Freedom of press.

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 09:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They are monitoring Sean Hannity, but people carrying signs encouraging others to kill cops doesn't hit their radar?  I put Hannity in the search at their site, and what came up is laughable.  Maybe I missed something and you could show me.  15 years 4 hours a day, and they are still waiting for him to cross the line and incite violence.  Maybe time to move on?

I shudder to think what you consider laughable.  He may not say "Go get a gun and kill someone," but Hannity certainly provides a platform to people who encourage hatred of ethnic groups. And violence does result from that encouragement. 

But the SPLC isn't just monitoring "violence." It is also monitoring hate speech, groups and influential individuals who create and support the worldview of those whose goal is to frighten and punish ethnic minorities in a range ways.

People live in fear of right wing violence, especially Muslims and immigrants. And you are apparently ok with someone who contributes to that, so long as no one links one of his statements to a specific crime.

I am not sure who is carrying signs that say "Kill cops." Are you talking about some individuals who latch themselves on to a demonstration somewhere?  The SPLC monitors hate GROUPS. Is there a group with a platform based upon cop hatred? It so, it will come on the SPLC radar.

For the time being, we'll just have to accept that the overwhelming majority of hate groups in the U.S. are Right wing.
Leftists fight for equality of all races, ethnic groups, and both sexes, which rarely leads to hate.  Hence the "bias" in monitoring.


 

[Benton]

(03-02-2017, 06:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, Pew had a poll (I know, I know, polls bad, blah blah) and it was interesting to me. http://www.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities-see-checks-and-balances-right-to-protest-as-essential-for-democracy/

Specifically:


I'm kind of curious how folks on here feel. Is a free press essential to democracy? I'm not saying a press that in unaccountable and can just print whatever, but the ability for a press to be critical of the administration. Is that essential to a democracy? And this is for everyone, because this was also the lowest scoring one among Democrats on this.

Eh, I wonder how the results of the poll would have been if Republicans hadn't won the election. Generally, their line is that the government is corrupt and it's all a giant conspiracy and unfair.... until they get unbridled control. Then it's magically fair and open and balanced.

Which, it's still the same corruption, it's just like they're satisfied because it's spreading it around more. No point in wanting to clean it up... until they get voted out again.

Not that die hard Dems are any better. Look at Illinois. They wear their corruption and abuses with the same expectations that Mississippi does on the other side of the political spectrum.

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2017, 06:22 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh, I wonder how the results of the poll would have been if Republicans hadn't won the election. Generally, their line is that the government is corrupt and it's all a giant conspiracy and unfair.... until they get unbridled control. Then it's magically fair and open and balanced.

Which, it's still the same corruption, it's just like they're satisfied because it's spreading it around more. No point in wanting to clean it up... until they get voted out again.

Not that die hard Dems are any better. Look at Illinois. They wear their corruption and abuses with the same expectations that Mississippi does on the other side of the political spectrum.

They talked about that with another question.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-02-2017, 06:18 PM)Dill Wrote: I shudder to think what you consider laughable.  He may not say "Go get a gun and kill someone," but Hannity certainly provides a platform to people who encourage hatred of ethnic groups. And violence does result from that encouragement. 

But the SPLC isn't just monitoring "violence." It is also monitoring hate speech, groups and influential individuals who create and support the worldview of those whose goal is to frighten and punish ethnic minorities in a range ways.

People live in fear of right wing violence, especially Muslims and immigrants. And you are apparently ok with someone who contributes to that, so long as no one links one of his statements to a specific crime.

I am not sure who is carrying signs that say "Kill cops." Are you talking about some individuals who latch themselves on to a demonstration somewhere?  The SPLC monitors hate GROUPS. Is there a group with a platform based upon cop hatred? It so, it will come on the SPLC radar.

For the time being, we'll just have to accept that the overwhelming majority of hate groups in the U.S. are Right wing.
 Leftists fight for equality of all races, ethnic groups, and both sexes, which rarely leads to hate.  Hence the "bias" in monitoring.


 

Like I said, maybe I missed some of Hannity's real bad ones when I put his name in their search, so perhaps you could link me to them.

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 06:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, Pew had a poll (I know, I know, polls bad, blah blah) and it was interesting to me. http://www.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities-see-checks-and-balances-right-to-protest-as-essential-for-democracy/

Specifically:


I'm kind of curious how folks on here feel. Is a free press essential to democracy? I'm not saying a press that in unaccountable and can just print whatever, but the ability for a press to be critical of the administration. Is that essential to a democracy? And this is for everyone, because this was also the lowest scoring one among Democrats on this.

