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

[hollodero]

(02-01-2021, 05:41 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

lol... sure sounds like something I would say :) I'm not delving in that old thread though, for I am already overwhelmed with the current one. It's not quite that easy to say. Our media is not that extreme than US' media, not by the longest of shots. And a main reason for that is that we are not that polarized to begin with, and our media landscape more or less reflects that. We also do have certain regulations in place, e.g. "media laws" and ethical guidelines. Most journalists have certain standards of valuing facts over concealment and opinion. Quite importantly, we don't have a 24/7 news cycle and hence no real need to produce content and talking points like on an assembly line (most people get their news from newspapers and an half-hour TV news segment). And then some things.
But in the end, my main point, as often, is that we do not have such a strict duality in political thinking, we have a more diverse spectrum, not just left party and right party and news outlets + consumers beholden to one of those sides. That, amongst other things, makes it easier to actually report facts instead of opinions and spins.

When it comes to teaching media literacy, I would not suggest my country as any kind of role model though. I still think it would be key, not even just specifically teaching media literacy, but overall a high-quality education that teaches critical thinking as a byproduct anyway. I actually might be inclined to believe our general education overall is better than in the US. Maybe it helps.

(02-01-2021, 05:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure there is an "American way of contempt and hatred."

Yeah, I am. I've seen our and your ways, and it's not even close.
Your discourses (not even all that much on these boards) are often just shocking. Particularly vile, hostile, uncompromising, full of false equivalencies, rotten talking points, unfounded accusations, utter disdain for anyone who thinks differently - which again, sadly, in the US means for whoever sympathizes with the other party, so for half of the population really. It's true on the fringe, it's also true with the more moderates, it's apparently true in the media, it's true in the things politicians say. I could find examples until the end of the millennium for that. Usually, liberals and conservatives can't even communicate with each other any longer, they cannot respect each other, not listen to each other, not acknowledging any truth that doesn't fit, and people just spend a political lifetime to collect and staple example over example for the inferiority of the other side, to entrench themselves and aid others to entrench.
I know not everyone is just like that, I'm sure you can provide me with many legit examples of how that's not true in this and that case, but the overall tone... oh boy, that is so hopeless indeed. Only this unique climate could create a Trump in the first place. If it was distinctly different in former times, I cannot really speak to that. Now? Shocking.

(02-01-2021, 05:41 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Sure. Just, using those MSM sources engaging in this worthwhile project doesn't prove much more about the MSM as a whole than the existence of Chris Wallace on FOX proves about FOX as a whole. I get why this can be seen as cherry-picking. I could easily counter with a plethora of MSM hosts that did engage in way less noble behaviour.
I will again mention that the right-wing media is "worse" in many regards and I do not dispute that finding.

(02-01-2021, 05:41 PM)Dill Wrote: 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'll say it again, to me it still mainly is a generic issue and the right-wing media machinery, as you call it with quite some merit, just takes it several steps further. In a cynical sense, they beat the liberal media to it. You're right, the whole notion of calling unfitting facts "fake" is, like the stolen election lie, uniquely right-wing media in its extreme. And I despise that, and all the Hannitys and Tuckers and Limbaughs etc., with quite a passion. I don't engage in "bothsidesism" in an attempt to defend the indefensible or normalize those things.
But while using these terms, I would state that you engage in a tad too extreme form of "onesideism". In that you tend to pin the whole problem in its entirety on the right-wing media. Or in you taking issue with the portrayal of a general problem with corporate media, in your calling it "bothsidesism" - as if I had said it's all the same on both sides anyway. I get your examples with Breitbart, these points are very well taken. But just because some people might use any suggestion of some more general underlying problems as an excuse for Breitbart etc. in their unmatched extremes (and yeah that happens quite frequently) doesn't make the point that there are indeed some more general issues in play moot or unfitting for this conversation. As you seem to imply.

[Belsnickel]

(02-02-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

So, this is something I harp on a lot because it is a pet issue of mine. I'm in favoring of the people having more power and breaking the hold the two-party system has on us is one thing that could be done to help with that. However, and I know I have said this many times in this forum, there are serious reforms that need to occur for that to happen. We need to move to ranked-choice-voting universally and also in legislative races move to larger, multi-member districts. These two reforms are required to give a third-party or independents any chance. But these reforms will, in some places, require politicians to initiate them. These reforms take power away from the elected officials and back into the hands of the people, and they will fight that tooth and nail.

[Rotobeast]

(02-02-2021, 01:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, this is something I harp on a lot because it is a pet issue of mine. I'm in favoring of the people having more power and breaking the hold the two-party system has on us is one thing that could be done to help with that. However, and I know I have said this many times in this forum, there are serious reforms that need to occur for that to happen. We need to move to ranked-choice-voting universally and also in legislative races move to larger, multi-member districts. These two reforms are required to give a third-party or independents any chance. But these reforms will, in some places, require politicians to initiate them. These reforms take power away from the elected officials and back into the hands of the people, and they will fight that tooth and nail.

I'm fully onboard.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-02-2021, 12:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: With your first post

So you are defending fake news. Got it.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-02-2021, 09:22 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So you are defending fake news. Got it.

If that’s your take then I don’t know what to tell you.

[Dill]

(02-02-2021, 01:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: lol... sure sounds like something I would say :) I'm not delving in that old thread though, for I am already overwhelmed with the current one. It's not quite that easy to say. Our media is not that extreme than US' media, not by the longest of shots. And a main reason for that is that we are not that polarized to begin with, and our media landscape more or less reflects that. We also do have certain regulations in place, e.g. "media laws" and ethical guidelines. Most journalists have certain standards of valuing facts over concealment and opinion. Quite importantly, we don't have a 24/7 news cycle and hence no real need to produce content and talking points like on an assembly line (most people get their news from newspapers and an half-hour TV news segment). And then some things.
But in the end, my main point, as often, is that we do not have such a strict duality in political thinking, we have a more diverse spectrum, not just left party and right party and news outlets + consumers beholden to one of those sides. That, amongst other things, makes it easier to actually report facts instead of opinions and spins.

