Serious question. How do these clownvoy yahoos have endless money and free time to sit in their cars doing jackshit for weeks at a time? https://pressprogress.ca/far-right-save-the-children-convoy-gathering-at-rural-base-camp-outside-ottawa/ #ottawa
🇳🇱
@kdorse I went there to try to learn about that.. but my god the obvious bias and lack of journalistic integrity I couldnt even get past the first few lines...
Who starts a "press" agency announcing their bias right int he name of the agency... Thats not news.
That said, I am sure whatever the fuck the GOP or alt-right is doing here is probably some pathetic nonsense... but i just cant read something written with no journalistic integrity, I want to form my own opinions, even if i might agree with yours when I do (and probably would if its GOP bs)
As i said i didnt read the article. There was so much bias in the first line i couldnt stomach it.
> You have a lot to say about an article you didn’t read.
No, I dont.. in fact I made quite clear I have nothing to say about the content of the article, particularly cause I couldnt get past the cringe to read it.. thats ALL I said... thats not a "lot" thats very little....
> PressProgress leans left, but they are reliable journalists
That is a contradiction.. you cant have a political lean in your journalism and still be a reliable journalist... that is contrary to journalistic integrity by its very nature. That said, it is the norm in journalism these days and with few exceptions there is very little journalism that lives up to the standards of that name.
> And there’s no bias in the first line of the article - just a straight reporting of facts, ugly as they are.
Sounds exactly like what someone would say who has bias and wants their bias confirmed... It was an expression of opinion... Not a presentation of facts.. facts would be the events themselves, who said what, what actions were taken, without an a preferred interpretation sold along with that. That is not at all what the tone of the first few lines convey.
Just for clarity my **opinion** is that the articles bias and the conclusions that leads to is likely one I agree with... I mean there is no shortage of conspiracy theorists in the right, so it is very likely an opinion I likely would agree with... It still has absolutely no place in a news article.
@freemo @MichaelPorter @kdorse I’m back. This will be long.
The main argument you’re making is that having a bias precludes producing responsible journalism. I don’t agree. Yes, PressProgress probably doesn’t publish a lot of anti-NDP articles, if any. So I won’t look to them for articles that are critical to the left. The great thing about the internet is that there are lots of other sources out there.
But if they publish a story that states facts, gives sources, and exposes information that is important to me (as this is, I live in the city that attracts these occupations), then that is valuable journalism.
(You’re taking a hard line for objectivity, but there is no such thing. We’re all hairless apes constructing our own realities out of extremely limited sensory data with a brain that likes to make up stories so we can find food and mates, and avoid danger.)
The rest of this seems to be differing opinions on the meaning of terms.
On the name of the organization, “PressProgess”: This is a progressive journalism outfit. The name fits. It’s not too boring. Try convincing any new organization trying to attract subscribers that they will succeed with an unexciting, straight-down-the-middle name and they will laugh you out of the boardroom. “18% Grey News! Not too dark, not too light. Perfect and featureless!”
@freemo @kdorse “Far-right” vs. “Anti-LGBT”: “Far-right” is a political position. “Anti-LGBT” is bigotry included within that position. These people are both.
This is a well-characterized group of people that have been organizing, in various forms, for several years now. Orgs like PressProgress have been covering them for most of that time. The membership is somewhat amorphous, and include many naive members that might not be aware that they are under the sway of far-right, alt-right, anti-vax, conservative Christian, etc. groups. But the links have been well established. Calling them far-right is not expressing a bias, it is describing the political stance of the group, and is accurate.
You would prefer that the author call them anti-LGBT, but this is only part of their platform. Besides, I’m sure a lot of them would claim that they *aren’t* anti-LGBT, just anti-groomer or anti-pedophile (they’re definitely anti-2SLGBTQQIA+). So it’s not as informative as calling them far-right.
“Pedophile conspiracy”: Accurate. How else do you characterize this?
