Does "Balanced Coverage" Work in the Age of Asymmetrical Polarization?

[PosPosPos]

You are comparing something every administration would do (and probably does)....and so 1 vague example vs 3 and things become equal?

The examples I stated is something Republicans actively want to destroy instead of fixing. Outside of braindead morons who claims that the tax plan of the GOP will do anything positive? Not economist, not even CEO's dared to raise there hands when they where asked the question if they would hire more people or increase wages.

You are arguing with someone who thinks "far left" is actually a thing like the far right.

Alt-righters like him are only capable of manufacturing outrage and strawmen enemies.

[Independent voter]

This is Newshour on PBS, Public Broadcasting Station. It's very balanced, usually they bring on spokespeople from both sides to debate the issue. I must say it can be boring at times.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/

You can stream from their site if you'd like to see for yourself.

[Dacien]

Sealionning(a specific subset of a concern troll that keeps pestering people with questions they don't actually want answers to, just doing it to wear down opponents) or simply showing false concern.

You see this everyday with people like Zenkai or Dacien.

Ironically, this is almost a form of logical fallacy in and of itself, somewhat like ad hominem. You seem to imply that the arguments may have validity, but the person making the arguments is presenting them in bad faith. Therefore, the topic becomes the bad faith position of the one making the arguments, not the arguments themselves.

This seems like a strategy that only becomes viable when refutations are not as easy to offer, and so attacking the motivations of the one making the argument is an easier (if arguably fallacious) and more appealing approach.

If you intend to argue that the arguments do not have merit, then I would argue that the plentiful number of sharp and intelligent posters here would swiftly put them down, and accusations of bad faith arguments would never be a factor.

[Mormolyce]

This is Newshour on PBS, Public Broadcasting Station. It's very balanced, usually they bring on spokespeople from both sides to debate the issue. I must say it can be boring at times.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/

You can stream from their site if you'd like to see for yourself.

It's pretty much the only US TV news I can stand.

I guess it is pretty dry, though Shields & Brooks is a bit livelier.

[Milchshake]

It's pretty much the only US TV news I can stand.

I guess it is pretty dry, though Shields & Brooks is a bit livelier.

Meh it's a far cry from being the The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour of years ago. I finally got tired of watching Judy Woodruff lob softballs at all her guests. Speaking of guests, Newshour has the same symptom as all other media in presenting both sides as equal. Every segment on climate change they drag up James Inhofe, he just ignores any of her serious questions and she never follows up.

Shields and Brooks can definitely be entertaining. But again, who is David Brooks supposed to represent? He's a coastal elite and is completely out of touch with the heartland reactionaries that run the GOP. Most of his contributions are paeans to the feelgood years of 1980's republicans.

Even his NYT articles are insufferable. Here's him blaming social decline and division of America on fancy sandwich shops....

[Mormolyce]

Shields and Brooks can definitely be entertaining. But again, who is David Brooks supposed to represent? He's a coastal elite and is completely out of touch with the heartland reactionaries that run the GOP. Most of his contributions are paeans to the feelgood years of 1980's republicans.

Even his NYT articles are insufferable. Here's him blaming social decline and division of America on fancy sandwich shops....

I do wonder that sometimes. He's a rational conservative so he has no place in the modern Republican Party.

But who could they realistically get in to sit opposite Shields that would strike a chord with the current crop? Maybe Tomi Lahren?

[Kellhound]

You are comparing something every administration would do (and probably does)....and so 1 vague example vs 3 and things become equal?

The examples I stated is something Republicans actively want to destroy instead of fixing. Outside of braindead morons who claims that the tax plan of the GOP will do anything positive? Not economist, not even CEO's dared to raise there hands when they where asked the question if they would hire more people or increase wages.

So if its bad but Democrats do it, its ok, that is what you are saying?

[PosPosPos]

Ironically, this is almost a form of logical fallacy in and of itself, somewhat like ad hominem. You seem to imply that the arguments may have validity, but the person making the arguments is presenting them in bad faith. Therefore, the topic becomes the bad faith position of the one making the arguments, not the arguments themselves.

Normally it would, until it's obvious Dacien comes along in bad faith and repeatedly ask the exact same questions in every thread no matter how many times an answer has been given to him.

This seems like a strategy that only becomes viable when refutations are not as easy to offer, and so attacking the motivations of the one making the argument is an easier (if arguably fallacious) and more appealing approach.

