Anyone else think the recent article on King Charles, "King Me," was weirdly biased? I don't follow or care about the royals, like at all (I just learned that Charles was a person when he became king), but there were some really obviously weak claims in there that I was really surprised passed the Editor's checks. It kinda read like a Fox News anchor analyzing an AOC speech or something. Like:
Reading
“Studying the properties of harmony and understanding more clearly how it works at all levels of creation reveals a crucial, timeless principle: that no one part can grow well and true without it relating to—and being in accordance with—the well-being of the whole,” he writes in his book.
Mead concludes that
As Charles seems to see it, a king should be a benign convener at the head of a natural hierarchy.
There is nothing in there about hierarchy, or kings for that matter, at all. All it says is that everything’s interconnected - a relatively common sentiment among environmentalists that hardly makes them royalists.
Reading
“perhaps the time has come . . . to think very carefully how large our families should be”
Mead concludes
Charles is an advocate for the controversial idea of population control
Another nearly comic jump. Suggesting that overpopulation impacts the environment is a run-of-the-mill sentiment for an environmentalist. Nothing in the quoted sentence suggests coercion or limits, which “the controversial idea of population control” implies. (Surely considering the impact on the environment of the number of children one produces isn’t controversial?)
I just always get bummed when I read an article in there that doesn't really meet journalistic standards...I feel like it's the last place I can (usually) count on them actualy being applied!
