Doublethink, Doubledown, Deprogram: Ramifications of "the Big Lie"

[hollodero]

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You be the judge.  

Close call.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, because you made a direct call for illegal action.  You can say someone is evil and that you believe they've committed infanticide but the minute you state that someone should kill them you've crossed the line.

Got it. Reasonable. Though from an absolute puristic standpoint, this can already be regarded as a limitation of free speech. Which would be my stance, that there is no such thing like absolute free speech. There's always some kind of limitation (calls for violence, illegal activities, slander etc.)
And based on that I could already create some kind of slippery slope. Eg. QAnon members. That could be seen as maybe even calling for, but at the very least of actively approving of acts of domestic terrorism. I don't know if liking an incendiary facebook post qualifies for that, but in theory, inviting a QAnon member on a TV show, or allowing them to sit in Congress, and to use these platforms to increase their popularity, could be seen as giving aid and comfort to a domestic foe. Guess I could argue that for that reason, Ms. Marjorie should be more or less banned from public life. I don't really know if I'm in favor of that, but at the very least I would not find it chilling to think in that direction.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, there's certainly an element of hypocrisy there, some "good for me but not for thee".  I will cut the people of that time some slack as the atrocities of the NAZI regime were so mind blowing in scope that an overreaction like that is rather understandable.  I would counter that it's been quite some time since both Austria and Germany regained full autonomy, so keeping these laws on the books now falls solely on the laps of their respective governments.

Imho it was an absolutely good idea to implement these laws back then. There were still former Nazis or at least former NSDAP members in public office and elsewhere anyway, but at least they were deterred from pining for the good old days.

When it comes to abandoning these laws now, that's not quite that easy as one might think. There is a contract with the allied nations, after all. That aside from the prohibition law (the Austrian version of the Anti-Nazi laws) also ordered us to always stay neutral in military conflicts - literally forever -, never can join Germany (that was a bit of an issue when we joined the EU) and that no one of the Habsburg family can ever hold public office. Which imho is the most absurd and undemocratic of the bunch. But especially Russia kept reminding us time and again that we obligated ourselves to stay neutral and that we still can not just change that or those other laws on our own behalf.

When it comes to the Prohibition law, we practically can not rescind that one anyway, it would cost us our standing. The rest of Europe would scold us, express their deepest concerns and all that... which already happened when we took the right wing into our government. Eg. the Belgian foreign minster then declared that it's now amoral to visit Austria for a skiing vacation. At these points, our economic lifeline is severely threatened. We can't can the Prohibition laws, the optics would be devastating. We need our tourists.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, but you've just acknowledged two examples of exactly the type of slippery slope argument that is routinely fught agains in the US.

I know... I'm already feeling a schizophrenic seizure creeping up.
In the end, I guess I just don't have pity for Nazi sympathizers and can live with them being treated in a way I theoretically find less than ideal. But yeah, it's a compromise that is quite open to logical scrutiny.
And I'd like to say that it stopped there, but nope the slope remains somewhat slippery and I totally get your stance on that.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course there's an element of hypocrisy there, but the GOP is a private entity and can impose restrictions as a requirement of membership that the government could never do within the limits of the Constitution.  

So is twitter et al., and yet a whole lot of GOP members keep complaining how they get censored and silenced there and what a scandal that is. It gets hard to take them seriously facing examples like that. The hypocrisy was all I was getting at though, it was merely a sidenote really.

(01-29-2021, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I would agree with that, although I don't think it would happen as quickly as you suppose, especially in today's climate.

Like I said, I think they're just more brazen about it. [...]  But you don't have to take my word on this.

I basically do take your word for it though. I was too busy checking out Norm MacDonald to also check out Donut Operator. It's on my weekend's to-do list though.
Also, I run out of steam to argue this point too much. I fall into the trap to defend elements of the MSM I really do not feel like defending too vigorously. I agree with your overall point of the media networks being too opinionated and biased and selective and agenda-driven and dominated by coporate America etc. to qualify as good news sources.

[hollodero]

(01-29-2021, 10:25 PM)Dill Wrote: The bolded is, finally, rather an important point.  As is the MSM not "behaving akin to that."

Phew. Finally.

But yeah as I said, I feel propagating that stolen election narrative was a line the MSM would not cross. So were COVID lies and brazenly declaring Trump to be some kind of superhuman divine God-King... climate change denial is another fine example... yeah they are worse. But that does not make the MSM free of severe scrutiny, imho. They overall are part of the problem, the way I see it. Singular examples of decent news and journalism excluded. (Which also goes for FOX though, for I'd say Chris Wallace is an honorable journalist as well.)

[GMDino]

(01-30-2021, 02:42 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Interesting takes here from y’all.

A business owner removing an unruly customer who is inciting violence turns in to violating someone’s constitutional rights. An interesting mental gymnastics routine most definitely choreographed by right wing msm. Bravo

In the US you can lose your rights for breaking the law.  Your right to a gun, your right to freedom, etc.

So "God" gave us our rights and man took them away...but it is "chilling" to think we should look at some of the violent rhetoric out there for fear of violating a "god give right".

Mental gymnastics doesn't even begin to cover it.

Note:  I'm not in favor of government censorship.  I think you should risk losing your freedom and such if violate laws that harm others in an extreme way.  I just am amused at the Braveheart approach to people calling for the death of political opponents on the other hand.

[GMDino]

This could go under any one of the threads about Jan 6, Tucker, etc.

But lets leave it here under how he can give his opinions with the "Fox News" logo slapped on the bottom of the screen AFTER going to court to say "don't take me seriously".

Tucker Carlson when there are nonviolent protesters at his house vs. Tucker Carlson when there are violent protesters at the Capitol pic.twitter.com/KWUak8Q2j6

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 29, 2021

 

[Dill]

(01-30-2021, 07:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: Phew. Finally.
But yeah as I said, I feel propagating that stolen election narrative was a line the MSM would not cross. So were COVID lies and brazenly declaring Trump to be some kind of superhuman divine God-King... climate change denial is another fine example... yeah they are worse. But that does not make the MSM free of severe scrutiny, imho. They overall are part of the problem, the way I see it. Singular examples of decent news and journalism excluded. (Which also goes for FOX though, for I'd say Chris Wallace is an honorable journalist as well.)

Agree with you on Wallace. He is one reason why some Fox viewers have shifted to OANN. They now "distrust" Fox for reporting that Biden won the election. 

