4 ms·

Yeah, Teen Vogue has plenty of solid journalism.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I'm genuinely not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Teen Vogue is certainly surprisingly serious, but my standard for "solid journalism" involves some attempt at neutrality and objectivity as opposed to hyper-partisan ideology marketed to children. To be quite clear, the overall modern media landscape is highly partisan and sensationalist; Teen Vogue mostly only stands out in that they're marketing their divisive ideology directly to children. EDIT: This is unsurprisingly attracting downvotes. I'm curious if people are objecting to the characterization of Teen Vogue as partisan and ideological or the implication that marketing divisive ideology to children is a social ill? Or perhaps that journalism should aspire toward the truth and not partisan advocacy?
- lovegoblin 6y ago
  I assure you it is not sarcastic at all.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Thanks for clarifying.
- faitswulff 6y ago
  Sure, I’ll bite. I downvoted you because it’s not partisanship or divisiveness that should be decried, but the immense wealth inequality in the United States. And perhaps Teen Vogue is progressive because that’s where their readership already is, as opposed to them simply preying on a vulnerable population.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Thanks for responding. For what it's worth, I fully agree that wealth inequality is one of the most important issues in America. On many policy issues, I'm progressive. But I just can't get behind political propaganda ('advocacy', if that's easier to swallow) billing itself as 'journalism', which I believe should ultimately be about seeking the truth (and ergo a pursuit of neutrality and objectivity). Journalism is most valuable when it hosts a robust debate; when one party to the debate is consistently a stooge or a caricature, the "debate" is less than worthless. The ideals of neutrality and objectivity are particularly important when children are the audience--the objective should be teaching children to think for themselves, not teaching them what they ought to think. Once upon a time I understood these to be progressive values.
    - shmageggy 6y ago
      > ’journalism', which I believe should ultimately be about seeking the truth (and ergo a pursuit of neutrality and objectivity) This doesn’t exist. I haven’t yet given up hope that it could someday exist, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t currently. Would love to be proven wrong though.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        A perfectly neutral and objective journalism hasn't existed, but the aspiration toward neutrality and objectivity have existed and even been mainstream at points in our history. In my lifetime, it's a relatively recent phenomena that media outlets were openly biased, viewing their function as "activism" rather than truth-seeking.
        shmageggy 6y ago
        Maybe I'm just being cynical but I disagree. It may have appeared so outwardly, but I'm skeptical that the core motivation for mainstream journalism has ever been objectivity. I mean Manufacturing Consent is from 1988 and covers much of the 20th century, and it's not like things have improved since.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Do you think the media landscape of the 90s and 00s was just as partisan and sensationalist as today? Can you imagine the media reporting outright, easily verifiable falsehoods on their front page? Where were the 90s reporters standing in front of a burning building talking about “mostly peaceful protests”? Or the Damore memo being called “an anti-diversity screed” or the whole Covington Catholic affair? That was once the realm of parody. Before 2014, I think BLM coverage would have been “The left is angry about disproportionately black police shootings, but the moderates point out that blacks commit more violent crime and also here are some heinous anecdotes of police killings of white people. Everyone agrees that there are too many police killings. Stay tuned for a story about a dancing bear after the break.”.
- kick 6y ago
  Journalism was rarely feigning objectiveness: during the 1920s through the 1970s, some of the strongest voices in favor of labor were journalists. "Neutrality" is largely a construct, or meme, that has been pushed by Rupert Murdoch since he founded his "news" network. Naturally, his own properties are nowhere near objective, despite some people claiming WSJ magically escapes bias. Everything is naturally biased, the only distinction is whether an entity is open about their bias. This goes for anything: whether it was the New York Times and FOX hawking for nearly every war during the 2000s, or it was Newsweek favoring MLK Jr. and Life describing his speeches with phrases like "demagogic slander" during the 1960s, everyone's naturally got an opinion. This doesn't stop applying when writing about a subject.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    > Journalism was rarely feigning objectiveness Granted. The extent to which journalism is valuable is the extent to which it is neutral and objective. When it abandons even the pursuit of truth, it becomes a social ill. > Everything is naturally biased, the only distinction is whether an entity is open about their bias. I don't think this is true on any level of analysis (though it is one of the most popular and obvious of mistruths). At the individual level, one can choose to counterbalance his biases or commit himself to them. He can choose to lean on rhetoric or reason. He can debate against his most competent opponents or he can choose stooges. He can choose between straw men and steel men. He can choose to be honest (if fallible) or dishonest. At an organizational level, we can choose between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. We can have an ideological monoculture or a diverse culture. We can build a culture that calls out rhetoric and favors reason. The net result of a heterodox organization isn't the absolute lack of bias, but the bias is severely attenuated compared to the modern newsroom.
tor11 6y ago
funny.

