About Media and Institution political biases

[Endus]

You do assume they're incompetent and are incapable of knowing what their audience is.

Wrong. I'm just not blaming them for some invented population-wide prejudices, like you are.

[Freighter]

Wrong. I'm just not blaming them for some invented population-wide prejudices, like you are.

I'm not blaming them for anything. I just don't think they're incompetent.

[Endus]

I'm not blaming them for anything. I just don't think they're incompetent.

Instead, you imagine up magical bias that inserts itself into the brains of their consumers without any evidence of such bias in the actual journalism, because that's how you think bias works.

It isn't. That's you thinking that the entire readership/viewership of a particular outlet all share exactly the same prejudices in exactly the same way. Which is obviously ridiculous. You don't get to pretend that every outlet is "biased" and then argue that you can't SEE the bias because it's not in what they SAY or they DO. That's literally admitting there isn't any bias.

[Freighter]

Instead, you imagine up magical bias that inserts itself into the brains of their consumers without any evidence of such bias in the actual journalism, because that's how you think bias works.

It isn't. That's you thinking that the entire readership/viewership of a particular outlet all share exactly the same prejudices in exactly the same way. Which is obviously ridiculous. You don't get to pretend that every outlet is "biased" and then argue that you can't SEE the bias because it's not in what they SAY or they DO. That's literally admitting there isn't any bias.

Just one question before I proceed:

Do you think dog whistling is a thing?

[Endus]

Just one question before I proceed:

Do you think dog whistling is a thing?

Sure.

You haven't provided any examples of such in any of your posts.

[Freighter]

Sure.

You haven't provided any examples of such in any of your posts.

"Black man shot by shopkeeper" is one such example.

Why do you think some media are so insistent on mentioning more than just that it was a man? It's not because they want to be factual.

[Endus]

"Black man shot by shopkeeper" is one such example.

No. It isn't.

You apparently think that any reference to someone being black is coded language. That's insane.

Why do you think some media are so insistent on mentioning more than just that it was a man? It's not because they want to be factual.

Because it's relevant information, given that racial divides are still a big deal in the United States.
It's literally a fact related to the story. Would it be biased if they mentioned that the shopkeeper managed a grocery store? If they mentioned that the gun was a shotgun? These are just additional details that better describe the incident.

That is not bias. Thinking that any reference to anyone being black is coded language is nothing more than an assumption that the entire media's consumer base is racist. Which is just flat-out obviously wrong.

[Freighter]

No. It isn't.

Yes.

Some media in South Korea like to clue in readers on the fact that someone is not korean if they commit a crime. Do you think they just want to be factual? No. Black people fight in Itaweon? Better say they were black people fighting, give people the imagery that they're violent. Why not just say there was a fight? I mean, saying they were black people is factually correct but it it also wholly irrelevant to the fight itself.

Because it's relevant information, given that racial divides are still a big deal in the United States.

It's wholly irrelevant what race someone is. Man or person should be sufficient.

[Endus]

Yes.

Some media in South Korea like to clue in readers on the fact that someone is not korean if they commit a crime. Do you think they just want to be factual? No. Black people fight in Itaweon? Better say they were black people fighting, give people the imagery that they're violent. Why not just say there was a fight? I mean, saying they were black people is factually correct but it it also wholly irrelevant to the fight itself.

And now you're transplanting context as if that's not relevant.

It's wholly irrelevant what race someone is. Man or person should be sufficient.

Not automatically, no. Why is it relevant that it was a man? Or a person, for that matter? You're not even being internally consistent, you're saying some factors are relevant to mention, but others aren't, and your only justification for that is a projected assumption of individual prejudice by viewers/readers, for which you have presented no evidence whatsoever.

[Mormolyce]

This extensively leans on the middle ground fallacy. The reality is that the right wing in the US has been increasingly radicalised, and by those standards actually neutral grounds become "left leaning". It is very likely a deliberate tactic by the right, in fact.

The politicisation of objective reality is driven by the right in the US. Because they cannot bring themselves to let go of falsehoods they've embraced for decades now, their only recourse is to attack truth itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Dismissive nonsense. Every time you people pretend that you haven't moved far to the left you make yourselves look like fools.

So how many industries did Obama nationalise?

Oh what's that? That's a completely alien concept to you?

Guess what, that's what "far to the left" really means.

[Levelfive]

The OP cut paragraphs from between paragraphs and even removed Roman numerals so it wouldn't be obvious that part III was removed entirely, in what seems to be an ongoing, bad faith, and thus far fruitless attempt to play superficial 1 move check mate (if you object you prove the point! what now, liberal!), while trying to make a point about "the other side's" bias in the delivery of information...

