There's no such thing as an "activist class", just people with opinions. But people with opinions are enough to kill good journalism if they can't keep them in their pants.
I figured that was the semantic game he (and you apparently) are playing.
1. The Democratic Party represents the left in the US, so the left is in power when they are in power.
2. In other parts of the world, parties and individuals who are further left on the political spectrum than the US Democratic Party (either nationally or in any location under discussion here) obtain power. As those are generally repressive regimes, their media is generally highly biased in their direction, making them biased towards both the left and the people on power.
If you want to have a meaningful discussion, feel free to stop being coy.
What you're demonstrating is that "left" and "right" are not useful terms for this sort of conversation. If you mean Dems, say Dems. If you mean "they don't agree with me on xyz", say that.
Saying "they're biased towards the left" is bereft of actual meaning, with such a wide range of interpretation that it's not useful for discussion.
They absolutely are useful terms, as defined by the vast majority of the US population.
Dems = left in the US. They are interchangeable in nearly all situations, including this one where the meaning of the original comment was extraordinarily clear to anyone who isn't trying to prove a point.
What's a "centrist" in a "Dem/repub" context, though? A non-voter?
Obscuring what one actually means makes it harder to figure out what one takes issue with.
It's genuinely unclear what this person is actually criticizing when they've draped it under so much indirection. They're biased towards... dems, or the left, or something, in some way that's not made clear, but we must know they're a Reasonable Judge of that bias because they've declared themselves a centrist..? It's all signalling, no signal.
And, of course, there's the whole rest of the planet to contend with, with a much broader view of the political spectrum...
> What's a "centrist" in a "Dem/repub" context, though? A non-voter?
An independent? A moderate Dem/repub? Those are two (or three) options and there are others.
> Obscuring what one actually means makes it harder to figure out what one takes issue with.
What they meant was very clear. The bias in their reporting is heavily left leaning in their opinion.
> It's genuinely unclear what this person is actually criticizing when they've draped it under so much indirection.
There's zero indirection in their statement.
> They're biased towards... dems, or the left, or something, in some way that's not made clear, but we must know they're a Reasonable Judge of that bias because they've declared themselves a centrist..? It's all signalling, no signal.
Again, this is extremely clear to anyone who isn't ignorant of politics in his location or being intentionally obtuse.
He didn't provide any links, and I'm not going to waste the time to track some down, but the content in question (in the opinion of the parent poster) almost certainly is in support of the progressive part of the Democratic Party, which does have some representation in local (in his area), state (in his state), and national government, and therefore has some power.
> And, of course, there's the whole rest of the planet to contend with, with a much broader view of the political spectrum...
The topic of this discussion is local journalism, and the parent poster provided his location (central NJ), so that's not the issue either.
One of the greatest failings of journalism over the last bunch of decades has been that it takes too much of a neutral (or capital-oriented) position. You can follow this from the scores of puff pieces on the Vietnam War being, like, totally under control, dude, straight through to the modern endless refrain of "well, Steve says the Earth is round and Bob says the Earth is flat, but it's up to you to decide :)". Incuriosity and hypercredulity of access-journalists saving up trivia for their book deals, all with the "noble" goal of appearing "neutral" - it's been the death spiral of Western democracy.
How else would you suggest communicating to a population that fundamentally does not share your views, other than with neutrality?
As a Bucks County native, the Beacon is not at all representative of the median voter. Oh, certainly there are some aligned with it, but there are just as many with the opposite views, and most are in between. Journalists that don't respect those people in the middle, that disagreement, have no chance of being listened to by them. They have every right to voice their opinions, but if journalists only respect the people who already agree with them, then we're all just going to stay in our bubbles.
The person you are responding to doesn't acknowledge that the Democratic Party represents the left wing in US politics, presumably because they aren't beholden to the small far left portion of its constituents.
I wouldn't spend time trying to justify your stance to him, which is a very reasonable one IMO.
Can I make a preemptive GoFundMe for the first person to Castle Doctrine an ICE home intruder?
Now, you might suggest that there's a perverse incentive here, but given that they're allowing what is essentially a bounty-for-murder fundraiser in this case...
I wouldn't describe 'safety' as the state of things after the last time feds glassed a right-wing adjacent group. When the feds 'glassed' Waco, a little known guy named Timothy McVeigh was there. He used it as inspiration to bomb a federal building at which there were 700+ casualties of which over 150 were deaths.
The feds were very much aware "Bundys" was not just the ranching family but a whole bunch of people and greater militia network. If they had glassed Bundy himself it would have been a total shit-show.
I probably agree with your position in general. I would note that from my position it's more about the politics of the right and how that's more tolerable for folks in power.
If you read the original comment I think he only cares about the effects on Trump, not on Venezuela. People in Venezuela will likely celebrate in the streets which will bolster Trump to keep doing stupid things. The backlash will come in a couple of years for the Venezuelan people and the world but then Trump will have been able to fuck up more things.