Every leftist-without-quotation-marks has a problem with corporate media. It is unconsciously ethnocentric, and affirms far more than it critiques of the prevailing neo-liberal order, both domestically and internationally. And one of the root problems is that like most of the institutions we cannot get along without, it for the most part operates as a business which must, at the end of the day, produce a profit and cannot criticize institutions so based.  The "freer" the news market, the more ready it is to fragment news into different product offerings tailored to the taste of various consumer demographics. Professional standards are supposed to hinder this, valuing accuracy and truth over market share, but they can rarely ultimately prevail over profits. This is a systemic and fundamental problem, which cannot be fixed by a few lone journalists with Youtube followings or whatever. 

But what is THE problem we should be addressing RIGHT NOW, in Jan. 2021, or at least the most urgent "part" of it?  I'd say it is that in the state with the world's largest economy and largest military, a large minority of the voting population--tens of millions--are mired in conspiracies which make that state difficult to govern, unstable, and perhaps finally ungovernable. That's is a problem for everyone, including central Europeans.

The reason the aforementioned population is so mired is because in the larger eco-system of U.S. media, in which news organizations operate as businesses, a sub-system has emerged which is more insulated from professional standards and accountability to facts because that is not what its consumers want. That is why they "distrust" the corporate MSM and find them "biased" (e.g., in favor of climate science and civil rights based on human rights).  Thus it operates according to a different institutional logic, and is much more concerned with shoring up its consumers "traditional identity," forming a network of organizations, "free" sites, and journalists in which news errors and outright falsehoods can continue to circulate with validity long after they have been corrected or dismissed in the MSM. Its organizations and celebrity journalists are pressured to present themselves in ritual, daily contrast with the "liberal" MSM to maintain credibility--something MSM organizations and journalists don't bother to do in turn, because their credibility doesn't depend on such a contrast. One basal rhetorical feature of this subsystem is the use of anecdotal equivalence to nullify challenges to its consumers identity and understanding of the world, and it's own journalistic slant--"Both sides do it."  Closely connected to this feature is another--contrast created by ritual exposure of "hypocrisy" in the MSM and liberal celebrities. 

This Right Wing Media Machine has performed, and to some degree still performs, a valuable function of exposing MSM oversights and lacunae in reporting. But over the years, it has come to regularly* shape news into conspiratorial form: Russia hoax, impeachment hoax, stolen election, false flag Capitol insurrection, etc.  It is currently gearing up for the next hoax. Its news consumers capture political power by making action against conspiracy-defined foes a condition of election. And so their politicians compete against one another on a principle of confirmation bias. And they win, representing millions of voters who want conspiracy-defined policy.  T H A T   I S   A   V E R Y   B I G   P R O B L E M. 

And it cannot be addressed by noting that "both sides" use biased language or make reporting errors. If journalistic standards have gone downhill in our greater news eco-system, they have not done so evenly, across all news organizations and "sub-systems. The RWMM is in fact accelerating that decline the more successful it becomes. Addressing the abovementioned  P R O B L E M requires a much more widespread recognition of its different institutional logic, as mentioned above, how it creates and responds to a very different news consumer demand than that shaping the MSM, and with very specific and deleterious political effect.  

*With "machine-like" regularity. That is why I am calling it not just "the Right Wing Media," but "the Right Wing Media Machine"--it replicates, produces a standard, engineered result every news cycle of crisis. 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-30-2021, 02:42 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Interesting takes here from y’all.

A business owner removing an unruly customer who is inciting violence turns in to violating someone’s constitutional rights. An interesting mental gymnastics routine most definitely choreographed by right wing msm. Bravo

Nobody is talking about your McDonalds/ White Castle sidestep.

[hollodero]

(01-30-2021, 12:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Agree with you on Wallace. He is one reason why some Fox viewers have shifted to OANN. They now "distrust" Fox for reporting that Biden won the election. 

Every leftist-without-quotation-marks has a problem with corporate media. It is unconsciously ethnocentric, and affirms far more than it critiques of the prevailing neo-liberal order, both domestically and internationally. And one of the root problems is that like most of the institutions we cannot get along without, it for the most part operates as a business which must, at the end of the day, produce a profit and cannot criticize institutions so based.  The "freer" the news market, the more ready it is to fragment news into different product offerings tailored to the taste of various consumer demographics. Professional standards are supposed to hinder this, valuing accuracy and truth over market share, but they can rarely ultimately prevail over profits. This is a systemic and fundamental problem, which cannot be fixed by a few lone journalists with Youtube followings or whatever. 

But what is THE problem we should be addressing RIGHT NOW, in Jan. 2021, or at least the most urgent "part" of it?  I'd say it is that in the state with the world's largest economy and largest military, a large minority of the voting population--tens of millions--are mired in conspiracies which make that state difficult to govern, unstable, and perhaps finally ungovernable. That's is a problem for everyone, including central Europeans.

The reason the aforementioned population is so mired is because in the larger eco-system of U.S. media, in which news organizations operate as businesses, a sub-system has emerged which is more insulated from professional standards and accountability to facts because that is not what its consumers want. That is why they "distrust" the corporate MSM and find them "biased" (e.g., in favor of climate science and civil rights based on human rights).  Thus it operates according to a different institutional logic, and is much more concerned with shoring up its consumers "traditional identity," forming a network of organizations, "free" sites, and journalists in which news errors and outright falsehoods can continue to circulate with validity long after they have been corrected or dismissed in the MSM. Its organizations and celebrity journalists are pressured to present themselves in ritual, daily contrast with the "liberal" MSM to maintain credibility--something MSM organizations and journalists don't bother to do in turn, because their credibility doesn't depend on such a contrast. One basal rhetorical feature of this subsystem is the use of anecdotal equivalence to nullify challenges to its consumers identity and understanding of the world, and it's own journalistic slant--"Both sides do it."  Closely connected to this feature is another--contrast created by ritual exposure of "hypocrisy" in the MSM and liberal celebrities. 

This Right Wing Media Machine has performed, and to some degree still performs, a valuable function of exposing MSM oversights and lacunae in reporting. But over the years, it has come to regularly* shape news into conspiratorial form: Russia hoax, impeachment hoax, stolen election, false flag Capitol insurrection, etc.  It is currently gearing up for the next hoax. Its news consumers capture political power by making action against conspiracy-defined foes a condition of election. And so their politicians compete against one another on a principle of confirmation bias. And they win, representing millions of voters who want conspiracy-defined policy.  T H A T   I S   A   V E R Y   B I G   P R O B L E M. 

And it cannot be addressed by noting that "both sides" use biased language or make reporting errors.