I think most people would question the motivations of someone who asks the same questions but refuses to accept any answer, no matter how much supporting evidence it comes with.

If you intend to argue that the arguments do not have merit, then I would argue that the plentiful number of sharp and intelligent posters here would swiftly put them down, and accusations of bad faith arguments would never be a factor.

Yes, and most of those posters have called you out on your false concern bullshit. You just ignore it and go on your usual gish gallop. That's clearly you posting in bad faith and shilling for Trump.

[Kellhound]

You are arguing with someone who thinks "far left" is actually a thing like the far right.

Alt-righters like him are only capable of manufacturing outrage and strawmen enemies.

The far left IS a thing like the far right, obviously you never bothered to study political science.

And to call me an alt-righter is quite funny, considering I am closer to the middle of the academic political spectrum as a whole than the Democratic Party is as a whole

[Dacien]

Normally it would, until it's obvious Dacien comes along in bad faith and repeatedly ask the exact same questions in every thread no matter how many times an answer has been given to him.

I think most people would question the motivations of someone who asks the same questions but refuses to accept any answer, no matter how much supporting evidence it comes with.

I'll tell you what, next time it happens, let me know, because as far as I can tell, it boils down to differing points of view. I defend my position quite well I think and admit when I'm wrong.

Yes, and most of those posters have called you out on your false concern bullshit. You just ignore it and go on your usual gish gallop. That's clearly you posting in bad faith and shilling for Trump.

No, it's really just you, Pos.

I think you've made up your mind about me, and that was demonstrated when you said that I would never oppose a Republican, and then I pointed out I've been calling for Roy Moore to step down since day one. You demonstrated it again when you said I would never support a Democrat, and I pointed out I defended Al Franken's seat in the initial accusations. You didn't really have any response at the time and just left the conversation.

You've got this caricature in your mind of how I post or the positions I stand for, and none of them are based in fact. I wouldn't give this as much time as I do but for the fact that this is a big problem as I see it in our discourse. We see somebody offering substantive and defensible positions that a person may not like, and they sort of do this thing where they begin to impute bad motives and bad characteristics to that person, and then become angry at their own imagination. It's destructive and shuts down discussion, and it's worth pointing out this phenomenon, specifically because I'm the target of this in your case.

I mean, holy mackerel, Pos, you compared me to an articulate guy you ran into once who was torturing and killing stray cats. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate.

[LaserSharkDFB]

The far left IS a thing like the far right, obviously you never bothered to study political science.

And to call me an alt-righter is quite funny, considering I am closer to the middle of the academic political spectrum as a whole than the Democratic Party is as a whole

You can say that the far left is a thing that exists, and that's true. But what you can't say is that it exists in the current political climate with as many adherents and supporters as the far right.

[Kellhound]

You can say that the far left is a thing that exists, and that's true. But what you can't say is that it exists in the current political climate with as many adherents and supporters as the far right.

As politics in the US is middle-right+ to begin with, that kinda goes without saying.

[ati87]

This is Newshour on PBS, Public Broadcasting Station. It's very balanced, usually they bring on spokespeople from both sides to debate the issue. I must say it can be boring at times.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/

You can stream from their site if you'd like to see for yourself.

That isn't balanced.

If every economist that is a little bit legitimate says ''the tax cuts won't pay for themselves and neither will it boost the economy'' and you have a single hack that is going to profit himself personally from those taxcuts and you put them up for debate that doesn't make it really balanced.

It's just gives the other side who is objectively wrong a platform and makes them legitimate while objectively they aren't.

[PosPosPos]

As politics in the US is middle-right+ to begin with, that kinda goes without saying.

At least you have the balls to admit you were just making up shit to argue over strawmen enemies that don't exist on a significant level.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll tell you what, next time it happens, let me know, because as far as I can tell, it boils down to differing points of view. I defend my position quite well I think and admit when I'm wrong.

I do, every time. As with others. You just don't agree, because you are beyond all facts and logic. As with all Trump supporters.

No, it's really just you, Pos.

I think you've made up your mind about me, and that was demonstrated when you said that I would never oppose a Republican, and then I pointed out I've been calling for Roy Moore to step down since day one. You demonstrated it again when you said I would never support a Democrat, and I pointed out I defended Al Franken's seat in the initial accusations. You didn't really have any response at the time and just left the conversation.

