4 ms·

Reason is not slanted. It's a very libertarian site and a lot of people come from the left.

by webspinner 2y ago

klausa 2y ago
>X is not slanted. It's a <specific slant being described>.
- webspinner 2y ago
  I meant like say brieghbart is, it's a conservative source. I've never known of reason to be such thing though.
  - catlover76 2y ago
    [dead]
yareal 2y ago
All news media has a bias, it's literally impossible to serve a finite news set and not exert some editorial control. However, if you describe a news site as (very political ideology) I think it's fair to consider it slanted.
- roenxi 2y ago
  While that is philosophically true, but this thread is illustrating why that isn't a helpful perspective . Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. We could correctly call such an organisation "slanted", but it is missing the point that there some slants are privileged by virtue of leading the reader to act in a reasonable and rational manner while others don't. I'm not sure if the US - or the world - has any of those. But the generic "there is a slant" point is useless. What matters is what the slant leads people to do, what information the slant is omitting and whether said slant is a good one on balance. If calling a media organisations "slanted" doesn't imply "slanted [in a way I think is potentially bad and relevant]" then the word is useless and shouldn't be used.
  - klausa 2y ago
    > Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. I think you'll find that literally every media organisations thinks it's doing exactly that — the issue is that people have _wildly_ different conceits of what "best outcome" for them is.
    - Nevermark 2y ago
      The correspondences revealed in Fox News court cases do not paint a picture of a company with their own principled view to having a positive impact, that included respect for facts. All companies "serve" their customers, including news organizations, and inevitably have subjective ways of organizing their efforts. But there is a big difference between ones that have a mission geared to a positive society outcome, a commitment to customer well being, and respect for facts, with profits following from that service, vs. a mission to print whatever they can legally afford to, to maximize profits. And of course, that difference is a continuum. Some companies take value creation seriously. Others optimize for opportunities to extract value and prey on dysfunction.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      They might believe it but anyone not engaging in motivated reasoning can see they aren't. But it just isn't reasonably possible to match up major news reporting with someone who sat down and asked "what reporting is important and helpful to the readers?" outside maybe financial journals. They're pretty obviously trying to gin up hate, fear and misunderstanding. The reporting on Trump alone during his presidency was jaw dropping, let alone all the low-level warmongering that threads through the corporate press. My rule of thumb is to go read what any politician actually said, because I've only seen it reported accurately by a journalist in rare cases. That rule simply isn't something a productive reporting slant would require.
  - yareal 2y ago
    > Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. Are there media organizations that don't believe they are doing this?
dragonwriter 2y ago
“libertarian” is as much of a slant as left or right is; that its largely orthogonal to the left/right axis, and lots of people think only in terms of that axis (on which Reason is clearly on the right, but not as far from center on that axis as it is on the libertarian one) doesn't change that.
- webspinner 2y ago
  There's about a 50/50 split in the libertarian party so it really isn't. Actually, I would say most of the people there lean left, or center.
  - solumunus 2y ago
    I don’t think you understood their comment as yours doesn’t seem to make sense as a response. They’re saying that libertarian can be left/right but Reason in particular skews right.
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    Oh, come on. Face it: The US Libertarian party has been totally been taken over by far right wing racist populist LINO assholes who like to snort coke and bang underage hookers and are embarrassed to call themselves Republican but always vote that way just to stay in power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz >Gaetz has self-identified as a "libertarian populist".[102] Observers have described his views as far right.[2] Gaetz was an early supporter of Donald Trump and his appeal to the Republican Party base, echoing his talking points. In several commercials during his 2016 congressional campaign, Gaetz promised to "kill Muslim terrorists and build the wall".[103] Trouble for Matt Gaetz: Witness Says She Was Paid for Sex Parties With Him: https://newrepublic.com/post/179070/matt-gaetz-witness-house-ethics-paid-sex-parties https://newrepublic.com/post/179070/matt-gaetz-witness-house... >The House Ethics Committee is now weighing that evidence to determine whether or not the MAGA politician paid for sex with women and an underage teenager.
    - phone8675309 2y ago

