There's already a steady rise in unhinged right-wing media (newsmax, OAN) who have shed any fig leaf of journalism and are taking a bite out of Fox. Trump could really set off an arms race in misinformation and pandering.
He already has without having his own news network. Having his own network seals the deal on the indoctrination via the false information bubble he's been working on for over 4 years.
Hold it on the unhinged right-wing media hyperbole here, you're just adding fuel to the fire. First off there is plenty of $adjective left-wing media to go around so it doesn't make sense to specifically target right-wing media. The more important factor here is the fact that the majority of the main stream media have a left slant and have been slinging mud towards those with a different opinion for years now, especially since Trump announced his candidacy. It has become close to impossible to find an unopinionated discussion of right-wing thought in main stream media, it mostly just devolves into posturing, labelling and adjectives. Where should people who are fed up with this go to? Even after this constant barrage of accusations of being anything from deplorables to racists and bigots or homophobes or transphobes or any of those other spurious accusations the orange man still got close to half of the votes. While a number of those votes will have been cast by people who truly like Trump I suspect that a sizeable portion of them came from people who were just fed up being called those things and hoped 4 more years of Trump was preferable over the alternative of having a government supportive of such labelling. This realisation probably has come to parts of the DNC as well given the bad outcome of the election for anyone but Biden/Harris.
It should be clear to anyone but those blinded by their own ideology that having a less politically biased media would be a good thing. Since the majority of the media leans left and is unlikely to move to the right this currently means there is a need for right-wing main stream media to even out the field. The big question is whether Trump is the one who can successfully fill that void, given the polarising nature of his personality.
> Since the majority of the media leans left and is unlikely to move to the right this currently means there is a need for right-wing main stream media to even out the field.
This is the opposite of your proposed ideal.
> It should be clear to anyone but those blinded by their own ideology that having a less politically biased media would be a good thing.
You should be promoting apolitical news, not increasingly polarized news to "even it out". Moving more right or left doesn't bring anyone closer together.
No, it is the result of the current media not willing to move away from their standpoint and as such in need of something on "the other side" to create the balance. In an ideal situation the media would be spread over the spectrum but that is obviously not where we - this phenomenon is not limited to the USA - are now.
> You should be promoting apolitical news, not increasingly polarized news to "even it out". Moving more right or left doesn't bring anyone closer together.
That would not work, neutral views do not balance out left- or right-wing views unless those neutral views are in a large majority. A simple (and greatly simplified) model and calculation can easily show that. Take the GAL-TAN scale which puts political ideology in a 2-dimensional grid with left-right on the x axis and libertarian-authoritarian on the y axis. Ignoring the y axis for now the majority of the media lie somewhere to the left of the middle. If the objective is for the political scale to even out there is an actual need for an even amount of media to the right of the middle, adding media on the middle will still make the scale tip to the left. Moving the left-leaning media to the middle would help but that is not happening any time soon.
I disagree with pretty much every statement you've made here.
Extremist views on one side do not "balance" extremist views on the other side. "Left" media is already more Centrist than Liberal/Socialist. Centrist views are already the majority held beliefs. 42% of registered voters are Independent. More Independent/nonpartisan news organizations would definitely improve the political/media landscape better than more extremist organizations.
> I disagree with pretty much every statement you've made here.
As long as you do not want to make it impossible for me to say these things I'm fine with that.
> Extremist views on one side do not "balance" extremist views on the other side.
They don't, but having views from both sides of the spectrum available to the public makes it clear to them that what is written on the one side is not gospel. Having only one side represented in the media means that people will not be confronted with opposing views.
> "Left" media is already more Centrist than Liberal/Socialist.
That is besides the point, this being that there needs to be a balance in the way the news is reported. That is also why I stated that there needed to be media on "the right of the middle", not "on the extreme right". There is a difference here, not everything to the right of the middle is "extreme", just like you stated for the left.
> Centrist views are already the majority held beliefs. 42% of registered voters are Independent.
