Something that’s been bugging me about the Teen Vogue Markey Stan/Gen Z article: journalists need to be really aware of when & how they label politicians as progressive. The label “progressive” is a tool of political communications, and it HAS to be examined #mapoli (1/6)

For reference: “The upcoming Massachusetts senatorial primary has confounded the nation, with the more centrist Representative Joe Kennedy III running to unseat the stalwart progressive in a race that has sparked fervid generational debate.” (2/6) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.teenvogue.com/story/ed-markey-gen-z/amp

“Progressive” isn’t a neatly defined term. No one’s an angel - it’s certainly not all-or-nothing. But it’s incredibly important to look at whose records, and *which* records get called progressive. Journalists have to be really clear about when & why they use the term. (3/6)

Part of the challenge is that the movement doesn’t seem to have a clear-cut rubric for who gets to be “progressive.” Ex. Ed Markey voted for the ‘94 crime bill, supported NAFTA, and the Iraq War. All issues progressives have used against candidates they *don’t* support (4/6)

Arguably, the “progressive” candidate could be determined by who the movements/groups get behind. The big snag: which *issues* get to be “progressive”? Is climate change the sole requirement? What about a record on race, or any other issue? (5/6)

All of this to say: journalists should be critically examining the records of ALL candidates on ALL issues. And we should recognize that the label “progressive” is political rhetoric. It’s not applied equally, and it’s not based on any clear or consistent standards. (6/6)