Journalism Without a ‘Point of View’ Is Impossible; Are You Ready for Some Tariffs? Coachella Valley Independent’s Indy Digest: March 3, 2025

Indy Digest: March 3, 2025

The owner of the Los Angeles Times. Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, is responsible for one of the dumbest sentences I’ve read in a newspaper in a long while.

The context: In “a letter to readers” published today, Shiong—after discussing the newspaper’s expanded video-streaming content, and before he discusses AI “insights” on some pieces (which is a topic for another day)—writes this:

Today, we are beginning a new effort to ensure that readers can readily distinguish opinion-driven content from our news reporting. Any content written from a point of view may be labeled Voices, which helps to strengthen the separation between what’s news and what’s not. Voices is not strictly limited to Opinion section content. It also includes news commentary, criticism, reviews, and more. If a piece takes a stance or is written from a personal perspective, it may be labeled Voices.

Let’s take a closer look at that second sentence: “Any content written from a point of view may be labeled Voices, which helps to strengthen the separation between what’s news and what’s not.”

There are a LOT of things wrong with this sentence—first and foremost the assumption that any “content” can be written without a “point of view.”

For decades, “objectivity” was seen as the gold standard in American journalism—just the facts, ma’am. But … there is no such thing as “objective.” Humans have view points, and those view points are always going to seep into content like journalism. Whole books have been written on this topic, and the “myth of objectivity” is a frequent topic in journalism discussions, such as a panel at Columbia University that was covered in the Winter 2022-2023 edition of Columbia Magazine. Here’s a paragraph from that piece that’s rather powerful:

Let’s go back to Dr. Soon-Shiong’s sentence, and really think about it: Any content written from a point of view may be labeled Voices, which helps to strengthen the separation between what’s news and what’s not.

So, what’s a “point of view”? Where is the line between “point of view” and “objectivity” (or whatever word one wants to use for a lack of a “point of view”)? Some hypotheticals: Is the declaration or assumption that human-caused climate change is causing extreme weather a “point of view”? Yes, it is; it’s a point of view backed up by virtually ALL climate scientists and a trove of data, but it’s indeed a point of view.

How about if the Times’ Dodgers beat writer notes that the team is “struggling”? Or if a writer implies that LGBTQ+ individuals deserve to be treated with respect? Or if a writer goes into a story with an assumption that racism is bad? These are all points of view.

Not even AI-generated pieces lack a “point of view,” because the data sets on which language models are developed determine what words the AI technology will spit out—and 1) what does and does not go in those data sets was selected, to at least some degree, by humans, and 2) those data sets can reflect a number of inherent biases/points of view found within them. Here’s one of many examples of this, on the biases found within medical artificial intelligence.

All journalists should always strive to be accurate and fair. But to write without a point of view? That’s simply just not possible—whether you’re a human or a machine.

—Jimmy Boegle

Coachella Valley Giving Day

Tomorrow is Coachella Valley Giving Day, and I have a favor to ask: If you can spare a buck or two, please consider clicking here and supporting the Coachella Valley Journalism Foundation (CVJF). Any amount is helpful; the Desert Community Foundation offers prizes/bonuses to participating nonprofits for various things, and the more donors, the better.

The CVJF has supported the Independent in a number of ways in recent years, including funding an intern, and helping us pay our portion of California Local Journalism Fellow Haleemon Anderson’s salary. Thank you!

More News

• The work-from-home era for some state employees is coming to an end. The Los Angeles Times reports: “Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order Monday directing state workers to return to the office four days per week, shifting California government away from a post-pandemic model that allows roughly 95,000 government employees to clock in remotely for most of the week. The change, which is expected to take effect July 1, comes after President Trump called many federal government workers back to the office last month and as corporations continue to retract remote work options. ‘In-person work makes us all stronger—period,’ Newsom said in a statement. ‘When we work together, collaboration improves, innovation thrives, and accountability increases. That means better service, better solutions, and better results for Californians, while still allowing flexibility.’”

• Also from the LAT (and this one has the “Voices” tag, so brace yourselves for a “point of view!”: A new poll shows that Californians as a whole now believe the No. 1 problem facing the U.S. is political extremism and threats to democracy: “That’s the finding of a new statewide survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. And it represents a shift from last fall’s presidential election, says PPIC polling director Mark Baldassare. The two pivotal policy issues that elected President Trump were inflation and illegal immigration, a fact that Democratic nominee Kamala Harris either didn’t grasp or tried to hide from. But it didn’t matter politically in blue California, where the native daughter trounced Trump in a landslide. Even in California, however, a PPIC poll of residents in October showed that they considered the economy much more important than threats to democracy. ‘People are still nervous about the economy,’ Baldassare says. ‘But they’re now more concerned about the state of democracy because of the change in (national) leadership. It has changed from a divided government to a government run by one party.’”