They are but they are not the ones driving opinions in the media. If they were the problems I mentioned would not exist. The New York Times would not have pushed the 1619 project to give an example. They would have reported on it but not pushed it as an alternative history. The media views centrism as 'boring', probably because media consumers are more attracted to the simplified world view professed by more opinionated writers. Good versus bad is a large driving factor here through times, from the "good free west" to the "evil dictatorial east" of the 50's to the current "good ethnic minorities" to the "evil white patriarchal cis-gendered majority". The former gave us McCarthyism, the latter gives us Wokeism. These will be seen in a similar light by historians.
> Hold it on the unhinged right-wing media hyperbole here, you're just adding fuel to the fire. First off there is plenty of $adjective left-wing media to go around so it doesn't make sense to specifically target right-wing media.
what are some problematic "unhinged" popular left wing places? which major politicians back them?
and why are they anywhere as near a threat to civilization & order as the divisive gun toting pissed off angry conspiratoroal rhetoric as is so widespread on the right, that even Fox News batshit crazy is no longer sufficient?
it is one side. the lefties hanging out in cities are not busy making new media outlets to invite ourselves into violent revolutionary overthrow & conflict.
> what are some problematic "unhinged" popular left wing places? which major politicians back them?
Start with anything related to BLM (notice the capitals, I'm talking about the organisation, not the fact of skin tone not being a factor in whether your life matters), anything related to Antifa to make it easy. The former is supported by a vocal minority of the DNC, the existence of the latter is denied by the current president elect while his running mate called for her supporters to supply funds to bail out its members after they'd been arrested. From there you might want to go past organisations like Extinction Rebellion for another example of polarised rhetoric which is supported by a vocal minority of the DNC.
> and why are they anywhere as near a threat to civilization & order as the divisive gun toting pissed off angry conspiratoroal rhetoric as is so widespread on the right, that even Fox News batshit crazy is no longer sufficient?
Have you not followed the news - and with that I do not mean just what CNN and MSNBC say - for the last 5 months? A simple count of victims of violence would answer your question.
> it is one side. the lefties hanging out in cities are not busy making new media outlets to invite ourselves into violent revolutionary overthrow & conflict.
Either you're ideologically blinded, or you're intentionally talking falsehoods. The lefties hanging out in the cities are the ones who have been or have been complicit in looting and rioting. They are the ones who have tried to start actual "revolutions" - and failed horrendously since it turns out they had not really thought it trough.
Do you know the concept of "steel-manning"? It is the opposite of "straw-manning" in that it is a way to see the opponent's point of view from as strong a position as possible. It can help you to see the opponent as something other than an object of hate. It can also help you find weaknesses in that opponent's position. I think you should try it instead of simply throwing well-worn epithets at anyone who does not share "your" point of view.
black lives do matter. we should be anti-fascist. we do face possible extinction & must change. none of these seem contentious or dangerous causes, extremist. they each support basic rights to survive.
I specifically asked about what we had been talking about, which is radical media outlets. you had contended that the problem was on both sides, that media was being byper-radical. I don't see examples on the left. and I don't see politicians on the left embracing extremist media.
you are right that there has been some looting & some confrontations. I think you overrate the violence. destroying a store front is not, to me, a threat to civilization, especially when the cause for anger is so visceral, so real, so evident, such mass gilovernmental & systematuc injustice. I personally blame the right, blame neonazi & white nationists & other fascist forces for instigating much of the violence that anti-fascist have wound up engaged in.
our assessments are very different, obviously, but I am really interested in justifications for perceiving the left media as radical & extremist. my first two questions, what are extremist left media organizations, and what politicians embrace these organizations, stands.
in my view, the left is trying very hard to maintain a good civil world for as many people as it can. against enormously bitter antagonistic forces. we used to worry about Fox News as a manufacturer of lies & antagonism & shit, but the right has ratcheted up and up and up the campaign of terror & conspiratorialism it has used to whip up support, to incite it's people, and I see no clear parallels on the left.
