« POPE IV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Left Wing Media -vs- Right Wing Media 

By: Decomposed in POPE IV | Recommend this post (1)
Thu, 16 Jun 16 8:27 PM | 78 view(s)
Boardmark this board | POPES NEW and Improved Real Board
Msg. 07722 of 47202
(This msg. is a reply to 07716 by Decomposed)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

re: "DIVIDED AMERICA: Constructing our own intellectual ghettos"

I can relate to a lot of what the author of my article has to say. He makes many of the same points that I've made over the years - albeit, I made them more frequently on the FART board than here.

If you remember, before I joined POPE, I used to post on ROUND and FART. ROUND died due to attrition, a general lack of interest in the markets by others, as well as my own frustration that things I'd posted - in hopes that they'd be a permanent record I could periodically reference - were wiped by Bob in the great DENVER POST purge of . . . 2011 or thereabouts.

FART became my preferred haunt.

Why did I post there? Definitely not because I agreed with its members. I did it because I could find dissent. Reasoned dissent is how we learn. It's also how we teach. Let's face it: I don't tell you guys much that you don't already know. Nor do I read much on POPE that I haven't read many times before. (NEMO BEING THE NOTABLE EXCEPTION, which is why I value him.)

I don't view myself as either a right-winger or a left-winger. I seek truth. Truth isn't a right or left wing thing. It's what it is: the truth. In the war of the Eloi versus the Morlocks, I'm a time-traveller. I'm a conservative (which is very different from being either a right winger or a Republican.) I only come across as a right winger because reasoned thought is hard to find in anything produced by the left. I'm therefore more critical of the left than the right, so the perception is that I'm to the right. Not so.

This flaw of the left's is actually a shame because the left is correct on a few things, some of which are important. But I'll leave that for a future date. It's out of scope for today.

So, I used to hang out on FART. It was mostly for my own benefit. As a seeker of truth, if my understanding and conclusions are wrong, I want someone to point it out. I am always open to changing my position when it's appropriate to do so. That didn't happen often, but it did occur more than once, notably in a debate I had with OCU on the death penalty. Afterward, I realized that he was right and my support for the death penalty while maintaining a 'human life is sacrosanct' view on other issues was irrational. I subsequently changed my stance so that it wasn't hypocritical and became a death penalty opponent.

Ironically, this didn't make OCU happy either, but at least today I'm not the one with the flawed thinking. I now favor putting scum such as murderers, rapists, traitors and serial car thieves onto an island or into a cavern with some possibility that they'll be able to fend for themselves, then ensuring that no one in the outside world EVER has contact with them again. No food. No removal. No checking upon or reporting on conditions. Just enough maintenance to ensure that no one ever gets out or contacts the outside world. I call this the 'DEAD TO US' penalty and have OCU to thank for it.

That's one example of learning from a dissenting news source and I think more people should do it.

My time on FART was mostly spent pointing out the flaws in what passes for "thought" on their board. Their incorrect information. Their lies. The inconsistencies between what they were writing and what they'd previously written. Their tendency to rush to judgement and what a whopper of a mistake that almost always turned out to be. Their foulness. Their self-serving motivations. Their worship of the most base of human behaviors.

Eventually, to my chagrin, I was banned. When someone asked clo why she'd done it, she simply said "He was annoying." I hadn't violated any of her board's policies. But she was tired of being corrected.

There's a huge irony in this. *I* was looking for truth, both adapting my thinking as needed and dispensing truth as best I could. But clo could not handle truth and found it annoying. Hence, she banned the person who was consistently posting truth and unveiling lies.

I believe clo revealed something fundamental about liberals in general.

Right-wingers seem to be able to face the truth. They might be slow to change when they learn they're wrong, but they gradually do. They might not love being wrong, but they don't prevent honest discourse to the extent that left wingers do. If you notice, nearly all of the left-wing news sites have blocked or severely curtailed responses from their readers. If they allow responses at all, the responses are carefully controlled. On left wing sites that allow responses, you generally either need a paid subscription... or you must provide extensive personal information which can be used to lock you out.. or messages are filtered... or there is a timed response period after which no more can be said. This last ensures that activity will never get too heated, and also gives readers a limited amount of time in which to prove that the author is full of it. (The early articles about the Orlando shooting are a prime example. They were quick to judge the killer "not a terrorist" and to blame "haterz" like Donald Trump, but terminated the rebuttal period long before the flood of connections to terrorism began to come in.)

