4 ms·
I don't understand why people keep arguing against journals or newspapers because they are allegedly ideological or biased. Everybody is ideological and biased.
by 13415 5y ago
I don't understand why people keep arguing against journals or newspapers because they are allegedly ideological or biased. Everybody is ideological and biased. Are they afraid they might lose all their critical thinking skills once they read such a journal and somehow be influenced or brainwashed without realizing it?
The people who recommend against those medias already believe of themselves that they are better informed and able to recognize the bias. If they are that critical, then they should have no troubles consuming biased and ideological media, and they shouldn't assume without further evidence that others don't have the same ability.
Especially in this case it's weird, because the journal is called The Economist. Obviously you'd expect some bias pro economy there.
- sudosysgen 5y agoOf course not, I myself read it often. I'm arguing against the GP that said that it's okay to read only the Economist. It's not okay to read only a single source. You can be as critical as you want but if you no longer have any bearings on a subject you're being led by the nose. Also, "pro-economy bias" is pretty vague. There are many ways one could be biased in a way so as to focus on a better economy, and they can be radically different.
- bena 5y agoMedia is already plural. Medium is the singular.
- 13415 5y agoThat's true. Although it's worth mentioning that "mediums" is also accepted as a plural of "medium" in English, but not when it's used for communication media.