To each their own. I love Vox. Their Weeds podcast has given me a whole new understanding of public policy and research papers in the social sciences.
They also do research on topics I didn't even know I wanted research on. For example, they did an entire article on Hallmark movies. Sounds super silly, but they turn out to be a huge money-maker. One of my friends works in the film industry and was working on pitching Hallmark movies. He was super excited about it, but I had no idea how big of a deal that was (or what it even meant exactly) until I read the Vox article.
Sure, they have a clear bias, but at least they're explicit about it and they do a fairly decent job of researching and presenting opposing points of view, not just setting up straw-mans. They've done some of the best journalism there is on things like US public health policies. Sarah Kliff's article https://www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18194709/emergency-room-fees-h... was impeccably researched and had a direct impact on health care legislation.
'Distilling' I think is the wrong word. They describe a person/event/situation from their highly ideological position. It's high-quality writing, but I stopped reading it for this reason.
Edit: from 'AllSides' analysis [1] "Vox's Explainers provide only one side of an issue, making it seem as if the information provided is all readers need to know, when in reality, Right-leaning individuals would likely include other facts or make different points about the topic. This prevents readers from getting a holistic understanding of the highlighted issues."
Which I find to be true. The most interesting thing is they are literally trying to 'explain' something, whilst pursuing their explanations in an obviously biased manner, ignoring information and viewpoints which might contradict their view. Which is to say ... it's the 'opposite' of explaining.
I don't have a problem with the publication, it's well written, but I question the ethics of telling people they are 'explaining' or 'distilling' the news when that's clearly not happening.
It’s a shame, too, because they have the great opportunity to be a news organization that actually delivers the source material in a more complete manner. Vox is incredibly disappointing and all their messaging sets you up for a complete letdown.
My thoughts as well. During Coronavirus what we need more than ever are not 'daily headlines' so much as 'status/explainer' news, like a dynamic, contemporary Wikipedia article that nails and dissolves the meta-issues of the day. Trying to find out the specific status of Canada's various bailout programs is almost impossible unless you sit there with the news on all day!
What makes you ask that of them? Are you already approaching their point from the opposite angle and want to find out if they've got a bias rather than challenge their point directly?
Are people not allowed to criticise a publication any more without throwing in a token caveat of: "by the way, publications on the other end of the political spectrum do this too, and I equally don't approve of that" to ground their perceived neutrality before someone challenges their argument rather than their motivations?
Yes. What in my concerns with Vox would imply otherwise?
Vox should call itself 'the progressive lens' or something along those lines, it would be more transparent.
And FYI I think the 'left/right' demarcation is far too simplistic for the categorization of the media landscape today particularly as classical ideologies splinter into movements given new trends. The entire world's political landscape has been upended so it'd be nice if we could agree on some new language.
Not really, except it comes off as you hope the people currently employed as lobbyists and weapons manufactures lose their jobs. Once they get canned, someone else could take their place. Sounds like the disagreement is with the position itself, not the person who happens to be holding the job
That implies there are times we should root for people to lose their jobs.
We should root for people to lose specific jobs by way of those jobs disappearing.
We should not root for people to lose their access to a baseline level of income, or otherwise a basic living standard.
The fundamental problem with modern society is that jobs are prerequisite for acceptable living standards, including access to healthcare, education, housing, food, and social interaction.
In most cases, minimum living standards depend on a minimum income, which is usually obtained by way of a job.
Other times income alone is not the only prerequisite. In the case of healthcare (in the USA), you need a job through a formal employer in order to make healthcare affordable, i.e. without a formal job you need a much higher income in order to obtain healthcare at an acceptable standard.
In my opinion, diminishing or eliminating the dependence of "living standards" on "job" is essential to a high-functioning society. Even if the dependence is only broken temporarily as part of a "social safety net". The USA has a social safety net, but it's frequently insufficient to maintain morally acceptable living standards.
No my point is that their kids shouldn't have to drop out of school, their parents shouldn't have to decide between meds, their family shouldn't lose their health insurance, etc. Maybe there are jobs that are so repugnant we should punish the families of those who hold them, but no matter your thoughts on the media or your political stripe, I hope we can agree that journalist (or any of the other myriad jobs at Vox) isn't one of them.
I suggest people reading VOX also read articles on the same subject matter from other sources as well. Its easy to explain when you control what is put out and don't enable comments.
Same with John Oliver show. Both have value but take their explanations with a grain or two of salt.
Reading multiple sources is always a good idea, assuming you have the time.
But, can you really blame Vox for not enabling comments? There's a reason Hacker News attempts to minimize political discussions. Vox doesn't have that luxury given the focus of the site.
Less politics-focused Vox Media properties, like The Verge, do have a comments section that's quite active.
Vox not allowing comments is certainly reinforcing their bubble. If you're in the political field, you better be ready for the political disagreements and the criticism.
However, I suspect Vox disabled the comment section not because it's hard to manage but because it breaks their narrative and it shows the volume of dissent.
Just because you don't like their style doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
That'd be like me saying you should be fired from whatever job you have for posting this comment. It makes no sense, doesn't help the dialogue, and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic.
