A majority of Americans say this is the biggest threat to democracy

[SunsetBengal]

The mainstream media

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nearly-60-percent-see-mainstream-media-as-a-threat-to-democracy-poll/ar-AA139dwF?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=370ca46bb4354daeb7629757e9aa4d47

Quote:More than half of all registered voters see the mainstream media as a threat to American democracy, according to a new poll.

Provided by The Hill
A New York Times-Siena College poll published Tuesday found 59 percent of voters view the media as a “major threat to democracy,” while 25 percent said the press is a “minor threat” and only 15 percent said it poses no threat.

The divide fell sharply along partisan lines, with 87 percent of voters who supported former President Trump in 2020 indicating they view the media is a major threat, while 33 percent of Biden voters during that election cycle said the same thing.

Overall, 71 percent of voters agreed that democracy is under threat, while only 7 percent of voters rank a threat to democracy as a major issue this midterm election cycle.

An annual Gallup survey also published this week found only 34 percent of Americans believe major news organizations will report “fully, accurately and fairly” on current events, only slightly higher than in 2016, the lowest percentage the polling firm has ever recorded.

The New York Times-Siena College poll was conducted from Oct. 9 to Oct. 12 among 793 registered voters and has margin of error of 4 percentage points.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

[Belsnickel]

Interesting. I am trying to find the claim from your title in the article and failing.

[*Nately120*]

87% of people who support Trump echo a talking point he's been repeating for years on end? Shocking.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-20-2022, 12:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: 87% of people who support Trump echo a talking point he's been repeating for years on end?  Shocking.

That is still less than 41% of voters, that other nearly 20% that feel the same way didn't vote for Trump.  When you factor in that another 25% believe that mainstream media is a minor threat to democracy, that's a total of 84% of voters that feel that the media is a threat to democracy, to some degree.

[*Nately120*]

(10-20-2022, 01:20 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is still less than 41% of voters, that other nearly 20% that feel the same way didn't vote for Trump.  When you factor in that another 25% believe that mainstream media is a minor threat to democracy, that's a total of 84% of voters that feel that the media is a threat to democracy, to some degree.

Yes, and I'd wager the average person who thinks the "mainstream media" is a danger also watches and gets their views from a mainstream media source but doesn't consider it mainstream media because the term mainstream media has been used as a political insult and boogieman for so long that it's lost objective meaning.

The for-profit media is just giving us what we are paying to see and hear, and that now, includes hearing that the mainstream media is a lying threat to democracy.  Interesting. 

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 01:20 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is still less than 41% of voters, that other nearly 20% that feel the same way didn't vote for Trump.  When you factor in that another 25% believe that mainstream media is a minor threat to democracy, that's a total of 84% of voters that feel that the media is a threat to democracy, to some degree.

And I understand and might have counted myself to this group. I do feel your media landscape is a threat to democracy.

I wouldn't restrict that to the left leaning media though.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-20-2022, 01:48 PM)hollodero Wrote: And I understand and might have counted myself to this group. I do feel your media landscape is a threat to democracy.

I wouldn't restrict that to the left leaning media though.

Neither I, nor the article said a word about political leanings of mainstream media.  I do agree with you that both sides are guilty of polarization of the viewers (voters).

[hollodero]

(10-20-2022, 01:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Neither I, nor the article said a word about political leanings of mainstream media.  I do agree with you that both sides are guilty of polarization of the viewers (voters).

Oh, alright. I am used to people saying "mainstream media" and only referring to the more liberal leaning ones with that term.

[*Nately120*]

(10-20-2022, 01:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Neither I, nor the article said a word about political leanings of mainstream media.  I do agree with you that both sides are guilty of polarization of the viewers (voters).

True, but the article shows which side of the political coin is onboard with the idea that the media is the enemy, and I doubt they got that idea from a poorly-Xeroxed newsletter they got on the corner. 