Let me jump in there. I agree widely with everything you say, just not so much with this notion. Where you, not without merit, see a bigger problem in the right-wing media machine, I see a typical american phenomena that just went more extreme on the right/conservative side of things. But I feel it's very much worthwhile to debate to what extent ist is a general issue that indeed both sides do. If you neglect that, you will lose your audience and run in danger of, voluntraily or unvoluntarily, giving the MSM a pass it does not quite deserve.

Or put it differently, you might indeed overestimate the discrepancy. Like how news generally turned into propaganda. Eg. how can one persuade an ardent FOX viewer that the networks that used to feature a hollow sleazebag like Michael Avenatti all day for months, or a Michael Wolff throwing out lewd accusations, or leads interviews with Kamala or whoever that are nothing but a longlasting confirmation of utter admiration, or Mary Trump musing about Donald's psychological condition and having her Donald is an ass book promoted etc etc are way less harmful for his intellectual hygiene? He'd call me something unflattering and he'd be right. Having alternatives that are merely a tad better on comparison and second glance instead of actually good journalism is not helpful, and that alone is worth mentioning.

Imho, your big problem is that you have a vast population with low basic knowledge, low general education, that were taught who to listen to, who to despise, and how not to be critical thinkers. That usually later have to struggle all day to pay the bills, void of much perspective, are left with neither incentive nor energy to spend some spare time with reevaluating beliefs and letting other thoughts and impressions sink in, rather glued to the same trumpets, dissatisfied with a failed concept of the American dream where anyone, but hardly everyone can make it and the rest plain doesn't matter. (If the rest splits its vote evenly, it does actually not matter at all.) That and then some, but I went too far already.

And when the urge for a scapegoat for all kinds of frustrations turns overwhelming, things get more extreme, mostly through google algorithms and social media and people passing that on, through having an easier and easier time to get the news that confirm any previously held belief, no matter how unsensical and horrifying and fact-free they might be. The media machinerys just follow the trend, Tucker does as is demanded, and if he doesn't his viewers turn to Breitbart and wish him dead. And the only reason why the right wing media is more extreme is that the described traits are more prevalent on the right-wing spectrum, e.g. the uneducated voter. Who wants Hannity to cover the steal, and Hannity wants his viewership to be record-breaking. In the end though, even Hannity or Tucker or Ingraham and how they all are named rather represent pre-existing views instead of actually shaping them. They hand out more talking points, that's their only real creative input.

Now to tackle the problem, one might think of regulating facebook algorithms, maybe that does a little, but probably not. Or regulating what Tucker can and cannot say, which turns unconstitutional real quick and really rather hurts Tucker than solves the underlying problem. You can't quite regulate the Internet. A state-run, taxpayer-funded news network (rather a hole TV station with some news in it) is what we do, it helps, but that is unamerican to its core. So dismantling the profits motive will be difficult, you'll always have a rating battle and popular demand will hence beat out quality. An office for media surveillance, that lays out guidelines and fines for those who break them maybe? But I'd guess that would be called censorship. And persuading people through internet posts? Forget it. 
The best long-term solution, imho, is starting with the consumer, e.g. to do way more to give him the tools and the knowledge to demand better of his news sources, or to at least see the not so good ones on both sides as what they are. That starts with free, high-quality, general education, it imho also means - in several ways - tackling the frustrations, the daily existential sorrows and grievances, and valuing spare time higher, and then some things, resulting in a lot of policies that probably are deemed left-wing. But aside from that, I don't think there's much to be done, and I don't think overly focusing on the one even worse side of things and musing about how to correct their wrong ways doesn't help either.

Of course also the way the members of your two political sides communicate with each other, publicly and privately, is a big part of the problem too, your american way of contempt and hatred, but let's not take this too far all at once.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-01-2021, 12:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: Let me jump in there. I agree widely with everything you say, just not so much with this notion. Where you, not without merit, see a bigger problem in the right-wing media machine, I see a typical american phenomena that just went more extreme on the right/conservative side of things. But I feel it's very much worthwhile to debate to what extent ist is a general issue that indeed both sides do. If you neglect that, you will lose your audience and run in danger of, voluntraily or unvoluntarily, giving the MSM a pass it does not quite deserve.

First off, let me say you absolutely crushed it with this response.  Sincerely one of the best posts I've read on here in some time.  You've got your finger on the pulse of it.  While the issues that Dill described are certainly an issue, he is suffering from something you are not, partisan blindness.  Just because some on the right have adopted fringe beliefs does not mean the grievances on that side are made up, or even exaggerated.  When you throw the onus for the entire issue at the feet of one group all you're doing, as Dill has in this entire thread, is exacerbating the very problem you purport to want to solve.

Quote:Or put it differently, you might indeed overestimate the discrepancy. Like how news generally turned into propaganda. Eg. how can one persuade an ardent FOX viewer that the networks that used to feature a hollow sleazebag like Michael Avenatti all day for months, or a Michael Wolff throwing out lewd accusations, or leads interviews with Kamala or whoever that are nothing but a longlasting confirmation of utter admiration, or Mary Trump musing about Donald's psychological condition and having her Donald is an ass book promoted etc etc are way less harmful for his intellectual hygiene? He'd call me something unflattering and he'd be right. Having alternatives that are merely a tad better on comparison and second glance instead of actually good journalism is not helpful, and that alone is worth mentioning.

Again, absolutely well stated.  This is a multi-faceted issue, in no way shape or form are criticisms of the MSM automatically invalid or without merit.  Ignoring this is like treating the entrance wound of a gun shot and ignoring the exit wound.  Your patient is going to die and you're going to be baffled as to why.

Quote:Imho, your big problem is that you have a vast population with low basic knowledge, low general education, that were taught who to listen to, who to despise, and how not to be critical thinkers. That usually later have to struggle all day to pay the bills, void of much perspective, are left with neither incentive nor energy to spend some spare time with reevaluating beliefs and letting other thoughts and impressions sink in, rather glued to the same trumpets, dissatisfied with a failed concept of the American dream where anyone, but hardly everyone can make it and the rest plain doesn't matter. (If the rest splits its vote evenly, it does actually not matter at all.) That and then some, but I went too far already.

This is also very true.  I had several teachers in High School who stressed critical thinking.  Knowing and regurgitating facts does not an education make.  When I'm training an officer new to the position I never give them the straight answer to a question, I tell them why the correct answer is the correct answer.  Point being that if you know why an answer is correct you can answer potentially hundreds of questions rather than the one if I just give you the answer to.