When it comes to teaching media literacy, I would not suggest my country as any kind of role model though. I still think it would be key, not even just specifically teaching media literacy, but overall a high-quality education that teaches critical thinking as a byproduct anyway. I actually might be inclined to believe our general education overall is better than in the US. Maybe it helps.

That discussion was in part about the social-institutional conditions for informed and critical debate. Type of institutions for public education was part of it, but also the existence and arrangement of news and political institutions (along the lines of the "reforms" mentioned by Bels in post #62) to create wider and deeper debate. It's not just a matter of "good journalists," but of the larger social and institutional arrangements that make that possible. Our two-party system narrows debate and analyses.

That's why Left-without-quotation-marks critiques of the corporate news media circulate much more visibly in France, Italy, Germany, and GB than in the U.S., where the "liberal bias" critique of the MSM dominates. Typical, occasional news consumers are familiar with that critique, often accepting it as a given, while remaining wholly unaware of the other and unable to process it if, by chance, they do encounter since it as it is pre-defined as "extreme" or "socialist."  Absence or lack of critical news awareness in the U.S. is in part a consequence of our very underdeveloped and misleading focus on "liberal bias."  That lack and misleading focus, its deflected critique, is in part how our capitalist society reproduces "common sense" acceptance our class, gender and racial inequality.  So my criticisms are not just about picking on the RWMM while "overlooking" the MSM, absence of serious MSM critique is in part a consequence of RWMM influence.

Regarding my "one-sided" choice to critique on the RWMM at this time--Hyping scientific authority can certainly serve power in very uncritical and undemocratic ways, but if a country is in a grip of a pandemic, that might not be the best time to undermine scientific authority because that authority presents an ongoing challenge to cherished religious, racial and consequently political identities. Same thing for MSM at the moment, when all of us are still getting most of our most trustworthy info from that source, and the RWMM is doing its best to undermine scientific authority, along with that of other institutions like the MSM and universities. Like the pandemic, the fact that 74% of Republicans--tens of millions--still believe Biden stole the election, and some are so violent prone as to make domestic terrorism a no 1 FBI concern, is a serious national problem. If we recognize that, we should prioritize interest and analysis into causes--even if that means "one side" is largely the cause. One deflects the needed kind of analysis by construing such efforts as simply another political blame game.

Teaching courses in critical literacy in general would be a good thing. Many U.S. public schools say they do require it, but it is difficult to really teach critical thinking without also teaching students to question received knowledge/narratives about the world. And that is where many of our public schools run into trouble, because any such curricula is quickly charged with "bias" and worried school officials, often in consultation with parents and churches.

A somewhat dated anecdote for you. In 1974 I saw a copy of Stendahl's The Red and the Black on my father's bed stand. I said, "Way to go Dad; my French professor calls that one of the 10 best novels ever written."  Then he (a Baptist minister) quietly explained to me that an English teacher at the local high school had wanted to teach it, but the skittish school board first gave copies to the community's clergy to see what they thought of it. The protestants were all ok with it, but the Catholic priest objected since the protagonist, a priest employed as a tutor, has an affair with his female charge. So all the clergy nixed the book so as not to offend the priest. Priest got to censor the English curriculum, thereby limiting student exposure to French literature and a critique of received knowledge. Most of the community never even knew this happened.

(PS Hollo I am going to address some of your other points in separate posts to avoid overly long responses.  I am responding to you because your posts greatly help me to formulate my own ideas and to understand whether and how well I am communicating my ideas to others. They occasion much valuable "fine-tuning" on my part.  But I realize these responses my be an overload when addressed to one person. I totally understand if you don't feel inclined to respond to any or all of them. I won't be offended.)

[Dill]

(02-02-2021, 01:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I am. I've seen our and your ways, and it's not even close.
Your discourses (not even all that much on these boards) are often just shocking. Particularly vile, hostile, uncompromising, full of false equivalencies, rotten talking points, unfounded accusations, utter disdain for anyone who thinks differently - which again, sadly, in the US means for whoever sympathizes with the other party, so for half of the population really. It's true on the fringe, it's also true with the more moderates, it's apparently true in the media, it's true in the things politicians say. I could find examples until the end of the millennium for that. Usually, liberals and conservatives can't even communicate with each other any longer, they cannot respect each other, not listen to each other, not acknowledging any truth that doesn't fit, and people just spend a political lifetime to collect and staple example over example for the inferiority of the other side, to entrench themselves and aid others to entrench.
I know not everyone is just like that, I'm sure you can provide me with many legit examples of how that's not true in this and that case,  but the overall tone... oh boy, that is so hopeless indeed. Only this unique climate could create a Trump in the first place. If it was distinctly different in former times, I cannot really speak to that. Now? Shocking.

Just to be clear--we are in emphatic agreement about the tone, etc. You ARE seeing what you are seeing. And you are seeing it in the U.S., not Austria, Denmark, the Czech Republic etc. It is different.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/

However, the second bolded is not simply and thoroughly true of "both sides," since in fact many "liberals" do work very hard to understand the other side, to "listen" etc.  Just as the liberals are the ones who develop primers for critical media literacy. 

E.g., this CNN series is typical of how MSM news organizations take the time to reflect even-handedly on "divisions" in the U.S., without at all demonizing the other side. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/11/opinions/fractured-states-of-america/part-one-fredrick/

Also, for more serious and in depth "liberal" listening to the other side, check out books like Amy Hochschild's Strangers in in Their own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right (2016); she interviews families and follows their fortunes over year-long terms, and examines who they see and interpret political events around them, like big corporations ruining their environment and job. No negative judgment at all.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1620972255/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Or the many book length, even-handed examinations by liberals of how "both sides" argue and what they have in common.

https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/022641129X/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=lakoff&qid=1612378328&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399562850/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Polarized-Ezra-Klein/dp/147670032X/ref=pd_all_pref_n_1?pd_rd_w=FF2wM&pf_rd_p=36d0712f-e8f6-49f0-8101-fe2ba60e1597&pf_rd_r=0YZZYQXEZ6K3B59J886N&pd_rd_r=6ba9260c-8e83-4e4c-8eec-bda9fcc309b8&pd_rd_wg=qqVAM&pd_rd_i=147670032X&psc=1

Is there any thing comparable on the right?  I need help finding it because so far I cannot.

