No, but if there are opinion articles for both sides, it will create a more informed reader. Newspapers should provide enough information for readers to be able to make their position on the information alone
Right, that’s the classic neutral source model: report what the person on the left thinks, report what the person on the right thinks, and expect the informed reader to make their own decision, which will probably be somewhere in the middle.
That model worked fine when people had things in common other than their views on policies, and could politely agree to disagree on many things. But it’s another matter altogether when both sides literally think the other side is trying to destroy America. If you have a paper that tries to show “both sides“ of issues that illicit opinions from OAN, Newsmax, Fox and literal Chinese state propaganda and put it next to commentary by people like Ezra Klein you just wind up with a publication that is intellectually incoherent.
The “both sides“ model of reporting assumes that both sides exist on the same planet and share a basic understanding of the axioms of reality. And they don’t anymore. Any publication that attempts to do this is just going to elicit outrage from both sides on a routine basis. And the NYT frequently does now. Nobody who supports BLM he’s going to feel “informed“ by an editorial by Tom Cotton about how troops should be called in on protesters, and vice versa.
Political parties can be harmful because once you have made your allegiance you do not need to expend much energy to research policies and can just support your party's position.
That's why there is I think some merit to how some elections are run in Cuba where candidates essentially run as independents. Whatever the motivations of this system are I see multiple benefits:
- candidates themselves have to show policy acumen and cannot rely on party policy
- Each candidate's personal opinion is therefore more likely to be relayed to the public
- less political conformism as large parties cannot dominate
- Voters are forced to review policies every election rather than simply voting for the same party/party candidates
>Political parties can be harmful because once you have made your allegiance you do not need to expend much energy to research policies and can just support your party's position.
This isn't just limited to political parties, but group "identity" in general.
To those who say it will disincentivise companies from new companies being found in SF: Perhaps we are in a situation where CEOs expect to be paid 100 times more than the median pay but this should not be so. In what world is this uneven distribution fair? Legislation more frequently should be bold like this and aim to create a world that is better as opposed to being dictated by immediate side effects. Perhaps it will take a long time for this legislation to become nationwide and perhaps fewer startups will be created in SF, but someone should lead the way in trying to create a fairer world.
If companies wish to renumerate their CEOs more highly they should do so by also increasing the pay of the rest of their workers as this piece of legislation encourages. Sharing the benefits of good performance with the employees may have positive flow on effects as employees may feel rewarded for their positive work and consequently feel more motivated to continue working hard. Additionally it increases the sense of fairness and trust in the economic system and perhaps in society as well as more people that work hard reap the benefits of their work.
Overall this of legislation in my opinion is a good first step towards making employee owned businesses a more widely adopted model and creating a more equitable economic system.
EDIT: discouraging excessive payouts to CEOs, encourages directing that capital back into the company. Large corporate payouts do take away money that the company generated (not only the CEO) and I think this legislation recognises that CEOs also need to be held more accountable (in terms of renumeration) to the companies they lead as large renumeration is not always in the company's best interest (even when performing well)
For videos, I have found this: https://ant.umn.edu/ , but haven't used it yet. It seems a bit limited in its annotation abilities, but nevertheless something that could be useful
In part I agree, but for me (for some of the videos at least) ,I also see value in just being introduced to the idea and getting me to think about it (and perhaps consequently search for other sources) rather than increasing my knowledge or understanding in that particular area.
In part I agree and disagree with your sentiment. On the other side of the argument, I believe sometimes children too need some inspiration. Perhaps with a set setting they can put more imagination and thought into the scenario that they might want to play
