There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble

[Torto]

Where are you getting your information about America if not the media? And before you give some anecdotal evidence about some guy that your brother's fiancee knew from college or whatever, there are plenty of Americans on this very forum, myself included, who will tell you that all of your ideas about our country are complete horseshit.

Just because the US in ignorant about the world, does not mean the world is ignorant about the US. We had huge US election coverage here, in fact each debate was televised live. Safe to say, I know infinitely more about US politics than your average American would know about politics in my country. The US is the last remaining superpower, your policies affect us so we listen. And yes we get our information from the biased media, not sure of your point.

[Mormolyce]

This election had nothing to do with policies, it was a 100% partisan shitshow with zero substance. Seems like the internet age has only helped solidify and radicalise factional politics to the point that nothing rational is even part of the debate.

One side in particular completely embraced partisan nihilism, and was rewarded with the Presidency. Confuckulations, America.

I knew the basic Trump policies, he repeated them ad nauseam and the liberal media talked about nothing else.

They were heavy on the nausea, light on the details. Particularly awkward parts like "how are you going to pay for this?". And no, Mexico isn't a valid answer.

The media didn't want Clinton so much as didn't want Trump, because who in their right mind would?

It's impossible for the media to treat both candidates equally when one of them is a complete dumpster fire. The only way to do that would be to refuse to report anything Trump actually said.

- - - Updated - - -

People are sick of politicians and empty promises. It didnt matter that Trump's message had zero substance. Just because the Dems post issues on their website doesn't mean they care. In 2012 Obama put "clean coal" back on his energy platform website. After the election they removed it.

So you're saying that people are sick of politicians with empty promises, so they elected a non-politician with empty promises?

[Macaquerie]

Just because the US in ignorant about the world, does not mean the world is ignorant about the US. We had huge US election coverage here, in fact each debate was televised live. Safe to say, I know infinitely more about US politics than your average American would know about politics in my country. The US is the last remaining superpower, your policies affect us so we listen. And yes we get our information from the biased media, not sure of your point.

If you think that the mainstream media is all biased, how would you know that the sources telling you that the mainstream media is biased are not themselves biased? American right wingers at least have the excuse that they have seen how it actually is first hand, but you can't even say that. Your entire understanding of America is based on a twisted perception of reality that only exists in your own mind.

[Darththeo]

You are coming to a false conclusion here.

It is either that, or accuse people of sexism ... which would you prefer?

[ItachiZaku]

Yeah, media is definitely very biased. I never felt Clinton had it in the bag, hell from people I talk with daily, it felt pretty even. Handful were Clintonites, handful were hardcore pubs and most of us were in the middle. We more than likely weren't voting for either of them, or were strictly voting against someone.

You know, if the presidential election were based solely on my facebook friends list, Gary Johnson would have won (I voted for a lion and a gorilla).

[Vorkreist]

If there was truly a liberal media bubble and Clinton was protected, they wouldn't have printed anything regarding wikileaks, and yet they did

Not really, there comes a point when the story is too big not be published no matter the political leaning of the media outlet. Not publishing something the whole world will eventually find out the next day isn't very practical.

[zenkai]

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com offers a compelling breakdown of the media bubble in the 2016 election:



Also:



The full article can be read here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-media-bubble/


Until the media moves away from it's echo chamber-based confidence, it will continue to misread the public's concerns and interests, and become more maligned in the minds of Americans.

The media doesn't misread what people think, the Media tries the control what you think.

[Daelak]

Until the media moves away from it's echo chamber-based confidence, it will continue to misread the public's concerns and interests, and become more maligned in the minds of Americans.

Until conservatives understand probability, statistics and polling, they shouldn't wax poetic about the "silent majority" shtick they are so prone to fall over.

- - - Updated - - -

The media doesn't misread what people think, the Media tries the control what you think.

No, the emergence of "news" sites that are still conspiratorial blogs are the ones distorting factual reporting and journalism to further their own ends. This is why Bretibart and Gateway Pundit are allowed in the press rooms now, Bannon and other white supremacists want to legitimize their propaganda.