From my side this issue is not whether one can prove that your neither-can-respect-or-listen-to-the-other-side charge is "not true in this or that case" (and it obviously is not true in this or that or in fact many cases). 

I am interested the question of whether a large segment of our media, like the party it supports, is tending in an authoritarian direction. This means that I am looking primarily at institutional forms, priorities and trends. If we were doing a comparative analysis of British and German states in 1939, you'd probably agree that the former was a liberal democracy and the latter a totalitarian dictatorship.* The evidence for this difference would be in how the states were organized, how power was shared/transmitted, with the focus on laws, institutions, and the priorities these signaled. One could not refute either finding by showing there were some Nazis in GB and some anti-Nazis in Germany too.  One wouldn't argue that the Nazi dictatorship was just a more extreme form of liberal democracy, "both sides do it" but Germany a little more. 

If were were considering these states in 1933, the answer would be less clear cut, but one could discern social tendencies driving institutional change in direction of dictatorship. We'd be discussing whether, when, and how quantitative differences (like the number of free presses in each country, number of legal parties, length of terms in office) flipped over into qualitative differences.

*This analogy is only for non-Americans or Americans favorable to social scientific framing of questions and arguments. Others may go immediately off my point, claiming I just compared the RWMM to Nazis and safely dodging my argument as "beneath response." Some might object: "This shows your leftist-liberal bias. If you really just need an exemplary dictatorship, why not the Soviet Union under Stalin?" Short answer--because of the way the German dictatorship developed step by step from a liberal democracy. The German example helps us see how authoritarian politics can germinate within liberal institutions--including the free press--eventually displacing them with authoritarian forms of the same, as many Germans recognized too late.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 05:47 PM)Dill Wrote: However, the second bolded is not simply and thoroughly true of "both sides," since in fact many "liberals" do work very hard to understand the other side, to "listen" etc.  Just as the liberals are the ones who develop primers for critical media literacy. 

This statement on its own is enough to prejudice the author beyond the capacity for lending any real veracity to their arguments.  Despite being continually called out for you immense bias in this regard your feel no need to self examine.  I'm starting to really understand why you have such a hard time dealing with legitimate criticism of islam.

[Dill]

(02-02-2021, 01:43 PM)ohollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: 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.

Sure. Just, using those MSM sources engaging in this worthwhile project doesn't prove much more about the MSM as a whole than the existence of Chris Wallace on FOX proves about FOX as a whole. I get why this can be seen as cherry-picking. I could easily counter with a plethora of MSM hosts that did engage in way less noble behaviour.
I will again mention that the right-wing media is "worse" in many regards and I do not dispute that finding.

Well this oughtn't to be seen as "cherry picking" at all or from any perspective, if we recall what the term means. 
It implies leaving some (most actually) cherries behind in service of some biased principle of selection.

However, my attempt was to gather ALL the cherries first--every cherry I could find--THEN note where they came from.

To repeat-- I found that 11 different news organizations saw fit to address the issue of fake news as an issue of media literacy, assuming their job was to help the public understand, to maintain and raise standards in their consumers. Had I found 11 or even 4 or 5 on the right, I'd have not made the case I did.

But it turned out 0 cherries came from right wing sites, where instead many commentators simply adopted the president's obfuscating use of the term "fake news" applied to the liberal  media--i.e., encouraging the opposite of critical media literacy.  

Though I am only gradually spelling this out, owing to the responses I've received, this was a comparison of news organizations, of the spheres in which they operate, their different priorities, and their audience demand. The point of difference thrown into relief here is not negated by showing that some "liberal hosts" behaved badly too. It's only countered by evidence RWM sites also made such visible efforts to maintain or raise critical standards. I did not find that. Perhaps someone else can.

So the question I am trying to answer is not "which is worse" in some simplified moral sense, but about the standards and goals which prevail in each different media sphere. Can any real qualitative difference be found and described? This also leads to questions about the degree to which this difference is a function of qualitatively different consumer demand in each sphere.

The "response to fake news" inquiry was four years ago. The tendencies I was remarking back then have intensified since, become stronger.

(02-02-2021, 01:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'll say it again, to me it still mainly is a generic issue and the right-wing media machinery, as you call it with quite some merit, just takes it several steps further. In a cynical sense, they beat the liberal media to it. You're right, the whole notion of calling unfitting facts "fake" is, like the stolen election lie, uniquely right-wing media in its extreme. And I despise that, and all the Hannitys and Tuckers and Limbaughs etc., with quite a passion. I don't engage in "bothsidesism" in an attempt to defend the indefensible or normalize those things.
But while using these terms, I would state that you engage in a tad too extreme form of "onesideism". In that you tend to pin the whole problem in its entirety on the right-wing media. Or in you taking issue with the portrayal of a general problem with corporate media, in your calling it "bothsidesism" - as if I had said it's all the same on both sides anyway. I get your examples with Breitbart, these points are very well taken. But just because some people might use any suggestion of some more general underlying problems as an excuse for Breitbart etc. in their unmatched extremes (and yeah that happens quite frequently) doesn't make the point that there are indeed some more general issues in play moot or unfitting for this conversation. As you seem to imply.

Well I hope I haven't given the impression I thought your objections simple "bothesidesism," and no one can accuse you of normalizing indefensible bad behavior with false equivalences--or swallowing others' false equivalences. I am probably your best defender in this regard, and could quickly reference the posts in which you do this, were such defense ever needed. So my apologies if I have painted you a "bothsideser" by warning against this in my responses to you.  (I don't "listen" as well as you do, but I am trying.)

A few more notes on my "onesidesism," which is also not reducible to simple failure to look at both sides or to recognize "bias" on both sides.

Let us elevate "cause" here in an analytic sense, over "blame" in some moral, ethical sense.  What I am attempting in my posts is causal analysis, not moral blaming--though there may be room for that AFTER the analysis. If we do that, then what I am researching/arguing may seem more comprehensible and palatable.   I am not starting out as a "onesider" only attacking one side. I am looking at the whole of the U.S. media system. And I'm just not finding "both sides" are registering the authoritarian tendencies I address.

