I want to keep thinking that the author is pursuing some kind of rational strategy with this piece. But given how muddled, poorly written, and ungrammatical the writing is, I am forced to consider the possibility that the author is simply mutton-headed.
Of course, negative coverage is a hit piece. That's the whole point. Discretion and judgment are hallmarks of adulthood. You don't blurt out every thought that pops into your head. Journalists are adults. They don't just publish whatever they find, the positive and the negative, merely because they found it or because "it's a fact."
In that way, journalists are like expert players of the deepest game invented by humanity -- hold 'em poker. They choose what claims to present, in what context and in what order, to reinforce specific beliefs in the minds of their opponents in the service of particular personal goals.
Pretending otherwise is either hopelessly naive or pretending to be hopelessly naive.
She's drawing a distinction between an editor telling a journalist to write a negative piece, and the journalist freely writing one anyway. This is a meaningful distinction between things, but probably not how most of us would define a hit piece.
I think most of us would define a hit piece as an article intended to give a falsely negative impression by misleading the reader. This is a critical point, because some of the NYT article is negative but fair, while some of it is taking extraordinary liberties with the truth through omission and guilt-by-association, and it's the latter that makes it a hit piece. To say that Scott allowed white supremacists in his comments provided they didn't do anything too awful is a criticism based in fact, and the reader can decide how bad it is, but to imply Scott himself is a racist because he agreed with Charles Murray on a UBI is what makes it a hit piece.
That's fascinating. Can you imagine a scenario where negative coverage is not a "hit piece"? Is any journalism that the person being covered by does not like a "hit piece"
Your defensiveness for the subject in question is incredibly obvious, and ironically, deeply irrational.
Imagine I was at a party in some friends' home, and I started making loud, unflattering observations about them. "Hey, Bob! What's up with that bald spot! Hey Judy, your fibroids doing okay?" It would be the height of rudeness and possibly even malice, and I would quickly have angry people demanding to know what I think I'm doing.
That's negative journalism. What do they think they're doing?
Of course, negative coverage is a hit piece. That's the whole point. Discretion and judgment are hallmarks of adulthood. You don't blurt out every thought that pops into your head. Journalists are adults. They don't just publish whatever they find, the positive and the negative, merely because they found it or because "it's a fact."
In that way, journalists are like expert players of the deepest game invented by humanity -- hold 'em poker. They choose what claims to present, in what context and in what order, to reinforce specific beliefs in the minds of their opponents in the service of particular personal goals.
Pretending otherwise is either hopelessly naive or pretending to be hopelessly naive.