What's your vision for rabble?

Haven't forgotten about it. On the other hand I don't have any specific recommendations other than to continue keeping the focus on a range of news perspectives that might not be getting proper coverage in the established media.

... perhaps with the difference that Noam Chomsky represents one perspective. A news service should avoid falling into that too much; and I think Rabble has done a pretty good job of showing some range of opinion within the umbrella of "alternative".

I have seen some cry heresy over articles they think don't belong on Rabble, but I think if news doesn't present that range or challenge people it isn't doing its job. Besides when you consider divides like those who support partisan politics and those who do not, to other ideological issues, there is always going to be some news or opinion angle some disagree with at least some of the time. Ultimately that is a good thing.

I think media which get too single-minded, or put some cause above the work of journalism wind up losing credibility in the end.

(sorry it isn't much of a practical suggestion, but at least it is a theoretical vote of confidence)

Quote:

You can write a story using facts that conform to a narrow and ideological editorial policy depending on which corporate demands are to be heard

Those "corporate demands" aren't the only demands, though.  There are always corresponding ideological demands, typically embodied by things like "Whose side are YOU on????".

Quote:

or you can write a story using facts that step outside that kind of editorial policy.

Sounds great, but could that story be subject to its own set of demands?  Not "corporate" demands, by definition. 

But what if that story were to suggest that "well, OK, the corporations might have a point here, and here's why".  Is that "good" journalism, or is it "sell-out" journalism that gives comfort and succour to the corporate side?

I think of this as being a little like employment equity.  The goal there is to increase awareness of the value of non-white, non-male job applicants who are under-represented, and to try to level the playing field for them.  But not specifically to never, ever hire a white male ever again.

I'd love to see rabble follow the lead of other sources like Huffington, or the New Yorker, or Rolling Stone, and present articles that are somewhat balanced (or at least, not visibly UNbalanced) while at the same time taking a position.  It's the best kind of journalistic writing there is. 

Let's never fall into the habit of rejecting an argument that acknowledges that there's another side to that argument, and that it's not solely populated by idiots and quislings.

Quote:

I don't see anything wrong with advocacy journalism (any piece that doesn't have some point doesn't have much value, IMO)

Well, as I say, if you read a good New Yorker article, you won't be left wondering "whose side are you on??".

But it doesn't read like anything that could support the other side has been intentionally omitted either.

Quote:

But any discriminating reader already knows that if you want a wider range of perspectives you read a wider range of sources

I guess it was my suggestion that those sources are already out there, already publically available, and already not needing rabble money.

The analysis of what those front-line sources report is, IMHO, where rabble finds its niche.

Quote:

I was talking about differences on this site on things like party politics and the electoral system, the big Russia vs the West question, and differences of opinion on sex work and gender, to name a couple. I think Rabble should continue to accomodate articles from all sides of those issues.

I suppose I agree (see above).

But it kind of looks like you're talking about babble, not rabble.  That's my primary interest, too.  But maybe I got it wrong?

OK, but I'm not saying to any journalist "say they're both equally right".

But there are always two sides, even if you only agree with one of them (and someone else agrees with the other).

I'm not promoting "neutrality".  I'm promoting the idea that there's always the other side, and they're not just some elephant with its foot on the tail of a mouse.

Quote:

no. you are promoting it magoo.

Balanced journalism isn't "neutral" journalism.  You can write very strongly in favour of evolution, while still acknowledging creationists, and at no point throwing in the towel and saying "well, I guess we'll just never know".

Quote:

i don't want to hear the racist crap pretending to be news here for a "balanced approach" .

Do you want a "balanced approach" with regard to trans-women?  Or just the prevailing dogma of "if you believe you're a woman, you're a woman"?

Sure, but you don'r take fairness to the point of false equivalence. One can advocate a position - feminist, anti-racist, anti-poverty, pro-LGBT, pro-worker - and still be fair. Fair doesn't mean you write the position of the other side, it means you give them an opportunity to answer, and it also means you are honest enough to be self-critical.

When you are writing a piece about WalMart busting unionizing efforts and forcing workers to use foodbanks you don't have to write about their responsibility to their shareholders or how they are so nice to people by letting them park their campers in their lots. You give them a chance to explain why they treat their workers that way. That is fair.

As for slant, I care less about that than I do about fairness. If a story leaves out something important that amounts to deception that is one thing, but I don't have a problem with media writing a story from a right, left, or centre perspective. All those perspectives give me an angle on the story, and I don't see that everyone should be expected to try and cover things from the centre. That is a false ideal anyway, since we all have biases.

Yes, but in a media context when many people say "balanced" (at least in a critical way) they mean presenting all perspectives, not giving people an opportunity to answer an accusation. Again, when media takes that to the point of giving a soapbox to someone who advocates genocide (as CBC did and apologized for) it is a problem.

Especially with alternative media the focus should be on raising those voices which are shut out of the mainstream and right wing media.

In theory this can seem kind of complicated, but in practice a lot of it just comes down to common sense. And really, when you have a whole media landscape of different perspectives, the idea that any one writer should cover all positions, especially those which already have lots of money behind them, is kind of absurd, and even counter productive.

Anyway, I expect this 101 discussion is off on a tangent from what we were being asked for.

Sure. Presumably that balance doesn't extend to running articles about why it is a good thing to build Trump's wall, and buy  billion-dollar fighter jets, and ignoring the other things that effort could go toward, and who is being harmed by it.

As I said, you do in fact choose a position even when you think you are not.

In that I'd probably agree with you. Not the same as broadening the mandate or perspective of a media outlet until it is wishywashied out of shape.

But I suspect your real crux is about things becoming team sports, where one cannot admit that our side may not be progressive in all things. Again, in that I'd agree good media has to be critical even of movements it supports. But like the mainstream media's false equivalency trap, there is a point at which that clouds the issue, or is just concern trolling.