Is the week magazine liberal or conservative

On such topics, neutrality in any sense worth the name essentially requires that readers not be able to detect the editorsвЂ™ political alignment. party would, citing other ostensibly credible sources, treat the subject very differently. You might find this to be objectively correct, if you are a Democrat but you cannot claim that this is a neutral treatment, considering that the other major U.S. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash. But in fact, the only scandals that I could find in WikipediaвЂ™s Obama article were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as SnowdenвЂ™s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. There were many controversies over вЂњscandalsвЂќ plaguing ObamaвЂ™s presidency. Political scandals are a good example where sources are carefully lined up on both sides. How many times, in politics and in many walks of life, have we seen controversies in which both sides can cite apparently rigorous studies, or chapter and verse, or original source material that, they claim, show their view is absolutely certain? In such cases, a neutral resource like Wikipedia is bound by policy not to take a side. It does not matter whether one or both sides believe their point of view is totally factual and supported with incontrovertible proof. In other words-and this is the point crucial to evaluating an articleвЂ™s neutrality-a neutral article is written not to take sides on issues of controversy. Beyond that, a neutral article must fairly represent competing views on the figure by the major parties. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal-or, of course, the developing вЂњObamagateвЂќ story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. They look over police shootings and ignore the larger trend against anecdotal evidence that, вЂњhe shouldnвЂ™t have resistedвЂќ or вЂњyou canвЂ™t be sure what a person is thinking.Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The new wave of white nationalism not only denies it, but seeks further differentiation and othering to suggest that it is deserved. But the cost of self-protection in no way justifies a disavowal of a broken system. It hurts to be told youвЂ™re part of the problem. This is partially born out of an unwillingness to recognize the fragile white self as participating, consciously or not, in a system set up to benefit them over others. Basically, the rallying cry that Black lives do matter but are not treated as such is countered with the more generalized, normative response that everyone matters, so stop complaining. Here, functional critiques of systematic oppression, backed with data and evidence, are countered with misleading statistics and inappropriate comparisons of specific incidents.

An example would be the вЂњAll Lives MatterвЂќ response to the Black Lives Matter movement. Over the last few years, IвЂ™ve noticed вЂњconservativeвЂќ figureheads try to use the same rhetorical strategies with a dash of false equivalence to suggest liberal hypocrisy.

Is the week magazine liberal or conservative