|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 07 2016 19:57 Furikawari wrote:
Neutral press is an illusion. All people have ideas and will let them influence their work, consciously or not. I much largely prefer a press where each one stands by his ideas, like this I can apply my own filters.
Remember, a lot of things look great in theory but never work when applied to humanity.
Neutral press doesn't mean anything and probably if it did it wouldn't be a good thing. What you need is diverse, independent and high quality press that doesn't belong to groups and finantial interests using it to push an agenda (like Fox and Murdoch empire for example).
The US have a few of such papers (the NYT comes to mind of course) but the mediatic landscape is occupied mainly by brutal propaganda (fox),cash machines with no rules (cnn) and now post truth bs for the morons (Breitbart). And that's a serious problem, because democracy becomes empty if the media is simply a weapon to the powerful and the bullshitter. You need well informed (and hopefully educated) citizens for the system to function at all. Trump's campaign and election demonstrates that on that level, something is completely broken in the US, and that's a very serious problem.
Very sadly, the internet, which promised an era of independent journalism and access to free quality information everywhere, has turned into a giant platform for conspiracy theories, super low quality media and proto fascist activism. And in the digital native generation, it seems that the gamergate a-holes and the alt right folks are much better at using the new technologies than sincere people who want to share genuine information.
|
On December 07 2016 13:08 biology]major wrote:
CNN giving white supremacists a platform with direct 1v1 interviews.. this network has reached depths I didn't think was attainable.
While I completely disagree with white supremacists, I don't really see the problem in interviewing them. As long as it's done in a professional way (think Will McAvoy in the Newsroom). If, however, you just fawn over them and let them use the interview as a soapbox for whatever they want to say, then you have essentially made CNN a mouthpiece for them. Which I would agree is pretty bad.
However, why target CNN? Aren't you a fan of Breitbart? They have been the unopposed mouthpiece of plenty of white supremacists. While the alt-right deny they are white supremacists, their ideals show so much overlap, they might as well be. And that's being charitable and allowing the alt-right to whitewash away the actual neo-nazis who latched onto their platform.
Here is Milo on the matter:
The really interesting members of the alt-right though, and the most numerous, are the natural conservatives. They are perhaps psychologically inclined to be unsettled by threats to western culture from mass immigration and maybe by non-straight relationships. Yet, unlike the 1488ers, the presence of such doesn’t send them into fits of rage. They want to build their homogeneous communities, sure — but they don’t want to commit any pogroms along the way. Indeed, they would prefer non-violent solutions.
From this long article here (originally posted on Breitbart), which is worth the read in its entirety. The paragraph above basically says that the goals of the neonazis and this group he calls "natural conservatives", who make up the main ideological core of the alt-right, are the same. The latter just reject the former group's penchant for achieving those goals with violence.
Now I might have confused you with other posters here, but I thought you liked Breitbart. Lets face it, the real problem here is that the media is after whatever generates clicks. And shock factor generates lots of clicks. So yeah, the news has gone full Ron Burgundy... and unfortunately not just CNN. + Show Spoiler +
|
On December 07 2016 20:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 19:57 Furikawari wrote:
Neutral press is an illusion. All people have ideas and will let them influence their work, consciously or not. I much largely prefer a press where each one stands by his ideas, like this I can apply my own filters.
Remember, a lot of things look great in theory but never work when applied to humanity. Neutral press doesn't mean anything and probably if it did it wouldn't be a good thing. What you need is diverse, independent and high quality press that doesn't belong to groups and finantial interests using it to push an agenda (like Fox and Murdoch empire for example). The US have a few of such papers (the NYT comes to mind of course) but the mediatic landscape is occupied mainly by brutal propaganda (fox),cash machines with no rules (cnn) and now post truth bs for the morons (Breitbart). And that's a serious problem, because democracy becomes empty if the media is simply a weapon to the powerful and the bullshitter. You need well informed (and hopefully educated) citizens for the system to function at all. Trump's campaign and election demonstrates that on that level, something is completely broken in the US, and that's a very serious problem. Very sadly, the internet, which promised an era of independent journalism and access to free quality information everywhere, has turned into a giant platform for conspiracy theories, super low quality media and proto fascist activism. And in the digital native generation, it seems that the gamergate a-holes and the alt right folks are much better at using the new technologies than sincere people who want to share genuine information.
To me high quality press is detailed, accurate information. I don't need to hear the opinions of journalists, if I want an editorial I'll read one.
I don't know why people defend their echo chambers.
Don't tell me that the media isn't biased either. Trump had to overcome a monstrous stream of anti-Trump media. There is very, very little press which reflected Trump in a neutral light, most of it was quite negative. The media tried to place the candidate they favored on to a pedestal, how is that anywhere near neutral?
|
Uhm, how is reporting on what Trump actually said "biased" or "not neutral"?
If anything, the press was way too nice for way too long with Trump.
|
On December 07 2016 21:53 Velr wrote:
Uhm, how is reporting on what Trump actually said "biased" or "not neutral"?
If anything, the press was way too nice for way too long with Trump.
To be fair, you can easily cover someone negatively (or positively) by only repeating literally what they said. You simply quote selectively. Not that I think that was happening with Trump. He just said and tweeted lots and lots and lots of nonsense.
It's really hard to know whether the correct way to report that is to say "look, the candidate for president is spouting drivel again", or to ignore it. I mean... it wasn't some Hollywood wannabe spouting drivel, it was one of the main candidates for the presidency. On the other hand, not everything he said should be treated as news and repeated ad nauseam on TV. That was basically done because apparently more Trump = more viewers = more ad revenue.
