4 ms·

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. A

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.”.
        bitdizzy 6y ago
        The media helped the Bush administration manufacture consent for the second gulf war. The infamous lies peddled on every major news channel and newspaper are recorded for all time. Parenti wrote Inventing Reality and Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in the 80's. Your examples of lies that that you believe demonstrate how especially bad media is today just reveal that you only notice certain exaggerations or interpretations of news that go against your politics. I presume you think yourself unbiased too.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        My politics are left wing. I could no doubt pick some fox news examples if I watched/read that outlet. The media may have helped Bush’s war, but they weren’t uniformly conservative and they also didn’t tell overt, easily verifiable lies. It’s one thing to report that the intelligence community says there are WMDs, and quite another thing to outright lie about the contents of a memo or a video which are publicly available. > I presume you think yourself unbiased too. 0/2 on your assumptions about me. Of course I’m biased; everyone is biased. The difference is that I don’t double down on my biases, but rather challenge and evolve them by reading and debating other points of view. Note that the stark contrast between that and the folks (esp in the media) who persecute others for ideological transgressions.
- faitswulff 6y ago
  You seem to be conflating neutrality and objectivity with bipartisanship. It's pretty obvious that there is only one party in the USA that even pretends to value neutrality and objectivity, and it's not the party that elected Donald Trump.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    No one is talking about bipartisanship. I chose my words deliberately; there is no subtext. :)
    - faitswulff 6y ago
      That seems revisionist. Your earlier comment specifically mentions “hyper-partisanship.”
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        It’s not revisionist, but I see now where the misunderstanding is. Partisanship means “commitment to an ideology”.
        faitswulff 6y ago
        Interesting, that is one definition of partisanship: > the quality or state of being partisan : strong and sometimes blind adherence to a particular party, faction, cause, or person [0] Didn't know that, thanks. [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisanship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisanship

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.”.
      - bitdizzy 6y ago
        The media helped the Bush administration manufacture consent for the second gulf war. The infamous lies peddled on every major news channel and newspaper are recorded for all time. Parenti wrote Inventing Reality and Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in the 80's. Your examples of lies that that you believe demonstrate how especially bad media is today just reveal that you only notice certain exaggerations or interpretations of news that go against your politics. I presume you think yourself unbiased too.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        My politics are left wing. I could no doubt pick some fox news examples if I watched/read that outlet. The media may have helped Bush’s war, but they weren’t uniformly conservative and they also didn’t tell overt, easily verifiable lies. It’s one thing to report that the intelligence community says there are WMDs, and quite another thing to outright lie about the contents of a memo or a video which are publicly available. > I presume you think yourself unbiased too. 0/2 on your assumptions about me. Of course I’m biased; everyone is biased. The difference is that I don’t double down on my biases, but rather challenge and evolve them by reading and debating other points of view. Note that the stark contrast between that and the folks (esp in the media) who persecute others for ideological transgressions.
faitswulff 6y ago
You seem to be conflating neutrality and objectivity with bipartisanship. It's pretty obvious that there is only one party in the USA that even pretends to value neutrality and objectivity, and it's not the party that elected Donald Trump.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  No one is talking about bipartisanship. I chose my words deliberately; there is no subtext. :)
  - faitswulff 6y ago
    That seems revisionist. Your earlier comment specifically mentions “hyper-partisanship.”
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      It’s not revisionist, but I see now where the misunderstanding is. Partisanship means “commitment to an ideology”.
      - faitswulff 6y ago
        Interesting, that is one definition of partisanship: > the quality or state of being partisan : strong and sometimes blind adherence to a particular party, faction, cause, or person [0] Didn't know that, thanks. [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisanship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/partisanship