You'll surely agree we can compare political systems to determine qualitatively different types. We can tell dictatorships from democracies, and modern liberal democracies from ancient Athenian or Roman types, etc. We do that not so much by looking at what individuals say/write, as by looking at the priorities implicit in their laws and at their institutions for creating and exercising political power. 

You probably also agree that in modern states with technologically modern news media, differing state-forms still greatly affect the shape and nature news media. The press in the People's Republic of China or in Russia is not so free as in the U.S. or Austria. We can define markers or symptoms of "free" and then empirically determine whether these do or do not exist and to what degree, so it's not a matter of guesses and opinions. 

So I am asking why can't we do something similar with the very large media "ecosystem" of the U.S.? Like ask whether there is sub-ecosystem which is beginning to operate along different rules than the MSM, authoritarian rules which support authoritarian tending politicians and news consumers?

To do this we'd want to identify some markers and see to what degree they can be found in either system, and if present we'd want to know if they were increasing or expanding tendencies, or contracting.  What for markers? Well, for example, distance from political power. Did Obama tweet news and policy prescriptions real-time while following Rachel Maddow, hire staff or cabinet members from her guests? Did Cooper Anderson appear with Hillary at her political rallies to express support? Reporting and reporters disciplined to advance presidential or party messaging, like Stirewell fired for calling Arizona for Biden? I've happened upon book-length study* from 2014 which found expression of "outrage" (distinct from incivility) to be measurably and substantially higher in the RWM and a tool of political mobilization. I think one could do the same for whattaboutism and false equivalence. Active de-legitimation of competing sources of authority, Intel agencies, universities, MSM? And most importantly, success or lack thereof in communicating empirically verifiable "truths" to the audience, measured by assent to statements like "Biden legitimately won" or "The Russia investigation was not a coup attempt." This is another way of finding how successfully de-legitimization of other sources been inculcated in a news audience, how long disinformation can circulate among RWM outlets without effect challenge.

That final point refers back to my original post in this thread, which looks at the role of the RWMM in disseminating the "Big Lie" that Biden stole the election. Here we are a month later and the GOP has great difficulty censuring a Qanon representative but great ease in condemning one who voted to impeach the liar-in-chief. The overwhelming majority of Republicans are not on board with impeaching Trump for his role in the sack of the Capitol; many deny he had a role at all--because they fear their constituents will vote them out.

To avoid onesideism, I am open to arguments that the MSM somehow played a big role in this mass example of presidential disinformation and deceit, and to demonstration that my evidence is inadequate. But I am not much open to simple denials** that there is any important distinction between these media spheres which could explain this mass disinformation.

* https://www.amazon.com/Outrage-Industry-Political-Incivility-Development/dp/0190498463/ref=sr_1_10?dchild=1&keywords=outrage&qid=1612568199&s=books&sr=1-10

**Not thinking of you here, Hollo! I'm just precluding the usual bothsideism which, though supposed to indicate "balance" or absence of bias, denies or diminishes the factual record.

[Dill]

(02-03-2021, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement on its own is enough to prejudice the author beyond the capacity for lending any real veracity to their arguments.  Despite being continually called out for you immense bias in this regard your feel no need to self examine.  I'm starting to really understand why you have such a hard time dealing with legitimate criticism of islam.

Lol, but that statement is not "on its own." It is backed by a number of examples/citations to secure my conclusion.
How else does one "lend real veracity" to one's arguments?--unless by "real veracity" you just mean conforming to received opinion.
The latter is the only standard I see operating in your judgment, suitably accompanied by a red herring.

You are the only one here calling out my "immense bias," which you can only "call out," not demonstrate. 
Speaking of the need to "self examine," what definition of "bias" could you employ here which would not implicate yourself first of all?

I'll just say--

I don't think you can demonstrate that you actually understand the arguments I have made on this thread, or the reasons given for making them. You give no indication anywhere on this thread that you understand the evidence well enough to challenge it in kind. Best you can do is make a few more unsupported assertions/accusations, and if challenged then offer some reasons why engaging my arguments as arguments is not really worth it--though "calling them out" without understanding them apparently is worth it. Bad optics if you want to accuse the other guy of "bias."

--and leave it at that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 09:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Lol, but that statement is not "on its own." It is backed by a number of examples/citations to secure my conclusion.
How else does one "lend real veracity" to one's arguments?--unless by "real veracity" you just mean conforming to received opinion.
The latter is the only standard I see operating in your judgment, suitably accompanied by a red herring.

Yes, only liberal seek to understand the other side and only liberals create the critical thinking curriculum.  Seriously, it's like you don't even hear yourself.

Quote:You are the only one here calling out my "immense bias," which you can only "call out," not demonstrate. 
Speaking of the need to "self examine," what definition of "bias" could you employ here which would not implicate yourself first of all?

I'll just say--

Actually, Hollodero has been doing exactly that, he's just much more nice and circumspect about it.  I, on the other hand, having dealt with your particular brand of faux intellectual elitism many times in the past, am not so inclined.

Quote:I don't think you can demonstrate that you actually understand the arguments I have made on this thread

Quote:, or the reasons given for making them. You give no indication anywhere on this thread that you understand the evidence well enough to challenge it in kind. Best you can do is make a few more unsupported assertions/accusations, and if challenged then offer some reasons why engaging my arguments as arguments is not really worth it--though "calling them out" without understanding them apparently is worth it. Bad optics if you want to accuse the other guy of "bias."

--and leave it at that.

Quite honestly, you do a far better job of demonstrating your perceived intellectual superiority than anyone else ever could.  You'll never get past my correctly calling out islam as the most regressive force in the modern world and your bias engendered from this statement colors your every interaction with me.  It is odd that everyone else in the thread can consistently engage with the points I make.  You alone cannot.  So either everyone else is as dumb as me, is just humoring me, or you're full of crap.  I know which of the three my money is on.

[hollodero]

(02-02-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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   )).

