4 ms·

> When people say that the quality of a publication has declined they often mean they disagree with things that are published. > a rag like Jacobin

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Jacobin often uses flame bait writing style which I don't like even if it's something that I agree with. It's insulting to the reader.
tootie 4y ago
Jacobin isn't just biased, it's agenda-driven. They're cheering specific outcomes and jeering others. To the parent comments' point, Jacobin is just an echo chamber for Socialists who want to hear Socialist opinions from other Socialists. That's different from wanting to read factual news and rational analysis from sources who believe climate change is real.
- jdgoesmarching 4y ago
  Every publication is agenda-driven, and nothing is more echo chambery than believing only your favorites are presenting “factual news and rational analysis.”
  - tootie 4y ago
    No they aren't. That's cynical. Jacobin puts it right on their About Us page that they're Socialist news. I've been around a few newsrooms and most of them would riot if they were ever directed to represent an agenda. Even when there was a predominant political leaning.
    - jdgoesmarching 4y ago
      How many of those newsrooms rioted during the decision to invade Iraq? One doesn’t need to be “directed to represent an agenda” in a competitive news environment, you don’t make it through the door without being a certain type of journalist to begin with. One of the most frustrating obstacles in this conversation is people believing that being in the middle of the Overton Window makes you non-ideological. The idea of being ideological is offensive to people who believe that their view isn’t, which ironically is the hallmark of successful ideology. I’d point to Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher for further elaboration. This reminds me of the David Foster Wallace joke of the fish who reply to “How’s the water?” with “What the hell is water?”
      - tootie 4y ago
        Rioting would be agenda. Actively reporting the facts when they directly contradict the political mainstream is good journalism. That mostly happened in the high brow press with a few notable exceptions. As someone who primarily read the NY Times in the early 2000s I was pretty well convinced the cassus belli in Iraq was spurious. Judith Miller notwithstanding. They also published the infamous Yellow cake op ed.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Having a bias (inevitable for humans) and having an agenda are two entirely different things.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Jacobin often uses flame bait writing style which I don't like even if it's something that I agree with. It's insulting to the reader.

tootie 4y ago

Jacobin isn't just biased, it's agenda-driven. They're cheering specific outcomes and jeering others. To the parent comments' point, Jacobin is just an echo chamber for Socialists who want to hear Socialist opinions from other Socialists. That's different from wanting to read factual news and rational analysis from sources who believe climate change is real.

jdgoesmarching 4y ago
Every publication is agenda-driven, and nothing is more echo chambery than believing only your favorites are presenting “factual news and rational analysis.”
- tootie 4y ago
  No they aren't. That's cynical. Jacobin puts it right on their About Us page that they're Socialist news. I've been around a few newsrooms and most of them would riot if they were ever directed to represent an agenda. Even when there was a predominant political leaning.
  - jdgoesmarching 4y ago
    How many of those newsrooms rioted during the decision to invade Iraq? One doesn’t need to be “directed to represent an agenda” in a competitive news environment, you don’t make it through the door without being a certain type of journalist to begin with. One of the most frustrating obstacles in this conversation is people believing that being in the middle of the Overton Window makes you non-ideological. The idea of being ideological is offensive to people who believe that their view isn’t, which ironically is the hallmark of successful ideology. I’d point to Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher for further elaboration. This reminds me of the David Foster Wallace joke of the fish who reply to “How’s the water?” with “What the hell is water?”
    - tootie 4y ago
      Rioting would be agenda. Actively reporting the facts when they directly contradict the political mainstream is good journalism. That mostly happened in the high brow press with a few notable exceptions. As someone who primarily read the NY Times in the early 2000s I was pretty well convinced the cassus belli in Iraq was spurious. Judith Miller notwithstanding. They also published the infamous Yellow cake op ed.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Having a bias (inevitable for humans) and having an agenda are two entirely different things.