I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues:
They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across.
In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not mention the other side or present a very simplified or exaggerated view and provide an opposing viewpoint.
They cover the same thing differently depending on which party is in power. The border crisis is a good example of this.
All of these make it real hard to compare viewpoints with a proper reference frame and even treatment. Eventually I just gave up and read Politico, Bloomberg and FiveThrityEight now. They seem to be used by pros from both sides and mostly report on what's "happening" rather than provide opinion. I can then form my own opinions.
I do the same thing, and I've noticed that this "they don't present the other side" thing is getting worse with time. I recently read [this HuffPo article][0] about how only 1% of American film characters are identifiably Muslim; however, nowhere in the article does it even mention the share of Americans who are Muslim, nor the share of movie characters that are of other religions. These things are certainly obvious and important points of context, but the article doesn't even broach them.
(According to [1], only 1% of Americans are Muslim, and 60+% are Christian--and I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian never mind [how they are portrayed][2])
Worse, this seems to be increasingly prevalent in the academy as well. Indeed, the study cited in the article (from University of Southern California’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative) also doesn't mention these points of context and the paper is pretty overtly propagandist.
"(According to [1], only 1% of Americans are Muslim, and 60+% are Christian--and I would be shocked if 60+% of American film characters are identifiably Christian never mind [how they are portrayed][2])"
Yet both Muslims and Christians are in the news a lot, and there's a lot of political discussion about them.
It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes, wouldn't you agree?
> Yet both Muslims and Christians are in the news a lot, and there's a lot of political discussion about them.
I'm not sure what your point is? That Muslims and Christians should be grateful that the news media talks about them a bit more than the entertainment media? To be clear, I'm not arguing that any particular group should have more representation; I'm criticizing the media for its increasingly propagandist angles.
> It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes, wouldn't you agree?
In general, yes, but that doesn't justify misleading or agenda-driven news media. And in any case, every time people try to "fix" the entertainment media, we end up with awful content (e.g., the GhostBusters reboot) and frankly I don't want to sacrifice that much quality for sake of representation. My wife and I were just talking about how many really good pre-2015 films wouldn't be made today because they don't thrust the characters' race, gender, etc into the foreground.
My point is that religious people, whether Christian, Muslim, or whatever, have a serious impact on our lives, and it would benefit everyone if we engaged with them as real people rather than fantasy stereotypes.
Fictional media can help with this by giving us insight in to what people are really like. My contention is that this is more desirable than merely leaving them as faceless talking points in the news.
IMO it takes serious anthropological commitment to have a non-idiot understanding of a people. I feel this shouldn't be an individual job. Either your entire community has deep, embedded relations with another community or it doesn't.
Otherwise it's like asking for better sources to read about Chinese culture, or like visiting China once a year for vacation. You can't read your way into being culturally competent. You might even move your entire family to China, but it may only be your children who truly begin the road to integration. Anyone who is part of an immigrant community will have a story of the trajectory of cultural competency. It is an optimism which must be fulfilled by your next generation.
You can, however, follow generic protocols of kindness whilst in ignorance.
The standard here is being barely adequate, not perfect. Anyone who is part of an immigrant community knows how hard it is to be adequate. That's why you pass on this optimism to the next generation while you blindly chase cultural fads, hoping your kids will fit in.
You smile and nod your way through.
Anyways, the call here is for community integration, not for individual action.
Are you integrated into an immigrant community? Are you part of a church that deals with immigration? Or an ethnic business community that is part of the immigration chain? Or is your community well integrated with those you seek to understand?
Why go it alone?
Is one's clarity on community affairs the difference between choosing WION and India Times? Or The World Journal?
The problem is that movies influence what we think the truth is. Is Tokyo like the Godzilla movies? I would hope that everything not obviously related to the fictional attack is realistic to how the people actually live, because like it or not movies influence us.
If your only view of Tokyo is what you get through Godzilla movies then you definitely have a problem.
The solution is better movies on Tokyo, not no movies on Tokyo.
You're in luck, though, because there are plenty of great movies on Tokyo -- movies that even people living in Tokyo find give great insights in to their own society.
>> It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes
Yes and no. First, so much media has fallen down when it comes to character development. Then there's the problem of big companies like Disney that are deliberately secular in their content.
> First, so much media has fallen down when it comes to character development.
That's the handy thing about essentialism, you don't need an individual character when you have pre-packaged narratives about their race, gender, etc. Rather than a complex character, we get a canned Black character or a canned White character or a canned Female character or a canned Male character. What do you need to know about a person that you can't infer from their immutable characteristics? (:
I recently read that the main character in "They Live" had an entire backstory that was never told in the movie. Someone (producer, director, ???) Told Roddy Piper to create a backstory for his character and he did, and he played that part even though it was never shared with anyone. I'd thought about that myself for writing - if you define each character ahead of time and keep their character in mind it will aid writing their parts so they are seamless and self-consistent.
for me, personally, absolutely not. I want thoughtful portrayal of character in media that I consume, but am in no way desiring yet more religious representation.
I haven’t seen a realistic Hollywood portrayal of an average American family in the last 20 years because the secular corporate culture is so willfully ignorant. This is argued as being a feature of interesting content though since ‘nothing average is interesting’.
It has skewed perception, but whether that matters is up for debate.
The parent seems to be suggesting that he doesn't want the emphasis to be on diversity, but rather on quality of characters. This doesn't imply that the characters have to be homogeneous.
Having "diverse" characters does not automatically make a movie more interesting. In fact, if you are relying on demographics (religion, race, sexuality) alone to make a character interesting, there is a very good chance the characters are flat, boring, and lazily written.
Of course having diverse characters does not automatically make a movie more interesting.
But interesting movies can be made about diverse characters as they can about homogeneous characters.
Only depicting homogeneous societies furthers ignorance and demonization of people who are different.
Showing more diversity, in interesting, authentic, and deep ways is one an important way we have of striving towards a society where we better understand and value one another, and get along.
> Only depicting homogeneous societies furthers ignorance and demonization of people who are different.
I think you're arguing against a straw man. It seems pretty clear that no one is arguing for less diversity, but rather against diversity for its own sake or prioritizing it above all other concerns.
Interestingly Mormons are 2% of the US population (twice the Muslim %), and I can't think of a single openly Mormon character in any TV show I've ever seen.
They have a whole state to themselves and they're pre-dominantly white. Mormons also produce their own media, they're in the middle of making a multi-part Book of Mormon series. They're an insuluar sect much like Jehovah's Witnesses, so they're not _demanding_ mainstream representation on principle, much like the Amish.
Not to say you're not touching on the question of _why_ we're so enthusiastic in media representation for those of the Islamic faith however, but the Mormons are a pretty open and shut case
There have been movies, such as The Other Side of Heaven.
But as a former Mormon myself I think entertainment is more interesting if it focuses on what we have in common despite our differences, rather than focusing solely on amplifying differences.
Good catch. As someone who works with data for a living I know that just about all stats need context to be meaningful. I notice a lot of stats in news given without context as you have noted.
When analyzing data typically the first thing you do is take out the outliers and then focus on the remaining data. News outlets do the opposite, the take the outlier and make it the headline story and ignore the other 99% of the data.
As a non-american, american media does a terrible job of representing anything outside america, so if that's the reason I would really appreciate if they could stop it...
True, but they're making most of their money from western whiter countries. Which is reflected in their actors/stars. However this is already changing and will get better as the global market continues to expand.
As a non-american, it's not getting better, it's just getting weird. Like this parallel fantasy reality that americans have come up with and convinced themselves that it's what the world outside looks like, that actually has nothing to do with anywhere on earth.
not sure this is correct. We may need to get actual numbers or divide up 'film / media' into different segments..
I recall seeing news about big movies, eg transformers and others where in order to satisfy the global market, ie China, decisions needed to be made.. and given that many of those markets appear to be more racist/anti-muslim, (obv not 100, but majority I believe)
and your comment seems to be suggesting [hope] that things above "will get better as the global market continues to expand." -
I'm not chiming in to say this or that is a good or bad thing, just trying to clarify that some things may make one think catering to broader global markets may not make "western whiter countries" more anti-racist or whatever is being suggested as 'changing and will get better' - if that is the perspective being considered for 'get better'.
There are studies showing "diversity" on movie posters hurt sales abroad - and of course there has been local pushback for whitewashing things for increased sales -
Unless we are talking about gov funded wokeness spreading where making money is not a goal. But I did not get that impression from the thread here.
When they present those percentages does that apply only to Hollywood films, or films world-wide? And do foreign films represent their own populations proportionally, should we and they calculate national proportions or global proportions?
christianity, islam, hinduism, along with the eastern constellation of buddhism/confucianism are the 4 world religions. people of color are roughly 4/5 of the world population. even while christianity and white folks are the majority in the US, it makes sense numerically to have these other aspects of humanity well represented, in addition to white and/or christian. what's puzzling is the outsized representation of jews/judaism (also roughly 1%) in american media considering the stark underrepresentation of black, brown, and asian folks, who account for nearly half of the population (and growing).
> even while christianity and white folks are the majority in the US, it makes sense numerically to have these other aspects of humanity well represented, in addition to white and/or christian.
I’m not white, Christian, or Jewish, and this sentence does not make sense to me. Making entertaining is a business, and it has nothing to do with what percent of people worldwide have what skin color or tribal affiliations.
If people making entertainment predict that they will earn the most money by targeting white, Christian, or Jewish populations, then they should if making the most money is their goal. Have you noticed how every big movie of the last 10+ years has a Chinese character? And a scene in Hong Kong or Shanghai? Many have Latin American characters as well, and Indian, and so on.
ah yes, the token characters, there to either not alienate a foreign market or to meet some superficial diversity quota.
the point is that in a world without significant bias, we'd expect to see many more people of color and of other religions (to name just two aspects) being represented because of sheer numbers and because talents are distributed widely.