First off, Kudos for the Avenatti thing. Not an exaggerated amount of Kudos's (or Kudi?) though, this guy actually was an obvious ass from the start, and the level of bootlicking all these hosts awarded this guy was absolutely insane. Oh guess who my guest is tonight? It's Avenatti again!! Ohh joy, oh happyness! Will he talk shit about Cohen again? Has he a new bombshell? Might he be the next presidential candidate?... yeah that was absolutely absurd and an embarrassment. And one had to be quite willfully ignorant to oversee what a total ass that guy was, and what total asses all those that invited him time and again were.

As for the rest, I have the notion I often feel, like agreeing with you on the core merit and to 90% or so, but often not really fully, or for the whole nine yards one might say. Like the Rachel Maddow bit. Yeah I see what you mean, and she did imho lean herself out of the window quite far on the Russia thing, and it was too far probably. But she also gave quite profound reason why she says what she says. She let me see it for myself, and it was not made up, she had a ton of documents and articles and witnesses and material to show and to back up her words. She never claimed outright that Trump is in Putin's pocket. She wondered about things she described as extremely odd, and to her defense, many things just were extremely odd. I came to accept her as a respectable journalist and host, despite all more questionable takes, apparent flaws (like love fest interviews) and obvious disdain for the Trump administration. I see your point though, I can't really argue against it. I just don't agree fully.

And similar things go for most issues. Yeah FOX filled a void, I heard that often, there sure is something to it. I'm just not so sure to which extent that means that the form FOX took before Trump, and after Trump, really is fully explained or excused, or say pre-determined, by that assessment. If FOX really could or just had to develop the way it did because the other stations were so liberal to begin with. I feel there's a little more to it. Doesn't mean I think you're wrong. Just that you're a bit absolutistic.

And did FOX change because the MSM did? Isn't this more of a chicken or egg debate? Or maybe it is just the extremeness of Trump?

How big was the Pee-Pee story really, how prevalent in MSM news? John Oliver, who of course in no way is a trustworthy source, once showed clips of Hannity bringing it up over and over again. At the same time I didn't hear Rachel Maddow talk much about it. Imho, in the end it became a topic that - in my impression - was indeed way more often brought up on the right-wing spectrum to evidence the left-wing media's blatant hatred as it was actually brought up on the MSM. A bit like when there was a story about the amount of ice cream scoops Trump takes. That ran on the MSM once, foolishly enough. It was still a major accusation on the right several years later, a popular talking point, they talk about ice cream scoops! While no one actually did.

---- Too much! I rather point out the 100% things: Promoting "The big lie" is a cut above. That does not eliminate similar, less damaging MSM misdeeds. I wonder if Dill would disagree with these two statements. I think not. I guess he'd say "well, but...", and then some. Just like me.

(02-02-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

That I agree with without any ambiguity.
I mean, somehow by fate or whatever I tend to have similar opinions as most liberal people here. And I experienced how easily one walks into this trap of throwing people into a pot. I sure did so as well. Not so much you, your apparent realistic and brutal honesty about Trump alone was quite a clear indicator that you are in no way a stereotype right winger. There's ton of additional evidence. And yeah, still people quite often talked to you in a manner as if you were the most ardent Trump supporter, even when you most apparently are not. I understand the frustrations about that.

(02-02-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually think there's more support for a multi-party system here than you think.

Yeah, on the surface I guess there is huge support. The devil lays in the detail (that's a German expression and I really rather feel like stating that I don't know if that makes any sense in English then to look up if it actually does). The detail being that a multi-party system would imperatively include a radical overhaul of your whole electoral system. Like Bels lays out better than I ever could. And there, most Americans tend to shout a distinct stop. You do not touch our EC or our majority voting system, this is all sacred. Which also means that nothing will ever change. Ross Perot was impressive enough, but he was also the absolute end of the line when it comes to something akin to a third party, and he had tons of money to even get there.

(02-02-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.  

Yeah, that makes sense. I understand.

And I understand may things I skipped over, which I again apologize for. It's just too much to handle to respond to everything.

[hollodero]

(02-03-2021, 05:18 PM)Dill Wrote: That discussion was in part about the social-institutional conditions for informed and critical debate. Type of institutions for public education was part of it, but also the existence and arrangement of news and political institutions (along the lines of the "reforms" mentioned by Bels in post #62) to create wider and deeper debate. It's not just a matter of "good journalists," but of the larger social and institutional arrangements that make that possible. Our two-party system narrows debate and analyses.

That's why Left-without-quotation-marks critiques of the corporate news media circulate much more visibly in France, Italy, Germany, and GB than in the U.S., where the "liberal bias" critique of the MSM dominates. Typical, occasional news consumers are familiar with that critique, often accepting it as a given, while remaining wholly unaware of the other and unable to process it if, by chance, they do encounter since it as it is pre-defined as "extreme" or "socialist."  Absence or lack of critical news awareness in the U.S. is in part a consequence of our very underdeveloped and misleading focus on "liberal bias."  That lack and misleading focus, its deflected critique, is in part how our capitalist society reproduces "common sense" acceptance our class, gender and racial inequality.  So my criticisms are not just about picking on the RWMM while "overlooking" the MSM, absence of serious MSM critique is in part a consequence of RWMM influence.

Regarding my "one-sided" choice to critique on the RWMM at this time--Hyping scientific authority can certainly serve power in very uncritical and undemocratic ways, but if a country is in a grip of a pandemic, that might not be the best time to undermine scientific authority because that authority presents an ongoing challenge to cherished religious, racial and consequently political identities. Same thing for MSM at the moment, when all of us are still getting most of our most trustworthy info from that source, and the RWMM is doing its best to undermine scientific authority, along with that of other institutions like the MSM and universities. Like the pandemic, the fact that 74% of Republicans--tens of millions--still believe Biden stole the election, and some are so violent prone as to make domestic terrorism a no 1 FBI concern, is a serious national problem. If we recognize that, we should prioritize interest and analysis into causes--even if that means "one side" is largely the cause. One deflects the needed kind of analysis by construing such efforts as simply another political blame game.

