I think you’re whoooshing the article.
Let the author breathe and give them credit for parsing the subject in a carefully neutral manner whilst yet getting something of import across.
Reporting the reactions of both sides is technically neutral.
However I totally agree that ‘both sides-ing’ in terms of legitimising shitty views is unhealthy. I think the piece does not legitimise the xtian views as much as holding them up as the entrenched mindset that the SC is trying to (rightly) break.
Indeed.
I certainly do not support the xtian whackos. And the Satanic club sounds like great thing.
The Guardian is definitely a left-leaning paper so accusations of bias against the ‘satanic club’ is likely not true.
I think the reporting is accurate in that it’s telling the reader about the reaction ‘on the ground’ to this piece of social progress, by the parochial xtians.
People are left to read what they want into the reporting (neutral) but I really don’t think it’s ‘promoting’ the xtian view.
The only thing I can think of is that the other poster doesn’t understand the difference between opinion and fact, and thus confuses their opinion (one I share) for fact. So anything that doesn’t push their opinion seems counterfactual.
I don’t see it that way. What I see is the author giving a platform to bigots under the disguise of what should have been a story focused on what the club actually does.
The club is being protested because of ignorance and bigotry. A responsible journalist would help to banish the ignorance by exposing the truth that fear and hatred is unnecessary. Instead, they provided a platform for bigots to spew more their hatred, even quoted two of them, and promoted a Christian club that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article.
Shining a light on them is mentioning that there were protesters there with signs while still focusing on the club.
Giving them a platform is dedicating half of the article to the protestors, quoting their bigoted signs, interviewing 2 of the protesters for bigoted quotations and publishing those quotes along with their names, then not interviewing or quoting any of the students.
Meh, I disagree with what you believe the focus of the article is. That’s probably why we have different takes. You’re upset because you want the article to be about 1 thing, but the author was writing for their audience instead.
Letting someone say mean shit and posting their name to the public is absolutely shining a light. Kids having fun and doing whatever is good, but not an interesting article. Also, you can’t interview kids and post their names or anything without parental consent. Your expectations from the article would have possibly put those kids at risk, and responsible journalists shouldn’t do that, so I’m glad you didn’t get your wish there! 😉
Well I wouldn’t have expected them to publish kids’ names for exactly the reason you suggest. But getting quotes from them should have been possible. And in any case, whether they quote the kids or not, at the minimum I expect them not to platform the people spewing hate. I don’t agree with you that what the article does is simply “shining a light.” They’re helping them out.
I think you’re whoooshing the article. Let the author breathe and give them credit for parsing the subject in a carefully neutral manner whilst yet getting something of import across.
when “one side” wants to take away everyone’s rights and burn down the planet, I think the “both sides” neutrality arguments should fuckin STOP
Reporting the reactions of both sides is technically neutral.
However I totally agree that ‘both sides-ing’ in terms of legitimising shitty views is unhealthy. I think the piece does not legitimise the xtian views as much as holding them up as the entrenched mindset that the SC is trying to (rightly) break.
Why on earth are people so angry at this for simply reporting the facts? This comment section is fucking hilariously nuts right now. Lol
Indeed. I certainly do not support the xtian whackos. And the Satanic club sounds like great thing.
The Guardian is definitely a left-leaning paper so accusations of bias against the ‘satanic club’ is likely not true.
I think the reporting is accurate in that it’s telling the reader about the reaction ‘on the ground’ to this piece of social progress, by the parochial xtians.
People are left to read what they want into the reporting (neutral) but I really don’t think it’s ‘promoting’ the xtian view.
The only thing I can think of is that the other poster doesn’t understand the difference between opinion and fact, and thus confuses their opinion (one I share) for fact. So anything that doesn’t push their opinion seems counterfactual.
I don’t see it that way. What I see is the author giving a platform to bigots under the disguise of what should have been a story focused on what the club actually does.
The club is being protested because of ignorance and bigotry. A responsible journalist would help to banish the ignorance by exposing the truth that fear and hatred is unnecessary. Instead, they provided a platform for bigots to spew more their hatred, even quoted two of them, and promoted a Christian club that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article.
That’s not neutral reporting.
Some people’s “giving a platform” is other people “shining a light on”.
Shining a light on them is mentioning that there were protesters there with signs while still focusing on the club.
Giving them a platform is dedicating half of the article to the protestors, quoting their bigoted signs, interviewing 2 of the protesters for bigoted quotations and publishing those quotes along with their names, then not interviewing or quoting any of the students.
Meh, I disagree with what you believe the focus of the article is. That’s probably why we have different takes. You’re upset because you want the article to be about 1 thing, but the author was writing for their audience instead.
Letting someone say mean shit and posting their name to the public is absolutely shining a light. Kids having fun and doing whatever is good, but not an interesting article. Also, you can’t interview kids and post their names or anything without parental consent. Your expectations from the article would have possibly put those kids at risk, and responsible journalists shouldn’t do that, so I’m glad you didn’t get your wish there! 😉
Well I wouldn’t have expected them to publish kids’ names for exactly the reason you suggest. But getting quotes from them should have been possible. And in any case, whether they quote the kids or not, at the minimum I expect them not to platform the people spewing hate. I don’t agree with you that what the article does is simply “shining a light.” They’re helping them out.
They literally explained how it’s not neutral.
And I still think they are incorrect.