Masha Gessen: "Why Are Some Journalists Afraid of 'Moral Clarity'?"

I think I've posted this before, but this story really is dumb on dumb.

   But, humorously, it really does kind of explain why one ought to be averse to the idea of "moral clarity" as a replacement for objectivity. (The two aren't comparable things, for one; "moral clarity" is more akin to truth, i.e. to an end toward which objectivity is a means. But it's actually even dumber than that...) Gessen is--or at least writes as--a blinkered progressive who can't see her way out of that godawful, brainless, quasi-religious worldview. I'm not even going to start with the examples. And it's not worth a read, so I'm not suggesting that... But, honestly, it does end up providing a backhanded answer to the question in her title. My favorite bits are probably actually quotes from some other moron: "Donald Trump is a racist--objective fact"! "Climate change is real--objective fact"! LOOOOOOL. Though not even funny is the deeply dishonest "Black lives matter--objective fact"! (n.b. I'm adding the exclamation marks--but I know the author wanted them there--objective fact!) Go try to find ten people who think that black lives don't matter. What he really means is that the central claim of the organization "Black Lives Matter"--that racist white cops are killing innocent black Americans right and left--is true. Which it isn't. Not by a mile. So, basically: none of the "objective facts" Gessen uses as examples (again: quoting someone else) are facts at all. 

   See, that's why we don't want any part of this. The contemporary left is worse at telling what's factual and what isn't than any other major political faction in America in my lifetime. When they say they want to replace journalistic objectivity with "moral clarity" what they mean is: they want to replace it with leftist political dogmas. False ones, at that.

   Dumb on dumb.