| |
| ▲ | tptacek an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Kind of a category error to suggest there's a stark difference. Over the last 100 years, enormous amounts of excellent journalism has been informed by political objectives on the part of reporters. | | |
| ▲ | kasey_junk an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s weirder than that. Even the idea of an apolitical journalism is ahistorical. Apolitical journalism started with the telegram wire services as a _marketing_ approach, not a moral one. It allowed them to sell to more local papers which were all politically aligned. You can see that in some of the surviving names. But local reporting stayed political in those individual papers the whole time. We have like a whole chapter in basic us history classes on the political implications of the Spanish American war journalism empires. Apolitical tv was similarly a market condition. The airwaves were limited, so the content was controlled. That was apolitical in that it tried to appease both parties, but you wouldn’t see any topical coverage on political issues they both opposed. So when people talk about politics entering journalism they are telling on themselves. They prefer a very narrow set of journalism that wasn’t ever some universal norm, and was itself political. | |
| ▲ | jeremyw an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yikes. Vastly outweighed by the ruination of journalism by politics. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek an hour ago | parent [-] | | There's abusive intersections of politics and journalism just like there are abusive intersections of all sorts of other things and journalism. The idea of a truly neutral reporter though is a fiction. |
| |
| ▲ | loeg an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | This article isn't that -- nothing excellent is achieved. It's pure intra-party squabbling between leftist and centrist factions of California Dems. Balko is just trying to score points for his faction. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Analemma_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Completely content-free junk statement. The post is purportedly about correcting bad information about a person who held public office, and (if it is in fact misinformation) was spread for political reasons. How are you supposed to do such a correction without it being political? | |
| ▲ | vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everything is politics. Which food you eat (are you vegan? carnivore diet? Both have implications in regards to animal welfare, climate change, soil use, identity etc etc), which media you consume (obvious), which job you have (which power structures do you strengthen with it? who benefits from your labor? who do you try to disrupt?). To say one is "apolitical" is just voicing a preference for the status quo. To decry something as political is just voicing one's political opposition to the view expressed. | | |
| ▲ | energy123 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a pretty depressing worldview. Children playing in the park aren't being political. It's possible to just exist sometimes. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >Children playing in the park aren't being political I can assure you they absolutely are. Of course there isn't a well defined elected government here, but 'social politics' between children are absolutely occurring. Things like looks, material goods, clothes, ability to take care of themselves, etc all affect how they interact with each other and who is popular and gets to take the lead/be bullies/etc. HN posters can be really clueless to the world around them at times. | |
| ▲ | maxlamb an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But that park was probably created as a result of a vote or other political process. | |
| ▲ | fzeroracer 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not that long ago that black children were barred from being in the same space as white children so at one point yes, it was political. | |
| ▲ | brendoelfrendo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The children playing in a park aren't being political, and are largely insulated from the politics of playing in a park... but those circumstances are surrounded by all kinds of political process. As another commenter said, the park's existence is probably due to politics; as are the rules the children need to follow, what activities are permitted, the safety and maintenance of park equipment and facilities, curfews, etc. It is also a choice on the part of the parents to let their kids play in a park, and which parks their kids play in, and those choices aren't made in a vacuum. Perhaps the perspective of the adult should not be to view children in the park as apolitical, but to be cognizant of the processes that influence their children and try to ensure that they work for the children's benefit. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | rationalist 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe I just want to eat what tastes good, and not have to worry about how what I chose on the menu is going to support a politician, political party, businessperson, etc. The "everything is politics" meme is old and annoying. | | |
| ▲ | samtp an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Just because you choose to ignore the externalities of your choices doesn't mean they no longer exist. It just means that you value your personal well being and comfort more than being informed about the results of your actions. | |
| ▲ | JuniperMesos an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's a poltical act to eat food that tastes good, in defiance of the activists who think that the food yiu find tasty is immoral and want to make it illegal for you to do so. Something is a poltical act if other people want you not to do it and want to enforce this through law, which you have no control over. | |
| ▲ | vrganj an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, you can. But don't pretend that's not a political choice. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is so tired. Give me a topic about personal food preferences and I can spin is 6 ways from Sunday towards whatever (or against) political bias you want. “If you don’t participate in politics you’re evil” is an opinion that is judgmental, aggressive, frames the speaker as a bully with self-appointed moral superiority. It’s not nice to tell people “you’re selfish and part of the problem if you just want to live a quite life away from all the crazy people who link politics to their self worth” and calling it “not nice” is a wild understatement. I see it as harassment. “Care because I think you should!” Fuck that haha | | |
| ▲ | samtp an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | “If you don’t participate in politics you’re evil” is an argument that you completely made up. You don't like to be called selfish for not considering how your actions might affect others, but others are supposed to care about how their actions might affect you? Seems like a pretty self centered attitude to have. | |
| ▲ | pixl97 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're almost there and then you give up on original thought at the last minute. >“Care because I think you should!” Welcome to politics. Not only do I demand that you care because I think you should, but I will smash you with the full force of the law if you don't. Now, if you decide to do nothing, well, you're getting your ass smashed by the full force of the law and whining like a little bitch saying "I'm not political, why did this happen to me". "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice". And "There are no neutrals in the reality, entropy forbids it". | |
| ▲ | vrganj an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood my point. I never said “If you don’t participate in politics you’re evil”. My point is that there is no not participating in politics. The lack of participation is a political choice in itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