The only world without a bias might be one where everyone is a clone and has the same bank balance.
In the real world, there will always be bias. Height, voice, gender, political affiliations. Forget about bias in US media, there are multiple Hollywood within India itself. And there is nothing wrong with that. They cater to different audiences.
And it does not “make sense” for to expect a group of Tamil film makers to add a couple white, black, Chinese, and Latin American characters of their movie is about people who speak Tamil.
didn't say no bias, but rather without significant bias. instead, we have the narrative peddled about how inclusive and diverse hollywood is, when the stats speak for themselves.
this narrative is one facet of one echo chamber, tying back to the original article.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things
Yeah, this is a key thing to realize. People seem to think that Fox News, for example, just trots out falsehoods all the time, but if you skim the news, I'd say very little is actually factually incorrect. It's more about the story selection, who they choose to interview to get the quote, how they contextualize (or don't) statistics, etc.
But once you realize that, you realize it can apply to, e.g. WaPo, which many Republicans say is very left-biased, while many Democrats say it's neutral.
I think an amusing non-partisan example of how story selection biases viewpoints is the so-called "Summer of the Shark"[0] where for whatever reason shark attacks became a part of the summer's zeitgeist and got extensively covered. Meanwhile, shark attacks weren't at any particularly elevated level, contrary to what many people ended up believing.
Fox New's actual news coverage is mostly truthful. But a huge amount of their airtime is opinion pieces and media personalities who spout BS all day. Tucker Carlson is probably the most notorious. Plus they have Republican politicians calling in and showing up constantly, and they're allowed to say whatever they want.
I won't say Fox is the only one guilty of it, but they intentionally mix what would best be described as "opinion pieces" with "real news" and don't really make any effort to draw a clear line between the two. The end result is as disastrous as one would expect when taking someone's personal opinion and selling it as a factual source of news.
I mean, sure, but why are we talking about Fox specifically? CNN, MSNBC, etc. are just as bad. I find this ironic since this thread is about how bias isn't necessarily about outright falsehoods, but story selection and what is not said :)
Jonathan Haidt (who is mentioned in the article) did a study years ago. He separated a group of people into conservatives and liberals and then gave them a questionnaire on politics. Then he got a second group, separated them, and gave them the same questionnaire. Only he asked the second group of liberals and conservatives to answer the questionnaire the way they imagined the other side would.
What he found was that conservatives had no trouble answering the way liberals do. However, liberals could not do likewise. Liberals frequently chose the red herrings on the multiple choice questions, the ones that exaggerated the conservative positions to the point of more or less demonizing conservatives.
That's why we're talking about Fox News, don't you see? CNN and MSNBC are just folks. Fox News is the Anti-Christ.
Even the article itself has this same smell of bias about it.
I'm currently a registered Pacific Green, lean left, and on the political compass I'm basically smack dab on top of Bernie Sanders (whom I voted for and donated to in the 2016 primaries). And have never voted Republican. So his observation is about my own "side" more or less.
But I'm totally unsurprised to see this downvoted here only 18 minutes in.
What's funny is if you bring this up (even with sources) to conservatives. They're unsurprisingly unsurprised. But if you bring it up to liberals they often get furious because it goes against their beliefs that they're the more intelligent, more educated "side". Nevermind that believing in only two possible sides is six times dumber than astrology... something "both sides" are about equally guilty of. If nothing else I strongly encourage everyone to watch his TED talk. It's super informative, well delivered, and has a solid message of unity tbh.
I have a friend I haven't seen since high school, though I'm connected with him on Facebook. He will outright tell you himself that he's a communist—familiar with the writings of Marx, etc. We could not be more diametrically opposed. However, he's as clear-eyed as you seem to be.
I suspect that most people simply aren't all that intellectually curious. I don't remember if Haidt explicitly mentioned this, but I think somewhere either he or someone commenting on his study asserted that it is much easier to pick up the party line of liberals through osmosis, since those in education, the media, and so forth tend to be liberal. So, even conservatives are more readily exposed to the liberal take on things. Liberals on the other hand are not.
But the point I'm making by mentioning my friend and thanking you is that I suspect that people who are intellectually curious are more or less inoculated against mischaracterizing the side they disagree with, since they don't learn almost exclusively through osmosis.
I recommend watching his TED talk. It goes into more detail, and expounds on the abstract underpinnings of both liberal and conservative morals. They're very different. The axes apply even outside America, consistently.
I'm a fan of Haidt and think his moral "tastebuds" (I think he makes that analogy somewhere) is an interesting model. I largely buy into it, but I found a really perceptive take in this short blog post that came out a few years back that's a bit more skeptical. https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2017/05/26/trump-as-...
Thank you for that. I used to read Crooked Timber pretty regularly, years ago. In fact, I had one of the sometime contributors for a semester as a philosophy professor (back in the last century).
I agree Haidt's model is flawed, especially on the idea of sacredness being something liberals aren't concerned with. I think he's onto something, but he's painted with too broad a brush.
Lately, I've been reading a lot on the subject of religion: specifically, from an anthropological or sociological perspective. I'm interested in the idea of ersatz religions—filling the void left by modernity's secularism. My suspicion is that the great bulk of people cannot do without the things that religion affords; and so if they aren't "religious" in the traditional sense, they unwittingly find some substitute that does everything but revere Christ, YHWH, Allah, etc.
Behavior that fits that model I see again and again, on what we think of as the political left.
In a way, it's the Family Feud problem. Spiders are not insects. But if you are playing Family Feud and the prompt is "Name the most popular insect", you should say spider because a lot of people will off the cuff say spiders are insects.
So it's possible they are not answering to how conservatives see themselves.
And let's not ignore that the MFQ is kinda shaky at best.
I also find it interesting in that link is the why they were the most off. Liberals seemed to have been wrong because they regressed to the mean when answering for other people. They seemed to think conservatives were more group-focused than they were and less individual-focused. And vice versa for liberals. They thought that the average liberal was less group-focused and more individual-focused than they were.
And it's not like conservatives weren't wrong. They got it right when estimating the average conservative and liberal answers for individuals, but not groups.
Moderates were the most accurate in estimating the average conservative and liberal answers for groups. And both conservatives and liberals over-estimated conservatives concerns for the group.
So I really don't think it's entirely fair to frame the results as "conservatives know how liberals think better than liberals know how conservatives think". Because another reading of it is that liberals give conservatives a greater benefit of the doubt. And also that conservatives don't even know how little they care for the group.
And that's also ignoring that these are self-reported morality questionnaires. It's not really indicative of how these people might act in real situations. Even Hitler thought he was a swell guy just trying to do right. We all kind of think that of ourselves. No one thinks they're the monster.
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all actually. I'm sure both side demonize the other to some extent, and it's our natural reaction to look at them both as equally bad like we're disciplining two siblings or something, but it really seems that right now the left is more melodramatic in the demonization than the right. In my personal experience, quite a few people I've met seem to think if you disagree with them, you must be full of hate, racist, sexist, dumb, a gun slinging Christian, etc.
My wife (who is pretty far left), observed that Trump was actually many of the things that G.W. Bush was accused of being.
I think a major tenet of post-trump Republicanism is roughly: "We're going to be accused of being racist and conspiracy theorists by the left no matter what we do, so there is only an upside to openly courting those members of the electorate.
It's all part and parcel of the same problem. The default media narrative bubble leans heavily to the left.
People trapped in that bubble are overly confident in what they believe. They aren't often exposed to arguments and data that are contrary to what they're told to believe over and over whenever they turn on the TV. So when these trapped people are confronted with opposing arguments or data, they resort to the easy mechanisms that relieve their cognitive dissonance. "You're a racist" "You're a homophobe" "You're a white supremacist" "You want sick people to die in the streets"
Defunding the police, government handouts, etc etc, whether you are in favor or against them, are policy decisions that some factions within the Democratic party are striving for using democratic (small 'd') methods. That is, if these factions can convince a majority of people to defund the police, then the police will get defunded. That is how democracy works.
If you disagree with defunding the police but with significant other parts of the Democratic platform, you can ally with these people on some issues but fight them on this issue. This is also how democracy works.
Trump attempted to stay in power even though the people voted against him. This is tyranny. Working with him, in any way, is a subversion of democracy. Anyone who is willing to work with him is, by extension, an enemy of democracy.
The only logical conclusion from your post is that you are against democracy: You argue that a policy you disagree with (defunding the police) getting implemented democratically, is a similar level of "bad" as a tyrant being installed. This means that you are willing to see a tyrant installed if the alternative is (democratically chosen!) policy being enacted that you disagree with. Seems like textbook authoritarianism to me.
Not sure why you are getting downvotes. For anyone curious, Haidt is a liberal professor who is dedicated to figuring out how to get people talking across political ideologies. The book that covers this topic is called The Righteous Mind and is an excellent read or listen.
Conservatives didn't have "no problem" answering as liberals.
Conservatives were better able to estimate what liberals would answer for individual concerns, but were wrong about group concerns.
Moderates were better able to estimate how both groups would answer for group concerns. Both liberals and conservatives overestimated how much conservatives cared for group concerns.
Liberals underestimated how much conservatives cared for individual concerns and overestimated how much they cared for group concerns. Liberals also overestimated how much liberals cared for individual concerns and underestimated how much the cared for group concerns.
In light of that, we could even frame it as liberals see themselves closer to conservatives than vice versa. Because that's how they answered for the groups. They think there's less difference than there actually is. So they under and overestimate appropriately.
Framing it as "conservatives know liberals better than vice versa" is wrong and is a tactic to put the onus on liberals to do all the changing. Because conservatives can fill out a morality questionnaire better.
Or let me put it this way, if the question was "How many puppies is it acceptable to kick in a lifetime?"
The fact that puppy kickers were correctly able to guess "zero" for the non-kicking group while the non-kickers said the kickers would say "ten" while the kickers really said "twenty" doesn't mean that the puppy kickers are the better group.