“McDavid <one of the leaders> accuses Alberta’s Child Protective Services of running a ‘child trafficking ring’ and alleges the Government of Alberta is ‘colluding’ with insurance companies to produce child pornography.” (From the article linked to in the second paragraph)
Objecting to the phrasing “Pedophile conspiracy convoy” as ambiguous is just being nitpicky, or willfully obtuse. Ambiguous headlines are often a source of humour, but do you really think people *who read the article* will be confused? And you certainly don’t expect to get all the details in just the headline, I hope. That kinds of defeats the purpose of having an article below it.
2/3
> “Far-right” vs. “Anti-LGBT”: “Far-right” is a political position. “Anti-LGBT” is bigotry included within that position. These people are both.
Far right is a political position, yes, and anti-LGBT is something else, yes... But these people do **not** self proclaim as far-right.. they list a bunch of positions... it is the journalist who decided to litter the piece with their position and not just lavbel their position as right, but far-right. While I agree, it is far-right, I also recognize that is an opinion, and carries with it the loaded language of extremism and hate.. things I agree the group represents, but there is no place for a journalist to be littering their opinion on someones political position in a piece... If they self-proclaimed themselves as far-0right sure.. but to attach that label to a group is your opinion, and has no place in good journalism, even if i agree with that opinion.
> You would prefer that the author call them anti-LGBT, but this is only part of their platform. Besides, I’m sure a lot of them would claim that they *aren’t* anti-LGBT, just anti-groomer or anti-pedophile (they’re definitely anti-2SLGBTQQIA+). So it’s not as informative as calling them far-right.
I was only being sussinct.. What I prefer is the author list the views they state they have and leave it at that... any **opinion** about if their views are left, right far or otherwise should be for the reader to form not the journalist
> I don’t think it matters what they call *themselves* - Self-assigned names might be useful for clarity, but they don’t necessarily reflect the truth
I agree it doesnt matter too much, other than to reflect on their on mentality maybe. The point isnt that it matters, the point is that it is a **fact** that they call themselves something. If I say "I am a purple unicorn" then it is a **fact** that I think that I am a purple unicorn (it is also a fact that I am not a purple unicorn). So that matters.
What the journalist things they are is **opinion**.. If the journalist things they are far-right then that is the journalists opinion (just like before it is a fact that the journalist has that opinion, but still their opinion). Ergo the journalists opinion, even though it agrees with my own, has no place.
I mean whats the problem.. im not saying this person cant post this stuff.. All I am saying is call it what it is, an place where people post their opinions about the news, and it isnt the news itself.. nothing wrong with being an opinion based editorial, just dont lie and call it news.
> We are allowed to label groups despite their own preferences. “Far-right” is accurate, and succinct. It is a useful shorthand for all the views and policies that you would have the author explicitly list (probably to the detriment of the writing quality).
Of **course** you are able to label them as far right, just dont lie about it and call it news when your doing an opinion piece, thats all. If this were labeled clearly as an opinion piece I'd have no complaints.
@freemo @kdorse “Right” and “Left” are well-established terms in political discourse.
They may vary in degree depending on which country you’re in, and I suppose if you are part of a group that thinks it’s got all the correct answers, you might not see yourself as fringe. But I strongly disagree that calling these folks “far-right” is opinion. They are at the far-right end of the political spectrum in Canada.
You could write an entire paragraph describing the viewpoints and policies of the group, and avoid the term, but you’d be wasting the reader’s time. (And your editor would tear a strip off you)
@freemo @kdorse I don’t think it matters what they call *themselves* - Self-assigned names might be useful for clarity, but they don’t necessarily reflect the truth. Think of oil-funded astroturf groups with misleading names that are used to confuse public discourse on fossil fuel use. Or hey, how about those National Socialists? They had everyone’s best interests at heart, right?
We are allowed to label groups despite their own preferences. “Far-right” is accurate, and succinct. It is a useful shorthand for all the views and policies that you would have the author explicitly list (probably to the detriment of the writing quality).