will be in the future. He is laying down a gauntlet that cries out for a better definition on what it means to be the freest, most diverse, and most powerful country in the world.

    I think he is saying some things that need to be said, and that milquetoast Presidents of the past have been unwilling to say. Immigration is an issue (though I think not the one he is making it). So now we need to take a new direction in immigration policy, hopefully something that is less muddled than it currently is. By taking an absolute position, he is forcing the country to have an honest debate about where immigration fits into our world view.

    NATO countries are relying on the US to pay for their protection, rather than participating in it themselves. US leaders have avoided this issue for far too long. The same elsewhere – Japan, Korea, the Philippines.

    The UN relies on the US to pay a large chunk of its existence (28 percent, last time I checked), yet is unappreciated on the world scene.

    The world in general expects the US to be a force for stability, yet it continues to criticize and even condemn at every step.

    And more.

    I don’t have answers here. But I think he is proposing topics that need to be discussed, in an open and free democracy.

    But I hate the way he is doing it. He is not proposing, he is demanding. He is alienating many people who might agree with the questions, but might have their own answers. Those answers also need to be heard and debated. He delivers scathing criticism of the exercise of the separation of powers (a Presidential directive is “unreviewable” by the courts? Since when? I am amazed.).

    Others are abetting this abuse of power, for reasons of their own. Okay, so democracy is messy, and we should never lose sight of that. But I strongly believe that we will ultimately move forward, perhaps not in the best way, but in a positive one.

    And, about immigration in particular. All of my grandparents are on the Ellis Island rolls. I cannot tell you what it means for me to have the US as the refuge of freedom, opportunity, and hope. Let us find a way to keep that, and even to expand upon it.

    I have more, but this about covers it for the moment.

Comments are closed.