• [OPINION] ‘We’re nuts!’ isn’t a great pitch for a Green New Deal
    73 replies, posted
Anti-left stances are easily found on the current front page. It is conventional wisdom in Washington that the Republican addiction to tax cuts is mainly responsible for the huge budget deficits. This is, at best, a half-truth. Democrats are equally responsible, because they refuse to come to grips with the massive spending on retirement and health care. Expanding Social Security is mostly a political bribe that comes at the expense of other programs and workers, who must pay the resulting taxes. Straight up "enlightened centrist" tier stuff. Another example; advocates mixed healthcare system that preserves the insurance industry. Trust me, that's not what an actual leftist paper looks like.
Both of those are in the "opinions" section. Are you saying that newspapers shouldn't publish opposing viewpoints?
They actually made legislation to take drastic actions to a drastic situation the absolute madmen!!!!
And? So is the one in the OP, the one this thread is about. No, I'm saying the WaPo's stance isn't nearly as leftist as you imply by saying it's "pretty liberal". You want to read objective opinion articles?
My contention is that you shouldn't judge the political leanings of a newspaper based on the editorials section. You can describe them as left or right based on the content of the articles they publish under the guise of being objective. Fox News, for example, is right leaning not because of the editorials they publish, but because they present right wing opinions as factual/objective, and also selectively choose what to/not to cover. For example, if Trump is involved in some scandal, and CNN and Washington Post both cover it, and then Fox News chooses to cover some celebrity news, then they're showing an obvious bias. The Washington Post, however, does not do that; or at least they're better about it. The editorials section is a poor measure of the political leanings of a newspaper. If you presented me with a "leftist" newspaper which selectively published headlines based on how much it damages their side, I wouldn't want to read that newspaper any more than I would want to watch Fox News, which does that same thing.
Why would you want to read a "centrist" newspaper if you're trying to avoid bias? Trying to shove things 'into the center' doesn't remove bias. In fact, it can introduce heavy bias. "The truth and reality" does not 'lie in the center'.
What the hell are you on about? Editorials obviously indicate the political leanings of a paper. It does so explicitly, that's their point: To share the take of the redaction on a political matter. That newspaper also display their bias through omissions in factual articles doesn't change that fact, nor does it mean that journals that don't play dumb as explicitly as Fox News are unbiased.
I don't think I remember saying I want a centrist newspaper, I said I wanted an objective newspaper. If you report all the facts as they happened, gave sources and quotes, etc., then it's not a matter of left, right center, it's a matter of objective fact. Editorials are often written by people who do not work for the newspaper. Editorials should not be considered to represent the views of their respective authors, and not those of the newspaper. If, however, WaPo ONLY published right-leaning editorials, it would show bias. I believe that newspapers have the duty to society to publish viewpoints which they may or may not agree with so long as those viewpoints are backed up with reason. If a newspaper only published leftist editorials, it would be a shitty newspaper
WaPo is also owned by Jeff Bezos. Guess who'd love to avoid giving wages and paying fairly into taxes.
That's true, but they always disclose that when reporting on Amazon or Bezos
Editorials are often written by regulars who may not be 'endorsed' but share opinions with the editorial staff. Opinion articles can have a wide range but its the editorial staff which pick what gets published and so if an Opinion section is filled with Neoliberal hogwash? Guess what.
Keywords "used to" and "television". Then you're welcome to show me a socialist WaPo editorial.
I disagree with that as presented: a maxim. They have no duty to publish viewpoints such as 'the genocide of all humanity except for people who share this particular set of attributes should be commenced because look at all the carbon savings we'd get in return'. No, that's incorrect. It did not require 'equal coverage'. It required that contrasting/opposing issues of 'public importance' be presented. How it was presented was left largely up to the people presenting it. Furthermore it was found that the FCC had the right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine but not the obligation to enforce the fairness doctrine. It was also implemented because of a limited amount of access at the time to mass media presentations -- a limitation which obviously no longer exists. Putting this all together, you could satisfy the doctrine with 'despite a small but extremely vocal protest from those who aren't equipped with a scientific background, the world's climates are changing and 98% of all scientists agree with that fact' and/or 'Hitler is typically an uncontroversial figure, but today at Ellis Park a group of supporters of the dead fascist have gathered to decry that it's 'unfair' to protest their right to ask others to commit genocide in their dead cult leader's name through racial epithets and slurs'.
But that's still a poisoning well. I do not trust a man who forces his workers to piss in bottles to use an owned journalistic source as a neutral objective spout of information.
The editorial staff doesn't necessarily pick things because they agree, they may pick them in the interest of fairness to both sides. Even then, I STILL believe that you cannot judge the political leanings of the newspaper at large, especially the sections which operate under the banner of objectivity, by the content of the editorial section. The reason for separating the sections, and to clearly mark the OPINIONS section with the word OPINIONS is to let you know that the article does not represent fact, but opinion.
I never argued that having a political leaning makes a newspaper's articles non factual.
