4 ms·

>Trust journalists with a good track record Do these journalists work for large mainstream media corporations that are all owned by a shockingly small number o

>Trust journalists with a good track record Do these journalists work for large mainstream media corporations that are all owned by a shockingly small number of partisans, by any chance?

krastanov 8y ago
This is a very lazy way to shut down a conversation. Huffington Post and Fox News are indeed owned by partisans and are partisan themselves, but even such cheap shots have respectable journalists (Smith and Wallace at Fox for instance). WaPo is owned by a partisan but has a good track record. NPR has many underwriters but that does not stop them from having good investigative journalists. Do you have a complaint different from "It is not perfect so I do not believe in any of it"?
- umanwizard 8y ago
  > WaPo ... has a good track record. Sure, if you go back to the Watergate investigation. Their track record in recent years is abysmal. They are basically the pseudo-official mouthpiece of the U.S. Democratic Party, and somewhere between the New York Times and the Huffington Post in terms of seriousness.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    If we are sticking to soundbites I can simply respond with "Reality has a liberal bias". When facts aling with a policy idea this makes the policy good, not the facts wrong (and we should applaud both parties when they do it). I do not read every single article in WaPo but their front page and push notifications are most of the time fact based.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      I said nothing about liberal ideology. I mentioned a specific organization: the U.S. Democratic Party. That party hated Bernie Sanders (who is plenty “liberal”[1]) nearly as much as it hated Trump, and both were covered very negatively by the Washington Post. I don’t know why you assume I’m criticizing the Post from a right-wing perspective. Perhaps you are too steeped in the two-sided U.S. political culture, where disliking one party must mean liking the other? By the way, reporting objectively correct facts does not make a publication unbiased or serious. Even if everything TMZ reports about celebrity relationships is true, do you consider them a serious news source? Deciding which facts to emphasize is just as important as telling the truth. [1] To head off in advance any off-topic responses: this is true regardless of whether you mean “liberal” in the American or European sense.
      - krastanov 8y ago
        Yup, I did assume it was that type of critique, my bad. I do not have an answer that would be satisfing however: - While I like Senator Sanders, reasonable people (I would like to believe I am one) can have stuff to dislike about his policies. This is how I view the non "alt right" complaints about him. - Being more to the center than someone else, does not make you a mouthpiece for the centrist party. Edit: I misread your comment again. I deleted an unrelated response.

>Trust journalists with a good track record Do these journalists work for large mainstream media corporations that are all owned by a shockingly small number of partisans, by any chance?

krastanov 8y ago

This is a very lazy way to shut down a conversation. Huffington Post and Fox News are indeed owned by partisans and are partisan themselves, but even such cheap shots have respectable journalists (Smith and Wallace at Fox for instance). WaPo is owned by a partisan but has a good track record. NPR has many underwriters but that does not stop them from having good investigative journalists. Do you have a complaint different from "It is not perfect so I do not believe in any of it"?

umanwizard 8y ago
> WaPo ... has a good track record. Sure, if you go back to the Watergate investigation. Their track record in recent years is abysmal. They are basically the pseudo-official mouthpiece of the U.S. Democratic Party, and somewhere between the New York Times and the Huffington Post in terms of seriousness.
- krastanov 8y ago
  If we are sticking to soundbites I can simply respond with "Reality has a liberal bias". When facts aling with a policy idea this makes the policy good, not the facts wrong (and we should applaud both parties when they do it). I do not read every single article in WaPo but their front page and push notifications are most of the time fact based.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    I said nothing about liberal ideology. I mentioned a specific organization: the U.S. Democratic Party. That party hated Bernie Sanders (who is plenty “liberal”[1]) nearly as much as it hated Trump, and both were covered very negatively by the Washington Post. I don’t know why you assume I’m criticizing the Post from a right-wing perspective. Perhaps you are too steeped in the two-sided U.S. political culture, where disliking one party must mean liking the other? By the way, reporting objectively correct facts does not make a publication unbiased or serious. Even if everything TMZ reports about celebrity relationships is true, do you consider them a serious news source? Deciding which facts to emphasize is just as important as telling the truth. [1] To head off in advance any off-topic responses: this is true regardless of whether you mean “liberal” in the American or European sense.
    - krastanov 8y ago
      Yup, I did assume it was that type of critique, my bad. I do not have an answer that would be satisfing however: - While I like Senator Sanders, reasonable people (I would like to believe I am one) can have stuff to dislike about his policies. This is how I view the non "alt right" complaints about him. - Being more to the center than someone else, does not make you a mouthpiece for the centrist party. Edit: I misread your comment again. I deleted an unrelated response.