4 ms·

There's a reason premium domain names go for a high price: having generic-words for domains is big value. Similarly r/politics is a big deal. Gaining traction o

by selmnoo 13y ago

There's a reason premium domain names go for a high price: having generic-words for domains is big value. Similarly r/politics is a big deal. Gaining traction on a new subreddit would be a big issue in and of itself even if one set out to create a new politics subreddit. I'm really enjoying, by the way, that Mother Jones is banned. Mother Jones has a self-alleged left stint to it -- but at least they come right out and say it. Contrast that with Rupert's WSJ (hah, its /op-ed/ pieces are right now on r/politics front page!) Since having been bought by Rupert WSJ been leaning more to the right [1], is WSJ going to get banned by r/politics too now? [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html...

TylerE 13y ago
Certainly not a requirement. Look back into the reddit dark ages at the /r/marijuana /r/trees schism, for instance.
001sky 13y ago
Since having been bought by Rupert WSJ been leaning more to the right The WSJ is far more liberal than it was a generation ago.[1] The WSJ is sort of Bloombergian in its outlook. Also, Murdoch is not American. Most people consider the UK Conservatives left of center of even US democrats (eg, signle payer healthcare), so again even if Murdoch was pushing the US toward the EU right, it would be moving the the US left. (Another reason why these words are sort of ill-advised). Of course, he's actually Australian. So YMMV. [1] And frankly the NYT link is arguablly an opinion piece.
- e40 13y ago
  The WSJ is far more liberal than it was a generation ago. The WSJ is far more conservative than it was before Murdock bought it. My friends that get the paper delivered are disgusted by the slanting of the news, since the purchase.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    The Journal's editors stress the independence and impartiality of their reporters.[27] In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The Journal was the most liberal, more liberal than NPR or The New York Times. This just demonstrates it is important to baseline. Secondly, the editorial page and the reportage are not monolithic. I'd be pretty skeptical of anecdotal claims, especially of the type outlined in that NYT link. The WSJ was also a pro/fessional tool, when it was owned by DowJones, and had a different purpose in life than a paper like the NYT.
- selmnoo 13y ago
  > Also, Murdoch is not American. Most people consider the UK Conservatives left of center of even US democrats Uhmmm, you do know that Fox News is also owned by Murdoch? And clearly it is thereby evident that the logic you're operating on is not really working? Second point, Murdoch is Australian. Right wing of Australia, in parts, can be quite comparable to America's right wing. Consider the considerable opposition to immigration policies, there being lots of racist activity (foreigners being referred to as "boat people" -- something that was a key issue in the last election cycle). Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest person, is routinely in the news saying ridiculous things, like how people should work for $2 a day [1]. But all of this is actually immaterial, since we shouldn't be generalizing. It doesn't matter what popular politics are in Australia or UK, Murdoch could have radical or reactionary views no matter where he is from. [1]: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/05/business/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-pay-20120905 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/05/business/la-fi-mo-ri...
  - 001sky 13y ago
    see my reply to e40

by selmnoo 13y ago

TylerE 13y ago

Certainly not a requirement. Look back into the reddit dark ages at the /r/marijuana /r/trees schism, for instance.

001sky 13y ago

Since having been bought by Rupert WSJ been leaning more to the right The WSJ is far more liberal than it was a generation ago.[1] The WSJ is sort of Bloombergian in its outlook. Also, Murdoch is not American. Most people consider the UK Conservatives left of center of even US democrats (eg, signle payer healthcare), so again even if Murdoch was pushing the US toward the EU right, it would be moving the the US left. (Another reason why these words are sort of ill-advised). Of course, he's actually Australian. So YMMV. [1] And frankly the NYT link is arguablly an opinion piece.

e40 13y ago
The WSJ is far more liberal than it was a generation ago. The WSJ is far more conservative than it was before Murdock bought it. My friends that get the paper delivered are disgusted by the slanting of the news, since the purchase.
- 001sky 13y ago
  The Journal's editors stress the independence and impartiality of their reporters.[27] In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The Journal was the most liberal, more liberal than NPR or The New York Times. This just demonstrates it is important to baseline. Secondly, the editorial page and the reportage are not monolithic. I'd be pretty skeptical of anecdotal claims, especially of the type outlined in that NYT link. The WSJ was also a pro/fessional tool, when it was owned by DowJones, and had a different purpose in life than a paper like the NYT.
selmnoo 13y ago
> Also, Murdoch is not American. Most people consider the UK Conservatives left of center of even US democrats Uhmmm, you do know that Fox News is also owned by Murdoch? And clearly it is thereby evident that the logic you're operating on is not really working? Second point, Murdoch is Australian. Right wing of Australia, in parts, can be quite comparable to America's right wing. Consider the considerable opposition to immigration policies, there being lots of racist activity (foreigners being referred to as "boat people" -- something that was a key issue in the last election cycle). Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest person, is routinely in the news saying ridiculous things, like how people should work for $2 a day [1]. But all of this is actually immaterial, since we shouldn't be generalizing. It doesn't matter what popular politics are in Australia or UK, Murdoch could have radical or reactionary views no matter where he is from. [1]: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/05/business/la-fi-mo-richest-woman-pay-20120905 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/05/business/la-fi-mo-ri...
- 001sky 13y ago
  see my reply to e40