Ah, but you see, I just got this 'Post Most' in my e-mail inbox. It's liberal "on the face of it". He 'knows it when he sees it' -- like porn or violence in video games. I mean, just look at this! Nonstop liberal propaganda! Can't you see the 'this is Trump's fault, hate Trump, everything on the right is wrong and immoral and will hunt down and kill your friends and family and the economy-god-rest-its-blessed-soul'? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/133737/ff5c9f96-059e-4396-9cf3-cfddf6b00822/image.png
Neither was centrism, yet you two both keep conflating my position with it? No, I said it was "pretty liberal", which I don't think I need to qualify with "by American standards" when discussing American politics just because some French socialist got offended that our understanding of the word isn't in line with the french understanding of it. Note also that I said "liberal" and not "left", since they're two different things. Well first of all: https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/132997/e71f68fa-bf93-4be5-8849-6c8a47f45589/Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 11.43.53 AM.png Media Bias Fact check Secondly, the so-called "evidence" you posted doesn't show a "corporatist" leaning, but rather a leaning away from your own political ideas. Rather than attack the substance of such ideas, however, you question the allegiance or integrity of the author SIMPLY because you disagree with him. It does not seem possible, to you, that someone could be rational and disagree with you, but rather it is more likely that if someone disagrees with you, they are being disingenuous and that their motives are suspect if not corrupt.
And so you backed up your claim that they're liberal by showing 'left-center bias'? You just got done effectively saying 'liberalism isn't necessarily a point on the political spectrum' and now you're literally showing us a political spectrum and WaPo's point on it to prove that it's 'pretty liberal'? What??
That's not what I said? Are you intentionally misreading everything I'm saying or are you just bad at reading?
In what way does that MBFC fact check demonstrate that WaPo is 'pretty liberal'?
I literally can't explain it any more than a literal picture explains it. The pretty colorful picture (oooh shiny!) shows that a 3rd party source which is used by many, including this forum, agrees that the Washington Post is pretty liberal. We can debate about whether or not left-center is considered "pretty liberal" or not, if you feel like it
You were just debating it literally with someone else. You just said 'left does not mean liberal' and here you're saying 'but because they lean left, that makes them pretty liberal'. Also, you're being ridiculous with your attempts to 'infantilize' anyone who is pointing this out to you.
Left doesn't mean liberal; "liberal" and politics isn't a one-dimensional chart. For simplicity, it's two-dimensional. But rather than trying to prove that the wapo is left or liberal, I'd rather like to stick to his dipshit claim claim that it's "right of center". If you don't want ridiculous answers, don't ask ridiculous quesions
Nice job projecting offense on my original post, which simply aims to clarify that being "liberal" by US standards doesn't say anything about propensity to support social democratic policies. But feel free to believe you are being attacked, if it suits you. Literally referring to a website run by "some guy". Nice. Could you please give me the actual evidence used to come to this conclusion and the underlying reasoning? Shifting the goalposts. I posted anti-left articles at your request. You still have to prove they have a "pretty liberal" leaning. The burden of proof is on you. Yet another strawman, with some more projection spruced on top. Good job. You'll notice that I never mentioned factuality anywhere in my argumentation, because it is irrelevant to the discussion. You can have a political leaning and have it influence your discourse without it getting in the way of being factual, nor does it necessarily imply being disingenuous. What you're currently doing is a good example of disingenuousness, though. You literally make up my position and put words in my mouth based on nothing but thin air. You should work on having more honest discourse, mate.
Rather than there being ridiculous questions and answers, instead you're offering ridiculous counterpoints and general ridiculousness in your arguments. This argument is like looking at a honda fit that's been smashed into by a 16-wheeler carrying 14 tons of cargo: mangled, confusing, and it leaves my head spinning. It sounds like in this one sentence you decided you couldn't defend your claim and so are trying now to shift the burden of proving your argument onto someone else's shoulders. It sounds like you can't prove that WaPo is 'liberal' and so you're changing the definition of it to escape being called out on it while trying to escape the argument entirely. It's transparent, sir, and I'd hope you'd hold yourself to higher standards here.
Wow cool europeans are so progressive and intellectual haha Americans = owned The Washington post has officially endorsed a democrat for president ever since Carter nope You posted opinions/editorials, which you accused of being "corporatist" See above
As evidence goes, this is pretty weak, in my mind. Those are literally 'articles', which is what you asked for?
"Prove they're liberal" "Theyve officially endorsed liberals for over 40 years, announcing to the world that they support liberals and liberalism" "Weak evidence" https://i.redd.it/pqafkb6d9ba01.jpg Theres a difference in context Then quit replying with dumbass shit?
I'm sorry that pointing out that US democrats don't have the same stance and policies as social democrats triggers you, but that statement was meant to be purely factual. Again, democrat =/= social democrat. Policies such as the Green New Deal, the subject matter of this thread, fall within social democrat values, which is firmly to the left of traditional democrats. I'm not sure why pointing this out should warrant such a reaction from you. Thanks for your efforts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.