Damage Done by the Right-Wing Media in 2016

[_EAllusion]

Doc -

If a liberal watches Fox News because they either want to hate-watch it or because they want to get a sense of what's going on in the right-wing media, does that make Fox News more liberal? Because by your criteria for measuring political lean of a news source, it does. And that seems all kinds of wrong.

As to the idea that there is disagreement about what constitutes a particular label on the political spectrum, that's true. The border between leftist and liberal is fuzzy as it is. I still can't quite get over Roosevelt Democrats all of a sudden calling themselves socialists in large numbers. But there are meaningful distinctions and that fuzziness doesn't prevent us from being able to make some categorical judgment calls. Just because there's no degree at which hot becomes cold, that doesn't mean we can say that 97 F is cold. We do have some sense of what it means to be a leftist in terms of ideological positions that cohere together, and what sorts of subcultures and organizations tend to fall under that label.

The idea that CNN is in the same area as, say, Jacobin Magazine or Daily Kos is already banana pants, and the idea that it is propagandist in its approach for that kind of ideology is even more so. CNN has biases, some of them infuriating, but it's not even close to be a propaganda org for what hardcore progressives think. It's sort of a pro-wrestling version of what mainstream journalism is.

[_EAllusion]

Is CNN biased? Maybe, but only in the sense that they're not constantly covering ____ that has been manufactured to be "news" on the Right.

They kind of do to an extent, though. CNN's most heavily covered story for the 2016 election was ginned up Clinton scandals. Like, to almost full exclusion of policy coverage and especially policy coverage that might actually benefit Clinton. The idea that this is what a propaganda organization would do for the American left is just wackadoodle. That doesn't mean CNN is in the bag for conservatives - it's way more complicated than that - but in no sense is it aiming or functioning as liberal or leftist propaganda. CNN's chief aim is a sort of naïve "we report, you decide" version of mainstream journalism with all the elite biases that implies as filtered through tabloid ratings grabs.

What this thread is about is the work of researchers who have hard data showing that the right-wing media ecochamber actually has significant pull on the coverage choices of outlets like CNN.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Apparently pragmatism has led to Leftist no longer meaning what it's traditionally meant. Or I have really not been paying attention to CNN despite reading it among other news sites almost daily.

Then how do you explain your disparate experience from, say, Ceeboo?

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Apparently pragmatism has led to Leftist no longer meaning what it's traditionally meant. Or I have really not been paying attention to CNN despite reading it among other news sites almost daily.

Then how do you explain your disparate experience from, say, Ceeboo?

- Doc

Ceeboo is ignorant and proudly consumes media that constantly tells him that anything that *isn't* right wing media is liberal/leftist media. He believes them.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ceeboo is ignorant and proudly consumes media that constantly tells him that anything that *isn't* right wing media is liberal/leftist media. He believes them.

Oh. He's ignorant. I'm sure he'll appreciate you letting him know where he falls on the political spectrum. Right = Ignorant.

Lol. This guy.

- Doc

[Guest]

Apparently pragmatism has led to Leftist no longer meaning what it's traditionally meant. Or I have really not been paying attention to CNN despite reading it among other news sites almost daily.

Then how do you explain your disparate experience from, say, Ceeboo?

- Doc

I dropped out of Prager U I guess?

ETA: In all seriousness, I don't think this idea that journalism falls on an ideological spectrum is relevant to the more important question: Is it reliable? And the follow-on question: How does one go about making sense of the world when bias is inevitable?

The only daily news source I pay for is the Wall Street Journal. I consider it to be slightly right of center as far as the views it represents, but I also consider the level of journalism top tier. I read the BBC page online, as well as CNN and Reason.com. I listen to NPR daily. My Google feed sends me to Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and a smorgasbord of other sources.

I thought the point of learning to think critically involved recognizing bias in the news as a tool for identifying where the facts likely lie.

[_EAllusion]

Oh. He's ignorant. I'm sure he'll appreciate you letting him know where he falls on the political spectrum. Right = Ignorant.

Lol. This guy.

- Doc

Yes, calling a person ignorant means that you are calling everyone on an entire half of the political spectrum they belong to ignorant. Same thing.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The only daily news source I pay for is the Wall Street Journal. I consider it to be slightly right of center as far as the views it represents, but I also consider the level of journalism top tier. I read the BBC page online, as well as CNN and Reason.com. I listen to NPR daily. My Google feed sends me to Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and a smorgasbord of other sources.

I thought the point of learning to think critically involved recognizing bias in the news as a tool for identifying where the facts likely lie.

I pay for the sltrib precisely because it's left-leaning, but as you can see whatever it is that I consider to be left-leaning is actually a hard right e-mag on par with stormfront. GET YOUR crap TOGETHER KIRBY!

Anyway.

I think it's funny that you're suggesting critical thinking lies in recognizing bias, but reject it (maybe?) when someone states they see Leftist bias at CNN (therefore it's a Liberal network). I'm not sure anyone is equating CNN as the flipside of Breitbart, but I do think Conservatives are completely justified in identifying a news outlet as Leftist or Liberal and they're not idiots for thinking that. They just recognize an outlet as not sharing their perspective, ideology, values, or whathaveyou.

- Doc

[_Ceeboo]

CCC was a leftist. Blixa is a leftist, though not one to discuss politics too much. I'm sure there are a couple more, but I'm struggling to come up with names at the moment.