Reason is not slanted. It's a very libertarian site and a lot of people come from the left.

klausa 2y ago

>X is not slanted. It's a <specific slant being described>.

webspinner 2y ago
I meant like say brieghbart is, it's a conservative source. I've never known of reason to be such thing though.
- catlover76 2y ago
  [dead]

yareal 2y ago

All news media has a bias, it's literally impossible to serve a finite news set and not exert some editorial control. However, if you describe a news site as (very political ideology) I think it's fair to consider it slanted.

roenxi 2y ago
While that is philosophically true, but this thread is illustrating why that isn't a helpful perspective . Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. We could correctly call such an organisation "slanted", but it is missing the point that there some slants are privileged by virtue of leading the reader to act in a reasonable and rational manner while others don't. I'm not sure if the US - or the world - has any of those. But the generic "there is a slant" point is useless. What matters is what the slant leads people to do, what information the slant is omitting and whether said slant is a good one on balance. If calling a media organisations "slanted" doesn't imply "slanted [in a way I think is potentially bad and relevant]" then the word is useless and shouldn't be used.
- klausa 2y ago
  > Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. I think you'll find that literally every media organisations thinks it's doing exactly that — the issue is that people have _wildly_ different conceits of what "best outcome" for them is.
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    The correspondences revealed in Fox News court cases do not paint a picture of a company with their own principled view to having a positive impact, that included respect for facts. All companies "serve" their customers, including news organizations, and inevitably have subjective ways of organizing their efforts. But there is a big difference between ones that have a mission geared to a positive society outcome, a commitment to customer well being, and respect for facts, with profits following from that service, vs. a mission to print whatever they can legally afford to, to maximize profits. And of course, that difference is a continuum. Some companies take value creation seriously. Others optimize for opportunities to extract value and prey on dysfunction.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    They might believe it but anyone not engaging in motivated reasoning can see they aren't. But it just isn't reasonably possible to match up major news reporting with someone who sat down and asked "what reporting is important and helpful to the readers?" outside maybe financial journals. They're pretty obviously trying to gin up hate, fear and misunderstanding. The reporting on Trump alone during his presidency was jaw dropping, let alone all the low-level warmongering that threads through the corporate press. My rule of thumb is to go read what any politician actually said, because I've only seen it reported accurately by a journalist in rare cases. That rule simply isn't something a productive reporting slant would require.
- yareal 2y ago
  > Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. Are there media organizations that don't believe they are doing this?

dragonwriter 2y ago

“libertarian” is as much of a slant as left or right is; that its largely orthogonal to the left/right axis, and lots of people think only in terms of that axis (on which Reason is clearly on the right, but not as far from center on that axis as it is on the libertarian one) doesn't change that.

webspinner 2y ago
There's about a 50/50 split in the libertarian party so it really isn't. Actually, I would say most of the people there lean left, or center.
- solumunus 2y ago
  I don’t think you understood their comment as yours doesn’t seem to make sense as a response. They’re saying that libertarian can be left/right but Reason in particular skews right.
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  Oh, come on. Face it: The US Libertarian party has been totally been taken over by far right wing racist populist LINO assholes who like to snort coke and bang underage hookers and are embarrassed to call themselves Republican but always vote that way just to stay in power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz >Gaetz has self-identified as a "libertarian populist".[102] Observers have described his views as far right.[2] Gaetz was an early supporter of Donald Trump and his appeal to the Republican Party base, echoing his talking points. In several commercials during his 2016 congressional campaign, Gaetz promised to "kill Muslim terrorists and build the wall".[103] Trouble for Matt Gaetz: Witness Says She Was Paid for Sex Parties With Him: https://newrepublic.com/post/179070/matt-gaetz-witness-house-ethics-paid-sex-parties https://newrepublic.com/post/179070/matt-gaetz-witness-house... >The House Ethics Committee is now weighing that evidence to determine whether or not the MAGA politician paid for sex with women and an underage teenager.
  - phone8675309 2y ago