A QUARTERLY FOR THE COMMON LEFT
Policies
Editorial Policy
By
KINDLING
|
Last updated
Jul 26, 2026
Neutrality itself is a choice, and one that often legitimizes the status quo by treating all perspectives as valid. I understand why it may seem advantageous for a publication to be “ideologically diverse” and represent all sides with an equal level of importance, but to achieve such balance, I (and all of our very talented writers) would be required to surrender our foundational principles—something we are not willing to do. Thus, KINDLING chooses to embrace them.
As a social democrat, I hold views that often fall outside of mainstream political discourse. During my time writing for other publications, my pieces were often heavily bowdlerized due to their "politically firebrand tendencies." It is often considered standard within the journalistic industry to represent all sides equally. In fact, there are even companies founded on that principle, like the aptly named AllSides, which serves to "reveal bias and provid[e] perspectives from all sides." I take issue with this ideology; while diverse perspectives do serve the reader's benefit, that burden should not fall on the publication. It is impossible for readers to practice such "lateral reading" if every publication is pumping out the same homogenized, both-sides slop—something we refuse to be a part of. It is our guiding principle that...
Not every perspective matters.
Such a claim certainly is bold, but it needs to be made. The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics clearly states that a core ethical responsibility of journalism is to "give voice to the voiceless." Nowhere does it say to prioritize the agenda of the current ruling party, yet it seems like that's all the major media outlets are interested in doing these days; going to bat for billionaires and Israel, railing against healthcare reforms and alleged "culture wars," and platforming extremists (especially the New York Times, which infuriatingly can't seem to ruin its reputation, no matter how hard it tries).
Research from JAMA Internal Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Medical Association, estimated that 64,565 people were denied access to abortions in the first 18 months following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That's over 75% of the population of Warwick, Rhode Island, 897 school buses, 358 fully loaded planes, and 1.3 times the size of the entire finishing field of the TCS New York City Marathon, the biggest in the world.
Their stories carry a much heavier moral weight than that of the privileged upper one percent, who can afford the clinic procedure fees, gas, flights, hotel stays, and lost wages from work needed to receive such care in one of the 41 states that have abortion bans in effect.
These are real people, with real stories. And this injustice stretches far beyond the limited examples I have already provided. A self-respecting publication should not allow just anyone to write for it.
Now, this is not to say that disagreeing points of view do not have a place in our magazine; in fact, they are central to every piece we publish, and we welcome internal debate—progressives disagree with each other constantly, and KINDLING is not a monolith. However, there is a very strong distinction between excluding people acting in bad faith and excluding people who disagree with you politically. Someone who believes in the Great Replacement does not deserve a megaphone, and anyone who runs a half-decent magazine (like this one) wouldn’t grant them one.
It is our civic duty to mold public discourse into something that benefits us all, and that is where an editorial bias will start to peek through. However, it is important to note that editorial bias does not exempt us from factual rigor—we are committed to ensuring we publish only irrefutable facts, and anything that strays from that mission has no place in our publication.
What we advocate for
We are a progressive magazine. As I have already made clear, I am a social democrat, and many of our members are, as well. We all fall outside the establishment on both domestic and foreign policy, and we feel comfortable in those beliefs because our positions are fundamentally backed by verifiable research. The following policies are all possible: free access to healthcare, education (including higher education), childcare, and elderly care; strong protections for labor unions, a higher minimum wage, guaranteed pension plans, paid family leave, unemployment benefits, and strong antitrust enforcement to prevent corporate monopolization and keep markets competitive; environmental protection laws; the acceptance and equality of all individuals regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation; and a progressive tax structure where the top 1% pay a higher effective tax rate to fund these services—and it is our stated mission to prove it.
Finally, if you take issue with a claim we make, please, take it up with us; we are happy to exchange notes.