Teaching courses in critical literacy in general would be a good thing. Many U.S. public schools say they do require it, but it is difficult to really teach critical thinking without also teaching students to question received knowledge/narratives about the world. And that is where many of our public schools run into trouble, because any such curricula is quickly charged with "bias" and worried school officials, often in consultation with parents and churches.

A somewhat dated anecdote for you. In 1974 I saw a copy of Stendahl's The Red and the Black on my father's bed stand. I said, "Way to go Dad; my French professor calls that one of the 10 best novels ever written."  Then he (a Baptist minister) quietly explained to me that an English teacher at the local high school had wanted to teach it, but the skittish school board first gave copies to the community's clergy to see what they thought of it. The protestants were all ok with it, but the Catholic priest objected since the protagonist, a priest employed as a tutor, has an affair with his female charge. So all the clergy nixed the book so as not to offend the priest. Priest got to censor the English curriculum, thereby limiting student exposure to French literature and a critique of received knowledge. Most of the community never even knew this happened.

(PS Hollo I am going to address some of your other points in separate posts to avoid overly long responses.  I am responding to you because your posts greatly help me to formulate my own ideas and to understand whether and how well I am communicating my ideas to others. They occasion much valuable "fine-tuning" on my part.  But I realize these responses my be an overload when addressed to one person. I totally understand if you don't feel inclined to respond to any or all of them. I won't be offended.)

Good. I read everything, but indeed it is far beyond my capacity to address everything, in fact I will severely cherry-pick my points of response. Many of your points are apparently valid and I don't disagree on most of them; the ones I cherry-pick will often be the ones I distinctly have a different take on.

Eg. I don't think a pandemic is a time where one shall not critizise the better and more factual network in face of the horrible one, on the mere basis that they are better. Yeah, FOX et al. were plain horrible on that. Mocking the pandemic, then having to accept it as serious, still mocking masks, then promoting masks, but still calling liberals out on mask-wearing, being pro-caution, then pro-protest, trying to follow Trump's moods, promoting this hydroxywhatever pill, all while remaining super-flabbergasted and indignant about anything any liberals would say... this could go on forever and yeah, it's horrible. Not only once did I call FOX a state propaganda channel the Turkmenish one could probably still learn a thing or two from. No one should watch Hannity, and watching Rachel Maddow is not even remotely the same side of the coin. Just to state what is clear to me.

I still see the MSM as what it imho is. It is not the time to not mention that either. It's not an undermining of truth-telling news sources. I rather see it as still calling a spade a spade.

I also agree that the lies regarding the election are a way more serious threat than any MSM transgressions. 74% of Republicans believe the election was stolen now? Yeah, that is crazy, and alarming beyond anything, and right-wing media deserves a huge amount of blame for that, more blame than the MSM deserves for anything really. Yet again.

That being said, on to the next posts... the responses get more spicy, I promise.

[hollodero]

(02-03-2021, 05:47 PM)Dill Wrote: However, the second bolded is not simply and thoroughly true of "both sides," since in fact many "liberals" do work very hard to understand the other side, to "listen" etc.

Yeah, and many liberals utterly fail in doing so, and then they have no idea as to why.

It's often quite apparent why. Because most liberals are smug. And don't acknowledge the simple fact that most people do not like to be talked down to. Most of the liberals you mention probably do not willfully intend to do so, but it's just too inherent. It's too inherent for most liberals that non-liberals have a less-informed, less-sophisticated, more simplistic view on things and, simply put, often are just plain wrong on things.
I'm of course at a loss when it comes to solving that. For one, the liberal view I just described in many cases just is apparently and painfully true. There's no sugar coating that. It is not always true, not with all issues, not with all people; and not that frequently true that it justifies a sense of intellectual superiority that is applyable to the whole left vs. right debate in the first place. And that is the other thing why most liberals so woefully fail in their efforts. They extend their sense of perceived superiority to everything universally, in every aspect the liberal view is the smart and intellectual one and the conservative view is the uninformed and backward one. And that's the conseption and perception most liberals display.

Most conservatives, for sure, do not do a better job in listening or understanding in any way, I was not intending to claim otherwise. Singular individuals are not included in these generalizations (which also is something liberals tend to misunderstand imho, that not every individual is alike or can be thrown into the same "right-winger" pot)

(02-03-2021, 05:47 PM)Dill Wrote: E.g., this CNN series is typical of how MSM news organizations take the time to reflect even-handedly on "divisions" in the U.S., without at all demonizing the other side. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/11/opinions/fractured-states-of-america/part-one-fredrick/

It is not really typical though. You're cherry-picking. You give me 10 noble MSM series, I give you 10 MSM hosts that dragged that simple chap Sam Nunberg, the guy that wanted to ignore a Mueller subpoena, through all their shows in the hope his nervous breakdown will play out on their time and that he will spill all kinds of beans on Trump. So cringe-worthy and unethical. In short, to counter your examples, I could find mine, also cherry-picked.
I know it is a dubious thing to say, and I could call Mahomes an awful QB and accuse all those that bring up his tons of marvellous plays of just cherry-picking; it's somewhat unavoidable, but the intent is a question. What does your example try to establish. That there's good journalism on the MSM? Yeah, I don't disagree with that in the first place. You can't make an inductive conclusion out of those examples really. There's still plenty bad on the MSM as well.

(02-03-2021, 05:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Also, for more serious and in depth "liberal" listening to the other side, check out books like Amy Hochschild's Strangers in in Their own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right (2016); she interviews families and follows their fortunes over year-long terms, and examines who they see and interpret political events around them, like big corporations ruining their environment and job. No negative judgment at all.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1620972255/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Or the many book length, even-handed examinations by liberals of how "both sides" argue and what they have in common.

https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/022641129X/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=lakoff&qid=1612378328&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399562850/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Polarized-Ezra-Klein/dp/147670032X/ref=pd_all_pref_n_1?pd_rd_w=FF2wM&pf_rd_p=36d0712f-e8f6-49f0-8101-fe2ba60e1597&pf_rd_r=0YZZYQXEZ6K3B59J886N&pd_rd_r=6ba9260c-8e83-4e4c-8eec-bda9fcc309b8&pd_rd_wg=qqVAM&pd_rd_i=147670032X&psc=1

I hope you're aware that I won't read any of those, sorry... but the amount of time I can spend on American affairs is somehow limited and already severely stretched by my participating on these boards. I get why this can be doubted at times, but actually there are other issues I also need to attend to :)

(02-03-2021, 05:47 PM)Dill Wrote: I am interested the question of whether a large segment of our media, like the party it supports, is tending in an authoritarian direction.