Not sure what you are referring to here Bels. The poll you show says Dems overwhelming favor free press while less than half the Republicans do.  That is the result one would expect.

If we are talking about a liberal democracy in a modern, industrial state, then yes, a free press is essential.

A functioning democracy requires informed voters. The press "checks" government-disseminated information in both senses of the word--vetting information and blocking overreach. The press, when functioning properly, also provides context for current public discussion, the "backstory" needed to evaluate current policies and politicians actions.

However, much of our current dysfunction results from segments of the press which actively dis-inform.

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2017, 06:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what you are referring to here Bels. The poll you show says Dems overwhelming favor free press while less than half the Republicans do.  That is the result one would expect.

I was referring to the score of 76% of Dems said it was essential, which was the lowest among the 5 for them. So even though a higher percentage of Dems said it was essential, fewer of them felt it was essential than the other 4.

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 06:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said, maybe I missed some of Hannity's real bad ones when I put his name in their search, so perhaps you could link me to them.

I'll link you to one here--the debate he set up between Pam Geller and Anjem Choudary.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/05/07/sean-hannity-holds-absurd-debate-between-bigots-pam-geller-and-anjem-choudary

His another one on Hannity's Islamophobia, though not linked to the SPLC.
 http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/21/fox-news-sean-hannity-lets-hate-speech-flow-pushes-islamophobia.html

Hannity daily rages against an ill-defined entity he calls "the left," by which appears to mean most liberals and people who oppose Trump. A favorite tactic is to "reverse charges." He led FOX in calling the MSM "fake news," and feeling himself tarred by the new public discussion about the "Alt-right," regularly refers to something called the "Alt-Left" which would be the MSM and liberal establishment. (A liberal equivalent to Breitbart and Infowars?)  

On a side note, here is Hannity reversing charges on hate speech against the LGBT community. Challenging bigotry against gays becomes liberal "hate speech" for Hannity.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/fox_guest_if_biblical_truth_becomes_hate_speech_america_as_we_know_it_will_cease_to_exist

To people who want Muslims out of the country and don't want equal rights for gays, of course, this is not hate speech. It is defending American values.

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 06:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was referring to the score of 76% of Dems said it was essential, which was the lowest among the 5 for them. So even though a higher percentage of Dems said it was essential, fewer of them felt it was essential than the other 4.

Yes, I see what you mean.  My mistake.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2017, 05:54 PM)Dill Wrote: So far, I haven't decided to "fight words with violence."

Good on you.   I think it was clear I was not directly referencing you personally in that statement.
 

Quote:But there could be something missing from your theory of democratic persuasion.

I don't think that German liberals who couldn't dissuade people from voting Nazi in 1932 had only themselves to blame.

Given that a large percentage of the population voted for a party other than the NSDAP, and their vote count was actually receding by the time Hitler was appointed (not elected people) I'd say you'd be wrong about that.

Quote:And I don't think that black voters of North Carolina had only themselves to blame when the Klan wrested political power from them in 1875.

That's right, which is why the uber-violent Civil Rights Movement under Doctor Martin Luther King had to be formed.

Quote:Much depends on what words people are fighting.

Nope, big time fail here.  It is permissible to physically defend yourself against violence.  It is not ok, ever, to counter words with violence.  This concept isn't that difficult, why do so many of your ilk not seem to get it?

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 07:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given that a large percentage of the population voted for a party other than the NSDAP, and their vote count was actually receding by the time Hitler was appointed (not elected people) I'd say you'd be wrong about that.

That's right, which is why the uber-violent Civil Rights Movement under Doctor Martin Luther King had to be formed.

Nope, big time fail here.  It is permissible to physically defend yourself against violence.  It is not ok, ever, to counter words with violence.  This concept isn't that difficult, why do so many of your ilk not seem to get it?

People of my ilk remember that it was words that pulled people into the Klan and the Nazi party. Then it was words, not violence, which passed discriminatory laws disenfranchising Jews and blacks.

In order for Hitler to be appointed Chancellor, he had to be the head of a party elected to a plurality in the Reichstag. Enough people could not be dissuaded from voting NSDAP to prevent that.  And Hindenberg could not be dissuaded from boosting Hitler to Chancellor, though people certainly tried.  No one but the dissuaders to blame here?

The Civil Rights Movement was Uber-violent?  It certainly seemed so to conservatives at the time. Dr. King's non-violent direct action appalled many, who called for an end to the violence.  

Much depends upon the words people are fighting.

