The New York Observer's Tom Scocca ponders Time’s pathetically balanced (and as a result misleading) cover story: WHO OWNS THE TRUTH?” The story begins, “Red Truth looks at Bush and sees a savior; Blue Truth sees a zealot who must be stopped. In both worlds there are no accidents, only conspiracies, and facts have value only to the extent that they support the truth."
And in some worlds, there is an objective thing known as reality. As Scocca puts it:
Yes, the meaning of stories depends on their context. Yes, neutrality and objectivity are shaky constructs; yes, to write about the failures of the Bush administration is in some sense to declare oneself in favor of a Kerry administration. Yes, yes—and?[...]
The pose of intellectual disengagement, of bemused neutrality, is a position just like any other position. And if it means waiting for Mr. Kerry to step to the fore, perhaps we’d be better off with a different pose—something pre-postmodern, maybe, like pretending to hunger for the truth.
Comments