I live in Brooklyn about 1/4 mile from one of the biggest BLM rally points in the country. There were tens of thousands of protestors streaming through my neighborhood for months. I 100% support their cause and there is absolutely zero damage to any local business. Every morning a cleanup crew was there picking up dropped masks or other litter from the park. There was no visible rioting anywhere. Looting was taking place 30 blocks away by opportunists who knew the police were busy attacking innocent people elsewhere. And it only lasted a few days before being shut down. The protestors were mostly normal folks. Families, old and young, all colors and genders. The absolute only goal of the protests was to get some amount of accountability for police violence. For our leaders to affirm that black lives matter. Trump simply couldn't do it. He made up the story line that this was a dangerous antifa revolution and right-wing media amplified it. It was pure disinformation. MSM coverage that the protests were mostly peaceful was accurate. MSM reporting that right-wing radicals were causing more violence was true and supported by the DHS. Fear-mongering against antifa is right-wind disinformation that you have apparently fallen for. Your belief that these stories lack of coverage represents bias is actually just your own bias. They don't deserve coverage on their merits because they aren't true.
so so so much downvoting. I almost never downvoted things I disagree with. the radical right, they do. so much slightly left views, getting endlessly downvoted. this is what we expect now, that the conservatives will all built & push their overexacerbated overagonizing views & accept not any counterclaims. you shouldn't be downvoted you spoke true.
every time I post something like this, I get a bunch of -1 -2's on bunch of my other posts too. I'll have been stable for many hours, then one little peep, & boom, a wave a negative downvoting, -7.
such biased negative pissy forces out there. hard to believe what shit these losers are.
HN has generally stayed apolitical, but there's been an influx of Trumpism over the past year or so that I really hate. Political discussions here used to be very rational and evidence-based. This thread would be considered lame even on reddit.
every time I post something like this, I get a bunch of -1 -2's on bunch of my other posts too. I'll have been stable for many hours, then one little peep, & boom, a wave a negative downvoting, -7.
this time i'll leave off my commentary, but it makes me very sad. it's very very unfortunate a pattern, and all too frequent. it's just repulsive beyond belief that people behave like that.
My concern isn't bias, it's misinformation. And let's be real here, it is emanating from right-wing media vastly more than from the left or otherwise. Unbiased reporting of a topic like voter fraud means reporting that Republicans are usually lying. Unbiased reporting of climate change means reporting that Republicans are usually lying. Unbiased reporting on the COVID pandemic means reporting that Republicans are grotesquely disinterested in human life.
Bias is subjective and insidious, but misinformation is obvious and unequivocally detestable. Right-wing news orgs are freely peddling misinformation. Networks like OAN aren't even biased towards conservatism as much as they are seemingly built to serve the political interests of Donald Trump. It is simply not equivalent and should not be treated as such.
"More news outlets" you say. That prase includes the word "news". without saying anything about what "news" is. Traditionally that's factual, correct information about new developments in some geographic area or other part of the world.
The Trump that spews 50 lies per day isn't going to open an company that's restricted to or even focused on factually correct stories, so I think it's wrong to call that a news outlet, even if Trump himself does so.
If you want to argue that opening a fifty-lies-per-day streaming site is a good idea and fine for the world, by all means do so. But please don't call it news.
> Some Trump advisers think Fox News made a mistake with an early call (seconded by AP) of President-elect Biden's win in Arizona. That enraged Trump, and gave him something tangible to use in his attacks on the network.
Their call for Arizona did seem premature, but it wasn’t wrong. “Correct but a bit early, and didn’t change anything” doesn’t seem like a strong avenue for attack.
It seems to me if Trump is going to launch an online media property he’s more likely to cannibalize Brietbart and OAN views than Fox News. Fox News has the benefit of being readily available via every major cable TV carrier in the US, Trump TV may pull a few members of the MAGA crowd further into their echo chamber, but I doubt that it has any real chance of doing much to the crown jewel of the Murdoch news empire. Maybe if he siphons off one of the more popular talking heads, but even then, how many people will really follow Hannity or Carlson if it’s not as simple to access their content?
What will be interesting is how Fox News would react - what’re the chances the commentary shifts harder against Trump to combat competition, but dividing conservatives along the way versus continuing to toe the line and kowtowing to a perceived Trump stranglehold on the right?
I don't know, more and more it's becoming more difficult to get to TV channels than it is to get to news on the web. My TV doesn't have an antenna. How do I watch Fox again? YouTube TV?
It seems somewhat clear to me that his goal was to run in 2016 and lose so he could start the trump news network where he would proceed to spend 4 years harassing the first female president to great applause.