That's not at all what I got out of reading "The Righteous Mind", so not sure how to respond to this constructively. Did you read the book? Granted it's been ~ 1 year since I read it, but I walked away with a completely different impression. The interesting thing that was covered was that liberals and conservatives have different ways to approach moral reasoning.
Republicans tend (this is not universal) to view things through a lense of six things: faith, patriotism, valor, chastity, law and order. Democrats focus on care and fighting oppression. Again, this is a simplification, but the theme is that conservatives have different moral foundations that make it hard for liberals to understand why they make decisions they do. A solid example (I can't remember if this was used in the book, but it helps me) is "why are they voting against their own interests". I hear this in my personal life all the time! I used to say it! Then I realized that voting for someone who is against welfare, when you are low on the socioeconomic spectrum, makes sense if you overweight faith, and believe that abortion is a grave moral sin. What's some poverty now compared to eternal damnation? I don't believe in hell myself, but this insight let me understand that someone who views things different than me isn't dumb, they just have different values that allow them to rationally decide things that my values seem irrational.
The hard part is trying to talk across this gap in moral reasoning, and find the right balance.
Another way to look at this is that extremists have a significant platform on the right, and that is likely to skew the perception of the right by the left.
Atwater's Southern Strategy: attract racists, without saying... you know the rest. He said that a long time ago, but the strategy is obviously still in play (see e.g. Thomas Hofeller, bithers, blatantly anti-mexican and anti-muslim quotes from the party)
The far right keeps showing up bearing the battle flag and nazi flags -- and Flynn, Stone, and Trump appear to love groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Other Republicans who speak out about that get cancelled.
Jerry Sexton's "who knows, maybe some of us will be slaves one of these days."
That's a very interesting study, but I think it's quite spurious to connect this result to media quality/partisanship the way you do. Certainly the study doesn't make this connection. After all, surveys tend to find that Fox News viewers are less informed about domestic and international events than consumers of other news media (one study found them less informed than people who did not watch the news at all). So I don't think this effect is caused by media.
Haidt's study uses his five moral foundations model, where one's moral foundations are characterized by five dimensions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The first two are called "individualizing foundations" and the last three are called "binding foundations".
Haidt's findings in other studies (which generalize beyond just the US or the West) are that people across the political spectrum care about the individualizing foundations, but progressives care more about these foundations than conservatives. But progressives care much less about the binding foundations.
With this in mind, I don't think it's too surprising that conservatives have an easier time estimating the viewpoint of progressives, since the moral foundations of progressives are not alien to conservatives, they are just weighted differently. Whereas for progressives, the moral foundations of conservatives can feel utterly alien and inexplicable, especially if they tend to have their social interactions in a progressive bubble.
(Also, be mindful that the population sample of the study is nowhere close to a random sample of the population. The sample is over 60% female, overwhelmingly young (median age is 28), and liberal participants outnumbered moderates and conservatives combined. Since it's an online survey, there's a reasonable chance that you're mostly reaching urban people, which tend to live in progressive bubbles. Conservatives who live in areas that are mostly progressive may understand progressives better than those who live in conservative bubbles. The study acknowledges this in the discussion section. The result might still hold up, but the effect might be exaggerated by the sample.)
I would be curious to see what that looks like today when elected Republicans are increasingly spouting what you'd call a "demonized" conservative viewpoint if it wasn't coming out of their mouths directly.
"Those are just the opinions of a small fringe" was much more believable in a pre-Trump world - but now, even more than post-Tea Party, the fringe is pushing the agenda.
And even pre-Trump, you can read that study as an indictment of the conservative media and it's evolution to sensationalism since the 1980s.
To use an example from the linked article: "For instance,when conservatives express binding-foundation moral concerns about gay marriage—e.g., that it subverts traditional gender roles and family structures—liberals may have difficulty perceiving any moral value in such traditional arrangements and therefore conclude that conservatives are motivated by simple homophobia, untempered by concerns about fairness, equality, and rights." - the vocal conservatives were not expressing a very nuanced view, it was the violent fringe that was making the most noise and claiming the most airtime even in conservative outlets.
If you want liberals to understand your complex conservative reasoning, you gotta get the very-un-complex trolls off the air!
If this reasoning is correct, then conservatives should be becoming worse at gauging liberals' position on social justice-related topics, considering how their reporting tends to be dominated by extremists as well.
What exactly seems fair? The reply you're responding to asserts there was a "violent fringe that was making the most noise and claiming the most airtime." Is that fair? The discussion, at the time, concerning gay marriage in conservative national media was dominated by a "violent fringe"? Were their calls for violence? Were there even suggestions that violence "may be necessary"?
I'm going to reach here a bit, but are we going to rope in the Westboro Baptist Church and pretend these people were the "conservative" response? Even if we do that, do you recall them—as odious as they are—being violent or advocating violence? And if we're not pointing to them, who are we pointing to?
Fox news personalities frequently allow Trump and his allies airtime where they lie about losing the election to Biden. I don't know how you get any less truthful than that
It's an example of how Fox is less honest than other news companies, exactly what you asked for. They let people on air spout obvious lies all the time. Find a mainstream channel that does the same. I'll wait
I am not from US. And could not care less who won.
I think there is no less honest. It is simple, you lie or don't. In my eyes they are all bad, and it is up to me to inform myself.
CNN has gone so far downhill imo due to this. In the past five years I've seen a shrinking gap between news and opinion, where articles w/o the label are very clearly editorialized. It lowers the quality of the product and at least for me, I no longer read it as much.
That said, journalists are just humans so it's a difficult problem, especially in the heightened political climate we've had.
That seems like a preposterous claim. Those are classic regime television stations. And I find this diagram biased.
Also, "middle" or centrist is not the same as objective. The path of least extreme disagreement is not the same as the truth (ask a Christian: he'll tell you that Jesus is the truth and that the world hates Jesus). Besides, the middle of what? The neoliberal paradigm? The current spread on offer?
Fair point - these dichotomies are often false or manufactured.
However I believe that, to a much greater extent than citizen support for particular political issues, media bias tends to polarize along party-line dimensions because of overlapping power structures.
Fox News has moderated a lot over the past few years, while CNN and MSNBC have moved quite a bit to the left. You see it more on cultural issues than say economic or foreign policy issues. Joy Reid, for example, just says the most outrageous falsehoods and goes completely unrebutted: https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1403950560907300865?s=20
I got the "the civil war wasn't about slavery" line fed to me in school. Reconstruction was a bad thing, too, and it was good when the North stopped meddling. So where's the most outrageous falsehood here? The "nothing to do with" bit? That's not the exact version I got, but the gist was: "the Civil War was about states rights, it's just a coincidence that the right in question was the right to have slaves, but the South wasn't morally in the wrong because states rights are actually that important."
The falsehood is saying that “currently, most K-12 students learn Confederate Race Theory.”
I grew up in solidly Republican Virginia in the 1990s (even my “liberal” Northern VA county voted against Clinton both times) and we certainly didn’t learn the “Daughters of the Confederacy” version. When we visited Monticello, slavery was discussed at length. Teachers have discretion so maybe some kids are still learning this stuff, but it’s a huge lie to say it’s “most” kids today.
Folks like Reid are massively gaslighting people by making it seem like the opposition to CRT is opposition to “teaching kids about slavery.” Conservatives in Virginia weren’t up in arms complaining about that when I was a kid almost 30 years ago, so it’s hard to imagine that’s what they’re doing. The opposition, instead, is to people like Reid who are trying to normalize racism against white people. It’s opposition to people who want to turn slavery into the entire narrative, such as the 1619 Project, which asserted that “nearly everything exceptional about America grew out of slavery”: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/year-zero
> Out of slavery — and the anti-black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional: its economic might, its industrial power, its electoral system, its diet and popular music.
> Fox News has moderated a lot over the past few years
I routinely read Fox News online. I do not think they have moderated over the last 2 years - there was perhaps some moderation 4 years ago, but no longer.
CNN has swung leftward, I don't think MSNBC has substantially changed.
I think they mean the word "Moderated" not in the colloquial sense of removing content, but in the sense that they're opinions are not as strongly right-wing as they once were.
How is that a falsehood? The daughters of the confederacy pushed the "civil war was about state's rights" narrative that is still taught across the South.
> Fox News has moderated a lot over the past few years
They moved slightly back from Trumpism back toward their earlier pre-Trump far-rightism late in the Trump period (not abandoning the former, just not going in whole hog on it), which might be seen as moderation from a tribal/partisan viewpoint (as pre-Trump far-rightism currently lacking a major party home, to the extent many anti-Trump-but-far-right voices advocated voting for Democrats over Republicans despite ideological issues with Democrats in 2020 as essential to the defeat of Trumpism), but is not moderation ideologically.
While the D-R partisan split is not independent of left-right ideology, its not the same thing.
This seems much more accurate to my experience as a leftist. The insistence from centrist liberals that CNN/MSNBC is unbiased seems baffling and delusional.
Did you read that article? I mean, even that article has the multiple bitchy comments thrown in. I would quote, but honestly it would be every other paragraph. But yes, the headline is generally positive I guess. Now, could we find a similar article for Biden in Fox over the next 4 years? I would guess probably.
Anyways it's kind of pointless to argue what the "opposite" of Fox is as it's really ill-defined. i think it's fair to say CNN and Fox are similar to being opposites.
Ok, I'm going to do it:
> Presidents usually get too much blame when the economy is doing badly, since downturns are often caused by outside shocks or cyclical factors, but that also gives them a chance to crow when things are going full steam ahead. Trump is not the kind of person to pass that up.
> The strong growth number gives the White House a significant boost after days of grim headlines, and its failure to move on from the President’s humiliating summit performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin nearly two weeks ago.
> It also offers some personal respite for Trump, given that he must feel that legal walls are closing around him, following news that one of his most important confidants, Allen Weisselberg, has been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors investigating his former lawyer Michael Cohen.
