Teen Vogue is a magazine for young women for whom political issues matter both now and in the future. What service is the magazine doing for its readers by affecting "political neutrality" about real problems that affect and will affect its readership?

Helping them make up their own minds about the issues? That's a pretty good service. But reprinting propaganda from one side only does not serve that purpose.

It does if it's the right, or should I say, correct side.

False equivalence is false equivalence, and all that.

> correct side

yet the 'incorrect' side has to be suppressed, lest anyone take it as correct?

If a particular argument or fact or line of reasoning or model has been clearly demonstrated to be false, or poorer, then ... well, I'm still thinking about it, but it introduces some very significant issues. At the very least, the argument that such views must be given a platform is weak.

There's a long tradition of arguing for a "marketplace of ideas", which points vaguely in the direction of John Stuart Mill and "On Liberty". Turns out Mill didn't originate, or use, that term, and had some pretty specific things to say on the matter, well worth reading.

The "marketplace" argument originates, so far as I'm aware, with Francis Wrigley Hirst, an economist, free-market advocate, and editor of The Economist newspaper, itself an organ ideologically premised on promoting free-market ideology (reference its own Prospect for that).

There are some very profound differences between commodity ecnomic goods and services, and information, which both make the markets analogy a poor one, and pose some significant issues with information playing within markets.

Susan Gordon has an excellent essay on Mill and the term, which I recommend. It's IMO incomplete (there are additional and strong criticisms which can be made), but good, and quite damning, so far as it goes. Otherwise, I'm still researching and thinking on the question, though I'm inclined somewhat far away from the "marketplace of ideas" position.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9710146591/john-s...

(Full doc on Sci-Hub: https://sci-hub.cc)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.223109

> clearly demonstrated to be false

What if the mechanism for doing this is tainted?

> the argument that such views must be given a platform is weak

Maybe, but the argument is suppression of those views.

What about female conservatives?

"political neutrality" is about providing political balance.

As a sanity check on this subthread, this is an article about secure messaging and threat assessment for teens.

What does this mean - "sanity check"?

Is there a problem with sub-discussions?

What's the conservative angle when analyzing Trump's lies?

Like, for every lie of Trump's that they highlight should they also highlight a lie of a Democrat in congress or something?

What if Trump lies more than all the Democrats put together. What should they do to provide balance if that is the case? Maybe discuss how the lies serve his agenda?

> Like, for every lie of Trump's that they highlight

They should compare Trump with the previous administration, yes. Very often Trump makes a statement and the article immediately follows with "Trump provided no evidence for his claims". Plenty democrats make statements without providing evidence, including claims about Trump. Further, some papers have printed claims with "..say some whitehouse officials" as their evidence.