The idea that the government and media can't be trusted is nothing new, but it's become so mainstream now that the media and government get support and make money off of the idea that the media and government can't be trusted...it's wacky.  We all knew someone who "knew" that fluoridated water was a government/communist mind control plot, but now that guy and people who think like him are way more united than before and paranoia sells.

So basically, we love media and government officials who tell us that everyone one except them is lying to us and out to get us.  This ends well, I'm sure.

[StoneTheCrow]

Choca Choca chip (ooh and ah and clap like seals)

We’re all trying to find the guy who did this.

[StoneTheCrow]

Holy flipping mackerel. The @nytopinion platforms an eco-terrorist:

"Mr. Malm is the author of “How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire.”"

"When activists from the same group smashed gas stations in April this year, they hit the nail on the head." pic.twitter.com/Rm3xoKKasn

— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) October 21, 2022

They served this one right up.

[Dill]

(10-20-2022, 12:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: 87% of people who support Trump echo a talking point he's been repeating for years on end?  Shocking.

I didn't believe it when I first heard it.

But now that it has been repeated so many times I'm sure it must be true.

[Dill]

(10-20-2022, 01:20 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That is still less than 41% of voters, that other nearly 20% that feel the same way didn't vote for Trump.  When you factor in that another 25% believe that mainstream media is a minor threat to democracy, that's a total of 84% of voters that feel that the media is a threat to democracy, to some degree.

I think Fox and Newsmax are a threat to democracy. 

But I don't think media as a whole are.

So unfair. We have a media which sells news as a commodity, i.e., they thrive on giving the customers what they want.

And what's their thanks for that? 

[Rotobeast]

Operation Mockingbird...

Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2022, 05:23 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Operation Mockingbird...

Sent from my SM-S515DL using Tapatalk

I get so tired of hearing about that. I have some QAnon folks in my family and they reference that all the time. They refer to anything they deem to be "fake news" these day as Operation Mockingbird. It's apparently a common thing in that community.

To the thread topic in general: The truth of the matter when it comes to the media is that it is a for-profit operation. The majority of media is fueled by advertisers and run by corporations. Neither of these groups have any sincere interest in making sure that what the people receive is accurate and comprehensive information that impacts their lives. They push the stories they want pushed with the viewpoint they want them to be presented in. This has been going on for decades.

Between that, the oversimplification of the information pushed out by these outlets, and blurring of the lines between news and entertainment, and many other smaller impact things it should be no surprise that people are feeling this way about the media.

I would point out, though, that this poll didn't say that people though media was the biggest threat to democracy. That is a misrepresentation of the polling information that is honestly akin to the critiques lumped onto the media. The polling questions asked whether they saw certain things as a threat to democracy. An important differentiation. Media certainly scored the highest, but unsurprisingly a majority also saw Trump as a threat to democracy.

The biggest thing to keep in mind is that what the average person sees as a threat to democracy doesn't legitimize the idea that it is. I would agree that the current state of our media landscape is a threat to our democracy, I've made that abundantly clear over the years as people have relied more and more on media that is becoming extremist in their views and/or are too embedded with the political machines as they work to please their corporate overlords raking in the money from the masses as they sell us as their product to advertisers.

I do, however, tend to see other things as large threats to democracy like wanting to not count every vote from an eligible citizen, or removing eligible citizens from the voting roles, or making it more difficult for eligible citizens to vote. Those are direct attacks against democracy as opposed to the indirect ones mounted from the media. The problem is that the indirect attacks are so outrageous and attention grabbing (and often times covering up or excusing them) these direct attacks are going ignored.

There are people in this country right now that are directly attacking our democratic principles, but most people pay it no mind.

[CJD]

I 100% think the 24 hours news cycle that prioritizes getting clicks and views over actually reporting the news is a danger to democracy (oh, the joys of capitalism). There are varying levels of this across the spectrum. I think CNN and MSNBC stopped reporting news in 2016 when they realized if they just broadcast Trump 24 hours a day, their views would skyrocket because liberals LOVE to hate Trump. They throw in some non-Trump stories here and there, but Trump is probably 80 to 90% of their daily schedule.

