Damage Done by the Right-Wing Media in 2016

[_Some Schmo]

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 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.

And yet I was just talking to a friend yesterday who still thinks, to this day, that Clinton is as corrupt as Drumpf.

Right-wing media and the GOP are in lock step in terms of shamelessly lying to their base, and their base eats it up. They've even got lemmings like Ceeboo calling racism "leftist."

LOL

[_subgenius]

Right-wing media and the GOP are in lock step in terms of shamelessly lying to their base, and their base eats it up.

[_EAllusion]

Right-wing media and the GOP are in lock step in terms of shamelessly lying to their base, and their base eats it up.

Yeah, "monkey around" and "monkey wrench" are common phrases where "monkey this up" is virtually non-existent. Google hits on it are almost exclusively in reference to this specific story, in fact. So you are judging the background likelihood of the phrase being used by a Trumpish Republican as a racist dog whistle - high - against the likelihood that it would be used as an idiosyncratic phrasing - low. The racial context here is more than simply ever using the word "monkey."

Yet, to call it a racist dog whistle you've concluded is "blatant lying" rather than a plausible interpretation of what occurred. Of course, your posting here is a microcosm of what's wrong with right-wing media, so you know, *touches nose*.

It wouldn't have been hard to find single examples of Democrats lying. Like, not hard at all. That doesn't speak to the issue of pervasiveness, but that's not what's going here, is it?

[_Some Schmo]

Yeah, "monkey around" and "monkey wrench" are common phrases where "monkey this up" is virtually non-existent.

Well, not to mention that the three ostensible quotes by Democrats cited aren't referring specifically to anyone African American.

I mean seriously... how stupid do you have to be to post something like this comparison with the idea it's making a point? Of course, were it not for idiots like subs, the GOP wouldn't have a base.

[Guest]

If you see "white privilege" everywhere and you don't see "American privilege" anywhere, You're probably a leftist.

Ceeboo, in your own words, what does American privilege mean to you?

[_Xenophon]

Doc, a post I made yesterday in response to you seems to have vanished into the ether (I blame trying to post while mobile on sketchy wi-fi). I think most of the responses here capture what I wanted to get across to you, especially EA and Honor. I will just add this: If you want to throw out the left vs right dichotomy in this discussion I'm fine with that. I think the crux of the matter is that on one side we have "news" being presented that is intentionally deceptive or sometimes outright lies in order to advance a particular agenda. Biases are to be expected but one should be able to craft well reasoned writing to support those slants, not disingenuous and misleading garbage attempting to prop up a party or person.

I think the below from EA bears repeating at least one more time:

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.

[_canpakes]

Xeno,

As example of your question above: whether or not Trump’s claim of any particular piece of news being ‘fake’ is a viewpoint that can be interpreted to show a ‘right leaning’ bias or not, the larger question is if it is a factual claim.

This applies directly to what one hears from any given media source. I can appreciate what Doc is trying to say and I give him credit for exploring it here but I believe that he’s skirting this other aspect.

[_honorentheos]

I don't agree with defining news sources relative to one's own perspective. Conservative thought, liberal thought, progressive thought, libertarian thought, even true leftist thought are all generally understandable in terms of their relation to certain policy directions, emphasis on certain political priorities, and a lengthy history in modern western politics. When I speak of the Wall Street Journal being right of center, it's based on their opinion pages and editorial staff's apparent view that minimal regulation and interference by government is ideal for economic strength. I can align myself with that, distance myself from that, ignore it completely in favor of Prager U videos, but my relative position to the WSJ's opinion pages doesn't make it liberal or more conservative.

But I don't read it because I'm looking for a conservative news outlet. I read it, and am willing to pay to do so, because they have a history of journalistic integrity that can be demonstrated by reviewing their past reporting. My economic view differs from their editorial pages in favor of more left-leaning views, but that doesn't mean I should label the BBC conservative because their international news coverage that I read is largely non-partisan so to my personal right. I doubt I agree with 30% of the editorial position of the writers at Reason.com and could not consider myself libertarian, but I don't doubt their general commitment to report the facts. And reading Reason, including in print form for years going back to 2005, has expanded my understanding of not just the political landscape but opened up subjects I had limited knowledge of and wouldn't have explored without first contacting them there.

I think there is real danger in assuming one's view is centrist and relatively positioning information around oneself from there. It seems inherently to create a value judgement about the source based on it's relative position to the reader as opposed to it's journalistic integrity. Using history, tradition of Western thinking, and position relative to key policy positions may not be objectively absolute and will still leave gaps in attempting to define a source absolutely. But it has the advantage of not being based on a narcissistic view of the world.

[_EAllusion]

WSJ is odd in that the editorial page is basically Fox News, but the straight reporting is still solid. It’s an artifact of compromises from Murdoch’s buyout. They are hemorrhaging good journalists with Trumpish editorial pressure lately. I am not sure how much longer that dynamic is going to hold.

[_Xenophon]

Honor, I agree with much of what you're saying here. My point to Cam about dropping the argument over Left vs Right definitions has to do with getting us back to the point of the OP. I perceived that to be more about the disruptive tactics that are being used to both deceive consumers but also steer the dialogue from other outlets who feel like they need to overreach in order to not appear to be biased.