• Staying with California news: Our partners at Calmatters look at the status of the state’s big promise to get cheaper insulin to Californians: “Two years ago, California made a bold announcement that it would manufacture a state-branded, low-cost insulin. Drug manufacturers, insurers, economists and diabetics took notice. It had the potential to disrupt the market, bring down drug costs and save patients’ lives. Gov. Gavin Newsom promised a ‘2024 delivery’ for the insulin. It still is not here, and the American Diabetes Association says the lag is hurting diabetics who need a low-cost option for the medicine. ‘We are more than a year behind schedule with no end in sight,’ said Christine Fallabel, regional director for government affairs for the association, during a recent Senate oversight hearing on the initiative. During the hearing, representatives for the Newsom administration said they could not provide a timeline for when the state’s insulin would be for sale. Fallabel said Californians could be waiting until 2030. More than 3.5 million Californians have diabetes, and insulin is a life-saving part of their disease management and treatment. Civica, Inc., the nonprofit drug manufacturer contracted to develop five types of insulin for the state, has not yet started clinical trials or applied for drug approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CalMatters reported last month.”

• When you read this story, ask yourself: What possible reasons could Trump and co. have for doing this? The Guardian reports: “The Trump administration has publicly and privately signaled that it does not believe Russia represents a cyber threat against U.S. national security or critical infrastructure, marking a radical departure from longstanding intelligence assessments. The shift in policy could make the U.S. vulnerable to hacking attacks by Russia, experts warned, and appeared to reflect the warming of relations between Donald Trump and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. … Liesyl Franz, deputy assistant secretary for international cybersecurity at the state department, said in a speech last week before a United Nations working group on cybersecurity that the U.S. was concerned by threats perpetrated by some states but only named China and Iran, with no mention of Russia in her remarks. Franz also did not mention the Russia-based LockBit ransomware group, which the U.S. has previously said is the most prolific ransomware group in the world and has been called out in U.N. forums in the past.” YIKES.

• Here’s a headline that may make you exclaim, “WTF?” compliments of Wired magazine: “Texas Official Warns Against ‘Measles Parties’ Amid Growing Outbreak.” Some details: “A Texas health authority is warning against ‘measles parties’ as the outbreak in West Texas grew to at least 146 cases, with 20 hospitalized and one unvaccinated school-age child dead. The outbreak continues to be mainly in unvaccinated children. In a press briefing hosted by the city of Lubbock, Texas, on Friday, Ron Cook, chief health officer at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Lubbock, offered a stark warning for Texans in his opening statements. ‘What I want you to hear is: It’s not good to go have measles parties because what may happen is—we can’t predict who’s going to do poorly with measles, be hospitalized, potentially get pneumonia or encephalitis and or pass away from this,’ Cook said. ‘So that’s a foolish idea to go have a measles party. The best thing to do is make sure that you’re well vaccinated.’ … It’s unclear if any measles parties are occurring in Gaines or elsewhere. ‘It’s mostly been … social media talk,’ Cook said in response to a follow-up question from Ars.”

• And finally … are you ready for the tariffs? Well, you’d better be—and by “ready,” I mean “prepare to pay more for all sorts of things.” The Washington Post reports: “Your favorite Mexican beer is likely to get more expensive, now that President Donald Trump is promising to slap heavy tariffs Tuesday on imports from the United States’ two neighbors. ‘Tomorrow—tariffs 25 percent on Canada and 25 percent on Mexico. And that’ll start,’ Trump told reporters Monday afternoon. … Such penalties are likely to cause real pain to those countries, which are the top two U.S. trade partners. But American consumers will be hurt, too, according to economists. Tariffs are basically a tax on foreign goods; importers probably would have to raise their prices to compensate. Mexico makes all kinds of things the average American uses. It manufactures 88 percent of the pickup trucks sold in America; a 25 percent tariff could add about $3,000 to the price tag of that new Ford or GM truck, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said recently. Mexico supplies around half of America’s imported fruit and two-thirds of imported vegetables, in dollar terms—tomatoes, berries, bell peppers, cucumbers. And then there’s beer. Most of the imported beer that Americans swig is brewed in Mexico.”

Support the Coachella Valley Journalism Foundation!

To repeat what I said above: Please help out the CVJF for Coachella Valley Giving Day! As always, thanks for reading!