[Benton]

(03-02-2017, 06:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They talked about that with another question.

you and your #@&% polls!

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2017, 10:13 PM)Benton Wrote: you and your #@&% polls!

My bedroom talk involves P-values and IQRs.

Seriously, though, two of my loves are public policy and statistics, so this combines the two.

[Rotobeast]

(03-02-2017, 10:13 PM)Benton Wrote: you and your #@&% polls!

Can't the Germans and Polish be friends ?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2017, 08:09 PM)Dill Wrote: People of my ilk remember that it was words that pulled people into the Klan and the Nazi party. Then it was words, not violence, which passed discriminatory laws disenfranchising Jews and blacks.

No, it was both.

Quote:In order for Hitler to be appointed Chancellor, he had to be the head of a party elected to a plurality in the Reichstag. Enough people could not be dissuaded from voting NSDAP to prevent that.  And Hindenberg could not be dissuaded from boosting Hitler to Chancellor, though people certainly tried.  No one but the dissuaders to blame here?

At it's most popular the NSDAP took in around 37% of the vote, which means that 63% of the voting population did not vote for them.  BTW this was, by far, their high water mark.  If you're looking for someone to blame, try two people; von Papen and von Schleicher.  They subverted the chancellorship, in separate ways, and paved the way for Hitler's ascension, not the minority of voters for the NSDAP.

Quote:The Civil Rights Movement was Uber-violent?  It certainly seemed so to conservatives at the time. Dr. King's non-violent direct action appalled many, who called for an end to the violence.  

I see you're unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm.

Quote:Much depends upon the words people are fighting.

Nothing depends on the words.    If you allow for the idea that words are sometimes fair provocation for violence then you're opening up a Pandora's box of who gets to determine what speech is worthy of getting the speaker punched in the mouth.  I certainly don't want someone like you or Yvette Felarca making that decision for me or anyone else.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-03-2017, 12:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: My bedroom talk involves P-values and IQRs.

Seriously, though, two of my loves are public policy and statistics, so this combines the two.

I genuinely enjoy your posts as is, but if you could incorporate p-value quips it would be a boon to these boards. Thank you in advance.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(03-02-2017, 06:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, Pew had a poll (I know, I know, polls bad, blah blah) and it was interesting to me. http://www.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities-see-checks-and-balances-right-to-protest-as-essential-for-democracy/

Specifically:


I'm kind of curious how folks on here feel. Is a free press essential to democracy? I'm not saying a press that in unaccountable and can just print whatever, but the ability for a press to be critical of the administration. Is that essential to a democracy? And this is for everyone, because this was also the lowest scoring one among Democrats on this.

The problem with a poll such as this is that those on the Right believe that the majority of the press is on the Left, not just leans Left but full on Left. Those on the Right feel that the press is a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and that the press doesn't tell the truth and has an agenda.

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2017, 12:38 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I genuinely enjoy your posts as is, but if you could incorporate p-value quips it would be a boon to these boards. Thank you in advance.

I wish I genuinely had more p-value quips. The only thing I really have about the p-value is the device used to remember when to reject a null hypothesis. "When the p is low, the H0 must go." I'll work on that, though.

(03-03-2017, 01:52 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The problem with a poll such as this is that those on the Right believe that the majority of the press is on the Left, not just leans Left but full on Left. Those on the Right feel that the press is a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and that the press doesn't tell the truth and has an agenda.

While true that the view of the bias causes the difference based on partisanship, you still have fewer Democrats viewing it as essential, as well. Now, we can't take this in a vacuum. Obviously the recent rhetoric by certain persons as well as some of the failings of the media has colored the views of the population. I could argue that the results for this question resulted in a bit more error because of how it was asked and those that created the question not taking events into account. But, since these are often surveys that are conducted numerous times over the course of decades using the same questions so that trends can be adequately observed, they can't really change the question.

All of that being said, criticisms of government will always be rooted in bias. Whether or not journalists are checking their bias at the door as they dig into stories, editorials will always have it. No way around it. The press just needs to root their reasoning in facts, just as we all should. Facts help us form opinions, but when those facts are of the alternative variety, whatever their source, then it is damaging to all of us.

Anyway, the original point of this post, which I seem to have lost in all of this, is that the concern for bias is a real one and explains the difference, but with it scoring lower among the left we need to look at other factors as well. Namely, how does the current perception of the press overall color this? Then we ask the question about what we need to do about it, because a free press is absolutely essential to a democracy or a democratic republic. This is why the first thing autocrats do when they gain power is try to silence them. So what do we, as the people, need to do in order to ensure that we preserve the role of the press in our society?

