On one hand, substack is essentially a blog site. Definitely not the bog standard definition of one since it’s geared towards serious writers and a subscription model, but that’s the niche it serves, a hopped up blog platform.
But, that specific blog is done by legit journalists, if more of the modern form away from mainstream media. I don’t necessarily think much of their work tbh, but they do put in the time and effort, it isn’t all opinion pieces and bullshit. So, it isn’t the usual blog level of tripe, though it also isn’t a full on source of news either. There is a strong bias in what they choose to report on, and how. Some of it verges on op-ed because of that, but it isn’t all op-ed (which is essentially a blog being supported by a paper or other media source to begin with).
I think that it’s a judgement call. I don’t agree with the call that was made, but it is part of modding a community like that to limit what sources are acceptable and aren’t. I would not have removed it on the basis of the platform, I would have wanted to check the specific article and see if it was a blog post in disguise, or not and base it on that.
Which means that this wasn’t power tripping, just a bad call.
That being said, the article itself is kinda meh. It’s throwing out numbers that are legit, but they’re cherry picked to stay with the thesis of the author. It’s a blend between an op-ed (and that specific author is prone to this) and a legitimate reporting on a subject. Still don’t think that it should have been removed for that reason, but the article is just him picking numbers to support his opinion.
Edit:
A quote from the article that shows why it’s a meh to bad article, emphasis mine.
Yet, she had no answer for how they diverged, other than “And I am certainly not Donald Trump.” In an appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, she reiterated these points, and followed with a gobbledygook response about American aspirations and opportunity and small businesses. In other high-profile interviews, she similarly declined to offer any …
That’s not good reporting. It’s just snark, which is bad journalism, even though other parts are better done.
Political analysis is always opinionated. Most news sites doing polls in 2024 can be disregarded as factually false after the election results. Nor were their justifications for the big tent correct. The level of scrutiny applied to dropsite and other independent media feels selective if they are not applied to mainstream media.
Modding is applying rules. There is no rule being applied here.
The rule applied was made explicitly clear. The fact that you don’t agree with the mod’s categorization doesn’t mean that one wasn’t applied. At worst it means it was applied incorrectly or inconsistently.
I think you may misunderstand the main point of this community.
Think of it more like an “am I the asshole”, with the * am I* replaced with are they
If you’re coming into it with the idea that folks are going to respond with automatic agreement with you, you’re going to end up disappointed (and likely with some degree of disdain towards you for not checking the “about” section).
If all you want is a round of agreement, or a chance to vent your spleen, that’s fine, but this isn’t the community where that’s going to happen. You aren’t required to agree with anyone’s take for sure. Thing is, you gotta come at it with a little less of an argumentative thrust, or you’ll end up where you are, down voted and with other users less likely to engage with your future posts.
With that, independent media is always going to be held to a higher scrutiny because they have yet, individually, to have a reputation to give their opinions weight. While established journalism outlets aren’t any more likely to have “right” opinions, you can usually rely on whether or not they have been reliable with their fact checking in the past. You can also usually tell, by that reputation, if they have changed that.
You can’t totally escape bias in media. It’s essentially impossible to escape it in “analysis” because all analysis is opinion rather than raw fact. That’s regardless of whether or not it’s good analysis.
I’m not sure what pre-election polls have to do with the article in question since it’s using post election responses, or that’s what’s in memory; because I’ll be damned if I’m going back to read it again, hours later after a disappointing sleep lol.
Which comes back to what you were asking about, and you did ask for opinions on whether or not the article and site counted as a blog or not. Modding is not only applying rules, it’s also applying judgement. Since I had already said I disagreed with that judgement, I won’t belabor the point.
But there most definitely is a rule being applied here, you just don’t agree with it being applied. There is a massive difference between the two. Again, you aren’t required to agree with that opinion about the mod action; you obviously didn’t when you posted or you likely wouldn’t have done so.
But you’re now arguing against the rule itself. That’s not what you asked in your post, so I’m not sure what you expect
Damn, this is pretty tough.