[Alydael]

*Looks at people complaining about liberal media bubble. Sees same people circle jerking over Breitbart and Wikileaks. Has a good laugh.*

- - - Updated - - -



Her policy was drowned out by the cacophony people screaming about emails that contained nothing damning.

She mentioned blocking the TPP, free 2 year college and trade school funding, improving public schooling, cracking down on tax evasion, tax breaks for all but the wealthiest of earners who would see tax increase, increased funding for the ACA that would reduce the costs of all plans for Americans, and many many others that just got drowned out by nontroversies.

For someone who claims to get their information from the source, you often seem to be missing half or more of the story a lot of the time.

"She mentioned" is hardly a specific policy initiative (I know she talked about those things).

Also, part of being a successful politician is getting your message across through all the distraction. She totally failed to do that.

[Felya]

It's inaccurate to talk about a bubble anyway, because it's not as if there was ever a point in the past where people were more interconnected or absorbed information from more sources than they do now. People have always formed groups based around shared interests and beliefs, just because it's easier now to cross those boundaries than it used to be doesn't mean it will happen automatically.

The differences are more in your face now, due to technology. It used to be far more sectioned off into "bubbles", simply because you had your local news and your local newspaper dictate what you know. Right now, all bubble seems to be, is simply people's closing off for no reason other than refusal to acknowledge legitimacy of a different opinion. We no longer have barriers, beyond an internet connection. If you want news that only cater to your opinion, there are almost infinite sources for either news blogs or an aggregate that will regurgitate the same AP/Reuters to make it palatable for your bias.

I don't see that as a bubble, but simply people's need to confirm their bias. I might be wrong here, but a bubble around self, isn't really what a political bubble used to mean. Your bias reflect a lot more in the sources you seek, to customize your bubble to your own personal view. In that sense, what seems like a bubble, is more of a self constructed bubble suit... which isn't really a bubble, but a way personal opinion is expressed in the internet/media over abundance.

Unlike before, which is ironic, considering current political history... you have all the tools to have an informed opinion, regardless of what you choose as your prerogative. The fault for not being well informed falls squarely on the individual. The media flood we experience now, puts the blame in the individual, if they chose to close them selfs off. The idea of media as a malevolent force, shouldn't really work, because regardless of what the outlet is, you have a choice... more of a choice than ever... making anything that seems like a bubble, a construct of an individual's will.

- - - Updated - - -

The media doesn't misread what people think, the Media tries the control what you think.

Does the media control what sites you go to? Is it their fault you fall for click bait that reinforces the idea of said bait being exactly what you want... regardless of any lack of self control the thought control media forces on you?

- - - Updated - - -

"She mentioned" is hardly a specific policy initiative (I know she talked about those things).

Also, part of being a successful politician is getting your message across through all the distraction. She totally failed to do that.

I don't think she failed at that, as much as Trump provided a simpler solution. Which do you want to hear? That you will go back to school and get these phantom jobs or that jobs are coming back for you to do exactly what you have been? Trump provided easy answers without policy, Hillary's was policy that we have to work to achieve goals. While people attacking Trump were demanding policy answers, Hillary's camp should have told her to stop and instead just tell everyone it will just be fixed... "how" tells people what needs to be done, just saying it will be done, let's people relax and it will just happen... 'How' tells people they will lose coverage... 'how' means talking about effects of increased tariffs on your pocketbook... 'how' is a lot more difficult, than just saying it will be done.

[Endus]

Really? Despite not living in America, we actually had a lot of coverage of the US election. I knew the basic Trump policies, he repeated them ad nauseam and the liberal media talked about nothing else. The liberal media were also exclusively negative about all his policies. Clinton's policies however, were unknown. If I really wanted to know then I could have found out, but it wasn't in my face. Every time I saw her talk it was either to denigrate Trump or to promise to continue on with the same crap that had gone on before with Obama.

To suggest Clinton wasn't the medias chosen candidate is disingenuous in the extreme. They wanted her because she was female and she wasn't Trump. The American public has given the media the middle finger, and the love hate relationship between the 4th estate and the common folk has never been more profound.