There are more liberals who post here and I strongly suspect that Ceeboo conflates liberals with leftists. I even suspect he thinks of people not sufficiently aligned in his mind with whatever is going on in the right-wing media ecosystem as "leftists." That's why you get him incredulous at the idea that there's few leftists here.

ETA: Analytics is a leftist, though a bit of a quirky one.

First, the level of enormous self confidence that you have continues to amaze me. Not only do you know everything about every topic - you have extremely rare special powers (your unbelievable internal racist detector that you so often use - your extraordinary knowledge concerning the ins and outs of white privilege - your curious ability to understand how racial animus effects individual people across the country - your unique ability to politically label every person that this board has ever known - etc - etc)

for what it's worth, I don't mind what you say to or about - or label me (I thought the recent ignorant label was really cute though). That seems fair enough, as I am here and I am involved with you in a discussion. But don't you think - even for you - that it might be a little inappropriate and egotistical (to say the least) to drop past board names like Blixa and CCC and label them too? They aren't around to reply - should they not appreciate you taking it upon yourself to label them. Yeah - boundaries haven't really ever been your thing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IF YOU.................Then YOU"RE PROBABLY A LEFTIST


If you regard America as corrupt, oppressive and patriarchal - You're probably a leftist.
If you believe that all sex differences are socially constructed - You're probably a leftists.
If you see "white privilege" everywhere and you don't see "American privilege" anywhere, You're probably a leftist.
If you believe that the equality of outcome matters more than the equality of opportunity - You're probably a leftist.
If you believe in racial segregation (black only dorms - black only graduations) - You're probably a leftist.
If you are opposed to capitalism and embrace socialism - You're probably a leftist
If you see two people who are not similarly situated and immediately suggest that any imbalance between them must be due to some structural/social force and this demands government involvement to rectify a change - You're probably a leftist.
If you believe race in intrinsically significant - You're probably a leftist.
If you believe in micro-aggressions, you're probably a leftist.
If you see Shakespear as a dead white male and that should be removed from English degree courses because he represents underlying oppression - You're probably a leftists.
If you separate people into two groups - oppressors and victims - You're probably a leftist.
If you believe in the 71 gender options currently available - You're probably a leftist

Free speech - The pinnacle of America individual liberties. The difference between the left and liberals regarding free speech is as dramatic as the difference regarding race. No one was more committed than American liberals to the famous statement “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

As far as I can tell - Most Liberals still are. But the left is leading the first nationwide attack and suppression of free speech in American history — from the universities to Google to almost every other institution and place of work. It claims to only oppose hate speech. But protecting the right of person A to say what person B deems objectionable is the entire point of free speech.

Finally - and perhaps most importantly - Leftists are absolutely obsessed with race, ethnicity and gender. They don't see anyone as an individuals - everyone in placed into a group - wether they like it or not (identity politics) and then the leftist changes into his/her superhero costume (Social Justice Warriors) so that he/she can speak on behalf of every and all oppressed group. This creates the leftist dream - a layer cake of oppressed peoples (not an oppressed person) and the freedom to label as many people a racists as they personally see fit.

[_Gunnar]

I think attempting to define a political position is fairly useless, until it comes to defining your opponent. It's like trying to get a believer to nail just what God is so you can start to build an argument around the concept.

A good example at the uselessness of trying to define Liberal and Leftist is demonstrated by this Quora thread:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... -a-Liberal

The moment you attempt to lay out a framework of just what a Leftist or Liberal is you'll have 10 others chime in with various versions. There is no all-encompassing authority who gets to define what is and what isn't a Leftist or Liberal.

This is why I approach the issue from a pragmatic point of view. For example, it doesn't matter that one or two or three folks on this board think CNN is centrist (lol), what matters is what its audience AND what the disaffected think. CNN is obligated to cater to its audience so it can continue to sell advertising, and competitors are obligated to figure out what the disaffected think so a product can be developed for their consumption. This is why you see thousands of podcasters, youtubers, radio and television programs, and various pundits who hold varying degrees of ideologies on various matters filling the void. A good example that can relate to this board are podcasters like John Dehlin and even our own Consiglieri, producing content for consumption by people who are interested in things Ziontologist, but aren't happy with the content being produced by Ziontology.

- Doc

Doc, I like the definition of liberal from the quora site you linked to:

Well, then, what’s a liberal? A liberal is NOT somebody who wants all poor people to have free cell phones. A liberal is NOT somebody who thinks any public policy problem can be solved if we just throw enough money at it. A liberal is NOT somebody who favors quotas or “identity politics” or special privileges for anybody. At the same time, the liberal recognizes that certain groups already HAVE privilege in our society, and that fairness requires such institutions be opened up, via various tactics, to be more inclusive and diverse. A liberal believes in civil liberties for all, justice for all, and equality before the law for all, which means equality of OPPORTUNITY, not equality of OUTCOME. And a liberal believes that a governmental structure which allows all competing forces to have their say — an “open market” of IDEAS — and then allows an informed electorate to pick which policies they like, and which politicians they favor to carry out those policies, is the best way to run things.

If that is the definition of "liberal", then I proudly and unequivocally regard myself as a liberal. I have extreme difficulty understanding why any truly rational, honest and fair minded person would not be a liberal, given that definition.