Quote:And when the urge for a scapegoat for all kinds of frustrations turns overwhelming, things get more extreme, mostly through google algorithms and social media and people passing that on, through having an easier and easier time to get the news that confirm any previously held belief, no matter how unsensical and horrifying and fact-free they might be. The media machinerys just follow the trend, Tucker does as is demanded, and if he doesn't his viewers turn to Breitbart and wish him dead. And the only reason why the right wing media is more extreme is that the described traits are more prevalent on the right-wing spectrum, e.g. the uneducated voter. Who wants Hannity to cover the steal, and Hannity wants his viewership to be record-breaking. In the end though, even Hannity or Tucker or Ingraham and how they all are named rather represent pre-existing views instead of actually shaping them. They hand out more talking points, that's their only real creative input.

And here we get to the click bait media that we currently have.  It's now far better to be first than to be accurate.  It's now far better to be sensationalist than to be accurate.

Quote:Now to tackle the problem, one might think of regulating facebook algorithms, maybe that does a little, but probably not. Or regulating what Tucker can and cannot say, which turns unconstitutional real quick and really rather hurts Tucker than solves the underlying problem. You can't quite regulate the Internet. A state-run, taxpayer-funded news network (rather a hole TV station with some news in it) is what we do, it helps, but that is unamerican to its core. So dismantling the profits motive will be difficult, you'll always have a rating battle and popular demand will hence beat out quality. An office for media surveillance, that lays out guidelines and fines for those who break them maybe? But I'd guess that would be called censorship. And persuading people through internet posts? Forget it. 
The best long-term solution, imho, is starting with the consumer, e.g. to do way more to give him the tools and the knowledge to demand better of his news sources, or to at least see the not so good ones on both sides as what they are. That starts with free, high-quality, general education, it imho also means - in several ways - tackling the frustrations, the daily existential sorrows and grievances, and valuing spare time higher, and then some things, resulting in a lot of policies that probably are deemed left-wing. But aside from that, I don't think there's much to be done, and I don't think overly focusing on the one even worse side of things and musing about how to correct their wrong ways doesn't help either.

You're on the right track here for sure.  IMO the best way to resolve this is to acknowledge the legitimate grievances of all, not just the groups that are the cause de jour.  One of the biggest issues we have in the US today is this hierarchy of grievances.  If you're not at a certain level of "oppression" then your grievances are treated as unimportant at best and openly scorned at worst.  As you've already pointed out this just drives people away from mainstream discourse and forces them to seek different communities in which to air these grievances.  This by no means implies that all grievances from all people should be treated the same or given the same level of attention.  What it does mean is that they are not outright discarded because of the person uttering them.

Quote:Of course also the way the members of your two political sides communicate with each other, publicly and privately, is a big part of the problem too, your american way of contempt and hatred, but let's not take this too far all at once.

This is certainly an issue as well.  As for the American "attitude", it's easily explained.  One, the US is the most powerful nation on Earth, by a long ways.  This, of course, leads to a certain sense of arrogance.  Secondly, the US is huge.  You can drive for four days straight and not enter another country.  We also only border two countries, and one of those is so similar as to be largely indistinguishable from the US, except for Quebec.  BTW, Canadiens, I am not saying you don't have a different and distinct culture, you absolutely do.  But it would be no different if the US bordered the UK.  This lack of exposure to different national identities and outlooks only reinforces the first issue.

[Dill]

(01-29-2021, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:E.g., The New York Times wouldn't run a questionable story on Hunter Biden's laptop when it first came to light, but the New York Post  did. That difference in editorial decision/standards might make a good, empirical starting point for determining whether right wing charges of MSM "bias" are really about bias, or really a quarrel with journalistic standards.

Except they did report on it, but they did so without confirming the allegations, something the NYT could have done with the Hunter Biden laptop story.  I appreciate your reinforcing my point.

They did so by reporting it as a media story, questioning the allegations, not circulating them as unconfirmed rumor--reinforcing my point.

(01-29-2021, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So let's use this as a launching point for this, because you are right in that this is a good example. You can actually search for AP News, Washington Post, and NY Times for that matter along with "Hunter Biden" and you will find that all of these outlets had stories about the laptop thing. All on the same day as the NY Post story.

Not sure we are all on the same page here, regarding why I referenced initial reporting on H Biden’s laptop as a good illustration of the differences between the MSM and RWMM—i.e., differences between the journalistic standards operating within these media spheres.
As a matter of factual record, can we all agree that –

1.       A near-blind, Trump-supporting pawnbroker, claimed to possess a copy of a hard drive from a laptop owned by H. Biden, and supposedly also in possession of the FBI since Dec. 17, 2019. The PB gave that drive not to an MSM reporter, but to Rudy Giuliani.

2.       Rudy, in turn, gave the drive not to any MSM news organization like the NYT, but to the NYP. 

3.       The NYP—the only news organization in possession of the copied drive—broke a story about it early morning Oct. 14, 2020.
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/.

4.       AFTER that, MSM reacted to the NYP story—WaPo that evening. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/14/hunter-bidens-alleged-laptop-an-explainer/
The Times noted the story had been published, but reported more on the fact that Facebook had “limited” it until it could be fact checked and Twitter had removed references to it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine-facebook-twitter.html
The earliest AP article I can find is from Oct. 17, which is about the risk Giuliani's bad judgment poses to Trump. 
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-russia-024b553e9a4ffb2716286dd134876f8a.
On Oct. 18 the NYT posted a more substantive article about the laptop as a “media story,” on the NYP’s editorial decisions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html?searchResultPosition=6
On Oct. 26, as Tucker and Hannity were “calling out” the MSM for burying this blockbuster of a story, Fox, to its credit, posted an article claiming there was still no evidence of the Biden business relationship supposedly indicated by the laptop emails.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions

Can we then also perhaps agree--

First, that the pawnbroker and Rudy did not offer their story to MSM journalists because there was a high likelihood that such journalists would either turn down the evidence or subject it to lengthy vetting, making it unlikely the story would come out in time to affect the election.  And so Rudy “distrusted” the MSM.

And second, that while the NYP treats the laptop as a rather unproblematic source, simply reporting what the emails say and identifying senders and recipients for backstory, the MSM sources report as much on the NYP’s editorial decision and treatment of the story (e.g. its authors’ refusal to put their name it) as on the laptop’s content, vetting the evidence for readers, explaining what was or could be questionable about its uncertain chain of custody, helping readers understand what journalistic standards are and how to apply them. This includes an Oct. 27 article in which the NYT criticized itself and social media platforms for treating the incident only as a media story. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

If we can agree on the general nature and difference in coverage, then perhaps we can profitably examine whether Rudy “distrusted” MSM news organizations like WaPo and NYT because of their bias against Trump or because of their bias for higher journalistic standards. We can agree he distrusts the MSM, right?