1> "The media" isn't a thing. It's dozens of different unrelated companies. If you think of "the media" as a single hive mind, you're part of the problem, because you're attacking a fictional conspiracy theory you've invented in your own mind, not the truth of anything.

2> Blaming "the media" when you admit that if "you really wanted to know then you could have found out" is just a straight-up admission of willful ignorance, on your part. That's an acknowledgement of a deep character flaw, not a defense of your position. It's like saying "my toddler made me really angry, and that's why I kicked them in the face" or "I just really liked the look of the necklace, so I stole it." It's an admission of your personal failing, and in no way justifies your position, just underscores how completely unacceptable and indefensible it is, by providing your complete lack of justification for it.

[Macaquerie]

Unlike before, which is ironic, considering current political history... you have all the tools to have an informed opinion, regardless of what you choose as your prerogative. The fault for not being well informed falls squarely on the individual. The media flood we experience now, puts the blame in the individual, if they chose to close them selfs off. The idea of media as a malevolent force, shouldn't really work, because regardless of what the outlet is, you have a choice... more of a choice than ever... making anything that seems like a bubble, a construct of an individual's will.

From one perspective, you could see the current partisanship as sort of like the growing pains we are going through trying to integrate into a truly global community without all of the barriers that kept people apart before. Of course, conservatives have always dreaded this reality since they prefer to simply withdraw into their shells and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, but I think liberals were in for a rude awakening as well, since many just assumed that increased connectivity would just mean that everybody would hold hands and sing kumbaya, which was never going to be the case. If you look at any historical precedent, as society opens up there is always all sorts of conflict and friction in the immediate aftermath, while the benefits only start to pile up in the long term. So everyone just needs to realize this fact, get through the current unpleasantness, and work toward a better future...in the future.

[Felya]

From one perspective, you could see the current partisanship as sort of like the growing pains we are going through trying to integrate into a truly global community without all of the barriers that kept people apart before. Of course, conservatives have always dreaded this reality since they prefer to simply withdraw into their shells and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, but I think liberals were in for a rude awakening as well, since many just assumed that increased connectivity would just mean that everybody would hold hands and sing kumbaya, which was never going to be the case. If you look at any historical precedent, as society opens up there is always all sorts of conflict and friction in the immediate aftermath, while the benefits only start to pile up in the long term. So everyone just needs to realize this fact, get through the current unpleasantness, and work toward a better future...in the future.

That's a convoluted way of simply saying that two, even opposing arguments in government, can both be right. We have gone away from seeing that ultimately the goal or the outcome is intended to be the same, with the argument being of how we get there. That's why the rhetoric of Real Americans and MSM evils. You are not arguing the legitimacy of a plan to reach the goal, but the legitimacy of the individual making the argument. Should it really matter that an opinion is expressed by a liberal or a conservative, before the legitimacy of the opinion can be discussed?

It's the duality of the anonymity of the internet, with the limitless sources to confirm your anonymous opinion. No one in their right mind would approach a random person raving on the street corner. But, that same raving person on the internet, has the same exact platform, as the president of the US. They sound almost the same... which isn't a shot at Trump at all... just how normal it makes everyone in the giant cesspool of the internet seem.

[Theodarzna]

MOD NOTE: This was originally posted as a new thread. Since we had the same thread a few weeks back, I've merged the two to keep discussion in one place, rather than locking and redirecting to the old thread. There's no overlap in posting, so everything from this post on is the restarted discussion.

Last summer, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in what bettors, financial markets and the London-based media regarded as a colossal upset. Reporters and pundits were quick to blame the polls for the unexpected result. But the polls had been fine, more or less: In the closing days of the Brexit campaign, they’d shown an almost-even race, and Leave’s narrow victory (by a margin just under 4 percentage points) was about as consistent with them as it was with anything else. The failure was not so much with the polls but with the people who were analyzing them.