When he won things changed and he decided being the most powerful human alive might be ok too, though in the 4 years he has had it I don't think he really still gets just how much more effort that is than just a show where you get to talk shit infinitely.
He will get a news network because he is now a cult leader and even as a citizen he will weird great power, terrible power, but great none the less over a large chunk of the rust belt.
33 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadIt should be clear to anyone but those blinded by their own ideology that having a less politically biased media would be a good thing. Since the majority of the media leans left and is unlikely to move to the right this currently means there is a need for right-wing main stream media to even out the field. The big question is whether Trump is the one who can successfully fill that void, given the polarising nature of his personality.
This is the opposite of your proposed ideal.
> It should be clear to anyone but those blinded by their own ideology that having a less politically biased media would be a good thing.
You should be promoting apolitical news, not increasingly polarized news to "even it out". Moving more right or left doesn't bring anyone closer together.
No, it is the result of the current media not willing to move away from their standpoint and as such in need of something on "the other side" to create the balance. In an ideal situation the media would be spread over the spectrum but that is obviously not where we - this phenomenon is not limited to the USA - are now.
> You should be promoting apolitical news, not increasingly polarized news to "even it out". Moving more right or left doesn't bring anyone closer together.
That would not work, neutral views do not balance out left- or right-wing views unless those neutral views are in a large majority. A simple (and greatly simplified) model and calculation can easily show that. Take the GAL-TAN scale which puts political ideology in a 2-dimensional grid with left-right on the x axis and libertarian-authoritarian on the y axis. Ignoring the y axis for now the majority of the media lie somewhere to the left of the middle. If the objective is for the political scale to even out there is an actual need for an even amount of media to the right of the middle, adding media on the middle will still make the scale tip to the left. Moving the left-leaning media to the middle would help but that is not happening any time soon.
Extremist views on one side do not "balance" extremist views on the other side. "Left" media is already more Centrist than Liberal/Socialist. Centrist views are already the majority held beliefs. 42% of registered voters are Independent. More Independent/nonpartisan news organizations would definitely improve the political/media landscape better than more extremist organizations.
As long as you do not want to make it impossible for me to say these things I'm fine with that.
> Extremist views on one side do not "balance" extremist views on the other side.
They don't, but having views from both sides of the spectrum available to the public makes it clear to them that what is written on the one side is not gospel. Having only one side represented in the media means that people will not be confronted with opposing views.
> "Left" media is already more Centrist than Liberal/Socialist.
That is besides the point, this being that there needs to be a balance in the way the news is reported. That is also why I stated that there needed to be media on "the right of the middle", not "on the extreme right". There is a difference here, not everything to the right of the middle is "extreme", just like you stated for the left.
> Centrist views are already the majority held beliefs. 42% of registered voters are Independent.
They are but they are not the ones driving opinions in the media. If they were the problems I mentioned would not exist. The New York Times would not have pushed the 1619 project to give an example. They would have reported on it but not pushed it as an alternative history. The media views centrism as 'boring', probably because media consumers are more attracted to the simplified world view professed by more opinionated writers. Good versus bad is a large driving factor here through times, from the "good free west" to the "evil dictatorial east" of the 50's to the current "good ethnic minorities" to the "evil white patriarchal cis-gendered majority". The former gave us McCarthyism, the latter gives us Wokeism. These will be seen in a similar light by historians.
what are some problematic "unhinged" popular left wing places? which major politicians back them?
and why are they anywhere as near a threat to civilization & order as the divisive gun toting pissed off angry conspiratoroal rhetoric as is so widespread on the right, that even Fox News batshit crazy is no longer sufficient?
it is one side. the lefties hanging out in cities are not busy making new media outlets to invite ourselves into violent revolutionary overthrow & conflict.
Start with anything related to BLM (notice the capitals, I'm talking about the organisation, not the fact of skin tone not being a factor in whether your life matters), anything related to Antifa to make it easy. The former is supported by a vocal minority of the DNC, the existence of the latter is denied by the current president elect while his running mate called for her supporters to supply funds to bail out its members after they'd been arrested. From there you might want to go past organisations like Extinction Rebellion for another example of polarised rhetoric which is supported by a vocal minority of the DNC.
