'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.
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.
[1]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vox-news-media-bias