You've got this caricature in your mind of how I post or the positions I stand for, and none of them are based in fact. I wouldn't give this as much time as I do but for the fact that this is a big problem as I see it in our discourse. We see somebody offering substantive and defensible positions that a person may not like, and they sort of do this thing where they begin to impute bad motives and bad characteristics to that person, and then become angry at their own imagination. It's destructive and shuts down discussion, and it's worth pointing out this phenomenon, specifically because I'm the target of this in your case.

No, you chose to be what kind of person you wanted to be. I just went along with your character you chose for yourself.

Someone who supports pedophilia.
Someone who supports racism.
Someone who supports bigotry against minority groups, like LGBTs
Someone who believes in malicious authoritarianism.
Someone who believes in oligarchies.
Someone who believes only an elite few should have access to a better life.

I don't choose who you get to be, you do. This is the hole you dug yourself, don't blame others when they call eggs eggs. And if anyone is "shutting down discussion", it's posters like you who post in bad faith repeatedly. Just keep badgering others with questions you don't actually want answers to, and if you get tired, shamelessly show your true colors and openly shill for Trump and all the evil he stands for.

I mean, holy mackerel, Pos, you compared me to an articulate guy you ran into once who was torturing and killing stray cats. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate.

Because there are many parallels to draw an alt-righter with someone who tortures animals.

Mostly, their absolute and unquestionable lack of morals.

[Dmitro]

This is what people mean by "reality leans left". It's not so much that reality aligns with left-wing politics more often than not, it's that left-wing politics is generally more aligned with reality. Conservatives have been deeply out of touch with reality for a long time, so naturally "the facts" appear to be on the left...because the right has a shortage of facts.

loled tremendously hard reading this post while having "man gives birth/there are more than 2 genders/illegal aliens are no illegal aliens" titles going through my head (:

damn right wingers out of touch again

- - - Updated - - -

You are arguing with someone who thinks "far left" is actually a thing like the far right.
.

Its even bigger, I see lefties and commies much frequently than right-wing people, this is especially true when youre young and in college.

Bernie sanders and all his supporters are overwhelmingly far-left, you think they dont exist?

[Dacien]

No, you chose to be what kind of person you wanted to be. I just went along with your character you chose for yourself.

Someone who supports pedophilia.
Someone who supports racism.
Someone who supports bigotry against minority groups, like LGBTs
Someone who believes in malicious authoritarianism.
Someone who believes in oligarchies.
Someone who believes only an elite few should have access to a better life.

I don't choose who you get to be, you do. This is the hole you dug yourself, don't blame others when they call eggs eggs. And if anyone is "shutting down discussion", it's posters like you who post in bad faith repeatedly. Just keep badgering others with questions you don't actually want answers to, and if you get tired, shamelessly show your true colors and openly shill for Trump and all the evil he stands for.

Okay, let me ask you this, I'm trying to nail this down. The argument seems to be that if you support Trump or defend Trump in any way, you support pedophilia and racism and bigotry. I think that's the argument. So let's say I love Trump's decision on the TPP, I praise him for it and defend his decision as a good one. Let's say I do that. Does this now mean I support pedophilia?

Or does it have to be something more? Let's say I don't think Trump or Trump associates criminally colluded with Russia to influence the election, and I defend Trump on that issue. Does that mean I support pedophilia?

Or does it take a pattern of behavior? Does one need to support or defend Trump over multiple issues before they can be accused of supporting pedophilia?

Because there are many parallels to draw an alt-righter with someone who tortures animals.

If you have a specific post, something I said that endorses ethno-nationalism or white supremacy or anti-semitism or some other position associated with the alt-right, we can discuss that, but it's hard to have a serious discussion when you're just throwing around labels and accusations without any kind of basis.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The problem with the way a lot of the right wing feels these days about "balanced coverage" is they believe that a new site should report equal amounts of bad stuff about each party in order to be balanced.

But the problem with that, is that reporting equal amounts of bad stuff between the Republican and Democrat parties means discarding 95% of the bad shit that happens on the right, playing everything bad on the left, and filling the rest of your air time with filler BS.

Fox already reports the most inane and pointless stories just to try and fill their daily coverage with SOMETHING negative about the left, meanwhile we're flooded daily with so much bad shit that Trump and Republicans do that news agencies have a hard time fitting it all in a day.