[Dill]

(02-01-2021, 12:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: Imho, your big problem is that you have a vast population with low basic knowledge, low general education, that were taught who to listen to, who to despise, and how not to be critical thinkers. That usually later have to struggle all day to pay the bills, void of much perspective, are left with neither incentive nor energy to spend some spare time with reevaluating beliefs and letting other thoughts and impressions sink in, rather glued to the same trumpets, dissatisfied with a failed concept of the American dream where anyone, but hardly everyone can make it and the rest plain doesn't matter. (If the rest splits its vote evenly, it does actually not matter at all.) That and then some, but I went too far already.

Of course also the way the members of your two political sides communicate with each other, publicly and privately, is a big part of the problem too, your american way of contempt and hatred, but let's not take this too far all at once.

Thanks for another thoughtful response. I am going to respond to the back end first.

I'm getting a little deja vu here, as we have discussed differences between European and American news consumers before--only with me arguing that Germany and Scandinavia (countries with the gymnasium system) did it better and you cautioning me not to "overestimate [Austrians'] compulsion for news and education."    http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Gennifer-Flowers?page=3&highlight=austria. This is also to say I agree with the role you assign education in your assessment/diagnosis of the problem. But no one will implement critical medial literacy if media literacy is not perceived to be much of a problem, its lack a condition for the manipulation/conversion of grievance into political power. Also, in our education system, it will likely be asked why students need courses in media literacy if they aren't going to be journalists, lol.

Not sure there is an "American way of contempt and hatred." It can be certainly demonstrated that current rhetoric is more heated than at any time since the late '60s. And it could probably be demonstrated that politicians are now saying and doing things to one another that have not been done since the McCarthy era. And it can surely be demonstrated that "both sides" don't do this equally. We will never explain why and fix the problem, if we don't recognize how it started.

There is something about our "American way" that you may be missing here, which I'll try to get at with a couple of anecdotes.

My mother-in-law would often invite here elderly friends over for tea, at which political discussions would invariably rise. She did not like Reagan, but if someone said something bad about Reagan, she always felt bound to say something good about him.  For balance. It's an impulse many Americans have, but it also disconnects evaluation from fact and subjects it to a code of manners appropriate for a people who generally didn't like to talk politics or religion with people of different beliefs, but who had to get along with people of different beliefs.  

A more recent example, from this forum. Back in Dec. of 2016, we were having a similar discussion about the differences between "right" and "left" media in the context of the then-still-new term "fake news." I argued for two points of distinction:

1. "Left" or MSM sources responded to the problem of fake news by publishing articles about journalistic standards and primers for how to detect fake news. I posted links to 11 different MSM sources engaged in this project, evidencing their concern for elevating/maintaining standards. I could not find ANY "right wing" news sources at the time which were doing this.

2. I did look, but what I found was that the RW sites tended to take over the term "fake news" in Trump fashion, expanding it to cover all news they didn't like, destroying its descriptive usefulness as a specific reference to fake news sites producing utterly false stories in hopes of fooling people into thinking they were from real news sites. Hopefully you'll agree that was the opposite of elevating/maintaining standards. I posted six links to five different RW sites to support this point.

I posted these links so that my claims would have empirical grounding, would not be just be opinions or "impressions." And I would not have made the claims if I could not so ground them.  

One could easily counter empirical claims like mine, at the time, by A) posting links to RW sources also offering primers on fake news and how to tell, coupled with B) "left" or MSM sites expanding the reference of "fake news," Trump style," to most any disagreeable story. 

But no one who disagreed with me did that. One person (who had adopted the Trump definition of "fake news") called my evidence "cherry picking," which implies my list of links was simply the product of bias, as if one could indeed find A) and B) if one took the trouble to look. But my interlocutor never took that trouble, while still refusing my conclusion, defining it the product of flawed vision, if not character. 

I'd therefore like to suggest that "both sides do it," can itself be a kind of bias which shapes what people can "see"--or not, especially where it is insisted in the face of counter-evidence. In the U.S. it is frequently a prejudice or pre-judgment to which evidence/facts must conform, not the other way around. It is also a big enough problem to become a descriptive term found in many dictionaries and the subject discussion among professional journalist--"bothsidesism." It is, to borrow your phraseology, a way of not being a critical thinker.

This post is already long enough, so I won't make the argument here, but the imposed "balance" which produces bothsideism is one of the forces uncoupling political discourse in the U.S. from factual grounding. That uncoupling is why some can look at a Huffpost article calling Trump a "misogynist" and a Breitbart article on the evidence of Obama's Kenyan birth and conclude they are just mirror images of one another, equally smearing targets on the other side. It's why some can posit "hate" as the reason for Trump criticism, not Trump's actual behavior. (I am not reminding YOU of the importance of factual grounding in reporting as you have solidly upheld that principle in your own posts for years; I am just suggesting that we all think critically about the tendency to assume that finding "one side" does it mainly is prima facie evidence of bias. That question can only be settled case-by-case, by facts and examples.)

 

[Dill]

(02-01-2021, 12:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: Let me jump in there. I agree widely with everything you say, just not so much with this notion. Where you, not without merit, see a bigger problem in the right-wing media machine, I see a typical american phenomena that just went more extreme on the right/conservative side of things. But I feel it's very much worthwhile to debate to what extent ist is a general issue that indeed both sides do. If you neglect that, you will lose your audience and run in danger of, voluntraily or unvoluntarily, giving the MSM a pass it does not quite deserve.

Or put it differently, you might indeed overestimate the discrepancy. Like how news generally turned into propaganda. Eg. how can one persuade an ardent FOX viewer that the networks that used to feature a hollow sleazebag like Michael Avenatti all day for months, or a Michael Wolff throwing out lewd accusations, or leads interviews with Kamala or whoever that are nothing but a longlasting confirmation of utter admiration, or Mary Trump musing about Donald's psychological condition and having her Donald is an ass book promoted etc etc are way less harmful for his intellectual hygiene? He'd call me something unflattering and he'd be right. Having alternatives that are merely a tad better on comparison and second glance instead of actually good journalism is not helpful, and that alone is worth mentioning.

Yes, I might indeed "overestimate the discrepancy." But also I might not.

