Happy James Comey Day

[fstarcstar]

[Kane]

What's wrong with vox?

[Kane]

Next you'll tell me to ignore five-thirty-eight because science can't be trusted.

[fstarcstar]

[Kane]

Apparently I'm asking too many questions. Take your time.

[NAB]

[Philly]

TBF, I find the whole premise of Vox to be suspicious and I avoid referring people to it. I would suspect fstar's problems with it are not the same as mine. Their whole "explainer" format aggravates me because it is commentary that is heavily implying itself to be objective reporting of the facts. This is not to say that Vox publishes falsehoods. From all I've seen, the tangible claims they make are always well sourced and fact checked. But you can't just objectively "explain" issues and events without an agenda. This is why traditional "straight news" offers little to no explanation and merely reports the events as they occurred. Explanations of these events are inherently subjective, as you can't properly explain the significance of controversial political issues without calling upon your own ideology and values to put them in context. Explanation is always subjective commentary. And if Vox wants to provide that, they should feel free to do so, but they should drop the "we're just wonks reporting objective facts" routine.

[Kane]

I'd agree with that sentiment in a different setting and a different time but every news outlet out there covers events like this now. You can't escape it. And if you do try to simply "report the news" without the added commentary then you have nothing to fill 24 hours for the major news networks. I credit the WSJ with being the more level headed outlet as of late but I feel that even they utilize intentional omission to support their given slant.

Vox is necessary these days. I think that vox actually lives up to or actively seeks to live up to a credo of another station: fair and balanced.

[NAB]

[fstarcstar]