The worst of the liberals now openly discuss making it criminal to question the science behind Anthropognic Global Warming. Wow. In other words, they want science to become a religion. Forget the 2nd amendment; these guys want to ban the 1st.

You don't see that coming from the right. Visit Breitbart.com and you'll see thousands of responses to the daily articles. Many are in agreement, of course, since Breitbart IS a right wing news site - but there are many dissenters too. AND THEY DON'T GET BANNED.

It's how news should be.

It's not the function of a Free Press to sell people on what to believe. Its job should be to convey what happened, as best as is possible, then leave it to the readers to form their own opinions. Right now, you can accomplish that to some extent by reading right wing articles AND reader responses.

Reading the publications on the left, though, is just a waste of time. Not only do they have a predictable slant, they don't even want to have their mistakes obviated. As writer Josh Marshall says about politically slanted websites in the article I posted, "I enjoy it more. It's always more fun to listen to people you happen to agree with."

That might be true, but it's such a shame. Listening to and reading those with whom you probably agree might be enjoyable, but it's not the way to find flaws in your thinking. And it's guaranteed to amplify skewed perceptions of the WHOLE truth.

Ultimately, the truth is what matters. It's the only thing that matters. And you don't get to the truth by exposing yourself only to those with whom you agree.
 




Avatar

Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Left Wing Media -vs- Right Wing Media
By: Decomposed
in POPE IV
Thu, 16 Jun 16 7:00 PM
Msg. 07716 of 47202

This is a really good article that I hope you folks will read and think about. I intend to follow it up with my own thoughts. They will probably be lengthy, so I'm going to post them separately. I'd hate to distract from what this author has to say. 

June 16, 2016

DIVIDED AMERICA: Constructing our own intellectual ghettos

By DAVID BAUDER
AP.org

NEW YORK (AP) — Meet Peggy Albrecht and John Dearth. Albrecht is a free-lance writer and comedian from Los Angeles who loves Bernie Sanders. Dearth, a retiree from Carmel, Indiana, grew up a Democrat but flipped with Ronald Reagan. He's a Trump guy.

They live in the same country, but as far as their news consumption goes, they might as well live on different planets.

Abrecht watches MSNBC's Rachel Maddow each night. She scans left-leaning websites Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo and Down With Tyranny, where recent headlines described Donald Trump as "pathetic" and "temperamentally unfit" to be president. She can read stories that describe Trump University as a scam and question whether the Republican candidate is as rich as he lets on. The website Think Progress, which has contrasted Trump's Republican endorsers with criticisms they've made of him, sends her email alerts.

Dearth is a fan of Fox Business Network anchors Neil Cavuto and Stuart Varney. He checks the Drudge Report, Town Hall and Heritage Foundation websites, where recent stories talked about Trump supporters being "terrorized" by demonstrators and suggested Hillary Clinton answered planted questions at a supposedly unscripted event. An American flag tangled in red tape illustrated a story about Obama administration business regulations.

Because of his internet search history, he's bombarded with solicitations to donate to conservative candidates and causes. The Democrats don't bother.

In a simpler time, Albrecht and Dearth might have gathered at a common television hearth to watch Walter Cronkite deliver the evening news.

But the growth in partisan media over the past two decades has enabled Americans to retreat into tribes of like-minded people who get news filtered through particular world views. Fox News Channel and Talking Points Memo thrive, with audiences that rarely intersect. What's big news in one world is ignored in another. Conspiracy theories sprout, anger abounds and the truth becomes ever more elusive.

Americans are becoming used to speaking at political opponents, and not with them. Prominent political observer Barack Obama is among those who have worried about the implications for democracy.

"Increasingly what happens is, we don't hear each other," the president said in a recent Fox News interview.

