3 ms·
Well, one problem is that publications like the wsws are not news in the strict sense. They do not have the staff and the founding that's necessary to engage in
by thomasz 13y ago
Well, one problem is that publications like the wsws are not news in the strict sense. They do not have the staff and the founding that's necessary to engage in traditional reporting. What those publications are doing is to interpret secondary sources. The article in question does little else than showing us the authors reactions after watching [0]. Some people might find this reaction of the "International Committee of the Fourth International" interesting, but I guess it's safe to say that most are not. About most people here being able to evaluate the accuracy of those sites: That's the problem with posting links like that. People read it, look at the header and dismiss the whole thing as completely blown out of proportions, which sadly isn't true this time.
[0] http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/601700/n/manus-whistleblower http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/601700/n/manus...
- gress 13y agoHow is that different from mainstream news outlets publishing articles sourced from Reuters or AP?
- aet 13y agoReuters and AP are reputable and have reporters on the ground. AP has won 50+ Pulitzer prizes. See http://www.ap.org/company/pulitzers http://www.ap.org/company/pulitzers.
- gress 13y agoThat doesn't address the point - many mainstream 'news' outlets work by rewriting stories syndicated from Reuters and AP - not by having their own reporters. The comment I was responding to was attacking the wsws for not being 'news' because it doesn't have it's own reporters. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize it for having a political stance that you don't credit, but I don't see a case for somehow categorizing it as 'not news' when its practices are the same as many traditional news outlets, just with a less mainstream perspective. Note: I'm not supporting whatever wsws's stance might be - I'm just pointing out that much of mainstream news is similar in how it operates.
- aet 13y agoI actually have no problem with people citing the World Socialist Website. That being said, the WSWS offers "Marxist analysis" of the news whereas Reuters and AP, although they may offer analysis, focus on objective reporting of the facts as opposed to analysis. Take a look at Reuters "trust principles" on their website. One principle is: "That Thomson Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Thomson Reuters has or may have contracts." Now, consider the mission of the WSWS: "The standpoint of this web site is one of revolutionary opposition to the capitalist market system. Its aim is the establishment of world socialism." I think it is clear why AP and Reuters citations will be more widely accepted than sources that are inclined to political bias and activism.
- gress 13y agoYou're still missing the point. I'm not comparing wsws to Reuters or the AP. I'm comparing it to the news outlets that take reuters and AP reports as sources which they then use to write their own articles.
- aet 13y agoThere is "news" and there is "analysis" -- if you want to cite facts don't cite analysis from a publication that has a clear and stated bias. Usually the way AP and Reuters works is clients run what they write or "analyze" what they write. Why cite analysis if you want facts? Not trying to be adversarial here, just trying to understand what you are saying
- gress 13y agoAll publications have a strong bias. Isn't it better to cite from those that state their bias clearly so that the reader is better able to interpret what they are reading, than from those who mislead by pretending to be 'unbiased'?