That is why I frame the issue as an empirical question, which can be answered by actual research into observable and specifiable differences between the larger media system in the U.S. and the subset I am calling the RWMM. My task then is to do the research and report the results. People who disagree with the results should then address the results, disputing the factual record and inferences made from that record. What sort of "audience" should I lose by that approach? 

If one looks closely at

1) What differing groups of news consumers want from their news sources, the journalistic standards and level and kind of information content they demand, and

2) how news organizations meet this demand by deciding what the public, or its specific news consumers, need to know, how they frame stories, hire and fire their editors/reporters, and

3) the larger effects/results on news of meeting this demand--e.g., are consumers of a specific grouping of news sources more likely to believe Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction, that Biden stole the election, or less likely to believe such things? To what degree does empirically verifiable reality eventually trump what news consumers want to believe about the world? Will they "distrust" sources that tell them Biden legitimately won and seek other sources?

Then one can discover whether these different media spheres regulate themselves--suppliers and consumers--very differently, operate according to different standards--or not. Seeing differences as merely a continuum from slightly better to worse likely obscures qualitative differences which emerge in close study. Then one has to be prepared to grant the possibility one can find things in one sphere that do not (or primarily not) in the other.

E.g., Articles like this one from Newsmax  "Audit Finds Mich. County's Dominion Voting Was Rigged to Create Fraud" https://perma.cc/4D2T-63TX, and this one from the Gateway Pundit, "BREAKING: Antrim Co. Forensic Report BOMBSHELL Reveals Dominion Machines Were Set At 68.05% Error Rate" https://archive.is/xvoEY, pushed the kind of outright lies which destroyed the legitimacy of Biden's election for millions of people.

Articles of this type, which would not make it past the editor of any MSM outlet, set angry crowds onto the sites for vote counting in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in Nov., pounding on windows whille shouting "stop the count," and eventually into the Capitol building itself on Jan. 6. What does it mean when these news consumers say they turn to sites like the Gateway Pundit because they "distrust" the MSM? Doubtful it can mean the factual reporting of the MSM somehow "let them down." Rather, it is precisely the higher standard to which they object. Recognizing this is does not convert to an assertion the MSM are without flaw or somehow without liberal bias; failure to recognize it obscures the real criteria whereby the MSM are rejected in favor of RWM. I see no analytic advantage here in supposing such editing standards are just different in degree from MSM editing. If anything, that obscures the media terrain we are examining and supports the false narrative that the RWMM is driven by a demand for less biased news.

MSM networks "featured" Avenati because the Stormy Daniel scandal about a president paying off a porn star was certainly newsworthy.* Not sure which "lewd accusations" Michael Wolff was throwing about, but his reporting on the internal conflicts of the Trump White House were also newsworthy, and for the most part confirmed later by people who worked for Trump and other journalistic investigations. (By the way, both his Trump books were constantly vetted real time by MSM interviewers and reviewers.) Mary Trump, a professional psychologist, was also not simply scandal mongering when she reported on Trump family affairs and offered a psychological assessment of Trump which accorded with that of many other mental health professionals. The "scandal" here is that the U.S. put someone with that psychological profile into its highest office. Did the reporting you flag here present the public with outright falsehoods, or did it provide information valuable for assessing the character and behavior of the most powerful man in the world, the greatest single influence on U.S. domestic and foreign policy?

To this I add that there is "actually good journalism" in the MSM, or we perhaps differ on the definition of "good." I think here of the NYT's decade long investigation into Trump's taxes https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html, or the WaPo's series on Trump's charitable giving. We have that kind of journalism still because there is an audience that wants it. Is there something comparable to be found on RWM outlets?

I'd love to have a discussion with your "ardent Fox viewer" about the differing standards in play here, but it might difficult if, he has learned (from Fox and his president) that the MSM is "fake news" and not to be looked at all. It will be difficult if he finds a NYT story which is partly false or retracted, as proof "both sides do it" and so there is no discerning overall differences in quality. Stefon Diggs drops the ball at least once in every game, so he is no better a receiver than Drew Sample.

*I don't at all mind viewing Avenati as symptom of cultural decline, more like Trump in his hucksterism than different. But that he was given a platform is less evidence of dropping journalistic standards (though some drop may indeed be involved) than of the fact that one simply can not cover Trump without putting sleaze front and center of much reporting. It's not like the MSM suddenly became like the National Inquirer, giving the sensational precedence over the news voters needed to evaluate their representatives. It's that in this case the representative dragged the sensational into the news, where the MSM often had little choice but to report it.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-01-2021, 10:40 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Nobody is talking about your McDonalds/ White Castle sidestep.

Oh I thought you had been talking about the right wing msm talking point that constitutional rights are being violated because of Twitter Parler YouTube and Facebook. Where a business owner had unruly customers who were inciting violence removed from their property.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-01-2021, 10:00 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Oh I thought you had been talking about the right wing msm talking point that constitutional rights are being violated because of Twitter Parler YouTube and Facebook. Where a business owner had unruly customers who were inciting violence removed from their property.

No. I’m all for businesses making their own decisions on how they run their business, and I’m not selective based on whether or not I agree with the decisions.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-01-2021, 11:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No.  I’m all for businesses making their own decisions on how they run their business, and I’m not selective based on whether or not I agree with the decisions.

Well that is a pretty black and white blanket statement for a wide ranging subject that I'm sure wouldn't hold up.

Anywho.. So what are you arguing then?

[hollodero]

(02-01-2021, 12:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While the issues that Dill described are certainly an issue, he is suffering from something you are not, partisan blindness.

Yeah I don't think that is entirely fair. Eg. when it comes to the media, he does see the MSM's faults, or say corporate media's general failings, as for example evident in his responses here. I guess he considers bringing the MSM up to be a deflection. And I get where he's coming from; for it very very often is just that, a deflection. Like people saying critizism of FOX et al. apparently is dishonest, partisan and hypocritical, for the MSM is actually just the same. And this is indeed not quite true. When it comes to promoting a stolen election lie, that is a level the mainstream networks have not yet stooped to and that is a quite significant distinction.

Of course I was rather trying to point out that it is still to a large extent a more generic issue, with some certainly concerning extra on top on the right-wing spectrum. And like me, you also were not actually trying to deflect from that at all. And so imho yet another quite unneccessary discord between you two is developing. You just seem to be born to misunderstand each other. Looking at the actual issues and stripping away everything else, your viewpoints actually don't seem to be all that far apart.

