Note, I’m not asking because my political beliefs are the opposite. I’m asking because a lot of it doesn’t seem to back up facts, or seems to be using Straw Man techniques.
Well, that and someone I’m debating with on another forum is using it as a source-to me it looks rather iffy-like if I were to use Democratic Underground as a source-much as I like the forum, I have to say it is rather a biased and inaccurate source.
Well, considering that its tagline is “We are such radicals that we make the WSJ and Forbes look like communists”, you may wish to consider that they’re not a bastion of journalistic objectivity.
As a “print” magazine, they do not exist, however.
Is the magazine “reputable”? Obviously not, since I’d never heard of it before reading Guinastasia’s original post, and I’d wager 99% of the American public has never heard of it either.
However, I have heard of several of the contributors, most of whom I generally like and respect. It certainly isn’t “disreputable.” Essentially, this “magazine” (I’m not aware of a print version; is this purely a Web phenomenon?) is a small-scale, low-budget National Review wannabe. It seems to consist mostly of opinion pieces, which people will either agree with or disagree with. There doesn’t seem to be any factual reporting, or investigative journalism.
I imagine the few right-wingers who read it will enjoy it, and the few lefties who stumble upon it will be outraged. Nobody should look to it as a serious source of news.
I wouldn’t get too excited about it, pro or con. Something tells me it’s not likely to be around for very long.
Reputable? I’d venture to guess that determination to be in the eye of the beholder. The magazine has archives going back to 1998, so it has, indeed, been around for awhile.
I recognize several rather prominent conservative columnists, Michelle Malkin, Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, all of whom I would consider reputable, while not necessarily agreeing with their point of view on any given day. That said, as this magazine appears to be an opinion/editorial spread, if you find agreement with the views expressed, I’d be willing to bet your conclusion is favorable with regard to the OP, and vice versa if the contrary holds.
Hee hee hee.
Just kidding.
What I guess I mean is, should someone consider it a source to back up their arguments?
Well, now you’re asking a much more difficult question, I’d say, one without a satisfactory answer. Does any one opinion serve as adequate support or refutation of a given point of view? No. At least not to me. Take into consideration all other factors, i.e., education, degrees, position, background, etc., and add to determine relative merit of positions expressed. As I said before, seems if you hold views generally consistent with a given writer, you give more credibility to same.
Sorry this doesn’t adequately answer your question. Perhaps that’s why it’s simpler to argue facts, not viewpoint. Less latitude for interpretation to take over.