On one hand, substack is essentially a blog site. Definitely not the bog standard definition of one since it’s geared towards serious writers and a subscription model, but that’s the niche it serves, a hopped up blog platform.
But, that specific blog is done by legit journalists, if more of the modern form away from mainstream media. I don’t necessarily think much of their work tbh, but they do put in the time and effort, it isn’t all opinion pieces and bullshit. So, it isn’t the usual blog level of tripe, though it also isn’t a full on source of news either. There is a strong bias in what they choose to report on, and how. Some of it verges on op-ed because of that, but it isn’t all op-ed (which is essentially a blog being supported by a paper or other media source to begin with).
I think that it’s a judgement call. I don’t agree with the call that was made, but it is part of modding a community like that to limit what sources are acceptable and aren’t. I would not have removed it on the basis of the platform, I would have wanted to check the specific article and see if it was a blog post in disguise, or not and base it on that.
Which means that this wasn’t power tripping, just a bad call.
That being said, the article itself is kinda meh. It’s throwing out numbers that are legit, but they’re cherry picked to stay with the thesis of the author. It’s a blend between an op-ed (and that specific author is prone to this) and a legitimate reporting on a subject. Still don’t think that it should have been removed for that reason, but the article is just him picking numbers to support his opinion.
Edit:
A quote from the article that shows why it’s a meh to bad article, emphasis mine.
Yet, she had no answer for how they diverged, other than “And I am certainly not Donald Trump.” In an appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, she reiterated these points, and followed with a gobbledygook response about American aspirations and opportunity and small businesses. In other high-profile interviews, she similarly declined to offer any …
That’s not good reporting. It’s just snark, which is bad journalism, even though other parts are better done.
Political analysis is always opinionated. Most news sites doing polls in 2024 can be disregarded as factually false after the election results. Nor were their justifications for the big tent correct. The level of scrutiny applied to dropsite and other independent media feels selective if they are not applied to mainstream media.
Modding is applying rules. There is no rule being applied here.
The rule applied was made explicitly clear. The fact that you don’t agree with the mod’s categorization doesn’t mean that one wasn’t applied. At worst it means it was applied incorrectly or inconsistently.
Signed, a local pedant.
Which rule
I think you may misunderstand the main point of this community.
Think of it more like an “am I the asshole”, with the * am I* replaced with are they
If you’re coming into it with the idea that folks are going to respond with automatic agreement with you, you’re going to end up disappointed (and likely with some degree of disdain towards you for not checking the “about” section).
If all you want is a round of agreement, or a chance to vent your spleen, that’s fine, but this isn’t the community where that’s going to happen. You aren’t required to agree with anyone’s take for sure. Thing is, you gotta come at it with a little less of an argumentative thrust, or you’ll end up where you are, down voted and with other users less likely to engage with your future posts.
With that, independent media is always going to be held to a higher scrutiny because they have yet, individually, to have a reputation to give their opinions weight. While established journalism outlets aren’t any more likely to have “right” opinions, you can usually rely on whether or not they have been reliable with their fact checking in the past. You can also usually tell, by that reputation, if they have changed that.
You can’t totally escape bias in media. It’s essentially impossible to escape it in “analysis” because all analysis is opinion rather than raw fact. That’s regardless of whether or not it’s good analysis.
I’m not sure what pre-election polls have to do with the article in question since it’s using post election responses, or that’s what’s in memory; because I’ll be damned if I’m going back to read it again, hours later after a disappointing sleep lol.
Which comes back to what you were asking about, and you did ask for opinions on whether or not the article and site counted as a blog or not. Modding is not only applying rules, it’s also applying judgement. Since I had already said I disagreed with that judgement, I won’t belabor the point.
But there most definitely is a rule being applied here, you just don’t agree with it being applied. There is a massive difference between the two. Again, you aren’t required to agree with that opinion about the mod action; you obviously didn’t when you posted or you likely wouldn’t have done so.
But you’re now arguing against the rule itself. That’s not what you asked in your post, so I’m not sure what you expect
There is no rule about blogs on /politics.