this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2026
334 points (97.7% liked)
Inventing Reality
747 readers
121 users here now
When the media decides who you are rooting for.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It does not. It is value-free analysis. Some readers would have to open up the article to even see that Ms Rachel had commented on genocide - i.e you are relying on people having your pre-knowledge of the individual to reach that conclusion
This is precisely something a newspaper might choose to do - otherwise how else would you know that an anti-vaxxer is incorrect? There has to at least be correspondence of ideas (which amounts to "equal airtime" by equal exchange of words or letters.)
If we accepted things were right or wrong based purely on authority, everything you yourself currently oppose would be the status quo because nobody would have debated anything, ever. Anti-Vaxxing might be the status quo. Pure religiousity would be the status quo. Absolute monarchy. Why ever consider a different viewpoint ever? We knew those things were right because they were in place by the contemporary regime
The reason newspapers do not tend to put doctors next to antivaxxers is because the debates were already had about 6 years ago, sometimes longer ago. I still see doctors and anti vaxxers having debates. Genuinely how else would you reach an audience of anti-vaxxers?
Maybe if everything were subjective, but it isn't. I'm sorry but I'm going to trust experts over randos everytime, even if the experts are outnumbered. Once upon a time it was the duty of the media to do some of this digging/screening for the general public (though there always was and always will be a bias).
And it isn't value-free. They could have used any number of adjectives to describe her - award winning, popular, beloved, or no description at all - but they wanted you to know she's controversial. They decided that that was the most important thing for you to know about her. Even if you agree that she is, that's still speaks to how they want the story told.
I think you're projecting your own sense of neutrality on others. These individuals have an agenda, and the way they tell stories supports that agenda. That's not even to say I agree/disagree with them, just that we need to be aware that that's how they operate.
The simple basis of this is that it know the guardian is pro Ms Rachel and is probably the most left wing and liberal media outlet in the world, so why would it be trying to drum up negativity about Ms Rachel? Therefore I believe it isn't