Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SgathTriallair t1_j6j77vo wrote

Reply to comment by superkuper in No one watches the news anymore because they never provide any solutions to the problem reported and only exist to infuriate you for clicks and likes. by Inaerius

Everything is politics. When something seems "apolitical" it just means that it's biases conform to your own. Even the choice of what objective facts to present and which to not present is a political question. By political I don't mean "Republican or Democrat" but rather anything that deals with human society is political. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with lettuce and tomato in the middle isn't objectively wrong, it just feels weird because all of us have agreed that this isn't how we build those sandwiches.

The problem happens when you see news that presents facts that challenge your biases, such as pro or anti-cop stories. Both of those things happened but only one of them feels political and the other is just news we need to know.

A better option is to look at multiple sources, focus on places that have a reputation for presenting actual facts and not made up ones, and always think about why they are saying the things they are saying.

2

superkuper t1_j6j8b3c wrote

I agree that is how things are, but the mandate of journalists is to be unbiased and apolitical regardless of whether or not they live up to that standard in reality.

Also I don’t fully agree with your premise. There is objective truth, there is moral good, and the truth does not always lie “somewhere in the middle”. The person who makes a peanut butter lettuce and tomato sandwich is objectively wrong.

4

SgathTriallair t1_j6jhpkz wrote

There are objective truths but it is impossible to know our present them all. When only some information is presented it creates a narrative. We try to make our narratives as course to the truth as possible but the limitations of our physiology makes this impossible to fully achieve.

Objective moral good is a slippery one. One needs to first define good before one can determine what actions and habits lead to that. I support human flourishing but others argue for obedience to god or maximizing non-interference. You can't have an objective conversation until you agree on what The Good consists of.

1

superkuper t1_j6ji562 wrote

I’m not disagreeing with that. That’s really the crux of all politics.

The important takeaway is that whoever puts lettuce and tomato together with peanut butter and jelly should be flogged in the streets.

2

SgathTriallair t1_j6jidtn wrote

I'm glad I succeeded at thinking of something universally despicable that has no real moral weight.

1