@G_S_Bhogal, I think you misunderstood the statement. Vice signaling is about focusing on showing perspectives that you *know* are malicious in order to demonstrate your objectivity.
-
-
It's distinct from trying to understand opposing perspectives in that it doesn't try to set them in context or acknowledge what the problem with them is, but rather sets the entire story from that perspective as though it were being written by its partisans.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So it's about intentionally writing one-sided pieces from the opposite side, which is very different from trying to see how that side fits in to a broader context. It's doing PR work, essentially, not journalism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yonatanzunger @Tris_Stock
But if this is the case, then the labelling of pieces such as the NYT article about young Nazis as vice-signalling is erroneous. That article is not one-sided at all; it is a non-judgemental and fly-on-the-wall take, which is what objective journalism should be.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @Tris_Stock
On the contrary: it's something which superficially appears to be that, but is actually very one-sided. Look through the articles (there are several) and see who's speaking: it's the voice of the Nazis that gets to speak, but no other voices.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And the external descriptives provided by the authors are guardedly "neutral" - meaning they portray everything as highly normal. The net result is an article that conveys "look, Nazis are just ordinary people, here's what they do" in the same tone as you might use about farmers.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
What you aren't seeing is the pieces looking at the people being affected by the Nazis, and that's the key failure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And this is tied into the other issue raised in the thread: the cis/white/non-disabled/etc/etc reporters who are seen as being "neutral," and who similarly focus on sources who are somewhat like them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you, say, went into Black communities nearby and interviewed a bunch of people, and then set that as part of the same story as the story about the Nazis, the Black communities would be viewed as "not being able to be fair." A Black reporter, even more so.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
*That's* why this isn't objective journalism. Not because they're writing about Nazis and what they believe, but because they're writing about it entirely from the Nazis' point of view.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You're conflating Nazism with whiteness. I doubt most whites sympathise with Nazis any more than POCs. This is particularly true of NYT reporters, who traditionally lean liberal. When you assume someone can't be objective because of their skin colour, well, that's kinda racist.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @Tris_Stock
"I doubt most whites sympathise with Nazis any more than POCs" – I really wish you were right. Unfortunately, evidence is strongly the other way, with things like the Reuters/Ipsos poll being some good hard data.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Generally, white Americans (and the more "mainstream" they are, the more this is true) tend to view Nazis as a moderate annoyance at worst, and actively discount any suggestion that they're an existential threat to anyone. Non-white people tend to not do this.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.