> The New York Times reported on Thursday that special counsel Robert Mueller is examining Trump’s tweets, potentially to see whether they can help him build a case that the President acted with malicious intent when he sacked former FBI Director James Comey.
> Trump is forever trying to change the subject. With the current state of the economy, he may have some ammunition.
> Often, the President’s hyperbolic assessment of his own performance is at odds with the facts
> but he [Trump] often has only himself to blame for it getting overlooked, given the daily political turmoil he creates.
> Trump’s end zone dance might come across as a little premature.
It just goes on and on. I'm practically quoting the whole article. Just the language alone: "humiliating", "walls closing in", etc. Then they quote one poll, presumably the one what makes him look as bad as possible. It's just ridiculous. I don't know how you can say this article is "positive" for Trump. The headline is relatively positive (though even then I can feel CNN begrudgingly wrote some credit).
"Now, could we find a similar article for Biden in Fox over the next 4 years? I would guess probably."
Biden's not the opposite of Trump either. Biden pleases some conservatives, which is why he got the nomination over Sanders, so that he'd stand a chance of winning over "undecided" (ie. right wing, but not extreme right wing) voters in battleground states. Many neocons are also fans of Biden, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to find support of him on FOX.
Now I'd be surprised to find any positive coverage of Sanders on FOX.. not to mention people who are really on the left like Noam Chomsky.
Given the number of actual Trump staff CNN has hired and put on air, I don't think one can credibly argue that they are on the opposite end of the spectrum. As someone who generally politically identifies as "left", I can assure you we are quite frustrated with them.
MSNBC too! They may not have as many Trump folks on primetime panels, but their focus on dumb "Resistance" stuff is definitely not what the left wants at all (though liberals seem to eat it up).
I've heard people characterize cable news as kayfabe—the handbook for professional wrestling. Cable news is entertainment, and the same way the WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE, we have to hope one day CNN and Fox News (along with MSNBC, etc.) will change their monikers.
It seems that the change from WWF to WWE was mainly caused by a trademark dispute with the World Wildlife Fund, but they used the opportunity to emphasize their entertainment focus.
>Mrs. McMahon [(CEO of WWE)] said the company began considering dropping the word "Federation" from its name when World Wildlife Fund (a/k/a World Wide Fund for Nature) prevailed in a recent court action in the United Kingdom. The court ruling prevents the World Wrestling Federation from the use of the logo it adopted in 1998 and the letters WWF in specified circumstances. The "Fund" has indicated that although the two organizations are very different, there is the likelihood of confusion in the market place by virtue of the fact that both organizations use the letters WWF. The Fund has indicated that it does not want to have any association with the World Wrestling Federation. "Therefore," said, Mrs.McMahon, "we will utilize this opportunity to position ourselves emphasizing the entertainment aspect of our company, and, at the same time, allay the concerns of the Fund." [0]
I'm aware of that, but I don't think that changes things much. They chose to call it "entertainment," when they could have called it any number of things. But at the time they had been under increasing criticism of the matches being fixed, etc.
Nope, not even close. Even if we are pretend that all wrestling fans were completely unaware that the WWF was scripted, that ended in Montreal in 1997 when Vince McMahon forced the belt off of Brett Hart. He didn't change the name of the company until 2002. Even before that, Vince declared it was all a work because he was tired of being under the thumb of various athletic and boxing commissions. His people did steroids and he wasn't going to stop them.
WWF officially broke kayfabe 1989 way before the name change because they didn't want to spend the money necessary for live sporting events. Before that pro wrestling was regulated just like boxing or MMA, with state commissioners and taxes and medical requirements.
Does anyone watch TV anymore? I read Fox News online, which is fine, but I don’t think I’ve ever tuned into shows. My parents have CNN on a loop, and even my dad (a die-hard Carter fan) calls it “DNC talking points.”
people can hate on tucker all day long, as they attacked rush and oreilly before him, but tucker brings up issues that resonate in red america. he does a pretty fair job, which is evidenced by how trivial the criticism against him is.
if people are confused about what red america thinks, they would be well served to look at Breitbart, tucker, and independent conservative outlets to see how they frame the discussion. I'm always amazed at how people on the left don't really see what the right is going on about.
> if people are confused about what red america thinks, they would be well served to look at Breitbart, tucker, and independent conservative outlets
I've been scolded for using Breitbart or Tucker Carlson as a barometer for right-wing positions because they're claimed to be extreme, or 'alt-right', and not reflective of how real conservatives think or feel.
Am I the only one who feels Tucker Carlson is so popular because he (a lot like Donald Trump) was willing to challenge the false idols of the Republican establishment (e.g. we need to be at war in Afghanistan/Iraq, the free market isn't always the best especially if it leads to outsourcing and offshoring, etc.)
Might just be me. I dislike 90% of fox news but I listen to Carlson sometimes and never find him to be horrible or BS-y (admittedly I don't listen in all the time so I may be missing some stuff)
I've seen a few clips, they have been pretty bad but with kernel of truths that make it hard to make substantive arguments against whatever he is ranting on. I personally think he's a big stain on news media, even while agreeing with a few points here/there there.
For what it's worth, I've only watched in order to try and understand other people's viewpoints.
More specifically, I think he's terrible because he has mastered the ability to tease out the base instincts of people with his messaging, which makes it hard to either agree or disagree with his statements with logic. He can point to some kernels of truth, and you are left with people saying things like "that's just dogwhistling" when attacking his viewpoints. In other words, he riles up, doesn't cause people to think critically, and overall lowers the level of discourse out there.
I pretty much only see clips of Tucker Carlson that are posted by liberals or leftists to point at and generate outrage.
To me, he seems like a whiner who disingenuously argues against things in a way to bolster conservative talking points. But, I expect the majority of this is selection bias, and only the 'worst' clips are making it into my filter bubble.
We don't even have to litigate whether Fox News airtime is distinctively malignant if we just acknowledge that all 24/7 cable news channels are bad. They kind of have to be, just by the nature of how they compete and what they have to work with in both audiences and source material. Just don't get your news from the TV.
A fair point, but I don't think the concession is worth what you get out of it. A citizen whose sole news source is Fox is considerably less informed than a viewer who might watch exclusively CNN (or possibly even nothing at all, see [1])
Fox News really is worse, and while there may be lessons learned there which can be applied to the other outlets, such as insisting on clearer labeling of opinion content vs reporting, I think it's an all-lives-matter-style distraction to throw up our hands and say there's nothing that can be done and they're all equally bad because it's a problem inherent in the medium.
While I can technically see that some news organizations are worse than others, my issue is that they are all so bad that they are actively doing significant damage to the world and most of the time they are doing it consciously and intentionally, so I don't really get much utility trying to distinguish them from one another.
And yet while they are all genuinely terrible due to trying to remain profitable AND trying to advance their personal political agendas, people are always trying to use the excuse that "its better than X" to justify supporting them.
My solution would be to ignore the news completely, but that solution isn't effective because I know multiple people that insist on ranting about everything they see/hear from the media on a daily basis.
IMO the media is very important for civilization, but somehow we have accepted that deceit, manipulation, and failure are the golden standard.
> If you aren't paying for your media sources, you're the product.
Even if you are paying, you can still be the product, as long as media can make even more money out of it. I mean, why wouldn’t they? More money is more money.
In Sweden we have public service TV channels, but even in that context I think your advice holds up – not a good source for news. Too stressed, too shallow reporting.
It’s extremely easy to construct a biased, opinion-manipulating political hit site composed entirely of truthful statements.
Proof by politically-neutral analogy: imagine a newspaper that published an article every time a roulette wheel stopped on 6, but never for any other number.
The google vs DuckDuckGo search results for the same exact phrase "list of conservatives banned by twitter" yield utterly different results. None of the admittedly right wing websites are even listed in the google results for that search. The only site in common on the first page is Forbes, but even then the two articles are different even though they came out the same exact day.
If you use google, you'd think that twitter isn't censoring conservatives. If you use duckduckgo, you'll think that they do.
Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this.
It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after they've treated both sides.
It also doesn't fall neatly into any liberal/conservative divide. It tends to be socially progressive yet only interested in solutions that can be practically implemented, pro-free market but deeply concerned about externalities and the environment, pro-democracy but with hard-headed realpolitik.
Plus probably half of what each weekly issue covers is news you won't find in any other American publication, at least -- it's a global publication and one of the best ways to simply learn about the entire world's political and economic news.
I don't recommend using the Economist as your only source for international news. It's very deeply ideological in a way that is almost invisible if you can't easily compare it to a known truth.
It's certainly not only interested in solutions that can be implemented. It's interested in solutions that enforce the free market, and it paints non-market solutions as infeasible, even though they often work and are implementable. But this is invisible ideology and very easy to mistake for pragmatism, because a pure pragmatist will certainly appreciate many market solutions.
The final synthesis is not after having treated both sides. It's after having treated two sides, which are editorially chosen.
As far as dialectics it would be much more interesting if they could dialectically analyze their own internal contradictions between democracy and interventionist realpolitik, or between free-market fundamentalism and concern about externalities. But it doesn't really grapple with those, which is a sign that it's only applying dialectical thinking in convenient ways.
In any case, the Economist is not any worse than any other mainstream publication. Often they do pretty good reporting. But you absolutely must not rely on it solely especially for foreign reporting where you don't have bearings.
The Economist is one of the least biased sources of news, that routinely publishes letters, opeds and articles contradicting the sated editorial agenda.
Very few other news sources actually do that.
They're not perfect, but it sure beats NYT.
If you want the optimal news coverage without needing to read a million sources - The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ and The Guardian.
As I said, they show both sides, but they choose which two.
They are not as forthcoming with their biases as it seems. They mainly set up their ideological oppositions as conservatives, but they in fact have a lot in common with them. This is especially true for foreign relations.
