3 ms·
> But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics. I would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in m
by bugglebeetle 3y ago
> But they sometimes make comically elementary errors regarding our politics.
I would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> would describe the political coverage of both of the US papers I mentioned in much the same terms I wouldn’t. Most plainly, because they’re read (and responded to) by policymakers.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoThat’s more indicative of their relationship to power (largely subservient) than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> more indicative of their relationship to power (largely subservient) What are you basing this on? From the people I know in federal and state government, this is totally backwards. > than anything to do with the accuracy of their reporting or integrity Sure, whatever. The point is is there signal in the noise. And for those publications, there is. In part because they create the signal. That said, they’re written for decision makers and the civically and commercially engaged. For casual readers, a less-frequent and more-entertaining format is probably a better fit.