However, it'd be a false equivalence to say they are equally as bad as right wing news sources like Fox News and Newsmax, which just openly lie to their viewers. The centrist channels (CNN and MSNBC) aren't concerned with fact reporting, but they don't seem to be intentionally lying to their viewers on the scale that Fox and affiliates do.

So yea, I would probably have been in the camp of people saying media is a threat to democracy, as democracy cannot function with almost half of the population being lied to on a daily basis, but what are you gonna do? Free speech and all that etc.

[Dill]

(10-24-2022, 07:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I do, however, tend to see other things as large threats to democracy like wanting to not count every vote from an eligible citizen, or removing eligible citizens from the voting roles, or making it more difficult for eligible citizens to vote. Those are direct attacks against democracy as opposed to the indirect ones mounted from the media. The problem is that the indirect attacks are so outrageous and attention grabbing (and often times covering up or excusing them) these direct attacks are going ignored.

There are people in this country right now that are directly attacking our democratic principles, but most people pay it no mind.

I agree the bolded are SERIOUS threats to democracy. But,

I don't live in DC, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona or Nevada. Everything I know about what is going on there comes from "the media." 

From the MSM I get a more accurate picture of what is actually going on, especially the "direct threats" you say people pay no mind to. From the RWM I get a sense of how people are lied to and misdirected, whipped to fever pitches of grievance and hatred, then directed to anti-democratic solutions.

We have what you call "direct attacks" because the "indirect attacks" have prepared people to support anti-democratic policies and actors. That's why the seriousness of "indirect" should not be underestimated.

For decades they have undermined political judgment to the point that people have difficulty telling truth from falsehood. MSM has been slow responding to this, in part because they don't want to respond in kind, but to present news even handedly. Trump came to power they had interminable debates about whether to say "Trump is lying" rather than just reporting the lie like ordinary news. Then when they decided for the fuller, more accurate reporting, the RWM then had plenty of fodder to claim "liberal bias." "Howcum they didn't call Obama a liar when he said you could keep your doctor?!?!" The MSM often tried to overcompensate, e.g., by keeping Hillary's emails a big story back in 2016.

So when I say the MSM has an ideal of presenting news even handedly and accurately, I'm not claiming they don't include biased editors or never make mistakes. I cannot imagine a perfect news world in any society, even in a diverse social democracy. What I am saying is that now an ever increasing number of people is ready to assume that the whole of MSM is disqualified by a few actors or errors, but are happy to embrace a much more deliberately inaccurate and unbalanced news sources. The environment of media consumers has become so distorted that even remarking on this disparity in accuracy and fair treatment brings the charge of bias and whattabout counters. "Trump claimed the election was stolen and tried to block the legitimate transfer of power to Biden? Well Hillary said she had doubts about the 2016 election after conceding. What about THAT, hunh?? Both sides do it." "You say Fox is biased, but what about the MSM constantly attacking Trump?!?" The quiet part being "attacking Trump for constantly lying and violating the rule of law in spirit and letter like no president in history."  They're like doctors who can no longer perform triage: bleeding femoral artery here, broken finger over there? How to decide which is the greater threat without bias? 

 It is often presumed/claimed there is a "far left" as extreme, numerous and politically empowered as the far right, mirror images, and both sides are working equally to divide the country at the expense of a reasonable and moderate middle. Saying "both sides do it" appears to many as a way of NOT being biased and retaining appearance of independence, but in the current political environment that requires unbalanced judgment regarding both the level of threat and its source. 

So we have direct threats to democracy because 1) large numbers of people can no longer accurately discern direct threats or where they come from, and 2) in consequence a growing number are embracing anti-democratic politics, ever more openly. Quite possibly they have always existed in large numbers, but didn't have visibility a voice and legitimacy--at least since  the 50s.