[Krigaren]

"Balanced" coverage can only exist in a political landscape where the objectives of both sides have different approaches, but ultimately the same goal. That is not the world we live in anymore, however.

Back in the day, the biggest differences between the republicans and democrats is how they viewed economic and foreign policy. Republicans are for tax cuts, relaxation of regulations, and support a more aggressive military-first foreign policy. Democrats feel taxation and social programs are better for the economy, that regulations are necessary, and that diplomacy-first is the best foreign policy.

Those are all things that are reasonable and can be debated on their merits, and it's perfectly understandable that someone might be a republican or a democrat based on those merits. What modern American politics has turned into, however, is a battle that centers largely on theocracy.

Everything Republicans and the GOP stand for center around religion. Anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-Islam, climate change denial, it's all related and ties back to people's view of Christianity in this country. Abortion is murder and against god. LGBT is an abomination and against god. Islam is the enemy of christianity. Climate change isn't real because god made the earth for man, plus the rapture is coming soon so bringing about the end of days is totally okay.

The GOP tries to position itself as the "moral" party and preys on people's blind faith to control them, rather than it's roots of being the party of fiscal responsibility. Fiscal conservatism these days is a mask for the GOP to hide behind in order to re-distribute the nation's wealth back to the 1% and to their corporate donors. Why else would the GOP be against net neutrality? Why else would they be against the EPA or other regulatory bodies which hold corporations accountable for societal or environmental damage? Why else would the GOP support tax plans that disproportionately benefit the wealthy? Why else would the GOP have pushed for citizens united, allowing wealth to determine political power? Why else would the GOP shift money away from social safety nets from citizens who need it, only to give that money away to unnecessary corporate subsidies?

Are Democrats guilty of corporate cronyism? Hell yes they are. If we've seen anything these last couple years, it's that the democratic party has just as many issues with credibility and corruption when it comes to corporate cronyism. But will they sell the American people down the river in order to give Bill gates another tax cut? No, they absolutely won't. They also don't use people's religion, or fear of foreigners to motivate their base to support economically disadvantageous policies. The left, in general, has also overwhelmingly supported constitutional rights - including the 2A - as long as there are reasonable limits that are in the interests of protecting society at large.

What needs to happen in this country is the complete removal of money and religion in our politics. Those two things alone will destroy our republic, and has already done a tremendous amount of damage. The Truth in Reporting regulations also need to be re-established (stripped by the GOP) in order to move closer to the ideal of a "balanced" media, where news outlets on BOTH sides will face significant consequences for false or misleading reporting.

This country can heal, but old prejudices, bigotries, and a significant amount of education made available to the general population (to help teach people how to view and filter bias in particular) will be the ways we can do that. An open internet, easier access to higher education, and economic stability will be the major paths to that ideal - all things that the GOP resists.

[Halicia]

There are two problems that prevent "balanced coverage", first is that news largely serves to satisfy the appetite of the consumer... and the consumers have largely demanded an echo chamber from their news providers.

The second is that many topics of coverage are unbalanced by nature. If a politician goes on a shooting rampage in a kindergarten, is it fair for him to be demanding equal "good coverage" as well ?

Sometimes the reason people only say bad things about someone or something, is because there's actually nothing good to say about it... but its still an important topic for discussion...

[Kellhound]

At least you have the balls to admit you were just making up shit to argue over strawmen enemies that don't exist on a significant level.

- - - Updated - - -



I do, every time. As with others. You just don't agree, because you are beyond all facts and logic. As with all Trump supporters.



No, you chose to be what kind of person you wanted to be. I just went along with your character you chose for yourself.

Someone who supports pedophilia.
Someone who supports racism.
Someone who supports bigotry against minority groups, like LGBTs
Someone who believes in malicious authoritarianism.
Someone who believes in oligarchies.
Someone who believes only an elite few should have access to a better life.

I don't choose who you get to be, you do. This is the hole you dug yourself, don't blame others when they call eggs eggs. And if anyone is "shutting down discussion", it's posters like you who post in bad faith repeatedly. Just keep badgering others with questions you don't actually want answers to, and if you get tired, shamelessly show your true colors and openly shill for Trump and all the evil he stands for.



Because there are many parallels to draw an alt-righter with someone who tortures animals.

Mostly, their absolute and unquestionable lack of morals.

No, I called you out on a lie and you dont have the balls to admit it.