FORMATSBACK
THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY
THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY
The New York Times should not have published the anonymous op-ed about Donald Trump’s White House, argues Masha Gessen of The New Yorker. It allows an unnamed official to praise him or herself and rationalize his or her choices, while criticizing the president. While the article probably appealed to liberals because of its anti-Trump stance, it detailed a twisting of U.S. democracy that should worry any citizen. A group of people within the White House is trying to run the country by themselves. The article reveals little that is new, which is why The New York Times’ choice to run with it seems steeped in partisanship and not strong journalistic values.
Keep on reading at the New YorkerThe op-ed written by an anonymous White House official was too important not to be published, writes Judith Miller for Fox News. Knowing fully that someone within the administration is working to hamper Donald Trump’s agenda is something the whole country needs to know. While the media has been drawn to anti-Trump stories, it has also uncovered important secrets. His relationship to dictators, many conflicts of interest, and his reaction to the Russia investigation were all morally questionable. The president needs to be held accountable for his misdeeds and flaws. The American people have the right to know who their leader really is.
Keep on reading at Fox News