(02-01-2021, 12:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're on the right track here for sure.  IMO the best way to resolve this is to acknowledge the legitimate grievances of all, not just the groups that are the cause de jour.  One of the biggest issues we have in the US today is this hierarchy of grievances.

I agree with that. As I do with many things you said that I just skip over due to length issues. This one, I just particularly agree with that, while I know not everybody does.
There was a debate I got thrown out of (real life issues) that was quite interesting on that, back in the Kamala VP threat. So you might have an idea where I'm standing at. It imho is a widespread mistake the left often makes, weighing grievances on their legitimacy, then telling certain folks that theirs are not legitimitate or worth consideration - and then being all surprised when these folk turn somewhere else.
And yeah that indeed doesn't mean all grievances are equally significant, but I will now stop repeating things you already said.

(02-01-2021, 12:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is certainly an issue as well.  As for the American "attitude", it's easily explained.  One, the US is the most powerful nation on Earth, by a long ways.  This, of course, leads to a certain sense of arrogance.  Secondly, the US is huge.  You can drive for four days straight and not enter another country.  We also only border two countries, and one of those is so similar as to be largely indistinguishable from the US, except for Quebec.  BTW, Canadiens, I am not saying you don't have a different and distinct culture, you absolutely do.  But it would be no different if the US bordered the UK.  This lack of exposure to different national identities and outlooks only reinforces the first issue.

I think the second point is the most significant one. You have 330 million people in a huge country and somehow try to throw them in only two different political tents. I know it's more complicated that that, that a New York R is different from a Nebraska R and a Texas D is different from a Massachusetts D and all that, but overall, there's too little diversity for that many people. 50% do not even vote at all and are more or less apolitical, can't quite find an offer that appeals to them. And those who aren't are at some point forced into one of two existing certain belief systems, and quite often the most defining or even unifying trait turns out to be "we're not them". And imho, that's not good.

You (or Nately bfine michaelsean and many others) don't really fit in neatly in that picture, and probably only few people really do, many like you are all particularly lost though. You can't vote for either party really, I would assume. If Republicans were to split between a Trump party and a conservative party, and the Dems into a social democratic party and a centrist party, you'd probably all find a fitting offer within one of the two moderate wings. The two-party system is a tragedy of sorts, and responsible for so many maldevelopments, including a more and more radicalized voter base and more and more partisan, base-pandering, populistic and propagandistic news networks, more and more oversimplistic answers and positions, and so on. I had to bring that up for I really feel smashing the two-party system would be one of the most positive steps you could take to solve many of these issues, yery much including the one in the OP. But you usually just cannot tell that to an American.

The lack of exposure to different cultures or identities, I cannot possibly diagnose that; I just wonder a bit about that for you're still a nation of immigrants from all corners of this world. But maybe you're right.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-02-2021, 01:19 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Well that is a pretty black and white blanket statement for a wide ranging subject that I'm sure wouldn't hold up.

Anywho.. So what are you arguing then?

With your first post

[Belsnickel]

So, not to quote anyone directly because this is in response to reading several posts, but how much of a role do you think political literacy plays in this? Hollo mentions our low engagement rate in this country, and that is a big problem, but out of those involved how many do we think are actually well versed in the topics?

I don't know everything, but I think it would be safe to say I know more about government and politics than most people, and the way in which people talk about issues makes me cringe sometimes. I've got an Esurance ad playing in my head when I read some things. Do any of you think that more effort put into political literacy would be helpful? I know there are some basic civics classes in secondary education, but it certainly doesn't seem like it's sticking very well.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-02-2021, 11:56 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I don't think that is entirely fair. Eg. when it comes to the media, he does see the MSM's faults, or say corporate media's general failings, as for example evident in his responses here. I guess he considers bringing the MSM up to be a deflection. And I get where he's coming from; for it very very often is just that, a deflection. Like people saying critizism of FOX et al. apparently is dishonest, partisan and hypocritical, for the MSM is actually just the same. And this is indeed not quite true. When it comes to promoting a stolen election lie, that is a level the mainstream networks have not yet stooped to and that is a quite significant distinction.

Where Dill, and others who think like him, get it wrong is by focusing solely on the most obvious problem.  The reason this is an approach doomed to failure is it ignores why the problem even exists in the first place.  The creation of Fox filled a niche that had hitherto been ignored, a right leaning news network.  While it has always been biased in this fashion it did not become what it currently is until the Trump administration.  The reason for this change is the change in the MSM as a whole.  I have argued in several previous threads that trump's election, and his constant beratement of the MSM actually prodded them into behaving almost exactly as Trump described them.  While it is certainly understandable to take Trump's taunts and attacks personally, as the vast majority of the MSM did, it also reinforces to anyone even remotely inclined to see it, the perception that the MSM has a liberal bias.  This is compounded by the fact that much of MSM fought tooth and nail any accusations, now correctly made, that they had any bias at all.  This rings hollow and further damages their credibility.

I certainly agree that promoting "The Big Lie" is a cut above the behavior of any other major news source.  But this does not eliminate the similar, albeit less significant and damaging, stories that the MSM gleefully ran with such as "PeeGate" and Trump's tax returns.  Rachel Maddow couldn't shut up about Trump being in Putin's pocket for years.  Then when Trumps illegally leaked tax returns showed no evidence of that at all she just stopped talking about, never acknowledging how utterly wrong she'd been for years.  You already mentioned CNN et al having scumbag Avenneti on every other day (btw kudos to me, Bel and michaelsean for recognizing what a scumbag this guy was when many people were still kissing his ass (and yes I just complimented myself   )).

Quote:Of course I was rather trying to point out that it is still to a large extent a more generic issue, with some certainly concerning extra on top on the right-wing spectrum. And like me, you also were not actually trying to deflect from that at all. And so imho yet another quite unneccessary discord between you two is developing. You just seem to be born to misunderstand each other. Looking at the actual issues and stripping away everything else, your viewpoints actually don't seem to be all that far apart.

I wish that were actually the case.  Reading his responses though he doesn't seem to acknowledge the validity of these points at all.  Likely because they don't fit his pre determined narrative.

Quote:I agree with that. As I do with many things you said that I just skip over due to length issues. This one, I just particularly agree with that, while I know not everybody does.
There was a debate I got thrown out of (real life issues) that was quite interesting on that, back in the Kamala VP threat. So you might have an idea where I'm standing at. It imho is a widespread mistake the left often makes, weighing grievances on their legitimacy, then telling certain folks that theirs are not legitimitate or worth consideration - and then being all surprised when these folk turn somewhere else.
And yeah that indeed doesn't mean all grievances are equally significant, but I will now stop repeating things you already said.

