Hopefully the mods are okay with a little journalism about journalism so that people know where Politico stands in terms of being a trustworthy source.
The headline in question:
‘Next question’: Harris evades questions about her identity
The background to the headline is from Harris’ recent CNN interview:
“I want to ask you about your opponent, Donald Trump,” Bash said to Harris. “I was a little bit surprised. People might be surprised to hear that you have never interacted with him, met him face-to-face. That’s gonna change soon. But what I wanna ask you about is what he said last month. He suggested that you ‘happened’ to turn Black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of your identity.”
“Same old, tired playbook,” Harris replied. “Next question, please.”
The article is fine, tbh, it’s just talking about how Harris is putting less emphasis on the historic nature of her candidacy versus Clinton in 2016. The headline was hot garbage though, just trying to bait those rage-clicks (which obviously worked).
Wow, I don’t give a shiite about her identity or she even is. Is she gonna bomb people ? Yes, next question !
Acting like there’s any legitimate questions about Harris being a black person is inherently racist and doing the bidding of Trump. I didn’t think very highly of Politico before this but unless they fire whoever wrote that headline they are dead to me now.
…she’s half caribbean and half south-asian…
…is that black?..that’s on you…
…does it matter?..that’s on you, too…
…any issue says more about the person asking the questions than it does about the candidate; what i think is noteworthy is that nobody’s talking about her gender, a fact which constitutes a substantial milestone for cultural progress…
Bash said: "But what I wanna ask you about is what he said last month. He suggested that you ‘happened’ to turn Black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of your identity.”
Where was the question? That’s simply a statement about what Trump said.
Politico’s headline is outrageous, but what was Bash even trying to do here? Because it reads like she was trying to ask (without asking) if Harris is black, which is just as weird and absurd as Trump’s original comment.
Harris’s reply is great because it applies both to Trump’s racism and the problem with journalists giving these comments anything more than ridicule.
This is a horrible take. Bash lobbed this question in as a total softball. Dana is an excellent interviewer and she deliberately framed the question this way so as to allow Harris to be free to frame it with her response; instead of trapping Harris with a strongly premised question.
Honest question from a European: Do you guys still have journalism somewhere? It all seems to be political propaganda or outrage clickbait with you guys.
Liberty for whom?
The rich, the powerful, the Elect. They want the freedom to own and control anything, even the truth. The “”“Liberty”“” they seek is total privatization of everything, and journalism is part of that.
Politico’s bullshit is your liberty. You’re free to be lied to by anyone you want!
They are a known troll. Just keep that in mind if you continue to engage with them
Very little, but there is NPR, which generally attempts to do real journalism.
Agree, though their coverage of Bernie’s 2016 presidential run towed the DNC party line, which made me less sure about their neutrality. Now I tend to hit up the BBC if I want US news coverage and I don’t have time to ingest multiple sources.
A lot of British people can tell you all about the BBC’s toeing the government line. But both are a lot less biased than many other Western media sources. NPR’s biggest problem is similar to what the NYT and WaPo do, just to a lesser extent- overcompensating and causing an imbalance toward conservatism in an attempt to look unbiased. WaPo and especially the NYT are far worse though.
Drop Site news, 404 media, Pro Publica, Vox is occasionally good.
Short answer is “not much.”
I get most of my news from Reuters (which is UK-based I think). I used to read NPR but I think Reuters has more quality content. Beyond that, the Associated Press I guess, and that’s all I really trust.
The Onion too, for when I need to forget how fucked we all are as a species.
Point of order from an American: Politico is a wholly owned subsidiary of German multinational Axel Springer.
Didn’t know that (i’m German), but Springer ist known in Germany to outright lie to push rightwing agenda
There are a lot of ‘content creators’ that pose as journalists.
There are journalists that do great work but since their stories can run counter to a narrative, it can be more difficult to find those articles.
Specifically, “Good Work” and “Some More News” spring to mind as producing well researched pieces - they’re both highly specialized and only deliver occasional focused news rather than a continuous spread of general goings-on… but given how many outlets are happy to spam low quality continuous bullshit I consider that a good thing.
