Damage Done by the Right-Wing Media in 2016

[_Some Schmo]

I don't think it's that funny, really.

Based on what you read (at least, the samples you've provided), there's no question you're ignorant.

Ha!

There's that reveling I was talking about.

*shrug*

[_huckelberry]

IF YOU.................Then YOU"RE PROBABLY A LEFTIST[/b]


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.

Ceeboo, I feel sure that I do not fit these things. I am not a leftist. I however support a fair amount of liberal political policy. I generally support democratic candidates. I voted against Nixon but our present president makes me remember him fondly in comparison.

I fit the definition of liberal supplied uptread.,
"from the quora site linked"

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.

I think quite a few posters here view the distinction between these two categories as important. My estimate from reading is quite a few posters here fit liberal. Not so much leftist.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Huck!

Ceeboo, I feel sure that I do not fit these things. I am not a leftist. I however support a fair amount of liberal political policy. I generally support democratic candidates.

I'm curious (I'm not playing a trick/game with you. I promise - just curious) - Do yo think the democratic party is currently being run and controlled by leftists? In other words - Do you think they have taken over the party (or are starting to take over the party)?

I'm asking for your opinion because you said you vote democrat quite often and I wonder if this (if you believe it's happening) is concerning to you in any way.

[Guest]

Hey Huck!

Ceeboo, I feel sure that I do not fit these things. I am not a leftist. I however support a fair amount of liberal political policy. I generally support democratic candidates.

I'm curious (I'm not playing a trick/game with you. I promise - just curious) - Do yo think the democratic party is currently being run and controlled by leftists? In other words - Do you think they have taken over the party (or are starting to take over the party)?

I'm asking for your opinion because you said you vote democrat quite often and I wonder if this (if you believe it's happening) is concerning to you in any way.

I don't know about huckelberry, but I don't think the democratic party is currently being run and controlled by leftists any more than is the republican party. The biggest problem with the current democratic party is that they haven't sufficiently distinguished themselves from the republican party. Too many of them are almost as heavily influenced and corrupted by wealthy corporate donors as are Republican politicians.

[_canpakes]

CNN isn’t remotely “leftist.” It’s biases are primarily towards tabloid topics and covering politics like it is a he-said, she-said sporting event. In fact, to the extent that CNN’s need for “balance” magnifies rampant dishonesty / bad faith coming from the right wing media ecosystem, it ends up creating a right wing bias. CNN’s absurd coverage of “emails!” that contributed to by far the most important reason why Clinton lost is a good example of that.

You can keep saying that all you want, but when this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bia ... ted_States

indicates the perception of reality is different what we're left with is 'what do we do'?

Cool link; it neatly demonstrates two components to 'bias': the claim of bias, as well as the degree and accuracy of that claim.

In the years leading up to World War II, politicians who favored the United States entering the war on the German side accused the international media of a pro-Jewish bias and often asserted that newspapers opposing entry of the United States on the German side were controlled by Jews. They claimed that reports of German mistreatment of Jews were biased and without foundation. Hollywood was said to be a hotbed of Jewish bias, and pro-German politicians in the United States called for Charlie Chaplin's film The Great Dictator to be banned as an insult to a respected leader.[9]

In some cases, Southern television stations refused to air programs such as I Spy and Star Trek because of their racially mixed casts.[10]

During the labor union movement and the civil rights movement, newspapers supporting liberal social reform were accused by conservative newspapers of communist bias.[11][12]

In November 1969, Spiro Agnew, then Vice President under Richard Nixon, made a landmark speech denouncing what he saw as media bias against the Vietnam War. He called those opposed to the war the "nattering nabobs of negativism."[13]

In 2018, President Donald Trump described what he called the "Fake news" of the American press as "The Enemy of the American people".[14]

There seems to be a pretty obvious trend here.

[_canpakes]

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

Ceeboo, I could get on board with maybe three of these (and present a strong argument for each as to why), but I'm reasonably sure that you'd claim that I'm a raging 'leftist'. So just how does this list work? Does acceptance of any one of these place a person in your 'leftist'-label camp?

[_canpakes]

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.

Thanks for reprinting this line, Gunnar. It's ironic to me that so many folks on the Right will claim that this simple observation isn't true or required because complete fairness in all situations will always manifest effortlessly and absolutely, while they simultaneously harbor strong beliefs in religious concepts of evil, the Fall of Man, and a natural order that determines worth by what country a person was born into.

Not that those same folks on the Right aren't the first folks to suddenly reverse their stand and proclaim the truth of what is in that quote as soon as they perceive a minority person to have gained some sort of claimed advantage over them, for reasons real or imagined.

[_honorentheos]

If you separate people into two groups - oppressors and victims - You're probably a leftist.

[_honorentheos]

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.

There's a very important distinction I tried to highlight earlier in the thread between material that is intentionally ideological and material that is dishonest. There are lots of perfectly good sources that are ideological in nature where their biases are related to what topics they choose to cover and how the writing editorializes the implications of reported facts. I think it's a good idea to try to get a well-rounded sense of the public debate by checking in on multiple respectable ideological points of view. That needs to be kept distinct from sources that are dishonest, and especially those that are egregiously so. The main problem with the right-wing media ecosystem isn't simply that it is right-wing. It's that dishonesty and bad faith is pervasive.

I absolutely agree with this.

[_Gunnar]

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.

There's a very important distinction I tried to highlight earlier in the thread between material that is intentionally ideological and material that is dishonest. There are lots of perfectly good sources that are ideological in nature where their biases are related to what topics they choose to cover and how the writing editorializes the implications of reported facts. I think it's a good idea to try to get a well-rounded sense of the public debate by checking in on multiple respectable ideological points of view. That needs to be kept distinct from sources that are dishonest, and especially those that are egregiously so. The main problem with the right-wing media ecosystem isn't simply that it is right-wing. It's that dishonesty and bad faith is pervasive.

I absolutely agree with this.

I agree with that also--especially the part I colorized in blue. This has become so obviously true, especially since the election of Trump, that it should hardly be seen as controversial anymore.