As long as something is clearly labeled an OpEd and isn't obscene or openly racist, I don't mind a paper publishing it. The term "OP" has always meant to me something that the paper itself does not endorse; some may be pleasing to me, some not. In general, I LIKE practicing my bullshit detection skills on them.
There is a lot to criticize about the MSM, mostly its tendency to treat abominable behavior as normal and to treat as news only that which "gets the most clicks." WaPo and NYT both publish stories and analyses about thing that are not US politics and that too many people ignore. And both have published searching and damning analyses of the long background of Israeli apartheid behavior both within Israel's borders and within the "borders" they like to think are theirs by right.
It is indeed a failure to let their NEWS (as opposed to editorials) show a bias. In the run up to the election, that bias came out more in, frankly, editorial ways--particularly in anodyne or actually misleading headlines. Headlines generally of not written by the reporter, and I can see why a reporter might quit over having their work misrepresented. Actually, WaPo has much less of that going on now post election. It is not nearly as "both sides" as before.
But what I don't want MSM to become is the left side of the Fox News bubble. We NEED to see what the far right is thinking, or it will ambush us. OpEds are one way of doing that. I also don't mind idiot quotes from GOP types in stories: they say what they say. I WANT to see what "reasons" they give for their lack of logic, because those just highlight that utter lack of logic.
Bezos is a "hometown" guy for me, in our local ken way back when the only thing it sold was books, which way too few people cared about (the very idea of books). Amazon itself has its problems on the labor front, though it has always paid above local minimum wage and provides a lot of benefits to employees. I know, back when it was just introducing music my daughter worked there. Bezos has always been fairly progressive, politically. He may have done some toadying recently, though more preemptively than by folding in the fact of threats. But he is no trumpite. And I have been relieved that WaPo has not turned into a Fox clone, as the LA Times seems to have done.
One caveat. I don't watch TV news. There are a lot more dangers in "bias by subject choice" in a world of sound bites. So when I speak of MSM I am only referring to it in its print/pixel mode. And I don't rely on any one news source for my information, or even just a couple. That's why I'm on Substack.
While I agree with your Corleone philosophy ("Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer"), I find the term "MSM" offensive. What is "mainstream" supposed to mean, exactly? Fox News advertises itself as the largest news outlet in America. That's as "mainstream" as it gets. Is audience size the meaning of "mainstream?" Or is age the meaning of "mainstream?" If it's age, The Atlantic dates back to the 19th century, but it's not read as much as Fox News (the 1990s?) is heard. WINS Radio in New York and KYW Newsradio in Philadelphia are originally Group W, Westinghouse Broadcasting stations that date back to the early 1920s. Are they listened to as much as the syndicated modern Fox Radio? If so, how does the audience determine the editorial content or the news anyway?! It's like saying "mainstream math" or "mainstream colors" or anything else. It makes no sense. Do you want "alternative math?" What would that be? One and one equals 82? Clearly, that's wrong. Taking your news from some small, unvetted, obscure source doesn't make it legitimate, correct, or even news. I enjoy columns on Substack, but I enjoy columns in the New York Times. "Mainstream" is subjective, especially today when we are bombarded with information (hundreds of TV channels coupled with the Internet, as well as traditional print media). So much to read, so little time. I believe there is not enough time for anything to be labeled "mainstream" anymore.
Heh. My main definition of MSM is anything anyone *criticizes* as being MSM. My actual focus, however, is the WaPo and NYT, both of which I like despite some blips. The term I think generally originally meant "widespread circulation that most people would think of as pretty acceptable in its coverage." Then it became "widespread circulation that trump tended to call fake." THEN it became "widespread circulation I would cancel because story X Y or Z offended me or failed to print something I think is important."
During the run up to the election, there WERE headlines that I thought mischaracterized the story, and I would write to the paper, as did others. And after a while this did have an effect: headlines that did so began to be changed.
I read them online, so I'm not affected by the "placement" issues some have--just saw a report about NYT putting trump's "I dunno" about the Constitution on page 13. Thing is, I don't know what EDITION of a particular day's paper they are talking about: early or later?
My general go to sources are those that cluster at the peak of the AdFontes chart. As long as the NEWS is reliably factual I can deal with points of view I don't agree with. Where I part is when the points of view distort the facts themselves or when interpretation of the facts makes no logical sense.
I don't get the dad joke! Then again, I don't know much about Star Wars ...
I love the 'Dad Joke' today—the perfect amount of groan to laugh.
The universe is in balance again :)
That was a dreadfully great Dad joke!
