A “leftist news source” is not a news source, it is an opinion source, and thus not better than a “rightwing news source”. How about finding something neutral that actually has the goal to inform?
Thats why I ask for true neutrality. Any source that reports in a biased way is not news, it is opinion. And given the current situation in the US, a neutral news source would have to call out a lot of shit and lies coming from the political right. But that does not make it leftist.
This is correct. The news is so reliably stupid that everybody assumes you saying the correct thing is (incorrectly) you being on Team Don’t Point Out The Truth Because It Makes Republicans Look As Bad As They Are.
I’m not saying it can’t be done, but getting a compromise from a debate is not a primary goal. For competitions, the goal is usually to demonstrate and practice debate skills and the topic and positions matter less. For more serious debates, it is meant to be a way to expose people to the strengths of your position’s arguments and expose the weaknesses of your opponent’s. It’s valuable as an opportunity to persuade an audience of people who haven’t been firmly entrenched in either position, or who may have only been exposed to one side’s arguments in earnest.
The framework does presume both viewpoints are valid, since both sides are expected to believe in their position, be rational, and be reasonably well-informed. An invalid perspective would not be argued by someone meeting these criteria. It does not presume equality as that would be preemptively judging the quality of the argument. Either the debate platform or the other debater would presumably not agree to a debate with someone who cannot be expected to meet these criteria.
I never said anything like compromise. I prefer neutrality (as far as one can get it, but it is way easier in Europe). Why do you all think that anything that is not explicitly left biased is already compromised?
There are f-ups on both sides of the spectrum. This does not say both sides are equal - on the contrary, there is a shitload more f-up on the right side. But general whitewashing the left is also not OK.
Neutrality in this case is a news source that doesn’t have a editorial position that explicitly favors a certain political party, it is not splitting the two opinions down the middle and sticking to that as it is so often misrepresented.
A good news source will follow the following guidelines when reporting news.
1: Due impartiality , this is not the same as full impartiality where abhorrent points of view are given the same importance as valid points of view , DUE impartiality differs in that the news source will consider multiple VALID points of view to give the audience a closer representation of the truth.
2: Broad perspective , the news source will attempt to contact as many valid perspectives as they can from as broad of a cross section of society as is possible to represent the opinion of society as fairly as possible.
3: Editorial freedom , the news source can and will produce content for any subject as long as it is within the public interest to do so, this will involve scrutinizing arguments and questioning consensus to hold those in power over others in some way accountable for their actions.
4: Avoiding endorsements , the news source will take care not to endorse politicians or products , nor allow their content to be used in such a way without challenge.
5: Democratic values , the news source itself is not value free , but instead incorporates the core values of democracy and civil society into its editorial policy in place of partisan political values.
6: It will reflect the diversity of its audience , it will make an effort to continually be aware of the demographics that view it and produce a wide range of content to ensure that no group is either underrepresented not over represented.
7: Transparency, when reporting opinions of others that some people may find distasteful it will be made clear that these opinions belong to the person being interviewed or reported on and not to the news source that is only committed to reporting the truth.
Such a news source would be neutral , in that their only loyalty is to accurately reporting the news as it happens without spinning it to make anyone look any better or worse than they already are.
To me this falls more under the category of non profit independent news, primarily local news where all the corruption happens. Report for America, reportforamerica.org, assists these local newsrooms and has a spot on their site that you can search for sites local to you. These local papers are interesting because their individual sponsors are often influential people in your community who believe in democracy and are concerned about the power of corporate media. I just checked out our local online paper like this and see the same names that I recognize for people I know who support the arts.
A “leftist news source” is not a news source, it is an opinion source, and thus not better than a “rightwing news source”. How about finding something neutral that actually has the goal to inform?
And you, asking for neutrality:
Thats why I ask for true neutrality. Any source that reports in a biased way is not news, it is opinion. And given the current situation in the US, a neutral news source would have to call out a lot of shit and lies coming from the political right. But that does not make it leftist.
This is correct. The news is so reliably stupid that everybody assumes you saying the correct thing is (incorrectly) you being on Team Don’t Point Out The Truth Because It Makes Republicans Look As Bad As They Are.
The team is not known for its naming finesse.
Reminder that neutrality and compromise isn’t always a good thing.
I’m not saying it can’t be done, but getting a compromise from a debate is not a primary goal. For competitions, the goal is usually to demonstrate and practice debate skills and the topic and positions matter less. For more serious debates, it is meant to be a way to expose people to the strengths of your position’s arguments and expose the weaknesses of your opponent’s. It’s valuable as an opportunity to persuade an audience of people who haven’t been firmly entrenched in either position, or who may have only been exposed to one side’s arguments in earnest.
The framework does presume both viewpoints are valid, since both sides are expected to believe in their position, be rational, and be reasonably well-informed. An invalid perspective would not be argued by someone meeting these criteria. It does not presume equality as that would be preemptively judging the quality of the argument. Either the debate platform or the other debater would presumably not agree to a debate with someone who cannot be expected to meet these criteria.
I never said anything like compromise. I prefer neutrality (as far as one can get it, but it is way easier in Europe). Why do you all think that anything that is not explicitly left biased is already compromised?
There are f-ups on both sides of the spectrum. This does not say both sides are equal - on the contrary, there is a shitload more f-up on the right side. But general whitewashing the left is also not OK.
Neutrality in this case is a news source that doesn’t have a editorial position that explicitly favors a certain political party, it is not splitting the two opinions down the middle and sticking to that as it is so often misrepresented.
A good news source will follow the following guidelines when reporting news.
1: Due impartiality , this is not the same as full impartiality where abhorrent points of view are given the same importance as valid points of view , DUE impartiality differs in that the news source will consider multiple VALID points of view to give the audience a closer representation of the truth.
2: Broad perspective , the news source will attempt to contact as many valid perspectives as they can from as broad of a cross section of society as is possible to represent the opinion of society as fairly as possible.
3: Editorial freedom , the news source can and will produce content for any subject as long as it is within the public interest to do so, this will involve scrutinizing arguments and questioning consensus to hold those in power over others in some way accountable for their actions.
4: Avoiding endorsements , the news source will take care not to endorse politicians or products , nor allow their content to be used in such a way without challenge.
5: Democratic values , the news source itself is not value free , but instead incorporates the core values of democracy and civil society into its editorial policy in place of partisan political values.
6: It will reflect the diversity of its audience , it will make an effort to continually be aware of the demographics that view it and produce a wide range of content to ensure that no group is either underrepresented not over represented.
7: Transparency, when reporting opinions of others that some people may find distasteful it will be made clear that these opinions belong to the person being interviewed or reported on and not to the news source that is only committed to reporting the truth.
Such a news source would be neutral , in that their only loyalty is to accurately reporting the news as it happens without spinning it to make anyone look any better or worse than they already are.
Okay so let’s rephrase the question:
I’m afraid that the real meaning was “Those if you who consider yourself leftists, what
news sourcesbubbles do you follow?”To me this falls more under the category of non profit independent news, primarily local news where all the corruption happens. Report for America, reportforamerica.org, assists these local newsrooms and has a spot on their site that you can search for sites local to you. These local papers are interesting because their individual sponsors are often influential people in your community who believe in democracy and are concerned about the power of corporate media. I just checked out our local online paper like this and see the same names that I recognize for people I know who support the arts.