I'd be happy to see examples of articles that go against the Economists' editorial agenda in profound ways and that pertain to foreign policy.
If you want news coverage that is any good at all and you care about foreign affairs you absolutely have to include at least one and preferably two non-anglophone or non-western sources that preferably oppose each other.
A good barometer I have for journals as far as foreign policy is their coverage of the Iraq War before it began. As far as I can see the Economist published almost nothing opposing it, limiting themselves to surface-level reporting of anti-war arguments in the sole goal of defeating them.
I don't understand why you would limit yourself, if you had to choose 4 sources, to 4 centrist anglophone sources. It seems like a very biased media diet.
Centrism is a political position just the same as any other, and is just as biased.
Most major news sources in the world report in English too. So you can indeed read news from sources that aren't from culturally similar anglophone countries and instead are from anywhere in the world.
> And how can 4 "centrist" sources be "very biased"? Isn't it literally the opposite?
No, centrism isn’t the opposite of bias.
Centrism is a position toward which there can bias of any strength. Position of bias on a left/right (or any other ideological) axis and strength of bias or two orthogonal, continuous dimensions.
But in practice "centrist" news sources are far more likely to present multiple points of view -- e.g. a left and right one -- while "left" and "right" news sources generally do not.
But at a deeper level, centrism isn't really an ideology at all, in the way the left and right can be. You can be a hard-core leftist or you can be a hard-core conservative, but the idea of a "hard-core centrist" doesn't really exist.
So I'd argue centrism can be the opposite of bias in a very real way. It's about dropping bias towards ideologies, and treating issues in a practical balanced way.
> But in practice "centrist" news sources are far more likely to present multiple points of view
No, in practice less strongly biased sources are more likely to present multiple points of view. Now, the same amount of variation can seem more diverse when you tend to bucket things into “left/right” binary categories, if the center of variation is near the point where you draw the line between buckets.
But that's an artifact of forcing things into binary buckets making a centrist outlet providing center-left to center-right views look more diverse than a right-wing publication providing center-right to far-right views.
The Economist has not changed its bias in over a hundred and fifty years, staying firmly focused on economic liberalism. Eighteen years is nothing.
>4 sources that aren't radical, have clear motivation behind them. Money makes people write in a particular way, that is easy to gauge.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Just because they have a bias that is for the status quo doesn't mean they are more or less right. As far as I'm concerned all I'm getting from this is "I agree with this ideological bias and I don't want to read anything else"
Anyways, it's your decision to subscribe to a biased news diet. You're not any better because of which bias you choose than someone who only reads Newsmax or CNN.
If your assessment is that anything that's not from the same ideology as these four sources is "insane crap", which it isn't, good points are being made by people of all political persuasions, then it's clear that you have created your own media echo chamber.
+1. I sometimes regret subscribing to Financial Times, but their bias is pretty easy to identify and accept/reject once you understand it. I counterbalance it with Jacobian (far-left/communist - choose your adjective - news).
There's an adage in math modeling/statistics: all models are wrong, but some are useful.
Here, all newspapers are biased, but some are useful.
I don't understand why people keep arguing against journals or newspapers because they are allegedly ideological or biased. Everybody is ideological and biased. Are they afraid they might lose all their critical thinking skills once they read such a journal and somehow be influenced or brainwashed without realizing it?
The people who recommend against those medias already believe of themselves that they are better informed and able to recognize the bias. If they are that critical, then they should have no troubles consuming biased and ideological media, and they shouldn't assume without further evidence that others don't have the same ability.
Especially in this case it's weird, because the journal is called The Economist. Obviously you'd expect some bias pro economy there.
I'm arguing against the GP that said that it's okay to read only the Economist. It's not okay to read only a single source. You can be as critical as you want but if you no longer have any bearings on a subject you're being led by the nose.
Also, "pro-economy bias" is pretty vague. There are many ways one could be biased in a way so as to focus on a better economy, and they can be radically different.
That's true. Although it's worth mentioning that "mediums" is also accepted as a plural of "medium" in English, but not when it's used for communication media.
> In any case, the Economist is not any worse than any other mainstream publication. Often they do pretty good reporting. But you absolutely must not rely on it solely especially for foreign reporting where you don't have bearings.
I think this is perhaps misguided. It's not fair to the economist to compare an article on, eg. politics in Brazil, against the nuanced understanding that a Brazilian citizen would have, because most people from North American with no other ties to Brazil would have no frame of reference.
In other words, the choice is not, a simplified version of the issues vs a nuanced understanding, it's a simplified understanding of the issue vs none at all.
I lived in Brazil for many years and read the local news closely.
Whenever the Economist published an article on Brazilian politics, it was generally far superior and far more insightful than anything in the local press. Which genuinely surprised me.
Remember -- most local news sources, whether in the US or Brazil, aren't nuanced at all. They're surface-level and sensationalistic.
But while Brazil has a home-grown news equivalent of Time ("Veja"), as well as USA Today (O Globo) it simply doesn't have any home-grown news source at the level of sophistication of the Economist, not even for domestic news.
For what it's worth, I find the same is true of Canada. We have some decent news organizations but whenever there is an Economist article about Canada, I find the insights a bit deeper and the context more complete.
Interesting, I am often find nonplussed by their cover of Canadian stories, especially by what they choose to cover - "buttergate" and dearth of some obscure condiment Asians use in Vancouver come to mind as recent examples.
I find The Globe & Mail and MacLeans quite solid when it comes to news coverage.
But this is a bit of a false dichotomy. There is no reason why you would have to limit yourself to North-American sources here. Plenty of news agencies around the world have articles in English without the anglophone bias it may bring.
And even non-local sources may still bring some enlightenment. If you were trying to understand Brazilian politics but couldn't read any Brazilian sources, it would still be much better to read Anglo, European and, say, Middle Eastern reporting and then consider the differences in reporting and how they might be linked to their worldview.
Besides, oftentimes a simplistic and biased understanding whose inaccuracy is not understood is much worse than no understanding at all. At least in the second case you are aware of your ignorance and will probably be more weary of rash action.
I like their articles, but I can’t recommend the Economist after attempting to cancel my subscription the last time I had one. It took me over an hour of digging through the website, and then phone calls where they tried to up-sell me, side-sell me, every-way-sell me on discounts and different packages no matter how many times I said I just wanted to cancel my account. It’s possibly the worst experience I’ve ever had cancelling something.
Just use a privacy.com card and cancel the card when you're done with the subscription. I agree that it's trash to have to do something like that, but it's a pretty easy solution.
Arguing that Economist is bad, because it was complex to cancel your subscription (I see a massive button on my account page) is like arguing that a restaurant is bad, because they don't accept gold coins as payment.
100% agree, but the problem I have with the economist is that it requires serious mental commitment to engage with their articles. The meat of the story is buried deep. The only times I find myself capable of reading are when I'm traveling or commuting.
The issues come weekly with really interesting topical stories, so I always add them to my reading todo list, but they just pile up so fast.
This past year and 1/2 of WFH life meant, I now have about 50 issues to go through LOL.
"the problem with this news source, is that it requires thinking to parse!"
Sorry for the jab, but I think this is our current political situation in a nutshell - surface level, emotional takes are the primary way people engage in news and thus politics. It's hard to engage deeply, but it's required in order to build your own narrative, rather than just take on someone else's.
I have been reading the economist for a while now and im curious if you have felt a decline in quality or maybe its just my differing in opinion from recent articles.
Mostly i feel more articles coming up that are worded in a way to convince the reader or a certain point without any data. This is something i never really noticed in the past.
That certainly seems true though I wouldn't say it's specific to the economist. I've noticed the change in every publication, even stuff like the Financial Times.
I was listening to all of The Economist's podcasts on Spotify until recently. I found their bias grew and grew over time until it was just too annoying to listen. I think they realized their target market was yuppie (lean strongly left) and made the (correct) business decision to cater to them exclusively.
There are some benefits to the Economist, such as the ones you mentioned but I don't know that I could recommend it, at least without a secondary source for what you're reading there.
I stopped reading it about 10 years ago for a few reasons. During the housing crisis the coverage wasn't as deep as it should have been and I would read articles that were nothing more than "nationalizing banks is bad" without explaining why.
Their coverage of US politics was also laughably bad. During the push to pass the ACA they overstated the GOP's position and willingness to deal. I used to get it from a library a few towns over so I would be 3-4 weeks behind. One time I was reading an article where Charles Grassley was being made out to be principled and respected and I'm laughing because he had recently endorsed the death panel nonsense.
I really, really wish I could recommend the WSJ, however they declined pretty heavily after Murdoch bought them. The number of long form articles declined and I was seeing less journalism and more ideological fluff in the non-editorial sections.
"Their coverage of US politics was also laughably bad."
It's an English magazine that's not even 'News'.
Also this: "During the push to pass the ACA they overstated the GOP's position and willingness to deal." Is a pretty petty reason to not read something. Also, they could have been right.
There are better reasons not to read the Economist.
Multiple examples of a publication's analysis being found lacking and a reaction of no longer consuming it as a result is not "pretty petty". I'm reading them for their non-US coverage, and if I find their US coverage to be lacking(which it was despite your attempts at gaslighting otherwise) than it is reasonable to question their non-US reporting and not waste time on it.
No, they were proven to have been wrong. I provided a specific example of their analysis being wrong, one which you did not address. The ACA passed along party lines after almost a year of deliberation. The GOP spent the subsequent decade running on "repeal and replace" only to get seriously close once. There are multiple other examples (McConnell declaring the goal of making Obama a one term president, refusing to conduct hearings to confirm Garland to the SC after recommending him, etc.) of where the GOP was acting in bad faith, which is also what you are doing here.
The Economist certainly doesn't break down easily on the American political spectrum, but in the more coherent language of higher level policy, the Economist is almost 100% liberal.
I agree its a well put together publication, but a socialist (for instance) would argue it is deeply ideological.