Mission accomplished.
As long as something is clearly labeled an OpEd and isn't obscene or openly racist, I don't mind a paper publishing it. The term "OP" has always meant to me something that the paper itself does not endorse; some may be pleasing to me, some not. In general, I LIKE practicing my bullshit detection skills on them.
There is a lot to criticize about the MSM, mostly its tendency to treat abominable behavior as normal and to treat as news only that which "gets the most clicks." WaPo and NYT both publish stories and analyses about thing that are not US politics and that too many people ignore. And both have published searching and damning analyses of the long background of Israeli apartheid behavior both within Israel's borders and within the "borders" they like to think are theirs by right.
It is indeed a failure to let their NEWS (as opposed to editorials) show a bias. In the run up to the election, that bias came out more in, frankly, editorial ways--particularly in anodyne or actually misleading headlines. Headlines generally of not written by the reporter, and I can see why a reporter might quit over having their work misrepresented. Actually, WaPo has much less of that going on now post election. It is not nearly as "both sides" as before.
But what I don't want MSM to become is the left side of the Fox News bubble. We NEED to see what the far right is thinking, or it will ambush us. OpEds are one way of doing that. I also don't mind idiot quotes from GOP types in stories: they say what they say. I WANT to see what "reasons" they give for their lack of logic, because those just highlight that utter lack of logic.
Bezos is a "hometown" guy for me, in our local ken way back when the only thing it sold was books, which way too few people cared about (the very idea of books). Amazon itself has its problems on the labor front, though it has always paid above local minimum wage and provides a lot of benefits to employees. I know, back when it was just introducing music my daughter worked there. Bezos has always been fairly progressive, politically. He may have done some toadying recently, though more preemptively than by folding in the fact of threats. But he is no trumpite. And I have been relieved that WaPo has not turned into a Fox clone, as the LA Times seems to have done.
One caveat. I don't watch TV news. There are a lot more dangers in "bias by subject choice" in a world of sound bites. So when I speak of MSM I am only referring to it in its print/pixel mode. And I don't rely on any one news source for my information, or even just a couple. That's why I'm on Substack.
While I agree with your Corleone philosophy ("Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer"), I find the term "MSM" offensive. What is "mainstream" supposed to mean, exactly? Fox News advertises itself as the largest news outlet in America. That's as "mainstream" as it gets. Is audience size the meaning of "mainstream?" Or is age the meaning of "mainstream?" If it's age, The Atlantic dates back to the 19th century, but it's not read as much as Fox News (the 1990s?) is heard. WINS Radio in New York and KYW Newsradio in Philadelphia are originally Group W, Westinghouse Broadcasting stations that date back to the early 1920s. Are they listened to as much as the syndicated modern Fox Radio? If so, how does the audience determine the editorial content or the news anyway?! It's like saying "mainstream math" or "mainstream colors" or anything else. It makes no sense. Do you want "alternative math?" What would that be? One and one equals 82? Clearly, that's wrong. Taking your news from some small, unvetted, obscure source doesn't make it legitimate, correct, or even news. I enjoy columns on Substack, but I enjoy columns in the New York Times. "Mainstream" is subjective, especially today when we are bombarded with information (hundreds of TV channels coupled with the Internet, as well as traditional print media). So much to read, so little time. I believe there is not enough time for anything to be labeled "mainstream" anymore.
Heh. My main definition of MSM is anything anyone *criticizes* as being MSM. My actual focus, however, is the WaPo and NYT, both of which I like despite some blips. The term I think generally originally meant "widespread circulation that most people would think of as pretty acceptable in its coverage." Then it became "widespread circulation that trump tended to call fake." THEN it became "widespread circulation I would cancel because story X Y or Z offended me or failed to print something I think is important."
During the run up to the election, there WERE headlines that I thought mischaracterized the story, and I would write to the paper, as did others. And after a while this did have an effect: headlines that did so began to be changed.
I read them online, so I'm not affected by the "placement" issues some have--just saw a report about NYT putting trump's "I dunno" about the Constitution on page 13. Thing is, I don't know what EDITION of a particular day's paper they are talking about: early or later?
My general go to sources are those that cluster at the peak of the AdFontes chart. As long as the NEWS is reliably factual I can deal with points of view I don't agree with. Where I part is when the points of view distort the facts themselves or when interpretation of the facts makes no logical sense.
Oh boy. I hear you, but I'd like to se that definition printed in a dictionary!
Dad joke 😂👍🏻
I figured people my generation or wiser would appreciate it the most :)