How to Challenge Conservative Superiority

[Neto]

This is possibly off-topic, but what I don't like is conservative authors who fear being branded as 'prideful' if they give their credentials for the field of study about which they are writing. (It all strikes me as sort of like just a bunch of anonymous comments. Come to think of it, that's how AI comes across as well, and one of the reasons I don't like it, either.)

[Neto]

I’ll admit I view them and Ernie’s news site with suspicion.
I don’t view them as evil but having a specific agenda and not actually being open to views they don’t like. Which is their right.

I don't know of any publishers who don't have a specific agenda and who publish anything and everything. I'd be glad to know about any that do.

I think that publishers and readers both have agendas. It's just part of being human.

Plain News provides filtered news and we are fine with those who don't like our filter choosing a publisher with a different filter that better fits the readers' agendas.

Its the bias that isn't being stated that I objected to. Particularly surrounding vaccines but it doesn't overly matter. When you put yourself in a position of informing the uninformed and then selectively provide information that is deceptive to the scope and refuse to publish a contrasting article, that tells me the issue is important enough to you to refuse showing a conservative position thus, I don't trust your agenda to promote conservative values fairly.

Yeah, picking one of these trendy 'causes', and attempting to depict their position as 'Plain Culture or Belief'. (Even when I agree to some degree or another about the cause.)

[Ernie]

Its the bias that isn't being stated that I objected to. Particularly surrounding vaccines but it doesn't overly matter. When you put yourself in a position of informing the uninformed and then selectively provide information that is deceptive to the scope and refuse to publish a contrasting article, that tells me the issue is important enough to you to refuse showing a conservative position thus, I don't trust your agenda to promote conservative values fairly.

I thought we have clearly stated our biases, but obviously you didn't feel that way.
And for the record, we have not refused to publish a contrasting article.
Researching and writing such an article just hasn't made it to the top of our list yet in terms of importance.

[Soloist]

Its the bias that isn't being stated that I objected to. Particularly surrounding vaccines but it doesn't overly matter. When you put yourself in a position of informing the uninformed and then selectively provide information that is deceptive to the scope and refuse to publish a contrasting article, that tells me the issue is important enough to you to refuse showing a conservative position thus, I don't trust your agenda to promote conservative values fairly.

I thought we have clearly stated our biases, but obviously you didn't feel that way.
And for the record, we have not refused to publish a contrasting article.
Researching and writing such an article just hasn't made it to the top of our list yet in terms of importance.

I gave you a well wrote article and an author to look at and as you say, its not important to write while a pro vaccine dismissive of fetal cells was. This was during covid when accurate information could help people make a decision.

At this point you'd look bias the other way without printing both sides and while measles is circulating, this could be a time but I don't really see you doing so as you view my position as immaterial to educate plain people about. You see the vaccine hesitancy as a bigger issue and will teach on that point dismissing anything to cause further hesitancy.

[JohnH]

I thought we have clearly stated our biases, but obviously you didn't feel that way.
And for the record, we have not refused to publish a contrasting article.
Researching and writing such an article just hasn't made it to the top of our list yet in terms of importance.

The end result of such a decision is that lots of people don't trust the Plain News anymore about these kind of topics, because they view it as biased. I think that isn't a good outcome.

[Jazman]

I thought we have clearly stated our biases, but obviously you didn't feel that way.
And for the record, we have not refused to publish a contrasting article.
Researching and writing such an article just hasn't made it to the top of our list yet in terms of importance.

The end result of such a decision is that lots of people don't trust the Plain News anymore about these kind of topics, because they view it as biased. I think that isn't a good outcome.

I could say anything that I read/watch that I don't agree with or that challenges me, as 'biased' (as if there's some kind of conspiracy by the artist/author to hoodwink or offend me with their bias...

OR I could read/watch most anything, take it at face value, note the things that inspire/encourage me or that I agree with and also Not assume the worst about the author/creator/artist and if I disagree, well that's all it is; we are two different people with different ect ect and may sometimes or often disagree on a matter because we BOTH have biases... and with that understanding I can move on and leave them have their ideas/views especially if they're not egregiously different... and I can even disagree but Respect them for their views (bias?) and even understand Why they might hold that (based on all the etc that is Different than mine) and continue to Not assume the worst of them just because it (their views/opinions/beliefs/even bias) is different than mine...