Well, it is deeply ideological. But if we're being honest, everything is. The Economist is fine to read as long as you really deeply understand it's ideology.
Then you're already misjudging the bias, the Economist supported interventionist in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and even soft intervention in Bolivia. It's as interventionist as most.
As far as free trade, that's difficult to apply to most situations.
The Economist strikes me as very liberal, and not particularly conservative. And by that I mean the traditional definition of liberal, not Democratic-Party-of-the-US liberal.
Conservatism is a relative term. You can be a conservative right-winger, a conservative socialist, a conservative liberal or any other kind of conservative as long as your social situation fits it. Many articles by the Economist are conservative in that they intend to defend and conserve the status-quo, especially when dealing with foreign policy.
You're using conservativism vey much in American GOP understanding of the term, which has stopped being conservative a while ago.
Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal.
Economist literally had a massive article what is conservativism. And - SPOILER - UK Torries used to be conservative, while GOP has been reactionary/populist for a while now.
> Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal.
As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”.
In a society with a capitalist (including most modern mixed) economy, “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal, because the status quo elites in a capitalist society are those empowered by and dependent on economic liberalism for their position.
(“Classical conservativism” is not relative, and is defined relative to the pre-capitalist status quo, and is specifically tends to be about the defense of the titled, landed aristocracy. But, because that is no longer an established elite, there's not a lot of classical conservatism left to defend.)
> upthread claim that you can’t be a conservative and an economic liberal
Nowhere I claimed that you cannot be economically liberal. You intentionally removed context out of my claim that conservatives will use economic policy to make an ad hominem attack.
> As a relative politico-economic position, conservative is “defense of the position of status quo elites”.
That's a very narrow understanding of conservativism.
> “conservative” in the relative sense is always economically liberal
Conservatives have often taken steps to restrict market forces, that forced radical changes. So no - you cannot generalize conservativism to "economically liberal".
But rather than listening to me, feel free to read up a scholarly article.
> But rather than listening to me, feel free to read up a scholarly article.
...which amounts to “lots of people have used it lots of conflicting ways, some even denying it has meaning.” Which, as someone with a political science degree with cobsiderable exposure to both political philosophy and more common political dialogue, I’m well aware of. If you accept that whole space of use and non-use, the upthread claim that you can’t be a conservative and an economic liberal at the same time is more, not less, ridiculous, so perhaps you posted your response one comment two far down the thread?
Market forces are radical. They can force incredible change. I don't think that meddling in the market and supporting the status-quo are mutually exclusive.
I also don't think that being economically liberal means letting the market destroy itself or push large societal changes.
I am not. I don't think the GOP definition of conservatism admits conservative socialism.
You definitely can be a conservative liberal. The American society by and large is founded on liberal principles. All you have to do to be a conservative liberal is to stick to 18th-19th century liberalism, in being a so-called "classical liberal".
I agree that the GOP is reactionary more than conservative.
Classical liberalism - complete laissez faire market, no government interference and individual wealth creation. Today's libertarians are closest to classical liberals.
The term classical liberal exists specifically, because conservative liberal creates a massive ambiguity.
And getting back to The Economist - they aren't conservative at all. It's a modern liberal magazine, that routinely promotes wealth redistribution and support for the poor.
This is a frustrating comment chain for me to read. The person you are responding to clearly is already familiar with the concept of classical liberalism, and you are responding as if they are a dunce.
I agree, it's a traditional conservative business view point: less regulation, free trade, free press, democratic government with a strong fair legal system.
It's a semantic debate, and not a particularly interesting one at that.
"Classical liberal" and "conservative" are not necessarily at odds. "Liberal" in the sense that you are using it is a political philosophy, conservative is just a slot to fill in.
"They dont talk about or even cover the same things" - this is the number one fake news tactic in play. I'm not sure what to call it, but it's a 2x2 matrix -
If a group is left-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the left and everything bad about the right, If a group is right-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the right and everything bad about the left. For example, you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats, and you'll almost never see Fox News write an article critical about Republicans. So you end up without much overlap between the two.
They'll only report on the same things when those common things are important enough / loud enough to where they can't ignore it, or when they're able to put their own political interpretation on it when telling the viewer what to think.
Not only that, they go out of their way to police the topics in forums and social media.
Mentioning the wrong topics gets people labelled as pushing "talking points" or "conspiracy theories" with total disregard to the factual reality behind. It doesn't serve the partisan narrative and that's all one needs to know. Insisting will get your suspended, muted, banned or deboosted/shadowbanned.
>For example, you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats, and you'll almost never see Fox News write an article critical about Republicans. So you end up without much overlap between the two.
Except for everything Democrats and Republicans agree upon.
Which is a lot.
There's a massive amount Americans miss because thet witness very lively debate on very circumscribed topics.
Slightly OT but it's disheartening to see the overton window at work when people call Democrats "left". It's like the frame of reference has shifted so far to one side that "slightly progressive corporate-run party" vs "socially conservative corporate-run party" is framed as "left vs right".
I don't mind that kind of bias, if your 2x2 matrix was right -- that each of them reports everything good about their side and everything bad about the other side. If that were true, you could sum them up and have a pretty balanced total news source.
The problem with Fox News and CNN is the biased attitude. They report everything good as amazing and everything bad as horrible. The anchors are "performing" the news, telling you with their tone, body language and vocal intonations how disgusted you should be or how much you should be rejoicing. This phenomenon has infiltrated the NYT and WSJ as well, and I've stopped reading both.
I've noticed this "performance" in the NYT, but the WSJ news articles have mostly stayed pretty dry. Their opinion section however does not follow suit.
Except for stuff responding to new Trump-era revelations, they don't seem to have much current criticism of Republicans not buried within criticism of how Democrats deal with them, representing their actual bias in critical opinion coverage, in that it focuses on people currently in power.
(When Republicans held the White House and the Senate, they had more direct criticism of Republicans.)
CNN is a bad example of a left leaning news outlet. They're quite centrist. The reason mainstream media appears to be left biased is because people use the government's political center as their frame of reference rather than that of the populace. The media caters to political beliefs of actual average American. The federal government caters to the center of voting power, which is heavily skewed towards smaller states which tend to be more conservative. This disparity is what people perceive as "left bias".
> The reason mainstream media appears to be left biased is because people use the government's political center as their frame of reference rather than that of the populace. The media caters to political beliefs of actual average American. The federal government caters to the center of voting power, which is heavily skewed towards smaller states which tend to be more conservative. This disparity is what people perceive as "left bias".
Super interesting take, thanks! I've always been so confused by conservatives labeling all mainstream media as left-biased when I, as a liberal, see them as centrist or conservative.
Studies show that "left bias" in mainstream media is much greater than it is among Americans in general. For example:
"Compared with 2002, the percentage of full-time U.S. journalists who claim to be Democrats has dropped 8 percentage points in 2013 to about 28 percent, moving this figure closer to the overall population percentage of 30 percent, according to a December 12-15, 2013, ABC News/Washington Post national poll of 1,005 adults. This is the lowest percentage of journalists saying they are Democrats since 1971. An even larger drop was observed among journalists who said they were Republicans in 2013 (7.1 percent) than in 2002 (18 percent), but the 2013 figure is still notably lower than the percentage of U.S. adults who identified with the Republican Party (24 percent according to the poll mentioned above)."
The percentage of the American population which is either Democrat or Republican is consistently[1] well[2] above[3] 90%[4], so I'm not sure where you're getting 54%.
> The percentage of the American population which is either Democrat or Republican is consistently[1] well[2] above[3] 90%[4]
Even if you read “voting for a D or R candidate in a Presidential general election” as “being a D or R”, and “eligible voters” as “the American population”, both which are clearly and wildly wrong, your evidence still doesn’t support your claim, because it has 98.2% of 66.2% = 65% of eligible voters, which is not “well above 90%”.
Those links show that out of all Americans who vote in presidential elections, well above 90% vote for either a Democrat or a Republican. However, that does not mean that well above 90% of Americans are either Democrats or Republicans.
> PS Americans also overwhelmingly vote either Democrat or Republican in non-presidential elections
Americans overwhelmingly abstain rather than voting for any of the offered candidates, Democrat, Republican, or independent or minor party, in non-Presidential elections. 2018 had the highest midterm turnout since the before the Reagan era, and it reached the whole way up to 49%.
What do you mean by "people's actions"? If you mean voting, well, Democrats and Republicans get about the same number of votes in presidential elections, which does not seem to justify your view that "left" media bias just reflects the political leaning of the average American.
Except Democrats have been consistently beating Republicans in presidential elections. Click the links. Go back further if you want to. The Republican candidate has won the popular vote exactly once (in 2004) since 1990.
The Presidential election popular vote margin has not gone over 10 million votes in over three decades now, in a country that has averaged about 300 million residents over that time span. These are not margins that support the idea that the population as a whole skews left as much as mainstream media skews left.
COM Library has a ranking system for news organizations that seems to line up pretty well with my personal observations [0]. They show CNN as centrist but left-leaning. This agrees with my personal experience, except for news stories in the "woke" category, where CNN seems to skew far left.
> This agrees with my personal experience, except for news stories in the "woke" category, where CNN seems to skew far left.
You do realize that “woke” as a pejorative originated in left-wing criticism of bourgeois, centrist identity politics?
So, unless you are saying that CNN has joined that leftist critique, I think what you really probably mean is that CNN represents a strongly-held centrist position in that area, not a far-left one.
I cannot recommend the show and podcast 'Breaking Points', by Saagar Enjeti and Krystal Ball enough. They are top notch journalists who formerly hosted a daily news show called 'Rising' on The Hill, but left recently in order to be more independent and free of advertiser influence (censorship).
While they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. They cut through much of the partisan, mainstream BS - and get to the heart of many issues, all while debating ea. other in a civilized way.
agree. recently discovered them, very impressed.
