• sushibowl@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was curious because of how unashamedly propagandist this article is. So I clicked on the author link. It seems this is the only article he’s ever written for this website (I hesitate to call it a news outlet). Also, it says he’s a former republican political consultant now working for the Lincoln Project. That’s apparently the name of a moderate republican PAC that is trying to fight Trumpism.

    So why would a political news website outright publish propaganda from a PAC without any commentary? I’ve never heard of the new republic before, but they seem to be an otherwise unremarkable progressive political magazine. I couldn’t say whether the new republic is getting paid by the PAC to publish this, or whether they just took it because it generally aligns with their own stated political views. I will say that, although it is mentioned at the bottom that the author currently works for the Lincoln Project, I had to really look for that. it also wasn’t clear to me at first this was a PAC. So in my opinion, proper journalistic ethical standards are not being upheld here.

    Given the article’s origins, it’s pretty safe to say none of this is genuine. These are moderate republicans who hate Trump, trying desperately to destroy Trumpism. If they truly believed their own article they’d be democrats. And if you’re here wondering if the article is worth reading, I’d say it is practically fully content-free. It’s all just hopium.

    • hamid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve never heard of the new republic before, but they seem to be an otherwise unremarkable progressive political magazine.

      The New Republic has been around for a hundred years and is one of the most well known names in progressive media. They have turned to shit of course in the great hollowing of journalism but they aren’t a fly by night operation and in the past quite remarkable.

        • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They didn’t say it was reputable, just remarkable, which doesn’t mean it’s good or accurate, just that it has had a place in the media sphere for a while.

      • sushibowl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good to know, thanks. I’m not too familiar with the American news media, although I know there’s a lot of it around. I checked them briefly and they didn’t seem all too different from e.g. Huffington Post or other similar sites, which is why I called them unremarkable. It’s interesting to see they have a long history.

        I don’t think this materially affects any of my conclusions on the article itself though.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Welcome to American media! Brand new dogshit media companies made to make profit mixed with century old names, bought and turned to shit to make profit!

        • hamid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your conclusions are fine but its worse because this is not just any news paper, this is what was formerly extremely reliable, extremely well respected, media and basically the highest level authority of left journalism in the US for decades including during the October revolution and now they are publishing Democrat propaganda in place of news. The fact that you hesitate to call it a news outlet is a huge problem.