Lots of publications style themselves as being pluralist. But you're not really pluralist unless you're regularly eliciting this sort of reaction from readers.
https://twitter.com/BusinessmanLego/status/1389953007069057030
Being genuinely pluralist is hard, because you risk repulsing people who say they want to be challenged but actually don't want that at all.
I don't want other publications to force themselves into doing things this way! That's not my point! I think it would be a terrible thing if we didn't have commentary pages from specific perspectives.
I'm simply pointing out that being anti-echo chamber is rarer than people think, because a lot of what passes for that is actually closer to what my colleague @NGrossman81 described as anti-*your*-echo chamber, which just means they substitute one echo chamber for another.
Being a genuinely pluralist operation means that literally every reader you have will regularly—not infrequently or even sporadically but regularly—disagree with what you post. Otherwise it's not true pluralism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