I think the person partially quoted is arguing in good faith, and seems genuinely to believe, for instance, that Gamergate was "originally [a] movement[] to fight a perceived liberal bias in regular gaming/sci-fi" and that things like Fox News sprang up as "noble attempts to avoid bias," which I will simply note without comment. But this is a game we lose just by playing: The call for and soul searching itself is invariably uni-directional--the right has waged a relentless campaign for years to sow suspicion about and distrust in the institutions now being taken to task for being suspicious and untrustable, which are then blamed for making the right do it. Let's not get suckered into debating the culpability of research, of news, of facts for causing the shitshow the right has been cultivating for 40 years.

[downnola]

The OP cut paragraphs from between paragraphs and even removed Roman numerals so it wouldn't be obvious that part III was removed entirely, in what seems to be an ongoing, bad faith, and thus far fruitless attempt to play superficial 1 move check mate (if you object you prove the point! what now, liberal!), while trying to make a point about "the other side's" bias in the delivery of information...

I think the person partially quoted is arguing in good faith, and seems genuinely to believe, for instance, that Gamergate was "originally [a] movement[] to fight a perceived liberal bias in regular gaming/sci-fi" and that things like Fox News sprang up as "noble attempts to avoid bias," which I will simply note without comment. But this is a game we lose just by playing: The call for and soul searching itself is invariably uni-directional--the right has waged a relentless campaign for years to sow suspicion about and distrust in the institutions now being taken to task for being suspicious and untrustable, which are then blamed for making the right do it. Let's not get suckered into debating the culpability of research, of news, of facts for causing the shitshow the right has been cultivating for 40 years.

The left is their own best critic. There's a long tradition within the left of calling out rank partisanship and dishonesty since the days of Orwell. Many of the harshest critics of political bias and ideological indoctrination in our institutions come from left leaning people (Chomsky on Postmodernism in Universities is one such example). Dismissing this phenomenon as a partisan attack by right wingers seems like a way to say "We're not doing anything wrong. This is clearly just a divide and conquer tactic by the right." I don't think that is the case at all. The left, at least as far as the U.S. in concerned, is an ideological mess, and is in desperate need of soul searching. Democrats ignore that at their own peril.

[Daelak]

and conquer tactic by the right." I don't think that is the case at all. The left, at least as far as the U.S. in concerned, is an ideological mess, and is in desperate need of soul searching. Democrats ignore that at their own peril.

If one didn't have the historical evidence showing over a century's worth of the US rightwing engaging in the production of outright falsehoods meant to be bolster their positions as credible, you would have a point, but sadly, US conservatism has a storied history in creating their own facts and delusions to be pushed on the populace.

[Levelfive]

The left is their own best critic. There's a long tradition within the left of calling out rank partisanship and dishonesty since the days of Orwell. Many of the harshest critics of political bias and ideological indoctrination in our institutions come from left leaning people (Chomsky on Postmodernism in Universities is one such example). Dismissing this phenomenon as a partisan attack by right wingers seems like a way to say "We're not doing anything wrong. This is clearly just a divide and conquer tactic by the right." I don't think that is the case at all. The left, at least as far as the U.S. in concerned, is an ideological mess, and is in desperate need of soul searching. Democrats ignore that at their own peril.

Actually, what I'm rejecting are disingenuous calls from the right for "soul searching" the right would never bother engaging in that the left already does, as you note, as a matter of course. It's like when trolls try to drag people into nonsense arguments over things like tolerating intolerance, not because the trolls give a shit about tolerance or fairness or would ever turn a critical eye onto their own behavior, but because it amuses them.

[downnola]

If one didn't have the historical evidence showing over a century's worth of the US rightwing engaging in the production of outright falsehoods meant to be bolster their positions as credible, you would have a point, but sadly, US conservatism has a storied history in creating their own facts and delusions to be pushed on the populace.

As with any political movement, there are intellectually honest right-wingers, and there are horseshit peddling charlatans. I'm not going to assign the sins of someone like Hannity to every member of the right. The same goes for pretending that every left-winger is a carbon copy of Michael Moore, and should be taken to task for his idiocy.

[Daelak]

As with any political movement, there are intellectually honest right-wingers, and there are horseshit peddling charlatans. I'm not going to assign the sins of someone like Hannity to every member of the right. The same goes for pretending that every left-winger is a carbon copy of Michael Moore, and should be taken to task for his idiocy.

