Damage Done by the Right-Wing Media in 2016

[_EAllusion]

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.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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

[Guest]

By your definition it would be impossible for any source to be centrist then unless the majority of the audience claimed to be centrist? I think that is the biggest problem with the chart you posted that it tries to use a single axis to define a wide spectrum of political thought.

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.

I can agree that when discussing/debating these things with people we disagree with it is important to acknowledge that they have built in perceptions of these sources. I don't think that just because someone perceives something a particular way that somehow makes it true, ipso facto presto chango. This board basically would't exist if we just accepted anyone's perception of sources.

I find the logic that if an audience leans a particular way the media source automatically matches that slant to be flawed beyond belief. I also don't even see the benefit of making that assumption in the first place. In what way could that actually improve the discussion?

ETA: What I hear you saying Doc is: "Content and substance don't matter when determining the bias or political lean of a source, only how that content is perceived and who consumes it". Apologies if I'm not following what you're saying but if it is anything like that quote, I can't buy that.

[_Maksutov]

One-dimensional political modeling in the real world is unbelievably dumb. Oversimplification for the purpose of herding cattle.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

One-dimensional political modeling in the real world is unbelievably dumb effective. Oversimplification for the purpose of herding cattle.

X,

I meant what I posted. I'll try to clarify.

1) When the charge is made that CNN is Leftist it's usually by somone who is on the Right. That's because the content being produced doesn't align with their worldview.

2) When the charge that CNN is centrist (or even Conservative, yes, I've seen that posted on this baord before) it's because the person who is Left of CNN is looking at it being Right to him or her. The content doesn't align with them.

Whether or not CNN is viewed by whomever as falling along an axis or or in a matrix or in some bizarre curved graph isn't a matter of empirical truth. It's all subjective. That's a fact. Perspective results in perception and that perception is reality to that person.

3) Political content is typically produced to appeal to an audience. Even if those at CNN or Fox believe they're being fair and balanced, the truth of the matter is they draw two very different audiences. This is self-evident. Those media outlets skew one way or another, to one degree or another.

4) The degree to which they skew is irrelevant outside of how each one views what its purpose is, and typically how to stay in business doing it.

When those huge conglomerates fail to capture everyone in a market, a new media outfit is created to capture those who view either of those orgs as too Liberal or too Conservative. Smaller cable outlets, radio shows, podcasts, youtube productions, blogs, websites, whathaveyou, to create content based on the needs of their target demographic.

CNN is viewed in the eye of the beholder, so it's relevant what each beholder labels it as this demonstrates why a Fox News or MSNBC or Gawker Media or Alex Jones exists filling the needs of a market. So, Ceeboo is correct in calling it Leftist and EA is correct in calling it Centrist.

- Doc

[_Xenophon]

Thanks for clarifying, Doc, I think I better understand you but I'm still missing some pieces I think.

I view news media organizations as existing in two parts 1) reporting of actual events, as they occurred 2) political opinion or analysis that can be skewed by bias. I would say it is accurate that the second part can be influenced by the idea of appealing to a particular audience, although not always, but hopefully that isn't true of the first part. The problem we run into (especially on the Right both in my opinion and to call back to the OP) is when those two lines become obscured or disappear all together. If I read just your posts on this thread I'd almost think you place an equal amount of blame on outlets for blurring or removing those lines but I'm fairly certain that isn't your actual take. Your posts seems to suggest that value assessments about the degree of this problem are unnecessary. Am I just reading you wrong?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thanks for clarifying, Doc, I think I better understand you but I'm still missing some pieces I think.

I view news media organizations as existing in two parts 1) reporting of actual events, as they occurred 2) political opinion or analysis that can be skewed by bias. I would say it is accurate that the second part can be influenced by the idea of appealing to a particular audience, although not always, but hopefully that isn't true of the first part. The problem we run into (especially on the Right both in my opinion and to call back to the OP) is when those two lines become obscured or disappear all together. If I read just your posts on this thread I'd almost think you place an equal amount of blame on outlets for blurring or removing those lines but I'm fairly certain that isn't your actual take. Your posts seems to suggest that value assessments about the degree of this problem are unnecessary. Am I just reading you wrong?

I think viewing news media orgs as something that reports #1 above is a little pie in the sky, especially when what they report is tied to #2 so closely. Not only does the media decide what they're going to cover, but they also decide what they aren't going to cover. Not only that, but what they do decide to cover is significantly colored through HOW they cover or report on it, WHO is doing it, and WHY it's being done.

We see that phenomenon, highlighted here and elsewhere, with how Fox News covers or DOESN'T cover certain angles and stories related to Trump. We also saw that the Enquirer was out as quashing news coverage of Trump's whores during his campaign, and we see how that helped him during his campaign.

This in of itself can determine how a media outlet slides to the left or right on the political spectrum, and people are incredibly sensitive to news coverage, even when there's no coverage at all.

What I'm getting at is one views any given news org through the lens of their own political narratives, news orgs respond to that, and when they fail to capture the entire market, other news orgs pop up to cater to the disaffected. Arguing just HOW Liberal CNN is or isn't is pointless because the term Liberal is as undefinable as 'God' is, and while you (3rd person you) may believe what you're saying the other guy doesn't and will tune into the media platform that he aligns with.

When EA states unequivocally that CNN isn't remotely Leftist not only is that absurd, but it's disingenuous and pointless. You might as well call Fox centrist because they brought in Alan Colmes as their foil. Regardless, if one consumes Breitbart as their primary source of news, Fox may very well appear centrist to them.

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

I really don't see how anyone can compare FOX with CNN. It is apples and oranges. Is CNN biased? Maybe, but only in the sense that they're not constantly covering crap that has been manufactured to be "news" on the Right. You know, like making a national spectacle of some illegal immigrant murdering a citizen.

Yes, it happens. No one believes it doesn't happen. But to take this example and spread it across a news cycle all for the purposes of spouting anti-immigrant fear and hate, is not responsible news coverage. Hell, even Geraldo Rivera while on FOX had to admit that the only reason this is considered an immigration story and not a murder story is because "that is how this network spins it."

I cannot bear to watch Tucker Carlson for more than 5 minutes because he's just constantly interviewing people in set up interviews to make it easy for him to drive a narrative and when they try to answer with answers he doesn't like he interrupts them and if they make him look stupid he yells at them and changes the subject. Laura Ingrahm and Sean Hannity do this even more. That's three prime time shows at FOX that are the most ridiculous.

I just don't see the equivalent of this anywhere at CNN and MSNBC. Nothing even close. I've never seen Rachel Maddow shout down at a Republican guest who was simply answering her questions, but I have seen her, Chris Hayes, Camerota, Cuomo, Brian Williams, etc all invite Trump supporters on their shows and let them have their say. Sure, they may grill them with challenging questions or refuse to let them go off on long winded talking points rants, but they never act like the hosts at FOX who are very careful in who they choose as guests and very specific about what they'll allow on their shows.

WTF is FOX so focused on South Africa's farmers? Why is that such an important news story for them? Because it feeds the narrative that the white man is actually oppressed everywhere and is constantly being maligned as a racist for no good reason. Why are they constantly covering the murder of a girl? Because her killer was an illegal immigrant. Her family even begged the media to not politicize her death, but FOX doesn't give a crap.

The people who think there is an equivalence between FOX and CNN/MSNBC obviously don't watch much of either.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Who says there's an equivalence? There's approximately zero equivalence in style, reporting, coverage (to any relevant degree), and audience. That's a non-starter.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

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.