3 ms·
Every publication is agenda-driven, and nothing is more echo chambery than believing only your favorites are presenting “factual news and rational analysis.”
by 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 agoNo 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 agoHow 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 agoRioting 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 agoHaving a bias (inevitable for humans) and having an agenda are two entirely different things.