In this world of hundreds of channels and uncounted websites, of exquisitely targeted advertising and unbridled social media, it is easy to construct your own intellectual ghetto, however damaging that might be to the ideal of the free exchange of ideas.

"Right now the left plays to the left and the right plays to the right," said Glenn Beck, the former Fox News host who started TheBlaze, a conservative network, in 2010. "That's why we keep ratcheting up the heat. We're throwing red meat. We're in a room that is an echo chamber, and everybody's cheering."

___

Albrecht and Dearth don't rely exclusively on partisan media. Albrecht starts her day with the Los Angeles Times, and Dearth occasionally flips to MSNBC to hear opposing viewpoints, particularly on "Morning Joe."

That makes them typical: relatively few of the people who rely on opinionated news completely ignore the other side, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

They do share mirrored misgivings about the major broadcast networks, newspapers and their related websites — the mainstream media.

"I don't call it mainstream," Albrecht said. "They don't give me points of view that I think are necessary to understand stories ... I have to go to my liberal sites if I want to get a liberal point of view, other than my own."

"The so-called liberal media is not that at all," she said.

Dearth, meanwhile, avoids the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC because, "All three of them have a strong liberal slant on a lot of things."

That's the kind of thinking that inspired Roger Ailes to launch Fox News Channel in 1996. The former GOP operative mixed news during the day with a prime-time lineup that appealed to conservatives. The network's early slogans — "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide" — were knowing nods to what mainstream outlets promise yet fail to achieve in the eyes of many conservative viewers like Dearth.

"It did reflect my views a lot more than any of the others," Dearth said. "It wasn't that I turned the others off, but I saw them much, much less."

By 2002, Fox had raced past CNN to become the top-rated news network.

This was the beginning of a golden age of partisan media, though Rush Limbaugh had started a boom of conservative talk radio in the early 1990s.

There wasn't anything to compare on the left, at least until summer 2006 when MSNBC host Keith Olbermann read about a speech where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld equated Iraq War opponents to pre-World War II appeasers. The next night, Olbermann angrily denounced Rumsfeld. Olbermann half-expected his boss to fire him, but management instead saw viewers had responded.

"The next day he came into my office and said, 'could you do one of those every night, buddy?'" Olbermann recalled.

His show became home for disaffected liberals in the Bush administration's final years. MSNBC hired Maddow and eventually made the entire network left-leaning. It didn't really stick: Low ratings forced a turn to straight news in daytime the last two years, but vestiges of partisanship remain.

Liberals like Jeff Cohen, communications professor at Ithaca College, believe that conservatives will always dominate mass media because of corporate ownership. That's less of an issue online; there, fueled by Fox's primacy and opposition to the war in Iraq, liberals began finding their voice in the early 2000s.

Writer Josh Marshall began blogging and reporting, developing the Talking Points Memo website. His work forced wider attention to issues like the firing of U.S. attorneys in the Bush administration, Republican voter suppression efforts and the fight against Social Security privatization. TPM has grown to 25 employees with offices in Washington and New York, with an average of 20 million page views a month.

Others followed Marshall's path, exposing readers like Albrecht to stories they might otherwise have not heard about.

Besides, she said, "I enjoy it more. It's always more fun to listen to people you happen to agree with."

Conservatives took advantage of new media, too. Georgia lawyer Erick Erickson became the best-known voice on the Red State site, which established itself with its quick advocacy against Bush's choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, whose nomination was withdrawn due to conservative opposition.

Breitbart, NewsMax, The Daily Caller and TheBlaze are other prominent online options on the right. Erickson recently sold Red State and started a new site, the Resurgent, and sees web outlets moving from simply informing readers to guiding them into political action.

We are left with fascinating parallel worlds.

Fox reports every December on a "War on Christmas," and Planned Parenthood is a huge target for right-wing media. Liberal organizations made Edward Snowden a hero and drummed against Pacific trade agreements. It took a while for the Flint water crisis to be noticed beyond the liberal press.

"I don't think it's as much a danger to democracy as people think it is," Olbermann said. "When the business changes to being all conservative media or all liberal media — though I don't know how that would happen — that's when it becomes dangerous."

