Regardless of Bannon’s reliability or not, and until this whole mess settles, we should really try withholding judgment on everyone, it should be much easier to agree that Breitbart News’s style, as a whole, is pretty lackluster, misses a lot of key details, is often as bad about citing sources as any mainstream newspaper, the writing is often oversimplified and shallow, and even Bannon’s podcast is also fairly … it’s hard to say it doesn’t have good content because it’s just so hard to watch. I’m not a Bannon or Breitbart fan, except for Andrew, who was an absolute honey badger.
That said, it’s hard enough to just keep an eye on ourselves to be sure we personally aren’t acting in a way that’s going to have negative results. “Plank in your own eye” and such.
Keeping “oh that person is absolutely a good/bad actor” limited to a very small handful of people is the way to go. “Fairly well give that person credibility/no cred” can be bigger, but not too big. “Check all” should be the default for the big middle, and still spot-applied to the others.
I do like the post a lot, though. Very good digging u/TaQo! Lots of things to keep in mind when considering credibility.
Edit: your addendum looks like you’re actually trying to encourage the same way of thinking, I didn’t catch that.
Regardless of Bannon’s reliability or not, and until this whole mess settles, we should really try withholding judgment on everyone, it should be much easier to agree that Breitbart News’s style, as a whole, is pretty lackluster, misses a lot of key details, is often as bad about citing sources as any mainstream newspaper, the writing is often oversimplified and shallow, and even Bannon’s podcast is also fairly … it’s hard to say it doesn’t have good content because it’s just so hard to watch. I’m not a Bannon or Breitbart fan, except for Andrew, who was an absolute honey badger.
That said, it’s hard enough to just keep an eye on ourselves to be sure we personally aren’t acting in a way that’s going to have negative results. “Plank in your own eye” and such.
Keeping “oh that person is absolutely a good/bad actor” limited to a very small handful of people is the way to go. “Fairly well give that person credibility/no cred” can be bigger, but not too big. “Check all” should be the default for the big middle, and still spot-applied to the others.
I do like the post a lot, though. Very good digging u/TaQo! Lots of things to keep in mind when considering credibility.
Regardless of Bannon’s reliability or not, and until this whole mess settles, we should really try withholding judgment on everyone, it should be much easier to agree that Breitbart News’s style, as a whole, is pretty lackluster, misses a lot of key details, is often as bad about citing sources as any mainstream newspaper, the writing is often oversimplified and shallow, and even Bannon’s podcast is also fairly … it’s hard to say it doesn’t have good content because it’s just so hard to watch. I’m not a Bannon or Breitbart fan, except for Andrew, who was an absolute honey badger.
That said, it’s hard enough to just keep an eye on ourselves to be sure we personally aren’t acting in a way that’s going to have negative results.
Keeping “oh that person is absolutely a good/bad actor” limited to a very small handful of people is the way to go. “Fairly well give that person credibility/no cred” can be bigger, but not too big. “Check all” should be the default for the big middle, and still spot-applied to the others.
I do like the post a lot, though. Very good digging u/TaQo! Lots of things to keep in mind when considering credibility.