Yes. Yes, it does. It is a big deal. Question answered :)

(02-03-2021, 05:47 PM)Dill Wrote: This means that I am looking primarily at institutional forms, priorities and trends. If we were doing a comparative analysis of British and German states in 1939, you'd probably agree that the former was a liberal democracy and the latter a totalitarian dictatorship.* The evidence for this difference would be in how the states were organized, how power was shared/transmitted, with the focus on laws, institutions, and the priorities these signaled. One could not refute either finding by showing there were some Nazis in GB and some anti-Nazis in Germany too.  One wouldn't argue that the Nazi dictatorship was just a more extreme form of liberal democracy, "both sides do it" but Germany a little more. 

I don't think I was doing something akin to that.
If I were to choose an example, I'd rather choose right-wing populism and how it's not a big deal in today's Germany because they get more votes in Austria or France. Yeah, well, true, but that doesn't mean it's only a matter of interest there.
- Nazis in GB were indeed a non-issue. The faults of the MSM are not comparably seldom, fringe and insignificant.


[--- oh and also I can't address your third reply... I'm done and tired, so sorry... maybe tomorrow]

[Dill]

(02-03-2021, 09:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Lol, but that statement is not "on its own." It is backed by a number of examples/citations to secure my conclusion.

How else does one "lend real veracity" to one's arguments?--unless by "real veracity" you just mean conforming to received opinion.
The latter is the only standard I see operating in your judgment, suitably accompanied by a red herring.

Yes, only liberal seek to understand the other side and only liberals create the critical thinking curriculum.  Seriously, it's like you don't even hear yourself.

Seriously, it's like you don't even "hear" the evidence. 

Hollo says neither side of the U.S. division "listens" to the other.

I claim that there are listeners on one side, and some listen very hard,

and then I "hear myself" citing examples.

One refutes that by showing the cites don't really demonstrate listening as claimed,

and/or that one sees the same thing on the other side.

You do neither. You imply we are not to conclude anything that "sounds" wrong--regardless of evidence.

(02-03-2021, 09:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, Hollodero has been doing exactly that, he's just much more nice and circumspect about it.  I, on the other hand, having dealt with your particular brand of faux intellectual elitism many times in the past, am not so inclined.

What you've done "many times in the past" is no different from what you are doing now--substituting ad hominem for argument.

Do "vrai intellectuals" refute arguments by denying evidence and attacking character?

(02-03-2021, 09:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite honestly, you do a far better job of demonstrating your perceived intellectual superiority than anyone else ever could.  You'll never get past my correctly calling out islam as the most regressive force in the modern world and your bias engendered from this statement colors your every interaction with me.  It is odd that everyone else in the thread can consistently engage with the points I make.  You alone cannot.  So either everyone else is as dumb as me, is just humoring me, or you're full of crap.  I know which of the three my money is on.

Well no, this is not "quite honestly."  These are just two red herrings that don't have a thing to do with my theses regarding the differences between MSM and RWM. I am not making a case about the difference in U.S. media spheres because I can't get past your Islam issues. This is just more dodgery, yet another way of calling me "full of crap" without actually refuting or even addressing arguments I've actually made.

And I have "consistently" engaged your points in posts #38 and #49, and you have not responded.

What I don't consistently engage are the quips, ad hominem, and red herrings tending every direction away from the argument actually made.

[hollodero]

(02-03-2021, 08:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Well this oughtn't to be seen as "cherry picking" at all or from any perspective, if we recall what the term means. 
It implies leaving some (most actually) cherries behind in service of some biased principle of selection.

However, my attempt was to gather ALL the cherries first--every cherry I could find--THEN note where they came from.

To repeat-- I found that 11 different news organizations saw fit to address the issue of fake news as an issue of media literacy, assuming their job was to help the public understand, to maintain and raise standards in their consumers. Had I found 11 or even 4 or 5 on the right, I'd have not made the case I did.

But it turned out 0 cherries came from right wing sites, where instead many commentators simply adopted the president's obfuscating use of the term "fake news" applied to the liberal  media--i.e., encouraging the opposite of critical media literacy.  

Though I am only gradually spelling this out, owing to the responses I've received, this was a comparison of news organizations, of the spheres in which they operate, their different priorities, and their audience demand. The point of difference thrown into relief here is not negated by showing that some "liberal hosts" behaved badly too. It's only countered by evidence RWM sites also made such visible efforts to maintain or raise critical standards. I did not find that. Perhaps someone else can.

So the question I am trying to answer is not "which is worse" in some simplified moral sense, but about the standards and goals which prevail in each different media sphere. Can any real qualitative difference be found and described? This also leads to questions about the degree to which this difference is a function of qualitatively different consumer demand in each sphere.

The "response to fake news" inquiry was four years ago. The tendencies I was remarking back then have intensified since, become stronger.


Well I hope I haven't given the impression I thought your objections simple "bothesidesism," and no one can accuse you of normalizing indefensible bad behavior with false equivalences--or swallowing others' false equivalences. I am probably your best defender in this regard, and could quickly reference the posts in which you do this, were such defense ever needed. So my apologies if I have painted you a "bothsideser" by warning against this in my responses to you.  (I don't "listen" as well as you do, but I am trying.)

A few more notes on my "onesidesism," which is also not reducible to simple failure to look at both sides or to recognize "bias" on both sides.

Let us elevate "cause" here in an analytic sense, over "blame" in some moral, ethical sense.  What I am attempting in my posts is causal analysis, not moral blaming--though there may be room for that AFTER the analysis. If we do that, then what I am researching/arguing may seem more comprehensible and palatable.   I am not starting out as a "onesider" only attacking one side. I am looking at the whole of the U.S. media system. And I'm just not finding "both sides" are registering the authoritarian tendencies I address.