It's my intention to choose the second option, although I fail often... I know I still have a lot to unlearn from the Protestant-Splinter-at-the-slightest-difference / purity at all costs complex (and imo attacking people for 'bias' is just another tool in the ongoing battle...) that I've learned/observed my whole growing up till this day across ALL shades of Menno/Anabaptist, including the 'liberal' acculturated sphere I reside in now... (even now I can hear the very 'liberal' - compared to most of you, accusing me of having a 'bias' because of our differences over a cultural/political matter - he too believes he's arrived and is therefore 'unbiased' and just 'Biblical' and right and common sense in all of his opinions...).

[JohnH]

The end effect is that people who read the plain news conclude, "Hmm. Whoever is writing/publishing this apparently has a bias to try to convince plain people to be vaccinated. I'll have to read whatever they say with a grain of salt."

If the plain news would have been willing to present multiple views and not insert its own bias, it would have more credibility now. But it doesn't.

[Jazman]

I thought we have clearly stated our biases, but obviously you didn't feel that way.
And for the record, we have not refused to publish a contrasting article.
Researching and writing such an article just hasn't made it to the top of our list yet in terms of importance.

The end result of such a decision is that lots of people don't trust the Plain News anymore about these kind of topics, because they view it as biased. I think that isn't a good outcome.

So now we're besmirching Anabaptist Perspectives and Plain News? Who next? What church, ministry, org. next fails the purity test (by whose criteria)?
I'm 'liberal' LMC compared to most here and don't agree with every finer point that these two media enterprises and many others like them make, but I'll not disrespect them in the way I'm seeing here. Despite a few disagreements, I'd recommend these to anyone and commend them for the Kingdom of God blessing that they are bringing to the world and the audience that finds them, in small bits or a lot.

[JohnH]

So now we're besmirching Anabaptist Perspectives and Plain News? Who next? What church, ministry, org. next fails the purity test (by whose criteria)?
I'm 'liberal' LMC compared to most here and don't agree with every finer point that these two media enterprises and many others like them make, but I'll not disrespect them in the way I'm seeing here. Despite a few disagreements, I'd recommend these to anyone and commend them for the Kingdom of God blessing that they are bringing to the world and the audience that finds them, in small bits or a lot.

I'm simply sharing a perspective I learned from people who are more conservative than I am, and probably more than you are, and that is that they are quite sceptical of outfits claiming to be "plain" or "Anabaptist" who nonetheless seem to consistently promote moving things in a liberal-progressive direction.

The fact that you would recommend them doesn't exactly overcome the problem of credibility I just described. Most people who have chosen to be in conservative / plain churches don't think they want to become the LMC, and think the LMC went in a bad direction, so your endorsement of it would simply be more proof it is something the Christian should avoid.

I don't actually think that, which is why I think it's a shame the plain news and AP have decided to let this happen, but it's the decision they made. In the vaccum left behind, worse sources of news and information will fill that, including ones with politically 'conservative' viewpoints I find abhorrent. It is interesting how much of a reaction this got from you, though.

Shouldn't you be a bit more concerned at the plain news' blasé attitude towards Soloist who offered a well-sourced article written by a qualified person with a different perpsective, which was simply dismissed out of hand? That is exactly the kind of thing that ruins credibility.

[Ernie]

The end effect is that people who read the plain news conclude, "Hmm. Whoever is writing/publishing this apparently has a bias to try to convince plain people to be vaccinated. I'll have to read whatever they say with a grain of salt."

If the plain news would have been willing to present multiple views and not insert its own bias, it would have more credibility now. But it doesn't.

It would be nice if those making accusations would at least know what they are talking about.

We did not encourage people to get vaccinated. We acknowledged that there are moral considerations associated with these matters that are valid. We published a list of the available vaccines showing which vaccines used fetal cell lines in manufacturing and in testing. This way readers could make an educated decision about whether or not they wanted to get vaccinated and with which vaccine.
Soloist wished we would have published more than this. I somewhat understand his position on vaccines and why he wished we would have published more.
Our news organization does not publish articles that our subscribers think are credible. We research things and then write our own articles. Going deeper into the vaccine debate, and researching and writing on this particular topic is not something we've made a priority at this point.

I could supply all the data and articles and conversations that Soloist and I have had on this topic. I don't think that would be profitable.
The only reason I am writing about it here is because Soloist brought up Plain News in this thread.

I'm sure JohnH and Soloist will have more things to say. I doubt I will have more to say.