"Bias"

There's a certain kind of justthefacts journalism that can fit nicely into the "fair/balanced/objective/unbiased" journalism model, and, rightly or wrongly, that model can be applied more broadly, if much more imperfectly.

However, when journalists do profiles and longer feature writing - amusingly, the kind of thing journalists often hold in high esteem - the entire point is they bring valuable perspective. These things do not fit that model very well at all!

Last month, the magazine enlisted the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine to review Olivia Nuzzi’s work during the 2024 campaign. They reached the same conclusion as the magazine’s initial internal review of her published work, finding no inaccuracies nor evidence of bias. Nevertheless, the magazine and Nuzzi agreed that the best course forward is to part ways. Nuzzi is a uniquely talented writer and we have been proud to publish her work over her nearly eight years as our Washington Correspondent. We wish her the best.

I get that this is attorneyspeak, but in the context of Nuzzi's general work what can "[no] evidence of bias" possibly mean here?

It's completely ridiculous for the specific issue, of course. She had some sort of affair with a presidential candidate she was profiling and promoting! But even aside from the specific issue, how could the type of work she did ever lack "bias?" 

I've decided that increasingly all those descriptions are just euphemisms for "in the club." 

Someone like David Dayen of The American Prospect is an "activist" whose work can be ignored, while "we" are Proper Journalists doing proper journalism. Why? Because we say so. 

Someone's lover? NOT BIASED! The perspectives that POC bring?  BIAS!