> and why are they anywhere as near a threat to civilization & order as the divisive gun toting pissed off angry conspiratoroal rhetoric as is so widespread on the right, that even Fox News batshit crazy is no longer sufficient?
Have you not followed the news - and with that I do not mean just what CNN and MSNBC say - for the last 5 months? A simple count of victims of violence would answer your question.
> it is one side. the lefties hanging out in cities are not busy making new media outlets to invite ourselves into violent revolutionary overthrow & conflict.
Either you're ideologically blinded, or you're intentionally talking falsehoods. The lefties hanging out in the cities are the ones who have been or have been complicit in looting and rioting. They are the ones who have tried to start actual "revolutions" - and failed horrendously since it turns out they had not really thought it trough.
Do you know the concept of "steel-manning"? It is the opposite of "straw-manning" in that it is a way to see the opponent's point of view from as strong a position as possible. It can help you to see the opponent as something other than an object of hate. It can also help you find weaknesses in that opponent's position. I think you should try it instead of simply throwing well-worn epithets at anyone who does not share "your" point of view.
I specifically asked about what we had been talking about, which is radical media outlets. you had contended that the problem was on both sides, that media was being byper-radical. I don't see examples on the left. and I don't see politicians on the left embracing extremist media.
you are right that there has been some looting & some confrontations. I think you overrate the violence. destroying a store front is not, to me, a threat to civilization, especially when the cause for anger is so visceral, so real, so evident, such mass gilovernmental & systematuc injustice. I personally blame the right, blame neonazi & white nationists & other fascist forces for instigating much of the violence that anti-fascist have wound up engaged in.
our assessments are very different, obviously, but I am really interested in justifications for perceiving the left media as radical & extremist. my first two questions, what are extremist left media organizations, and what politicians embrace these organizations, stands.
in my view, the left is trying very hard to maintain a good civil world for as many people as it can. against enormously bitter antagonistic forces. we used to worry about Fox News as a manufacturer of lies & antagonism & shit, but the right has ratcheted up and up and up the campaign of terror & conspiratorialism it has used to whip up support, to incite it's people, and I see no clear parallels on the left.
such biased negative pissy forces out there. hard to believe what shit these losers are.
every time I post something like this, I get a bunch of -1 -2's on bunch of my other posts too. I'll have been stable for many hours, then one little peep, & boom, a wave a negative downvoting, -7.
this time i'll leave off my commentary, but it makes me very sad. it's very very unfortunate a pattern, and all too frequent. it's just repulsive beyond belief that people behave like that.
Bias is subjective and insidious, but misinformation is obvious and unequivocally detestable. Right-wing news orgs are freely peddling misinformation. Networks like OAN aren't even biased towards conservatism as much as they are seemingly built to serve the political interests of Donald Trump. It is simply not equivalent and should not be treated as such.
There are many merits to more news outlets hitting the public dialog.
I think we need more investment not just in news but in search and social platforms.
I would go so far as to argue that bifurcation is more beneficial than a unification.
Because unification seems to lead to monopoly, and that’s not good for anyone except the monopolist.
The Trump that spews 50 lies per day isn't going to open an company that's restricted to or even focused on factually correct stories, so I think it's wrong to call that a news outlet, even if Trump himself does so.
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/13/president... for example.
If you want to argue that opening a fifty-lies-per-day streaming site is a good idea and fine for the world, by all means do so. But please don't call it news.
Trump did not appear out of thin air. The out-of-touch media and politicians created this phenom.
Their call for Arizona did seem premature, but it wasn’t wrong. “Correct but a bit early, and didn’t change anything” doesn’t seem like a strong avenue for attack.
What will be interesting is how Fox News would react - what’re the chances the commentary shifts harder against Trump to combat competition, but dividing conservatives along the way versus continuing to toe the line and kowtowing to a perceived Trump stranglehold on the right?
When he won things changed and he decided being the most powerful human alive might be ok too, though in the 4 years he has had it I don't think he really still gets just how much more effort that is than just a show where you get to talk shit infinitely.
He will get a news network because he is now a cult leader and even as a citizen he will weird great power, terrible power, but great none the less over a large chunk of the rust belt.