Quote:
Quote:
It's a magazine on neo-conservatism, which fits neatly with my world view and values.
Many people do this and I don't understand. I'd rather read stuff that doesn't fit neatly with my world-view
I like my media (whether it be my newspaper, my internet websites, whatever) to broadly share the same values as me.
While I don't expect to always agree with the editorial, I do want them to talk about things that I think are important. Take this forum, for example, as an analogy - if I had a particular distaste for high quality thinking about poker, I wouldn't read/participate in it. But since I appreciate the (generally) high quality thought processes on issues relevant to me, I do read the thing.
In the case of the Weekly Standard, when it talks about the various disputes in the Middle East, I like that it refers to people who set off suicide bombs as terrorists. By contrast, I feel that
my government owned and funded media outlets in Australia (
and the left wing press) refer to these people as "militants" and the like. Of course, I understand where they come from, and I just disagree with that approach.
At the end of the day, I don't enjoy reading material from a point of view that
I believe (trying to emphasis both the "I" and "believe" parts there) have critical flaws in their thinking process.
Similarly, I imagine that not many communists read the Wall Street Journal or the Economist - 'cause it talks about issues using values and from a point of view that communists do not share.