The U.S. presidential election, as I’ve argued, was something of a similar case. No, the polls didn’t show a toss-up, as they had in Brexit. But the reporting was much more certain of Clinton’s chances than it should have been based on the polls. Much of The New York Times’s coverage, for instance, implied that Clinton’s odds were close to 100 percent. In an article on Oct. 17 — more than three weeks before Election Day — they portrayed the race as being effectively over, the only question being whether Clinton should seek a landslide or instead assist down-ballot Democrats:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is planning its most ambitious push yet into traditionally right-leaning states, a new offensive aimed at extending her growing advantage over Donald J. Trump while bolstering down-ballot candidates in what party leaders increasingly suggest could be a sweeping victory for Democrats at every level. […]

The maneuvering speaks to the unexpected tension facing Mrs. Clinton as she hurtles toward what aides increasingly believe will be a decisive victory — a pleasant problem, for certain, but one that has nonetheless scrambled the campaign’s strategy weeks before Election Day: Should Mrs. Clinton maximize her own margin, aiming to flip as many red states as possible to run up an electoral landslide, or prioritize the party’s congressional fortunes, redirecting funds and energy down the ballot?

This is not to say the election was a toss-up in mid-October, which was one of the high-water marks of the campaign for Clinton. But while a Trump win was unlikely, it should hardly have been unthinkable.1 And yet the Times, famous for its “to be sure” equivocations,2 wasn’t even contemplating the possibility of a Trump victory.3

It’s hard to reread this coverage without recalling Sean Trende’s essay on “unthinkability bias,” which he wrote in the wake of the Brexit vote. Just as was the case in the U.S. presidential election, voting on the referendum had split strongly along class, education and regional lines, with voters outside of London and without advanced degrees being much more likely to vote to leave the EU. The reporters covering the Brexit campaign, on the other hand, were disproportionately well-educated and principally based in London. They tended to read ambiguous signs — anything from polls to the musings of taxi drivers — as portending a Remain win, and many of them never really processed the idea that Britain could vote to leave the EU until it actually happened.

So did journalists in Washington and London make the apocryphal Pauline Kael mistake, refusing to believe that Trump or Brexit could win because nobody they knew was voting for them? That’s not quite what Trende was arguing. Instead, it’s that political experts4 aren’t a very diverse group and tend to place a lot of faith in the opinions of other experts and other members of the political establishment. Once a consensus view is established, it tends to reinforce itself until and unless there’s very compelling evidence for the contrary position. Social media, especially Twitter, can amplify the groupthink further. It can be an echo chamber.

I recently reread James Surowiecki’s book “The Wisdom of Crowds” which, despite its name, spends as much time contemplating the shortcomings of such wisdom as it does celebrating its successes. Surowiecki argues5 that crowds usually make good predictions when they satisfy these four conditions:

Diversity of opinion. “Each person should have private information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.”
Independence. “People’s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them.”
Decentralization. “People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.”
Aggregation. “Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.”

Political journalism scores highly on the fourth condition, aggregation. While Surowiecki usually has something like a financial or betting market in mind when he refers to “aggregation,” the broader idea is that there’s some way for individuals to exchange their opinions instead of keeping them to themselves. And my gosh, do political journalists have a lot of ways to share their opinions with one another, whether through their columns, at major events such as the political conventions or, especially, through Twitter.

But those other three conditions? Political journalism fails miserably along those dimensions.

(source)

Statistician and political pollster Nate Silver (Soon to be recast as an alt-right troll for sure) has written a series of articles arguing there was in fact a liberal bubble. Though I wonder if that liberal bubble he describes remains or is a permanent feature.

[Dragon Claws]

Might as well say water is wet.

[Deathquoi]

There still is a liberal bubble. There's a conservative bubble too.

[s_bushido]

Didn't you post this exact thread a couple days ago?

[Theodarzna]

Didn't you post this exact thread a couple days ago?

Not that I am aware of.

[Spectral]

Didn't you post this exact thread a couple days ago?

Someone did. I think, anyway. That's basically fine though!

[Xeones]

(source)

Statistician and political pollster Nate Silver (Soon to be recast as an alt-right troll for sure) has written a series of articles arguing there was in fact a liberal bubble. Though I wonder if that liberal bubble he describes remains or is a permanent feature.

Liberal bubble is incorrect. What we experienced was an establishment bubble. When all the "statisticians" were saying Bernie was unelectable and we needed Hillary to beat an opponent no one could lose to (wasn't nate silver one of these?) it wasn't because they were liberal.