[bpt3]

I figured that was the semantic game he (and you apparently) are playing.

1. The Democratic Party represents the left in the US, so the left is in power when they are in power.

2. In other parts of the world, parties and individuals who are further left on the political spectrum than the US Democratic Party (either nationally or in any location under discussion here) obtain power. As those are generally repressive regimes, their media is generally highly biased in their direction, making them biased towards both the left and the people on power.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, feel free to stop being coy.

[thunderfork]

What you're demonstrating is that "left" and "right" are not useful terms for this sort of conversation. If you mean Dems, say Dems. If you mean "they don't agree with me on xyz", say that.

Saying "they're biased towards the left" is bereft of actual meaning, with such a wide range of interpretation that it's not useful for discussion.

[bpt3]

They absolutely are useful terms, as defined by the vast majority of the US population.

Dems = left in the US. They are interchangeable in nearly all situations, including this one where the meaning of the original comment was extraordinarily clear to anyone who isn't trying to prove a point.

[thunderfork]

What's a "centrist" in a "Dem/repub" context, though? A non-voter?

Obscuring what one actually means makes it harder to figure out what one takes issue with.

It's genuinely unclear what this person is actually criticizing when they've draped it under so much indirection. They're biased towards... dems, or the left, or something, in some way that's not made clear, but we must know they're a Reasonable Judge of that bias because they've declared themselves a centrist..? It's all signalling, no signal.

And, of course, there's the whole rest of the planet to contend with, with a much broader view of the political spectrum...

[bpt3]

> What's a "centrist" in a "Dem/repub" context, though? A non-voter?

An independent? A moderate Dem/repub? Those are two (or three) options and there are others.

> Obscuring what one actually means makes it harder to figure out what one takes issue with.

What they meant was very clear. The bias in their reporting is heavily left leaning in their opinion.

> It's genuinely unclear what this person is actually criticizing when they've draped it under so much indirection.

There's zero indirection in their statement.

> They're biased towards... dems, or the left, or something, in some way that's not made clear, but we must know they're a Reasonable Judge of that bias because they've declared themselves a centrist..? It's all signalling, no signal.

Again, this is extremely clear to anyone who isn't ignorant of politics in his location or being intentionally obtuse.

He didn't provide any links, and I'm not going to waste the time to track some down, but the content in question (in the opinion of the parent poster) almost certainly is in support of the progressive part of the Democratic Party, which does have some representation in local (in his area), state (in his state), and national government, and therefore has some power.

> And, of course, there's the whole rest of the planet to contend with, with a much broader view of the political spectrum...

The topic of this discussion is local journalism, and the parent poster provided his location (central NJ), so that's not the issue either.