10 ms·

Here’s a good interview with Morales from last month talking about the coup, the election, and the multinationals that tried to suppress MAS in Bolivia: https:/

Here’s a good interview with Morales from last month talking about the coup, the election, and the multinationals that tried to suppress MAS in Bolivia: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/10/evo-morales-interview-bolivia-mas-election https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/10/evo-morales-interview-bol...

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
Morales giving an interview to Jacobin Magazine isn’t exactly a neutral source.
- jahaja 6y ago
  Where do you imagine left-wing interviews should take place then? The corporate media doesn't seem that interested.
- tecleandor 6y ago
  I'd say it's almost impossible to make an interview neutral, be it Jacobin Magazine or National Geographic.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    You are asking someone to give their opinion on matters, there is no attempt to hide the bias.
- CyanBird 6y ago
  The US manufacture of consent machinery is not interested on giving voices to enemies of Washington Consensus foreign policy
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  The parent comment does not claim that it is "neutral", and a politician's opinions are not normally assumed to be "neutral", so I'm not sure why you even raise that as an issue.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Non-neutral sources don't tend to be well received around here. What makes this one deserving of a pass? The issues that interview covers have been widely discussed. Surely there's someone with an agenda other than "give this guy batting practice pitches right over the plate" that has asked him his opinion. This guy is a politician, being in the media, answering questions and talking about his opinion is part of his job. He's certainly done more interviews than just this one. Furthermore, a friendly interview is much less informative than a neutral or hostile interview. Anyone can hit batting practice pitches. Anyone can answer questions from a friendly interviewer. A politician's answer to tough questions or to having their answers questioned is far more informative. Jacobin interviewing a leftist/socialist is like Tucker Carlson interviewing some ardent "muh religion and family values" type right winger. It's just a forum for the interviewee to pontificate mostly unchallenged.
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  There is no neutrality in reporting, so you might as well have something that wears their bias on their sleeve.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    Maybe there isn’t but you can usually do better at neutrality than a magazine that names itself after a bunch of violent revolutionaries who helped usher in the Reign of Terror, and which since then has become a byword for hard left extremism.
    - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
      That's not actually who it is named after. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins But you'd have to read to figure that out.
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        You link to this article as if the French Revolution isn’t indicated as the inspiration of the movement and the source of the name, and no one involved is laying claim to the tradition. Downvote harder, Bolsheviks.
        ianleeclark 6y ago
        > You link to this article as if the French Revolution isn’t indicated as the inspiration of the movement No matter what way you cut it, the absolutely brutal chattel slavery was the inspiration of the movement, not Robespierre.
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        Yes, and good for them. That’s a fine reason to start a movement. It’s still the name and the magazine is still explicitly about the tradition of socialism. It’s still about as neutral as interviewing Trump in Breitbart, and only a few steps away from the neutrality of interviewing Stalin in Pravda.
refurb 6y ago
Wow. Seems like a super messy situation. Morales wins in the first election, but because of irregularities he resigns under pressure and his own party votes to annul the old election results and bans him from running again?
- aixi 6y ago
  Of course. Although his run was upheld by the supreme court (which is biased towards his party), there was a referendum held the year before which basically asked 'should Evo be allowed to run again, although it's currently unconstitutional?' and the people decided against him. Him running again was literally unconstitutional and he running again puts his presidency's (and thus, his parties) legitimacy in question

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

Morales giving an interview to Jacobin Magazine isn’t exactly a neutral source.

jahaja 6y ago
Where do you imagine left-wing interviews should take place then? The corporate media doesn't seem that interested.
tecleandor 6y ago
I'd say it's almost impossible to make an interview neutral, be it Jacobin Magazine or National Geographic.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  You are asking someone to give their opinion on matters, there is no attempt to hide the bias.
CyanBird 6y ago
The US manufacture of consent machinery is not interested on giving voices to enemies of Washington Consensus foreign policy
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
The parent comment does not claim that it is "neutral", and a politician's opinions are not normally assumed to be "neutral", so I'm not sure why you even raise that as an issue.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Non-neutral sources don't tend to be well received around here. What makes this one deserving of a pass? The issues that interview covers have been widely discussed. Surely there's someone with an agenda other than "give this guy batting practice pitches right over the plate" that has asked him his opinion. This guy is a politician, being in the media, answering questions and talking about his opinion is part of his job. He's certainly done more interviews than just this one. Furthermore, a friendly interview is much less informative than a neutral or hostile interview. Anyone can hit batting practice pitches. Anyone can answer questions from a friendly interviewer. A politician's answer to tough questions or to having their answers questioned is far more informative. Jacobin interviewing a leftist/socialist is like Tucker Carlson interviewing some ardent "muh religion and family values" type right winger. It's just a forum for the interviewee to pontificate mostly unchallenged.
ianleeclark 6y ago
There is no neutrality in reporting, so you might as well have something that wears their bias on their sleeve.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  Maybe there isn’t but you can usually do better at neutrality than a magazine that names itself after a bunch of violent revolutionaries who helped usher in the Reign of Terror, and which since then has become a byword for hard left extremism.
  - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
    That's not actually who it is named after. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins But you'd have to read to figure that out.
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      You link to this article as if the French Revolution isn’t indicated as the inspiration of the movement and the source of the name, and no one involved is laying claim to the tradition. Downvote harder, Bolsheviks.
      - ianleeclark 6y ago
        > You link to this article as if the French Revolution isn’t indicated as the inspiration of the movement No matter what way you cut it, the absolutely brutal chattel slavery was the inspiration of the movement, not Robespierre.
        fennecfoxen 6y ago
        Yes, and good for them. That’s a fine reason to start a movement. It’s still the name and the magazine is still explicitly about the tradition of socialism. It’s still about as neutral as interviewing Trump in Breitbart, and only a few steps away from the neutrality of interviewing Stalin in Pravda.

refurb 6y ago

Wow. Seems like a super messy situation. Morales wins in the first election, but because of irregularities he resigns under pressure and his own party votes to annul the old election results and bans him from running again?

aixi 6y ago
Of course. Although his run was upheld by the supreme court (which is biased towards his party), there was a referendum held the year before which basically asked 'should Evo be allowed to run again, although it's currently unconstitutional?' and the people decided against him. Him running again was literally unconstitutional and he running again puts his presidency's (and thus, his parties) legitimacy in question