4 ms·

> being promoted by Reason, which has a poor reputation for bias in reporting They're a LIBERTARIAN magazine, it says "free minds and free markets" right on t

by ch4s3 4y ago

> being promoted by Reason, which has a poor reputation for bias in reporting They're a LIBERTARIAN magazine, it says "free minds and free markets" right on the mast head. They're 100% up front about their view of the world. What do you really expect? This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists.

the_only_law 4y ago
> This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists Which you can expect to see in the comments whenever it’s posted on HN as well.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  See my other response here[1], but just pointing to the ideology of the publication as a form of criticism is substance-less and lazy. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31449663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31449663
dragonwriter 4y ago
> This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists. No, it's like suspecting that an article might be distorted to serve socialist ideological interests when Jacobin is the only source. Which is, of course, what any sane person would do, even if they share the outlet’s ideological orientation.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  It just isn't a very interesting critique in and of itself. If the OP was pointing out how their ideological outlook influenced the facts presented in the story, or how they left some complicating factor out, then it would be useful. However C.J. Ciaramella, the author of the piece has a long history and good track record of reporting on police misconduct, and civil rights abuses. Moreover the article is covering reporting originally done by WXYZ Detroit, so it not even originally from Reason, they just picked it up for their audience. My overarching point is that unless you can point to the ideology of the publication negatively influencing the reporting it's just lazy and useless criticism.

4 ms·

> being promoted by Reason, which has a poor reputation for bias in reporting They're a LIBERTARIAN magazine, it says "free minds and free markets" right on t

by ch4s3 4y ago

the_only_law 4y ago
> This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists Which you can expect to see in the comments whenever it’s posted on HN as well.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  See my other response here[1], but just pointing to the ideology of the publication as a form of criticism is substance-less and lazy. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31449663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31449663
dragonwriter 4y ago
> This is like complaining that Jacobin is written by a bunch of socialists. No, it's like suspecting that an article might be distorted to serve socialist ideological interests when Jacobin is the only source. Which is, of course, what any sane person would do, even if they share the outlet’s ideological orientation.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  It just isn't a very interesting critique in and of itself. If the OP was pointing out how their ideological outlook influenced the facts presented in the story, or how they left some complicating factor out, then it would be useful. However C.J. Ciaramella, the author of the piece has a long history and good track record of reporting on police misconduct, and civil rights abuses. Moreover the article is covering reporting originally done by WXYZ Detroit, so it not even originally from Reason, they just picked it up for their audience. My overarching point is that unless you can point to the ideology of the publication negatively influencing the reporting it's just lazy and useless criticism.