this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
682 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18645 readers
3580 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nowhere do they explicitly connect this to her political ideology. That's exactly my point, they're soft-selling it.

The liberal media (no quotes needed, they're corporate neoliberal) refuses to actually call a spade a spade.

This is not a critical article, this is just them shrugging and being like "Oh, well, it seems like tenuous grounds for dismissal but thems the licks."

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Without intent to offend, perhaps neutral reporting isn't for you. They reported all the facts and leave you to come up with your own opinion, which is a mark of high-quality journalism.

They are a news agency. They are not here to tell you what to think of the news. You want your news to tell you what to think. I want my news to tell me what happened and give me the information necessary to form my own opinion.

If they said explicitly or implied that she did this because of her ideology, even if that is likely true, that would not be unbiased.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

This is an important detail often missed when discussing journalism, objectivity, bias, and, unfortunately, integrity. It's a necessary piece of fabric that has been fraying for years. As another lemmy post some month ago put it, with the loss of the Cronkite era folks lost faith in the fourth estate. The tragedy is that the stratification of news by party and by medium is that anything right of CNN, most of the fringe blogosphere, and nearly all of the AM stations is that they are presenting opinionated hot takes as journalistic facts. Moreover, this tends to galvanize an already consitent voter base. It seems like without an emotional appeal to resisting consrvative ideologues the rhetoric and relative baseline just keep slipping.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There is no such thing as neutral, unbiased reporting. Believing that there is is a mark of media illiteracy. Making the choice not to discuss the obvious conflict of interest is a choice, it is a form of bias. Journalists cannot be unbiased, that's not a possibility with the job.

We should not be allowing a dismantling of our democracy because "you have to be fair to bothsides".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

On the one side, this man is accused of murdering 30 people. On the other side, he's been called a lover of puppies. Let's meet in the middle and say he's a bad driver.