Here's something I told the kids I'd work with at the group home, everyone's problems are a big deal to them because they're their problems.  While any problems I have pale in comparison to a kid in Yemen, a girl kidnapped by Boko Haram or a kid in India make Nike shoes in a sweat shop that doesn't mean my problems are unimportant, especially to me.  This is a major failing of the current left leaning grievance zeitgeist, and why the backlash against it has been so strong.  Telling someone that their problems aren't important because someone else's problems are worse is a sure fire way to not only engender resentment from the person being ignored but also a perfect recipe for pushing them to find someone who will acknowledge that their problems do, in fact, matter.  Hence you get exactly what is happening in the US, and to a lesser extent Europe, right now.   The problem is Dill, and others in his camp, view acknowledging this obvious problem as exculpatory for extremist viewpoints and minimizing the complaints and grievances of the less advantaged.  It does not, as I am rather certain that we don't have a finite amount of "give a shit" and there's more than enough to go around.  

This phenomena is also why much of the crowd on the far right is white, especially straight white men.  You can only be told so often that you suck, that you're responsible for all of the world's ills and that any problems you have are just desserts at worst or don't matter at best before you vehemently turn on your detractors. 

Quote:I think the second point is the most significant one. You have 330 million people in a huge country and somehow try to throw them in only two different political tents. I know it's more complicated that that, that a New York R is different from a Nebraska R and a Texas D is different from a Massachusetts D and all that, but overall, there's too little diversity for that many people. 50% do not even vote at all and are more or less apolitical, can't quite find an offer that appeals to them. And those who aren't are at some point forced into one of two existing certain belief systems, and quite often the most defining or even unifying trait turns out to be "we're not them". And imho, that's not good.

Excellent point, and one that we've briefly touched on in the past.  As Bel, I think correctly, pointed out, I'd be a Dem in your more right leaning areas of the country.  In CA the Democratic party sickens me.  This has prompted some on this board to continually label me as a right winger, when a large percentage of my expressed positions directly contradict this assertion.

Quote:You (or Nately bfine michaelsean and many others) don't really fit in neatly in that picture, and probably only few people really do, many like you are all particularly lost though. You can't vote for either party really, I would assume. If Republicans were to split between a Trump party and a conservative party, and the Dems into a social democratic party and a centrist party, you'd probably all find a fitting offer within one of the two moderate wings. The two-party system is a tragedy of sorts, and responsible for so many maldevelopments, including a more and more radicalized voter base and more and more partisan, base-pandering, populistic and propagandistic news networks, more and more oversimplistic answers and positions, and so on. I had to bring that up for I really feel smashing the two-party system would be one of the most positive steps you could take to solve many of these issues, yery much including the one in the OP. But you usually just cannot tell that to an American.

I actually think there's more support for a multi-party system here than you think.  I've stated before that the first time I could vote, in the '92 Presidential election, I voted for Ross Perot because I thought he could help create a third political party.  Sadly this was not to be.  I do think your example of four would be ideal (we don't want to become Italy for god's sake), and would certainly give more people a chance to vote for a person and party that more closely aligns with their personal beliefs.

Quote:The lack of exposure to different cultures or identities, I cannot possibly diagnose that; I just wonder a bit about that for you're still a nation of immigrants from all corners of this world. But maybe you're right.

Outside of NYC or LA you're really only likely to be exposed to US culture and culture from Central/South America.  While there is a wide variance in Latin American cultures, to an outside eye the difference is not a substantial one.  My parents would invite my cousins from Iowa to stay here in the LA area for two weeks as a graduation present.  In every instance their trip here was the first time they ever saw a person of Asian ancestry in person.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-02-2021, 12:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, not to quote anyone directly because this is in response to reading several posts, but how much of a role do you think political literacy plays in this? Hollo mentions our low engagement rate in this country, and that is a big problem, but out of those involved how many do we think are actually well versed in the topics?

I don't know everything, but I think it would be safe to say I know more about government and politics than most people, and the way in which people talk about issues makes me cringe sometimes. I've got an Esurance ad playing in my head when I read some things. Do any of you think that more effort put into political literacy would be helpful? I know there are some basic civics classes in secondary education, but it certainly doesn't seem like it's sticking very well.

Political literacy is almost non-existent, and both parties know it.  That's why they rely so heavily on wedge/cultural issues like gun control, abortion and immigration.

[GMDino]

(02-02-2021, 12:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, not to quote anyone directly because this is in response to reading several posts, but how much of a role do you think political literacy plays in this? Hollo mentions our low engagement rate in this country, and that is a big problem, but out of those involved how many do we think are actually well versed in the topics?

I don't know everything, but I think it would be safe to say I know more about government and politics than most people, and the way in which people talk about issues makes me cringe sometimes. I've got an Esurance ad playing in my head when I read some things. Do any of you think that more effort put into political literacy would be helpful? I know there are some basic civics classes in secondary education, but it certainly doesn't seem like it's sticking very well.

Personally I try to read and learn all the time.  I try to get good sources and I turn to the people I trust about a subject.  That doesn't make me right all or even most of the time.  It just means the sources are there and we should be able to learn from them. Edit to add: It also doesn't mean I can't be stubborn in my "beliefs" too sometimes.

I think this gets back to something I posted about a friend who always asks "Who can you trust?" when her posts are fact checked.

There are those accept posts from "right win truth own the libs . com" and feel anything from a reliable news source should be looked at skeptically or at least treated as "possibly" false too because "who knows".

And these are smart people.  People who own and run businesses, doctors, attorneys, accountants, plumbers.  People who are unemployed but have a lot of knowledge too.  It runs the gamut.

I fully understand that people can be "smart" but not understand something outside of their field.  But I think the bigger problem is they lack the ability or desire to admit that.  Or admit they are wrong. Even if they understand the subject.

I asked on FB if we should teach civics and the vast majority of responses were that we DO teach it.  Would more help?  Probably.  But only if people want to learn.

It's a big country and so we have a large number of fools on both ends of the political spectrum.  They are loud and garner a lot of attention.

We can't reason with them because they "know" they are right.

We can't argue with them because the can't accept information that confronts what they "know".

And the only time they say they DON'T know something is when they say they don't know if Trump is lying or virtually everyone else who is disputing what he said.

We spent pages here deciding what Trump "meant" when he said "they said windmills cause cancer".

After that I don't think political literacy would help that bunch.

Regardless I think there should be more literacy all the way across the board...I just doubt the people who really need it or would benefit from it would take advantage of it.