Oliver Darcy argues that Bari Weiss is attempting to revive a “both-sides” approach that he believes was already dismantled by Trumpism. However, he misinterprets Weiss’s vision, which she articulated as the new editor-in-chief of CBS News at the recent Jewish Leadership Conference. Weiss advocates for a transparent editorial process that allows audiences to witness the debates and reasoning that influence coverage, aiming to serve the “75 percent” of Americans who sit outside extreme political views and wish for respectful disagreement.
In a previous column, I contended that Weiss is not promoting centrism, but rather a return to standard journalistic practices where legacy media can abandon an illusion of neutrality that diminishes transparency and treats a liberal majority as incapable of engaging in substantive debate.
Darcy, whose background includes covering media for CNN before embarking on his independent newsletter, mischaracterizes Weiss’s intent. He interprets her emphasis on a debate featuring Dana Loesch and Alan Dershowitz as evidence of her inclination to balance political viewpoints. However, he claims Weiss is recycling an antiquated “both sides” narrative that legacy media has failed to execute properly. He argues that this approach necessitates providing a platform for dishonest voices, like that of Donald Trump, which raises concerns about journalistic integrity.
While Darcy’s critique addresses the challenge of bad-faith actors in political discourse—particularly in the context of Trump—he overlooks the essence of Weiss’s proposal. She is advocating for a model of trust that does not rely on equal representation of opposing ideologies. The example of Loesch and Dershowitz was not intended to exemplify balanced extremes but to showcase that contentious subjects can be debated in good faith. Both figures may not represent oppositional ends of the political spectrum; rather, they illustrate how serious discussions can occur without resorting to deception.
The missing understanding in Darcy’s analysis is that a “both sides” format is merely a surface-level tactic, while Weiss’s intent is to foster a deeper comprehension of editorial decision-making. She seeks to remove the shroud of institutional neutrality that often obscures how certain claims are weighed.
This distinction is critical. When any effort to highlight genuine disagreements is hastily labeled “both-sidesism,” it becomes more problematic than analytical; it risks stalling innovation within the media landscape and perpetuating an aversion to engaging with fresh methodologies.
If Weiss’s initiative at CBS does not succeed, it should not be attributed to a flawed “both sides” formula she explicitly rejects, but rather to the failure of embracing transparent pluralism. Media critics ought to evaluate Weiss’s efforts through the lens of her proposed framework rather than through the outdated lens of traditional paradigms.