I think their new show has some kinks to work out and a bit more modernization of the graphics to put it back on par with how things they were doing were presented with their spots through "the Hill."
Which I hope stay online to show how they are professional.
I also hope their new show gets the graphics and tech to catch up quickly, as they are a refreshing source of truths that need to be told, and I'd like others to be able to watch and feel the same without being distracted and wondering if the new/current as of June 21 make them amateurs with uninformed opinions - instead of the professionals with the history and knowledge that some of us have become aware of.
So glad to see them doing real and truth - we need more.
When I caught part of on TV the other night with Sharyl Attkisson
) I had a similar - jaw drop - OMG someone is telling the truth and they are on the air and not in a mysterious car accident! This is amazing.
EX-CNN aparrently(?) - maybe it's going to be a new movement of like ex-X-cult - no longer beholden to Y -
Perhaps old media is not just losing but started to be lost.
I want a browser extension to highlight individual reporters and info about past biases - as it's too hard to pin a portal as being one way or the other, when there are shills mixed in with regular reporters and editors all mucking up everything it seems.
If you like podcasts, try Left, Right & Center by KCRW. Their sister show All the Presidents' Lawyers is pretty good too, but what I like about LR&C is that it really does show multiple sides without a constant yelling fest. Sure there are the occasional "you don't really believe that do you?" moments, but it's largely civil.
I unsubscribed from that newsletter a few months ago when I realized it was just perpetuating the problem by reporting on "both sides", even in cases where there wasn't much worth talking about on either "side". It's interesting if you would like to understand what propaganda the elites in each political party would like their base to digest, but it's not very interesting if you just want to see what actually happened on a particular day.
Someone on Hacker News a while back recommended the Wikipedia current events portal[0] and I have to say this feels like a more efficient way to consume the news. It feels less tied to trending topics and manufactured drama, and is more centered on what actually happened in the world that was especially notable on a particular day.
I feel like a lot of "news" that's reported in the American political media is just ideological argument, which after you've read the same argument for the nth time doesn't come across as very interesting any more.
I've been a subscriber to Tangle for a while now and I love his takes on the news.
He operates just a little to the right of my own political persuasions, but even when I disagree with him, it's a respectful disagreement. Isaac's positions are nuanced, well-reasonsed and kind.
That newsletter is exactly what we all wish political debate in the US was like.
I tried this for a while and then gave up and read no news whatsoever. For important issues, I’ll hear about it from friends and family in person. In the few situations where I wanted to learn more, it was such a slog to search and filter through garbage to find even the most simple facts (eg, what’s contained in recent us covid stimulus package) it’s just reinforced my decision that putting in routine work just to keep up on events isn’t worth it.
I highly recommend experimenting with turning off the news completely for a time. You quickly find that the vast majority of "Breaking News!" that gets shoveled out simply isn't that important for most people, and is there mainly to feed a news addiction.
Alternatively, use the Internet Archives to read news from this date from 2-5 few years ago. You'll probably find that most aren't worth reading, which gives you a good sense of how important the news you read today will seem in just a few years.
I read all those but consider them fairly partisan, at this point, e.g. they have to satisfy their clientele. I add Reuters and a few others like that to the mix but even that is difficult. Sometimes you have to search within the website to find coverage for specific stories and it's buried deeper down.
I think the idea that media can be neutral is pretty unrealistic anyway. Even non-profits like PBS or government orgs like VOA will have their slant so it'll always require the extra work.
IMO Comparing viewpoints isn’t as important as simply popping you out of the bubble. The key is to distrust the media more than you distrust the “other side”.
Exactly. The reality is there almost always exists more than two viewpoints. Maybe it's not done deliberately, but this false dilemma may be a big reason the echo chamber effect is so powerful. I'll also acknowledge it's difficult to find reputable sources which present more than two viewpoints.
I used to do what you did(just read a bunch of major publications from differing political orientations) but also found issue with not being able to compare different perspectives easily.
I'm a bit disappointed that outlets like NTY, or Associated Press for cryin out loud, are branded as "Left". Disappointing that actual Left-wing discourse is so outside currently acceptable Overton window.
I tried this, too and realized similar things. I then decided that I do not really care (at least not that much) about understanding which way each source wants to spin things. I instead want information about the world to form my own opinions.
I started reading international news. That is, focus on publications outside country X when reading about X.
Reports from Sweden, Korea, Russia and UK (thanks google translate!) translated into English, awkward wording and all, plus a minimal dose of CNN and Fox works better for me than a mix of American media. Just my 2c.
I might even wrap it up as a convenient page or app.
Right. Because of these news sources are BUSINESSES. Their job is to manage their own "image" to keep people around for the advertisers. Like it or not (me, not) this is a much easier way to grok what's going on with them. Their priority is viewers -- mostly retaining them. So you keep with the general idea that "you should tell the truth" by choosing which truths to tell, and then perhaps "gambling" by once in a while doing something outrageous that will excite the base.
I would suggest reading some sources outside the US. Specifically, I would recommend the Economist. While the Economist has a very distinct view, it does provide a little higher level, distanced view of US and world politics.
It has highlighted to me some biases from some of the sources I follow on a day by day basis (NYT, Washington Post).
Bonus points for the Economist, because you also get coverage and analysis of events across the world many of which get almost 0 coverage in US press.
just watch C-SPAN and cut out the crap; then compare coverage of the same speech or event or whatever. All of the media will pick out single words from an hours-long talk and invent their own context, ignoring the rest of the hour
Our tech ingests articles from different publishers, groups them into topics based on the story they are covering, then analyze and score them based on how informative they are and present curated articles as best perspectives from left/right/center.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things,
This is a big issue. But at the same time - it's not clear to me what the solution when every side is pushing hype rather than news. How do you publish an "opposing take" on something the other side is publishing that isn't real in the first place? It's not ideal to even acknowledge lies.
You can't always even get supportive viewpoints of some policies. If some policy is too unpopular with the base, they seem to just get very quiet about it, or discuss it in very general terms.
Maybe they don't cover the same things because the "things" are like their flags they are using to signal each other. It's like two different gangs using different symbolism to communicate with their own members. They don't need to talk to the other side, they need to instead rally their own side.
Maybe study each side like you're studying a gang. Get to know the symbolism and language.
Bloomberg and Politico are great. Also recommend TheHill and RealClearPolitics.
There’s a growing number of writers on sub stack covering the same issue from different sides. Often this is formulated as a response of rebuttal to the left-leaning media’s coverage of the issue, but that’s fine because you still get both sides of the story if you read things in conjunction.
>All of these make it real hard to compare viewpoints with a proper reference frame and even treatment.
The thing I look for in good political writing isn't objectivity, which is mostly fictional, but an honest centering of perspective. This has two parts to me - a clear declaration about what the author thinks is the right answer and a commitment to making sure any opposing viewpoints are given as the holders of them would give them before being attacked. Like...I do think the US Republican party is not serious about many of their stated concerns, but I think it's easiest to see that when you contrast their stated views with their mostly political action.
This can get a little distasteful with racist or other hateful views, but there's no need to go into detail with the views of the groups you are writing against. You just need to describe them in a way they can recognize before you tear them apart.
So I guess I do not think good writing requires even treatment - it just requires demonstrating that you have understood what your opponents have said before you move to disagree with it. So, so, so much writing in US politics takes place between commentators who, for all appearances, have no real understanding of what their opponents want or why they might want it.
Here’s a simple one: Last year, when anti-asian crimes were on the rise, the NYTimes dutifully reported the crimes.
But repeatedly omitted details like ethnicity or name, until a white attacker made the news.
For those earlier details, the rag the NY Post (conservative and borderline tabloid) was the paper to go to.
Eventually—as in many months after—the NY Times stated covering the full details because the problem was too obvious. Even then the Ny Times uses every opportunity to downplay the issue.
I’m sure conservative journalists are just as biased in their own way.
I've done something similar. If you look at what, say, the National Review thinks is important on a given day, and compare that to what the NYTimes is reporting on, it's pretty clear that we're not merely disagreeing about a particular set of facts, we're living on different planets.
> I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico.
Those are the sources you tried to balance with? Every one of those is a fringe hard-leaning source, except maybe Wapo which can't be trusted because it's owned by Bezos. You need to seek more moderate sources to begin with.
Ground News handles aggregating and showing each source that is discussing the same topic event. It has become the first site I go to for news and from there I can easily access virtually everything else while knowing what the perspective that I'm stepping into is in advance.
From my observation they (at least Fox News) do report on all the same things, they just made the articles not fitting their agenda buried deep in their websites, and on their TV channel they don't report it, or just quickly mention it on their non opinion segments.
"They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across."
I've noticed this as well. Going from WaPo to Breitbart (or vice versa) is like going to an alternate world. When they are talking about the same thing often they are doing so in a belittling manner (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/11/13/safety-pin-ant...). I feel like the tone taken by MSM outlets like WaPo and the NYT has become harsher and more condescending, but it could just be me paying closer attention to it.
Bias by exclusion doesn't get talked about as much as it should. One way you can tell when a media establishment doesn't like something is that they do what they can to ignore it. During the Dem primaries it had become a meme in some left wing communities the length the MSM was going to ignore Bernie and his popularity. Another popular example is how Noam Chomsky is largely shunned by the MSM.
On Facebook it’s even worse. I’d you follow every political party plus some popular figures on every side during an election, you get nothing but extremism from every side. Literal right wing nazis as well as “burn it all down” leftists, at least a few years ago before I deleted my account.
In my experience, the biggest contributor to the echo chambers is a lack of memory.
I do not think people's memories are bad, but rather they willfully ignore the other party's position, never learned it in the first place, or are justifying it because their party is in power. This is what centrists frequently get mocked at "both sides" about. They aren't saying "oh both sides are trying to stage an insurrection" they are saying "both sides are not going to let immigrants across the border" (but it'll be generalized to everything being both sided).
