Creative Loafing used to be the 'Alternative' paper here in Atlanta. It... failed, recently, suspending publication but still has a web presence. They report on things that are under the radar, and here's an article on a shakeup at a business called Atlanta Progressive News.
Apparently, the concept that there IS such a thing as objective reality is not acceptable in the APN world.Atlanta Progressive News fires reporter for trying to be objective | Fresh Loaf
As many of our readers know, we are in the midst of a major website redesign and relaunch that will result in new content and new forms of content, as well as tools to empower our readers to meaningfully participate in the democratic process. Part of that has meant going back to our core mission and re-examining how every part of what we do is consistent with, and advances, that mission.
In the end, we had to make a very difficult decision to move forward as a publication without Jonathan Springston. Last Wednesday, we informed him it seemed more appropriate if he found work with another publication or started his own publication.
At a very fundamental, core level, Springston did not share our vision for a news publication with a progressive perspective. He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn’t the right fit.
Yeah, darn that mean ol' reality anyway. To rebut this article, someone called APNEditor rips at the Creative Loafing folks, ending up with the following:
Also, I didn’t mean to imply–even indirectly or in the slightest way–that Creative Loafing was objective. Quite the opposite- Creative Loafing’s slant is so inline with the bourgeois, corporate ideology of most of the corporate media in Atlanta, that you all kind of reinforce and reify each other to the point where one can easily become deluded that this corporate ideology you propagate is somehow an objective truth.
The commentors aren't terribly sympathetic.
It takes serious cohones to first assert that there is no objective reality that can be reported objectively and then assert that any reporting you do is factual.
George Orwell just turned over in his grave.
And then there was this...
I love the “Progressive news is news that brings us closer to universal health care, living wages, affordable housing, peace, a healthy environment, and voting systems we can trust.”
‘Universal health-care’ is always a race to the bottom (everyone gets it, but no one wants it); ‘living wages’ aren’t; ‘affordable housing’ means slums; ‘peace’ means subjection; ‘a healthy environment’ is something that no socialist/communist/progressive government has ever created; and ‘voting systems we can trust’, to a progressive, means a permanently stuffed ballot box ensuring the vote goes their way and only their way.
Do progressives take their teeth out before they speak?
Good question, that. And then there was this...
Guess what I just unsubscribed from? I’ll give you a hint, they just fired one of their best reporters.
I have to admit I saw this as a “he said, she said” kind of deal until I saw the venomous stuff pouring out of APNeditor’s mouth. Thanks for clearing that up pal, now I don’t have to spend another cent with you.
More and more it seems the 'Progressives' haven't got a clue when it comes to 'reality'. APNEditor counters all this with a LOONG screed detailing their vision, and how there's no way to be objective, but they can be 'fair' - to which the following two replies popped out.
So basically “progressive news” is not news, it’s opinion. Why don’t they just say that? This journalist should be happy to move on.
And finally (though certainly not the last in the comments, but it sums things up nicely for THIS topic....
Well, props to Cardinale for being honest, anyhow, even if it’s honest idiocy. I’ve rarely seen his point written with such clarity, presumably because most sensible people know when they’ve hit the end stage of reductio ad absurdum. Thank goodness he’s had enough grad school to be trained away from that.
In some ways, he has a point: the wire service version of “objective” is weak sauce. Quote two opposing sides and you’re done!
But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t an objective reality, or that we have to wallow in our subjectivity. As an actual San Francisco liberal, people like Cardinale make me crazy: unwilling to do the hard work of understanding reality, they base their actions purely on their vaporous ideals, dooming themselves to being perpetually ineffective. And dooming the people they could actually help to suffer further. One might almost think they’re in it for feelings of righteousness, rather than any actual result.
Let me repeat that last line...
One might almost think they’re in it for feelings of righteousness, rather than any actual result.
That's been my thought (which is as objective as I can make it, based on what facts I've observed) for decades now. It's not about actual change - it's about feeling good about screaming for change you want to see accomplished, no matter how unlikely, undesireable, or impossible that change may actually be.
And here I thought Creative Loafing was a bit on the left-side of the scale. Little did I realize just how centrist they could seem!
J.