6 ms·

The only part of that statement that is hyperbolic is that they literally breathe fire

chrisco255 7y ago
Except they give Soros the old-fashioned (harmless New Dealer type) moniker and they conjure dragon imagery for the right winger. Why is it so hard for journalists to write neutrally these days?
- 13415 7y ago
  Everyone is biased, including journalists and you.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Indeed, everyone is biased and so am I. But the job of journalism is to at least make an attempt at stripping away that personal bias. That takes a self-awareness, respect for the other side and humbleness that modern journalists seem to lack.
    - fwip 7y ago
      I'd rather plain bias than false equivalency.
      - Veen 7y ago
        False dichotomy. We can take practical steps to reduce bias, even it we can't eliminate bias altogether.
      - soulofmischief 7y ago
        I'm not looking for false equivalency. I'm looking for accurate journalism. I doubt either of these parties would find these descriptions agreeable, not because they have negative connotations, but because they fail to encapsulate what these men stand for and what their body of work suggests.
    - 13415 7y ago
      I wholeheartedly disagree. Your assessment is a popular false narrative that was invented recently by the "alt right", by professional disinformers (paid think tanks, troll farms, etc.) and by clickbait producers. I'm not claiming that you belong to any of those groups, just that these groups have influenced many people to parrot this false narrative. Unfortunately, people are easy to influence and repeat such kind of phrases. Two other points: 1. People are even more biased than you think, including you. It's impossible to have no bias, journalists have always been biased. Nothing has changed in that respect. If at all, journalists were way more politically biased in the 1970s than they are now. 2. Another thing has changed. There are now more people who think of themselves as journalists - all those bloggers and vloggers - without having learned the handcraft, and there are more parties interested in discrediting actual journalists than there used to be. 3. Unfortunately, people have started to loose understanding the distinction between editorials and news. That's the real reason why this false narrative is so successful. Even though all major newspapers clearly mark their editorials and opinion pieces, people ignore this and complain about "biases". I've seen this over and over again. At the same time, they are unable to state the main traits of news and the differences between news and opinion. To me, that's more a sign of increased illiteracy due to more visual media consumption than having anything to do with the quality of journalism. 4. Last but not least, basically everyone I've ever heard complaining about modern journalism think they know better what's going on in the world. How would that be possible? There is no way for them to know. And basically everybody who complains takes US TV network news as a kind of "lost gold standard" of journalism, which is plain ridiculous. The complaints are insubstantial, by people who do not consume the actual products like daily news or weekly newspapers any longer. In a nutshell, more people complain about weaker standards in journalism, because they know less about journalism.
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        I'm well aware of my personal biases. But the only way that I was even able to get to that level of self-awareness was by engaging with people who think differently than me. Today's polarization is very real. Its tangible. It's being exacerbated by the CNN vs Fox dynamic of left vs right leaning news. It's being aggravated by social media and mass media bubbles. And it's very destructive. https://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/ https://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-pol...
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  The vast majority of journalists are unionized and therefore benefit from the popularity of anti free market ideology.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  Soros basically advocates western liberalism, ie spreading the western status quo. The Koch’s really are much more out there.
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    The Open Society does give money to moderate and center-left groups but it has also regularly given grants to far-left redistributionist activist groups, Anti-Israel organizations, and Marxist protestors. Not quite the western status quo. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-foundations/ https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-found...
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      Which explains my anger over this seemingly insignificant detail. The fact is, our entire perception of people we have never met is shaped by propaganda. We cannot even have meaningful conversations about the actions of these people if we have to spend the most useful and engaging part of the time someone will give attention to a conversation just explaining the rules.
soulofmischief 7y ago
The Kochs do not wish to "dismantle government". What does that even mean? As an anarchist I can tell you that they do not fall in my camp and frequently use large governing bodies to their advantage. What about "old-fashioned New Deal liberal" and "fire-breathing right-wingers" could possibly be more oversimplified? Not only are we comparing apples to oranges (liberal to right-wing; "liberal" and "left" are independent tokens) but we are calling Kochs fierce right-wingers despite many of their beliefs and actions standing in stark contrast against right-wing politics. Both parties have good and bad characteristics, both have characteristics that do not square snuggly into either of the round holes presented. That is deceitful, lazy journalism. The journalist wanted to set up a dramatic angle which showed two "completely incompatible" people coming into agreement about something which their presented oversimplified world views should not allow. By choosing drama and oversimplification in lieu of accurate reporting, the journalist demonstrates that they are not qualified to have the kind of mature political dialogue one would assume The Boston Globe would like to display.

