You really think it's okay for Teen Vogue to be pushing political opinions on impressionable young minds?
even biased substance is still a monumental leap above the consumerist bullshit magazines like that normally push.
regardless, we should be encouraging kids to 1) read anything, 2) read lots of varied opinions.
False equivalence is false equivalence, and all that.
yet the 'incorrect' side has to be suppressed, lest anyone take it as correct?
There's a long tradition of arguing for a "marketplace of ideas", which points vaguely in the direction of John Stuart Mill and "On Liberty". Turns out Mill didn't originate, or use, that term, and had some pretty specific things to say on the matter, well worth reading.
The "marketplace" argument originates, so far as I'm aware, with Francis Wrigley Hirst, an economist, free-market advocate, and editor of The Economist newspaper, itself an organ ideologically premised on promoting free-market ideology (reference its own Prospect for that).
There are some very profound differences between commodity ecnomic goods and services, and information, which both make the markets analogy a poor one, and pose some significant issues with information playing within markets.
Susan Gordon has an excellent essay on Mill and the term, which I recommend. It's IMO incomplete (there are additional and strong criticisms which can be made), but good, and quite damning, so far as it goes. Otherwise, I'm still researching and thinking on the question, though I'm inclined somewhat far away from the "marketplace of ideas" position.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9710146591/john-s...
(Full doc on Sci-Hub: https://sci-hub.cc)
What if the mechanism for doing this is tainted?
> the argument that such views must be given a platform is weak
Maybe, but the argument is suppression of those views.
"political neutrality" is about providing political balance.
Is there a problem with sub-discussions?
Like, for every lie of Trump's that they highlight should they also highlight a lie of a Democrat in congress or something?
What if Trump lies more than all the Democrats put together. What should they do to provide balance if that is the case? Maybe discuss how the lies serve his agenda?
They should compare Trump with the previous administration, yes. Very often Trump makes a statement and the article immediately follows with "Trump provided no evidence for his claims". Plenty democrats make statements without providing evidence, including claims about Trump. Further, some papers have printed claims with "..say some whitehouse officials" as their evidence.
If you had or have a daughter, what material would you like her to read?
For anyone who is in doubt: yes, as specified by law and international conventions, at least here in the west.
Just the same way as atheist parents are allowed to push their agenda.
If I had a teenage daughter I'm sure I'd have little control over what she read anyway.