This paralysis is not all the MSM's fault. I think our education institutions, especially at the secondary level, could do a better job of preparing students for a world in which corporations (e.g., big tobacco and oil) spend millions to create alternative authorities and facts to paralyze judgment and selectively discredit science. They could also do a better job of foregrounding historical precedents and the conditions under which previous democracies collapsed into totalitarianism as right wing pluralities discredited the free press and delegitimized liberal democracy to protect everyone from "the left." Then we might have a greater mass of voters who wouldn't "pay it no mind" when authoritarian politics arises in their very midst. But there is considerable resistance to that. The energy is behind exposing the climate change "hoax," and creating laws to ban Sharia, CRT and a woman's right to choose. 
 

[treee]

Anything that might disrupt a corporate entities ability to generate profit, you can expect that corporate news will be incentivized to report on it in a certain fashion.

I'd say a lack of media literacy is the biggest danger and not legacy media itself. You can find useful analysis anywhere if you know what information can be useful and what to discard.

Another thing I've noticed is that the general population seems to not deal well with what you might call "live information environments". In environments when there is incomplete information, people have trouble operating in the probability space where you have make educated guesses for the time being. Then you have to factor in malicious actors deliberately putting out bad information or discrediting true/useful information.


We've had multiple models of information sharing through our history. Broadly you can think of it in stages: Person to person -> Print -> Radio/TV -> Internet. The first stage being the longest that we used to hundreds of thousands of years, Print being used for thousands of years (and it really got a boost with the printing press), and Radio/TV for about a hundred years now. The internet is very fundamentally different than Print & Radio/TV. The internet is really unprecedented in how much is has upended the dominant Radio/TV model we've been under for so long up until the start of this century.

[*pally*]

People are using media for affirmation of their beliefs as opposed to information.

[Dill]

(10-25-2022, 03:38 AM)treee Wrote: Anything that might disrupt a corporate entities ability to generate profit, you can expect that corporate news will be incentivized to report on it in a certain fashion.

I'd say a lack of media literacy is the biggest danger and not legacy media itself. You can find useful analysis anywhere if you know what information can be useful and what to discard.

Another thing I've noticed is that the general population seems to not deal well with what you might call "live information environments". In environments when there is incomplete information, people have trouble operating in the probability space where you have make educated guesses for the time being. Then you have to factor in malicious actors deliberately putting out bad information or discrediting true/useful information.

We've had multiple models of information sharing through our history. Broadly you can think of it in stages: Person to person -> Print -> Radio/TV -> Internet. The first stage being the longest that we used to hundreds of thousands of years, Print being used for thousands of years (and it really got a boost with the printing press), and Radio/TV for about a hundred years now. The internet is very fundamentally different than Print & Radio/TV. The internet is really unprecedented in how much is has upended the dominant Radio/TV model we've been under for so long up until the start of this century.

Excellent points down the line.  In reverse order: 

Nicholas Carr wrote a wonderful article for the Atlantic in 2008, "Is Google Making Us Stupid," which argues that people raised on the internet do not experience "deep reading" and "deep learning" of the type prevalent since Gutenberg. The tendency has been increasingly toward sound bites without context. I suspect that is one reason why false equivalences come so easy now. Sound bit info lends itself more readily to equal weighting.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/.

On the "live info environment"--I think this also speaks to a general lack of understanding how science works, which may be increasing. There may be a religious component as well--you have "faith" in sources until they prove contradictory and erroneous. Science is constantly invalidating previous knowledge, never finally authoritative the way the Bible is for believers. What happens when Believers evaluate science-based policy during a pandemic? First Fauci said "no masks" and "close schools" and then he said "never mind"--so was he LYING the first time around? He and the government must not know anything if they change their minds. Hannity was right all along. How can I trust them on the vaccine? 

I've read a lot of good reporting over the last 20 years. But so many people come at the news with an attitude, situating reporters/news on the political spectrum first as a criterion of credibility/accuracy, then deciding whether to read or whether what they are reading is "true." There is a social aspect to this as well, as like minded friends agree and share confirmation bias news. If all that stopped, some of the needed CRITICAL media literacy might take care of itself.