Except they give Soros the old-fashioned (harmless New Dealer type) moniker and they conjure dragon imagery for the right winger. Why is it so hard for journalists to write neutrally these days?

13415 7y ago
Everyone is biased, including journalists and you.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Indeed, everyone is biased and so am I. But the job of journalism is to at least make an attempt at stripping away that personal bias. That takes a self-awareness, respect for the other side and humbleness that modern journalists seem to lack.
  - fwip 7y ago
    I'd rather plain bias than false equivalency.
    - Veen 7y ago
      False dichotomy. We can take practical steps to reduce bias, even it we can't eliminate bias altogether.
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      I'm not looking for false equivalency. I'm looking for accurate journalism. I doubt either of these parties would find these descriptions agreeable, not because they have negative connotations, but because they fail to encapsulate what these men stand for and what their body of work suggests.
  - 13415 7y ago
    I wholeheartedly disagree. Your assessment is a popular false narrative that was invented recently by the "alt right", by professional disinformers (paid think tanks, troll farms, etc.) and by clickbait producers. I'm not claiming that you belong to any of those groups, just that these groups have influenced many people to parrot this false narrative. Unfortunately, people are easy to influence and repeat such kind of phrases. Two other points: 1. People are even more biased than you think, including you. It's impossible to have no bias, journalists have always been biased. Nothing has changed in that respect. If at all, journalists were way more politically biased in the 1970s than they are now. 2. Another thing has changed. There are now more people who think of themselves as journalists - all those bloggers and vloggers - without having learned the handcraft, and there are more parties interested in discrediting actual journalists than there used to be. 3. Unfortunately, people have started to loose understanding the distinction between editorials and news. That's the real reason why this false narrative is so successful. Even though all major newspapers clearly mark their editorials and opinion pieces, people ignore this and complain about "biases". I've seen this over and over again. At the same time, they are unable to state the main traits of news and the differences between news and opinion. To me, that's more a sign of increased illiteracy due to more visual media consumption than having anything to do with the quality of journalism. 4. Last but not least, basically everyone I've ever heard complaining about modern journalism think they know better what's going on in the world. How would that be possible? There is no way for them to know. And basically everybody who complains takes US TV network news as a kind of "lost gold standard" of journalism, which is plain ridiculous. The complaints are insubstantial, by people who do not consume the actual products like daily news or weekly newspapers any longer. In a nutshell, more people complain about weaker standards in journalism, because they know less about journalism.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      I'm well aware of my personal biases. But the only way that I was even able to get to that level of self-awareness was by engaging with people who think differently than me. Today's polarization is very real. Its tangible. It's being exacerbated by the CNN vs Fox dynamic of left vs right leaning news. It's being aggravated by social media and mass media bubbles. And it's very destructive. https://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/ https://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-pol...
CryptoPunk 7y ago
The vast majority of journalists are unionized and therefore benefit from the popularity of anti free market ideology.
rsynnott 7y ago
Soros basically advocates western liberalism, ie spreading the western status quo. The Koch’s really are much more out there.
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  The Open Society does give money to moderate and center-left groups but it has also regularly given grants to far-left redistributionist activist groups, Anti-Israel organizations, and Marxist protestors. Not quite the western status quo. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-foundations/ https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-found...
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    Which explains my anger over this seemingly insignificant detail. The fact is, our entire perception of people we have never met is shaped by propaganda. We cannot even have meaningful conversations about the actions of these people if we have to spend the most useful and engaging part of the time someone will give attention to a conversation just explaining the rules.

soulofmischief 7y ago

The Kochs do not wish to "dismantle government". What does that even mean? As an anarchist I can tell you that they do not fall in my camp and frequently use large governing bodies to their advantage. What about "old-fashioned New Deal liberal" and "fire-breathing right-wingers" could possibly be more oversimplified? Not only are we comparing apples to oranges (liberal to right-wing; "liberal" and "left" are independent tokens) but we are calling Kochs fierce right-wingers despite many of their beliefs and actions standing in stark contrast against right-wing politics. Both parties have good and bad characteristics, both have characteristics that do not square snuggly into either of the round holes presented. That is deceitful, lazy journalism. The journalist wanted to set up a dramatic angle which showed two "completely incompatible" people coming into agreement about something which their presented oversimplified world views should not allow. By choosing drama and oversimplification in lieu of accurate reporting, the journalist demonstrates that they are not qualified to have the kind of mature political dialogue one would assume The Boston Globe would like to display.