12 ms·
nothing in "investigative reporting, commentary, criticism, and provocative personal essays" is, what I consider news. q.e.d. vox.com: "Vox explains the news."
by fock 6y ago
nothing in "investigative reporting, commentary, criticism, and provocative personal essays" is, what I consider news. q.e.d.
vox.com: "Vox explains the news.". No shroud of being objective here either. q.e.d.
slate.com: "we are a general-interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics, news, business, technology, and culture" general interest is vague, but no non-commented news here either, q.e.d.
the root has a category "news", but if you visit their main page you see, it's just a sort of "community news-ticker" (like any political page has) and I don't see them making claims to universality.
Compare that to Breitbart mingling everything there is into their political agend and explicitly stating: "truthful reporting", ... , "Breitbart News is one of America’s leading news organizations."
leaves the huffpost which is laughable by design.
- rbecker 6y ago> nothing in "investigative reporting, [..]" is, what I consider news. q.e.d. At this point I don't think there's anything I can say that will convince you. But yes, if you invent some contrived definition of "news site" that disqualifies every left-wing site, only right-wing ones remain. And I don't understand how that is even relevant to the article - as long as you can "get your news" from some source, that's enough. It doesn't have to pass some made-up purity test of what qualifies as a news site, because readers won't be applying that test. To pretend only right-wing sites share news and opinion for free is just willful blindness.