I'm genuinely not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Teen Vogue is certainly surprisingly serious, but my standard for "solid journalism" involves some attempt at neutrality and objectivity as opposed to hyper-partisan ideology marketed to children. To be quite clear, the overall modern media landscape is highly partisan and sensationalist; Teen Vogue mostly only stands out in that they're marketing their divisive ideology directly to children. EDIT: This is unsurprisingly attracting downvotes. I'm curious if people are objecting to the characterization of Teen Vogue as partisan and ideological or the implication that marketing divisive ideology to children is a social ill? Or perhaps that journalism should aspire toward the truth and not partisan advocacy?

lovegoblin 6y ago
I assure you it is not sarcastic at all.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Thanks for clarifying.
faitswulff 6y ago
Sure, I’ll bite. I downvoted you because it’s not partisanship or divisiveness that should be decried, but the immense wealth inequality in the United States. And perhaps Teen Vogue is progressive because that’s where their readership already is, as opposed to them simply preying on a vulnerable population.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Thanks for responding. For what it's worth, I fully agree that wealth inequality is one of the most important issues in America. On many policy issues, I'm progressive. But I just can't get behind political propaganda ('advocacy', if that's easier to swallow) billing itself as 'journalism', which I believe should ultimately be about seeking the truth (and ergo a pursuit of neutrality and objectivity). Journalism is most valuable when it hosts a robust debate; when one party to the debate is consistently a stooge or a caricature, the "debate" is less than worthless. The ideals of neutrality and objectivity are particularly important when children are the audience--the objective should be teaching children to think for themselves, not teaching them what they ought to think. Once upon a time I understood these to be progressive values.
  - shmageggy 6y ago
    > ’journalism', which I believe should ultimately be about seeking the truth (and ergo a pursuit of neutrality and objectivity) This doesn’t exist. I haven’t yet given up hope that it could someday exist, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t currently. Would love to be proven wrong though.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      A perfectly neutral and objective journalism hasn't existed, but the aspiration toward neutrality and objectivity have existed and even been mainstream at points in our history. In my lifetime, it's a relatively recent phenomena that media outlets were openly biased, viewing their function as "activism" rather than truth-seeking.
      - shmageggy 6y ago
        Maybe I'm just being cynical but I disagree. It may have appeared so outwardly, but I'm skeptical that the core motivation for mainstream journalism has ever been objectivity. I mean Manufacturing Consent is from 1988 and covers much of the 20th century, and it's not like things have improved since.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Do you think the media landscape of the 90s and 00s was just as partisan and sensationalist as today? Can you imagine the media reporting outright, easily verifiable falsehoods on their front page? Where were the 90s reporters standing in front of a burning building talking about “mostly peaceful protests”? Or the Damore memo being called “an anti-diversity screed” or the whole Covington Catholic affair? That was once the realm of parody. Before 2014, I think BLM coverage would have been “The left is angry about disproportionately black police shootings, but the moderates point out that blacks commit more violent crime and also here are some heinous anecdotes of police killings of white people. Everyone agrees that there are too many police killings. Stay tuned for a story about a dancing bear after the break.”.
kick 6y ago
Journalism was rarely feigning objectiveness: during the 1920s through the 1970s, some of the strongest voices in favor of labor were journalists. "Neutrality" is largely a construct, or meme, that has been pushed by Rupert Murdoch since he founded his "news" network. Naturally, his own properties are nowhere near objective, despite some people claiming WSJ magically escapes bias. Everything is naturally biased, the only distinction is whether an entity is open about their bias. This goes for anything: whether it was the New York Times and FOX hawking for nearly every war during the 2000s, or it was Newsweek favoring MLK Jr. and Life describing his speeches with phrases like "demagogic slander" during the 1960s, everyone's naturally got an opinion. This doesn't stop applying when writing about a subject.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Journalism was rarely feigning objectiveness Granted. The extent to which journalism is valuable is the extent to which it is neutral and objective. When it abandons even the pursuit of truth, it becomes a social ill. > Everything is naturally biased, the only distinction is whether an entity is open about their bias. I don't think this is true on any level of analysis (though it is one of the most popular and obvious of mistruths). At the individual level, one can choose to counterbalance his biases or commit himself to them. He can choose to lean on rhetoric or reason. He can debate against his most competent opponents or he can choose stooges. He can choose between straw men and steel men. He can choose to be honest (if fallible) or dishonest. At an organizational level, we can choose between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. We can have an ideological monoculture or a diverse culture. We can build a culture that calls out rhetoric and favors reason. The net result of a heterodox organization isn't the absolute lack of bias, but the bias is severely attenuated compared to the modern newsroom.

tor11 6y ago

funny.