[calumetregion]

Many people asking for examples.

For an easy one (among millions) just compare The New York Times Wikipedia article to the article for The Epoch Times. "Oh, but The Epoch Times is right wing, so..."

How can I compare the Ochs-Sulzberger family to the Falun Gong? Well I just did. They're both made up of humans with opinions.

[cy_hauser]

I'm interpreting your comment as, "Wikipedia isn't far right enough for my tastes." Is that accurate? Do you know of any examples where Wikipedia leans farther right than left?

[calumetregion]

Or you could see it as "poisoning the well" - an approach so common and accepted that neither of you see it, apparently.

Although clearly a lefty news organization, I don't see the NY Times as a "wing" on that easy left-right spectrum we all seem to love. NYT has had many writers and done some excellent work along the way. In the aggregate their ideology is more in support of population density (cities), industrialism and technology - with some hostility towards more pastoral living, herding animals for food, etc.

[notafraudster]

I just read through both articles but I don't understand the point you're making. Is it that the NYT article is more fleshed out and talks about their various print products? You can add such a section to the Epoch Times.

[calumetregion]

Because of a different thread I thought of another subtle, yet similar example. Look at the Wikipedia entry for The Verge. It's a media product, a tech news site, all good. But it's a "left wing" site on the merits. Not a single mention of that in the Wikipedia article. There's a little bit of discussion about tabloid-style content on the Talk page, but it doesn't go anywhere. Even the Vox Media Wikipedia article makes no mention of this being a lefty business. Wild, isn't it?

[notafraudster]

I'm not sure I really understand. I don't read the Verge (because consumer product journalism is deeply uninteresting and I don't want to rot my brain), but I'll take your word that it is a "left wing" site (I don't know what this means) on "the merits" (I also don't know what this means). I would expect this to show up on the Wikipedia page if it was a notable fact about the site -- if they had broken some "left wing" news story (again, I don't know what this means) or if they staked out some powerful "left wing" editorial (again, I don't know what this means). Overall, whether or not the writers happen to be "left wing", "right wing", or otherwise doesn't strike me as a hugely relevant thing on its face. The other thing is that given that I presume the site is not avowedly "left wing", the characterization of the site as "left wing" would have to involve either original argumentation or secondary sourcing.

I honestly wouldn't imagine the major editorial cleavage in tech websites is partisan at all, but rather the privacy-convenience cleavage. I would expect a consumer goods focused website to likely cater to people who are less privacy oriented. I am not sure this would be remarkable or something I'd put in an article. The "break up big tech" agenda is mostly a liberal consensus versus left+right angle, but even then I find it pretty unlikely that the site's coverage goes beyond relatively mild critical reporting; I know I've never in my life seen someone link a The Verge editorial as a contribution to a political debate. I think they published some of the mistakenly public financial documents from the Epic v. Apple case. I'm not sure which of Epic or Apple is meant to be the "left wing" perspective. I remain flummoxed.

I checked the article on Vox Media. It characterizes Vox Media as a company that was created to combine SB Nation and The Verge, and then added other not obviously related content verticals, all of which are named and linked. The only part of the article that really comments on inner workings is the "Corporate Affairs" section, which seems to be written in a fair and neutral way and notes that the staff of Vox Media unionized. Is this what a "lefty" business is? I'm not sure?

The main takeaway is that they run a bunch of websites I've never heard of and will never read. I did click on the Vox article. Vox is a politics website, and its politics are described as "left-of-center" (I don't know what this means) and progressive, the former citing a Poli Sci 101 textbook I've never heard of and the latter citing a WSJ attack piece. This seems reasonable to me, it seems to be what you're asking for.

I'm not really sure I find this to be wild or surprising. You might be right, again, I have no idea, I don't care about Vox Media and I don't read the Verge. But your point doesn't really strike me as obvious having wasted 20-30 minutes reading Wikipedia articles that are supposed to be evidently biased.

[zozbot234]

You can argue for this change yourself, if you have sources that are not too fringe. Though you'd probably have to phrase it properly. Who exactly has described these sites as left-wing, and where?

[calumetregion]

You're making my point for me.

[iudqnolq]

Well, the New York Times (for all it's numerous flaws) is the most prominent newspaper in the United States. Epoch Times is run by a Chinese dissident cult. Obviously there's going to be different treatment.

I'm not even arguing (although I could) that one is more correct. The New York Times prints an order of magnitude more physical newspapers (roughly 300,000 to the Epoch Time's 30,000), and is thus obviously more notable.

Edit: Those numbers are for the English language edition in the US

[calumetregion]

I made no mention of notability, it's such an obvious point that it doesn't need to be made.

The Shen Yun Performing Arts people are pre-Communism traditionalist Chinese. Which is on the outs culturally, I get it. They're just people though, ultimately.

Do you not see the "weirdos vs normal people" problem that permeates media in essentially all cultures? This technique is on its face illegitimate, as it is designed to get you to not dig deeper into contentious issues. I don't care what side or "wing" is doing it.

[iudqnolq]

Everyone is just people. Not everyone deserves the same level of depth on Wikipedia.

[calumetregion]

It is not an issue of depth. Wikipedia is a hive of mimetic scapegoating, and it doesn't hold the patent on that problem. And this usually, ultimately, leads to real world violence.