And I totally started to go off on a rant again, sorry about that. It's Friday, next week is spring break and even though I have to work there are very few kids on campus which makes my life easier.

[Dill]

(03-03-2017, 12:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it was both.

At it's most popular the NSDAP took in around 37% of the vote, which means that 63% of the voting population did not vote for them.  BTW this was, by far, their high water mark.  If you're looking for someone to blame, try two people; von Papen and von Schleicher.  They subverted the chancellorship, in separate ways, and paved the way for Hitler's ascension, not the minority of voters for the NSDAP.

Nothing depends on the words.    If you allow for the idea that words are sometimes fair provocation for violence then you're opening up a Pandora's box of who gets to determine what speech is worthy of getting the speaker punched in the mouth.  I certainly don't want someone like you or Yvette Felarca making that decision for me or anyone else.

I haven't been looking for anyone to blame in this dialogue. Quite the contrary.

You wrote: If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame.

I provided two examples of bad political outcomes in which some reasonable people could not articulate their words into ideas "sufficient to win over the people."   I could add many more, like those few voices who sought to dissuade Confederate states from seceding from the Union.  I don't think Dredd Scott and Homer Plessy have only themselves to blame for losing their Supreme Court cases.  Jews don't have only themselves to blame for not dissuading their fellow German voters from supporting Hitler, though they tried.

There are many reasons why words don't "win over the people," and looking over the political history of modern states, I find it strange and harsh to "blame" people who don't win out.

Pointing out Nazi vote totals doesn't affect my point. The other parties could not dissuade enough people from voting Nazi to prevent their plurality. And it was this plurality that made Hitler the most powerful partly leader in Germany in 1932. So it hardly matters whether a July vote was their "high water mark" since they maintained their plurality through the next election. Liberals and other decent folks could not articulate their words sufficient to win over enough people to block Nazi power in nation wide elections. 

Words are subject to legal censorship/criminalization. And someone gets to determine which words.

[Dill]

(03-03-2017, 01:52 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: The problem with a poll such as this is that those on the Right believe that the majority of the press is on the Left, not just leans Left but full on Left. Those on the Right feel that the press is a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and that the press doesn't tell the truth and has an agenda.

Calling mainstream media "left" already hints at the problem here.

If a group of people thinks in terms of black and white, them or us, friend or enemy from the get go, then they are likely to see most any analysis not favorable to them as "biased" and project conspiracies. This is a worldview intrinsically hostile to the concept of free press, not to mention of loyal opposition.

Since WWII there have been fringe right groups in the US calling everyone they don't like "leftist" and "communist" and what not. What has changed is that since the 1980s this way of viewing American politics has been mainstreamed, first by talk radio, then by Fox.

Today Rush Limbaugh was talking about the "deep shadow state"--the Obama operatives everywhere still in government who are leaking intel to de-legitimize Trump, a conspiracy to make Trump seem incompetent. To Rush and the listeners who call in, NYT reports about contacts between Trump campaigners and the Russians are wholly driven by what one frequent poster to this forum likes to call "butthurt" over a lost election. Criticisms of the White House now constitute a vast, coordinated liberal effort to bring down the Trump revolution with "fake news."  Contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians, during an election cycle in which the Russians agressively intervened, are just no cause for alarm, and to think so reveals bias and immersion in progressive leftist groupthink.

[Dill]

(03-03-2017, 10:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Anyway, the original point of this post, which I seem to have lost in all of this, is that the concern for bias is a real one and explains the difference, but with it scoring lower among the left we need to look at other factors as well. Namely, how does the current perception of the press overall color this? Then we ask the question about what we need to do about it, because a free press is absolutely essential to a democracy or a democratic republic. This is why the first thing autocrats do when they gain power is try to silence them. So what do we, as the people, need to do in order to ensure that we preserve the role of the press in our society?

Glen Beck was talking about your Pew Poll today. First he was all astonished that Republicans scored so low. They are supposed to be the party of principle. 

Then he insisted that the poll would have been very different if taken before 2016. He was clearly having difficulty with the results, and tossing out various hypotheses to manage his surprise that people who elected a president who hates the free press don't appear to support it either.

I think part of the explanation is that the Republican party has lurched much further rightward than at any point in its history, and that many party members may not themselves be clear on the concept of a free press, despite their loud championing of the constitution. 

I hypothesize that their perception that the press is "left" and an organ of the Democratic party is itself an effect of this rightward lurch, not a cause.