Yet today's political media gets at least some of the blame for a hardening of attitudes. In his 2009 book, "Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide," Harvard University's Cass Sunstein argued that when like-minded people gather in groups, they tend to become more extreme in their views.

A generation ago, majorities in each political party described themselves as moderate. That's changed. In ABC News exit polling between 1976 and 1992, the number of Democrats who described themselves as liberal fluctuated between 24 to 34 percent. This year, 62 percent of the Democratic primary electorate said they were liberal. Similarly, 76 percent of today's Republicans identify themselves as conservative, roughly double what it was in the 1970s.

Social media amplifies political isolationism, because people are likely to spread information to people who agree with them, said Penn's Jamieson.

Who are you going to believe: the link you get from a trusted friend, or a mainstream media source that tells you the article is bunk?

___

Marty Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, spoke with some distress this spring at the commencement of Temple University's School of Media and Communication.

"Today we are not so much communicating as miscommunicating," he said. "Or failing to communicate. Or choosing to communicate only with those who think as we do. Or communicating in a manner that is wholly detached from reality. Too often we look only for affirmation of our own ideas rather than opening ourselves to the ideas of others."

That thought was on Beck's mind when he had lunch a year ago with Arianna Huffington, founder of the left-leaning news site that bears her name. They talked about the need for an outlet where a conservative can talk about ideas to a liberal audience and vice versa.

"Let's try to make the case that a story matters to people who don't agree with me," he said. "Because my language would change, my approach would change. Things will be ratcheted down. We'll be able to understand each other again. I think there's a real need in the country for that."

For now, nothing's come of the idea.

So we tried it ourselves on a small scale. Peggy Albrecht, meet John Dearth. John, here's Peggy. We set up a conference call to let them do something they rarely have a chance to anymore: carry on a conversation with someone who's a polar opposite politically.

So what political position held by the other side most baffles them?

For Albrecht, it's the effort in some Republican-led states to require IDs to vote. She understands the political motivations — Republicans want to depress Democratic turnout — but doesn't fathom why the greater good of having as many Americans as possible vote doesn't prevail.

"I'm on the other side of it, to some extent," Dearth said. "I believe that everyone who is legal should be allowed to vote, I agree with that ... What I do have a problem is that I'd like to make sure that people are legally able to vote."

How do they feel about Barack Obama?

"I think he's overreached with his executive actions and so forth," Dearth said. "I believe that the country is not as well off. Don't get me wrong, I know he came in during a tough time, but I don't think he's made the country better."

Albrecht, meanwhile, thinks he hasn't been liberal enough.

"Overall, yes, I like him, but I don't agree with everything he says," she said. "I find a lot of Democrats believe that, but sometimes when I say it I'll get attacked — 'you're not a real Democrat.' I am, actually."

Said Dearth: "I hear that from my side, too — people who say if you don't agree with this, you can't be a real conservative. That goes both ways."

Dearth voted for Ted Cruz in the Indiana Republican primary, but he's on board with Trump. Albrecht hasn't decided whether to support Hillary Clinton in the fall. "I will never vote for Trump — on so many levels," she said, and began to list several reasons.

"What Peggy says about Trump, I could probably echo the same things about Hillary," Dearth said. "There are a lot of untruths. Maybe that's just the way it is. I think the pot calling the kettle black is probably happening on both sides."

Unfailingly polite, Albrecht and Dearth talked politics for nearly an hour without raising their voices. They agreed on the need for more investigative reporting from the media. The discussion left Dearth nostalgic for a time when "we had people of different parties get together, go out to have a drink together. We don't seem to have that anymore."

"I know," Albrecht said. "The camaraderie has disappeared in favor of taking sides and outdoing one another. It helps to co-mingle and get to hear people as people. Here Jack and I are talking and we have different viewpoints — completely different viewpoints on some things and similar on others. And look at that, nobody got murdered."


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8ffa5f79fe8848f9bd9150fa9ec863a4/divided-america-constructing-our-own-intellectual-ghettos


« POPE IV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next