I think the way to cure this is also the way to make parties better. Criticism. We should always critique our parties to make them better. Unless you believe they are perfect already and getting direct commands from god, it is deserving of criticism. But we've encouraged a culture where criticism isn't (effectively) allowed. It is allowed by certain people who speak in a certain way, but not for the average person. (e.g. if you are speaking to someone you don't know that well and politics are brought up and you criticize something x party recently did it will be presumed you are of the opposing side). I believe part of this is because we are comparing politicians and parties rather than judging them independently (this is also why I'm a big supporter of Cardinal voting as opposed to the common Ordinal propositions).
This is essentially the root of whataboutism. The classic example is one I had my parents many times over the last decade. I suggest Trump should be investigated for his connections to Epstein given his frequent contact. And my dad would be like "but what about Clinton!" and my response has always been "yeah, him too." Because it isn't about parties, it is about the crime that was potentially committed. If something is bad, then it is bad if the other party does it or if your party does it. Tribes don't matter. The whataboutism is just a distraction technique.
I started to pay really close attention to political news back in 2015/2016. There was this crazy phenomenon during the Trump administration where both sides felt like the other side was living in an alternate reality.
The truth is that news sources for each side presented completely different stories. While one side got a certain story, the other side was completely silent. So you had two groups of people who had two different sets of unrelated stories, and very rarely did they overlap. The media did an amazing job of putting each group into their own silo, making it impossible to discuss anything between groups or for any positive Trump news to ever be known to a large percentage of the population.
It's difficult because you're so drastically limiting your sources (to ones that are all low-quality IMO). Every time you read an article and care about the topic, just.... Google it. There are a thousand and one independent sources, Twitter threads, etc etc etc. I don't consider myself to truly understand any binary debate unless I've heard an intelligent argument on both sides; it's just not my experience that any interesting discussion has a side that's literally meaningless (though I'm perhaps begging the question by not finding eg Pizzagate "interesting").
When I was living in Canada, I managed to get myself to caucuses of Christy Clarke though I wasn't even a citizen. Still have few photos of me in a $20 Chinese suit feeling very odd in the setting of the Vancouver club.
It's amazing how much scoop you can get on both the establishment, and the opposition from first hands.
Just ask, politicians are talkative types. You are blessed with living in a country where you don't end on the bottom of a lake for asking politician a wrong question.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives.
https://ground.news has an interface that highlights which news outlets with what general bias are covering which stories, which is sometimes fun to take a look at
Fivethirtyeight is not even remotely bipartisan. It’s hard to forget Nate’s role in spreading propaganda polls last election cycle and his reaction afterwards when it was clear they were all fake.
I don't always agree with them ideologically, but I find it valuable to hear a perspective on US politics & media from outside the usual Right/Center-Right binary.
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives
I remember seeing Twitter chatter from the right re: the Fauci email dump, and so I went on various liberal outlets to try to get the left-wing perspective, and it was complete crickets.
Especially when it's something I can't just read and form an opinion on myself (Fauci's email dump was absolutely massive), I depend on journalists to accurately summarize and contextualize primary sources. And it's really hard to get a straight take when one side won't even bother to write a "this is a nothingburger, here's why" article.
Just read that and...there's nothing. Fauci's one of the most prominent people on the planet, dealing with one of the worst pandemics in recent human history, so I'd honestly expect his emails to contain way more interesting stuff than what the Tangle pulled out. If that's all there is, no wonder it's crickets from everybody except the right, who have an obvious interest in discrediting Fauci and a notable disinclination to give a shit about facts.
Thanks! I was looking for a summary as well from someone who understands that their take is just THEIR take. I find it funny that it seems like the most objective people are those that confront their subjectivity. And Isaac Saul seems to do it well here.
Was it massive? My impression was that it was exactly what you'd expect - basically a nothingburger, a few interesting tidbits, most of the sensational stuff was taken out of context and/or already known and/or flatly misrepresented.
What are some things that we should have taken away from the Fauci emails that the broader left/centrist medias missed?
I'm not even sure if its true since most media will barely engage with the issue. But Fauci appeared concerned that Covid-19 could potentially be the result of a gain-of-function research that artificially evolved another COVID strain to increase its effectiveness at spreading.
If true, COVID-19 is the biggest scientific fuck up of all time. Fauci had allegedly pushed to resume funding that sort of research.
Instead, the powers that be sort of dismissed it as a conspiracy theory for over a year until it was suddenly okay to talk about a few months ago.
Again, I can't even tell if any of that is true because most media outlets ignored it.
This should be trivially easy for proponents of that theory to prove it if that is in his emails. Just link to an un-edited, full context email thread relevant to that topic.
So does this exist? If so, just share that link. If not, stop pretending that "media bias" is an excuse to continue sharing the claim surrounded by unfounded conspiracy thinking.
>Thanks for sharing. Yes, I saw this earlier today and both Eddie and myself are actually quoted in it. It's a great article, but the problem is that our phylogenetic analyses aren't able to answer whether the sequences are unusual at individual residues, except if they are completely off. On a phylogenetic tree the virus looks totally normal and the close clustering with bats suggest that bats serve as the reservoir. The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1 ) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.
>We have a good team lined up to look very critically at this, so we should know much more at the end of the weekend. I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change
HN formatting is primitive, but the relevant sentence is "Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory."
Notice how when you present the facts, people get really quiet. No, "Wow, I checked out the source and you appear to be right. I'm going to have to re-think these issues."
Nobody who is dumb enough to let such a thing come into existence in the first place winds up with a career arc that takes them through a position of substantial authority at the federal level.
Having worked at a media outlet, it's not particularly credible that they "ignored" it. Maybe some of them did.
But if the Washington Post and Buzzfeed (who are also, uh, media sources themselves) FOIA'ed 3200 pages of Fauci emails, there's a zero percent chance - zero - that someone from a bunch of orgs didn't at least take a look.
The reason it looks like they "ignored" it is because they didn't see a story to report. Which is how the process should work.
So if there were a Fauci email saying, "Yeah, we probably created covid, whoops" there's a zero percent chance you wouldn't see at least someone linking to the email in question. Do you see those links? There you go.
Google News gives you precisely this portfolio of vendors. Why would anyone subscribe to a single news vendor? I'd also advise adding WION, Al Jazeera, Axios, and The Guardian + BBC.
Al Jazeera, Guardian, BBC, etc. are all left of center by US standards, especially the Guardian (which is way left).
Some center-right outlets that are still worth reading* (and I say this as a raging leftist):
The Hill, National Review, Foreign Affairs, Wall Street Journal, The Economist
*(as in they provide both informational "what's happening" and insightful analysis without venturing into flat out fake news... as long as you avoid their editorials and comments)
I suppose those are "classically conservative" news outlets, as in "small government but with a general respect for evidence-based governance, science, and the truth". I don't know of any reputable populist-right/alt-right outlets. I don't know if there even IS a reputable populist-right/alt-right movement to begin with, but that's another discussion.
Side note: Google News (as of a year or two ago, when they revamped their algorithms) unfortunately now also gives you a bunch of worthless blogs and fake news (the literal kind) outlets. I have hundreds of sources in my "never show this source" blacklist and even then it's barely usable. That said, it's still a useful way to see different takes on the same topic. Their grouping algorithm is a lot better than their vetting algorithm. Some of those sources should just not show up for anyone.
If you don't like Google News, then you can go with the next best -- Apple News.
But then you can see the consequence. Apple News has less crazy but sometimes misses entire stories. Google catches what Apple misses. For the purposes of understanding the news landscape, it is more important to know that a conversation exists and to estimate its trajectory, than it is to get correct takes.
I would if Apple ever publishes it on Android. They don't really believe in cross-platform =/
I only ever really make time for the news on the crapper. It's a nice way to compartmentalize. Plus it cleanses the soul... shit goes in, shit goes out. Current events are too depressing otherwise.
It's gotten significantly worse over time. Are there better alternatives that collate news, by topic, from multiple sources?
Newsvoice was an app that tried to crowdsource that job instead of using algorithms. It very quickly became an alt-right cesspool, presumably because those are the same people who feel disenfranchised by FAKE NEWS LIBERAL MEDIA and so flock to alternative communities.
I do not see that as a problem. Most news media is at least to some extent propaganda and basically all of it is biased. At the end of the day, if I want truth then I have to evaluate each bit of news media for its credibility whether it comes from state funded propaganda or from some supposedly impartial organization. So what I want from an aggregator is to just show me relevant content without trying to sort it by credibility. I trust myself to sort news media by credibility much more than I trust any aggregator to sort it for me.
Yes, the utility of an aggregator is not to show you correctness, but to help you survey the landscape of narratives and trajectories.
The utility of looking at multiple similar voices is to get a sense of the scale of a story, and inter-rater reliability; otherwise you have a portfolio of unweighted novelties.
The Guardian and the BBC basically represent the same political faction as say the New York Times and CNN in the USA, except obviously with more focus on UK stories. You can even see the overlap when they report on stories from the other country.
Inter-rater reliability is very useful. You don't simply seek novelty, right? Not having the vocabulary to discuss the agreement and disagreement of the BBC or the Guardian would be a mistake if you want to talk about news fluency, as they have made a name for themselves in the west.
The BBC and the Guardian do differ on takes, but both are very far cry from the right-leaning outlets. Both are part of the same left-leaning echo chamber in that nobody on the right trusts either source.
Good luck getting a Breitbart/Newsmax reader to switch to even the NY Times or Reuters or AP, much less The Guardian.
They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across.
In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not mention the other side or present a very simplified or exaggerated view and provide an opposing viewpoint.
They cover the same thing differently depending on which party is in power. The border crisis is a good example of this.
All of these make it real hard to compare viewpoints with a proper reference frame and even treatment. Eventually I just gave up and read Politico, Bloomberg and FiveThrityEight now. They seem to be used by pros from both sides and mostly report on what's "happening" rather than provide opinion. I can then form my own opinions.