You'll surely agree we can compare political systems to determine qualitatively different types. We can tell dictatorships from democracies, and modern liberal democracies from ancient Athenian or Roman types, etc. We do that not so much by looking at what individuals say/write, as by looking at the priorities implicit in their laws and at their institutions for creating and exercising political power. 

You probably also agree that in modern states with technologically modern news media, differing state-forms still greatly affect the shape and nature news media. The press in the People's Republic of China or in Russia is not so free as in the U.S. or Austria. We can define markers or symptoms of "free" and then empirically determine whether these do or do not exist and to what degree, so it's not a matter of guesses and opinions. 

So I am asking why can't we do something similar with the very large media "ecosystem" of the U.S.? Like ask whether there is sub-ecosystem which is beginning to operate along different rules than the MSM, authoritarian rules which support authoritarian tending politicians and news consumers?

To do this we'd want to identify some markers and see to what degree they can be found in either system, and if present we'd want to know if they were increasing or expanding tendencies, or contracting.  What for markers? Well, for example, distance from political power. Did Obama tweet news and policy prescriptions real-time while following Rachel Maddow, hire staff or cabinet members from her guests? Did Cooper Anderson appear with Hillary at her political rallies to express support? Reporting and reporters disciplined to advance presidential or party messaging, like Stirewell fired for calling Arizona for Biden? I've happened upon book-length study* from 2014 which found expression of "outrage" (distinct from incivility) to be measurably and substantially higher in the RWM and a tool of political mobilization. I think one could do the same for whattaboutism and false equivalence. Active de-legitimation of competing sources of authority, Intel agencies, universities, MSM? And most importantly, success or lack thereof in communicating empirically verifiable "truths" to the audience, measured by assent to statements like "Biden legitimately won" or "The Russia investigation was not a coup attempt." This is another way of finding how successfully de-legitimization of other sources been inculcated in a news audience, how long disinformation can circulate among RWM outlets without effect challenge.

That final point refers back to my original post in this thread, which looks at the role of the RWMM in disseminating the "Big Lie" that Biden stole the election. Here we are a month later and the GOP has great difficulty censuring a Qanon representative but great ease in condemning one who voted to impeach the liar-in-chief. The overwhelming majority of Republicans are not on board with impeaching Trump for his role in the sack of the Capitol; many deny he had a role at all--because they fear their constituents will vote them out.

To avoid onesideism, I am open to arguments that the MSM somehow played a big role in this mass example of presidential disinformation and deceit, and to demonstration that my evidence is inadequate. But I am not much open to simple denials** that there is any important distinction between these media spheres which could explain this mass disinformation.

* https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1620972255/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

**Not thinking of you here, Hollo! I'm just precluding the usual bothsideism which, though supposed to indicate "balance" or absence of bias, denies or diminishes the factual record.

OK I keep that answer short. I again do not substantially disagree with the merits or your findings. You can find many convincing examples of how the right-wing media is worse, or more extreme, or is displaying lower standards, or has worse journalists, or is willfully spreading misinformation, or most distinctly is more dangerous for the country and democracy, and you can convincingly argue these findings. I do not disagree with them at all.

The sole thing I question is if it's hence insignificant or unworthy for this debate to also call out MSM failures, not in an attempt to excuse or normalize right-wing media, but just to establish that there is something quite concerning with your media landscape as a whole and that simply tieing it to right-wing media might be an oversimplification of things.

And quite some of your words could be read as a pladoyer for oversimplifying things in that manner. Unlike other debate partners of yours, I don't think you're acting in bad faith or out of blind partisanship. But I understand the perception. 


Edit I was informed that "pladoyer" is not an English word, and yeah why would it be. What I meant was "plea".

[GMDino]

(02-04-2021, 11:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK I keep that answer short. I again do not substantially disagree with the merits or your findings. You can find many convincing examples of how the right-wing media is worse, or more extreme, or displaying lower standards, or being worse journalists, or willfully spreading misinformation, most distinctly more dangerous for the country and democracy, and you can convincingly argue these findings. I do not disagree with them at all.

The sole thing I question is if it's hence insignificant or unworthy for this debate to also call out MSM failures, not in an attempt to excuse or normalize right-wing media, but just to establish that there is something quite concerning with your media landscape as a whole and that simply tieing it to right-wing media might be an oversimplification of things.

And quite some of your words could be read as a pladoyer for oversimplifying things in that manner. Unlike other debate partners of yours, I don't think you're acting in bad faith or out of blind partisanship. But I understand the perception. 

Sometimes I feel sorry for you hollodero.  It's like you are the child between fighting ex-spouses, trying to keep the peace and answer honestly and then being cited as "he's on MY side" when the others won't/can't talk civilly to each other.

I admire your desire and ability to continue to try and do so though.

[Dill]

(02-04-2021, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sometimes I feel sorry for you hollodero.  It's like you are the child between fighting ex-spouses, trying to keep the peace and answer honestly and then being cited as "he's on MY side" when the others won't/can't talk civilly to each other.

I admire your desire and ability to continue to try and do so though.

??

I don't think Hollo is "between" anyone or trying to "keep the peace."

He just addresses posts/arguments as they interest him, and certainly does so "honestly and civilly."

[hollodero]

(02-04-2021, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: Sometimes I feel sorry for you hollodero.

Ah, don't be. For one, I collect some reputation points on the way, the legit currency of awesomeness. And I heard when I got 100.000 of those I get an XBox.

Now if that turns out to be wrong, I will be annoyed. But I would assume it's not.

(02-04-2021, 01:05 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think Hollo is "between" anyone or trying to "keep the peace."

I don't see it that way either.

[GMDino]

(02-04-2021, 01:05 PM)Dill Wrote: ??

I don't think Hollo is "between" anyone or trying to "keep the peace."

He just addresses posts/arguments as they interest him, and certainly does so "honestly and civilly."

Maybe a poor choice of words but rather he responds to "both sides" as fairly (more fairly?) than a lot of us would.  Meanwhile when "both sides" reply to each other it can be less civil.  And not just in this discussion/thread.