The 'honest' right wingers are moderate republicans who are considered outcasts and exiled from US conservatism's cause. Like Murkowski, Collins, and the millions of voters who no longer find common cause with them. The rest, and I mean literally the bulk of legislators, political operatives, and entertainers who call themselves conservative are snake oil salesmen, pushing 1950's era propaganda about tax reform, welfare reform, voter ID, school choice, as a mask to their underlying goal of nullifying federal authority to ensure federal and state protections/funds will not be accessible to people of color, women, and non-Christian worshippers. It's the same goal as the confederates of the 19th century. They invented phrenology, biblical justifications for slavery, and economic theory that showed the southern society as the most efficient and most moral economic system in the world.

Fast forward to the 1950's and conservatives (read: segregationists) repackaged their antipathy for federal protections for blacks and minorities under the guise of 'states rights' and 'tax reform', 'school choice' via schools created by the funds of wealthy segregationists in Universities like Chicago and Virginia, or think tanks like AEI, Cato, etc. etc. etc. The watershed moment of the modern conservative movement was the candidacy of Barry Goldwater, who won all southern states and Arizona under the 'states' rights' moniker, and from then on, the republican strategy was to further this cause of federal nullification.

[downnola]

The 'honest' right wingers are moderate republicans who are considered outcasts and exiled from US conservatism's cause. Like Murkowski, Collins, and the millions of voters who no longer find common cause with them. The rest, and I mean literally the bulk of legislators, political operatives, and entertainers who call themselves conservative are snake oil salesmen, pushing 1950's era propaganda about tax reform, welfare reform, voter ID, school choice, as a mask to their underlying goal of nullifying federal authority to ensure federal and state protections/funds will not be accessible to people of color, women, and non-Christian worshippers. It's the same goal as the confederates of the 19th century. They invented phrenology, biblical justifications for slavery, and economic theory that showed the southern society as the most efficient and most moral economic system in the world.

Fast forward to the 1950's and conservatives (read: segregationists) repackaged their antipathy for federal protections for blacks and minorities under the guise of 'states rights' and 'tax reform', 'school choice' via schools created by the funds of wealthy segregationists in Universities like Chicago and Virginia, or think tanks like AEI, Cato, etc. etc. etc. The watershed moment of the modern conservative movement was the candidacy of Barry Goldwater, who won all southern states and Arizona under the 'states' rights' moniker, and from then on, the republican strategy was to further this cause of federal nullification.

This posts reads like an excerpt from a Nancy MacClean book or a ThinkProgress post. There's some truth to what you say of course (though I think it generalizes and leaves out quite a bit), but what does it have to do with the left looking inwards? The faults of the right are no excuse to avoid self-criticism.

[Endus]

This posts reads like an excerpt from a Nancy MacClean book or a ThinkProgress post. There's some truth to what you say of course (though I think it generalizes and leaves out quite a bit), but what does it have to do with the left looking inwards? The faults of the right are no excuse to avoid self-criticism.

The ideological variance among Democrats that you opened this with is that kind of self-reflection. The Democratic Party has no desire to enforce some kind of ideological mandate within its ranks, and there's no reason it should. That's an argument for blind partisanship, not informed self-reflection.

[Daelak]

This posts reads like an excerpt from a Nancy MacClean book or a ThinkProgress post. There's some truth to what you say of course (though I think it generalizes and leaves out quite a bit), but what does it have to do with the left looking inwards? The faults of the right are no excuse to avoid self-criticism.

Like what? What does it leave out? Because the entire premise is predicated that the left has done the same thing as the right for centuries, which is completely untrue. False equivalence is the name of the game, and as long as the right-wing can inject doubt, falsehoods, and fake science, economics, government philosophy, into the national discourse to sow confusion, all people who enjoy their rights in a democracy lose.

[downnola]

The ideological variance among Democrats that you opened this with is that kind of self-reflection. The Democratic Party has no desire to enforce some kind of ideological mandate within its ranks, and there's no reason it should. That's an argument for blind partisanship, not informed self-reflection.

You're misreading my posts if you think I'm calling for ideological mandates within the Democratic party. I'd certainly argue for some kind of unifying message that brings the various factions together to defeat the mess we have in office now. Regardless, what I'm essentially trying to say is that people on the left need to stop with the "whataboutism" nonsense whenever someone points out their faults.

- - - Updated - - -

Like what? What does it leave out? Because the entire premise is predicated that the left has done the same thing as the right for centuries, which is completely untrue. False equivalence is the name of the game, and as long as the right-wing can inject doubt, falsehoods, and fake science, economics, government philosophy, into the national discourse to sow confusion, all people who enjoy their rights in a democracy lose.

It leaves out the fact that a good portion of the right during the 60's and onward was fighting an ideological battle with the Soviet Union and it's apologists. You also left out the inconvenient fact that many on the left ignored and downplayed what went on in the east and elsewhere in the name of communism and the working class. Your whole narrative, while certainly true in some regards, is a perfect example of how deep the ideological blind spots progressives and others on the left are.