Unfortunately, unless we are willing to pay for journalism again (either through the government and public news channels that are independently operated, such as the BBC, or through subscriptions, like in printed news), "quality" journalism will be relegated to some minor "elitist" media that manage to stay alive, while the rest will go full CNN/HuffPo/FOX, because clicks/views = revenue, and what generates clicks/views is sensationalist crap, and not thoughtful journalism.
|
Besides, the notion that Trump had to "overcome" one of the things that played a key role in his victory, namely all the press coverage (both negative and positive) that he freely received, is misguided. Though Trump took advantage of a current problem in media messaging (though I think he did (and does) this totally unintentionally) and used it to his advantage, to suggest that that problem is merely "anti-Trump bias" in the mainstream media ignores a lot of the complexity at issue.
For example, AM radio is and always has been the seat of power for unorthodox right-wing media and was once the right hand to the left hand of newspapers when it came to how US society consumed its political news (There's a lot of good theory on how the form of media plays a role in its ability to convey particular kinds of ideologies, but you'll have to read stuff like McLuhan for more on that). Radio certainly had its downswing, but with the spread of internet-based radio platforms that closely mimic AM radio sensibilities and access potential, it'd be a mistake to overlook exactly what "mainstream media" means relative to the voting populations at play. This is especially true in light of the voters who came out for Trump in unexpected numbers; you better believe a fair number of them listen to a fair amount of radio.
The point I'm trying to get at is that typical attitudes towards the media were basically proven wrong this past election, so in trying to get a better understanding of where we go from here, I don't think it makes sense to paint in strokes as broad as "mainstream media=anti-Trump". There is a large grouping of television and newspaper media that are inarguably liberal, but in terms of consumption and influence, it seems that they may no longer be accurately characterized as mainstream.
|
I'm not saying Trump didn't bounce off his media coverage, it was a double edged sword and he used it well. The "dishonest media" probably helped more than anything.
What I am truly deploring is the lack of neutral, quality media, where one can get their facts straight without the editorials. I think that's really hard to get these days. I don't need to see my news delivered with liberal or anti-liberal tints, I don't think anyone else does either.
|
What makes you think "neutral, quality media" is a real thing in the first place? Most conceptions of "neutral, quality media" amount to little more than nostalgic backwards glances to times during which the speaker lacked the critical capacity needed to identify the various interests at play in the media. There's little reason to think that there has ever really been a neutral media (that there isn't a neutral history of the media is for another time I should think  )
|
On December 07 2016 22:25 Incognoto wrote:
I'm not saying Trump didn't bounce off his media coverage, it was a double edged sword and he used it well. The "dishonest media" probably helped more than anything.
What I am truly deploring is the lack of neutral, quality media, where one can get their facts straight without the editorials. I think that's really hard to get these days. I don't need to see my news delivered with liberal or anti-liberal tints, I don't think anyone else does either.
how much are you willing to pay for it?
Quality journalism costs money.
it's also near impossible to avoid news that is at least tinted.
you can get stuff that's pretty good; with low bias; but no bias isn't really possible. Since there's limited space, and choices on waht to report and not to report.
And, even if you had a perfect source; a lot of people would claim it is biased anyways.
on the topic of sec of state and romney:
this reminds me of my perception of the 2012 republican primaries; wherein it felt like romney was someone they found acceptable, but were really unenthused about, and they spent a lot of time trying out different alternate candidates to see if they could find one they really liked, but they couldn't, so they ultimately settled on Romney.
If that's not clear enough I have an analogy I could provide.
|
On December 07 2016 12:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA? I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights? None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all. You're misunderstanding needs with image. Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood? Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill? The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about. The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?" The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems. ah; I understand the needs/image distinction, I just didn't realize you were focusing on the image one. I focus on the needs one by default. I'm still not sure the difference and change is a result of what you say it is. I'd say my case that one of the big changes is simply the decline in union membership; as I previously cited it's gone down by some 10% of the total population; and the dems got a lot of their support from the unions. So less union membership = less dem trend. I'm not saying "do we really have to?" in the way wherein a whiny child does so on their toothbrushing or osmesuch (i'm not sure which inflection you're saying it with); I am aiming for an "is it actually necessary?" some things are in fact fine and are being worked on. There's representing what constituent want you to be working on, then there's actually solving the real problems they have. Also, maybe you have it the other way around, maybe some people stopped being democrat constitutents, so the dems don't cater to them as much. How do you know which way it is? Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities. It sorta feels to me like what the claims are is shifting, though that's probably from me not being clear on what you were driving it initially. Also, I'm not a dem, i'm a strongly democrat leaning independent. Why do you think union membership is down? People just got tired of having too much negotiating power and decided to work for less money and fewer benefits? Your causality is all messed up. And I'd like to know what you meant by unions are a sometimes "necessary evil."
I think union membership is down due to structural changes in the economy.
Certain sectors of the economy are much more likely to have unions than others.
In particular, manufacturing stuff in factories tend to have unions a lot.
The economy has shifted from a manufacturing one to a service one; and automation has greatly reduced the number of people working in factories.
Thus union membership is down.
By necessary evil here's what I mean (might not apply outside America):
unions are a monopoly on the supply of labor. They use that monopoly power to get more stuff.
Monopolies can cause problems, which is why there are things like anti-trust laws. monopolies are in general a bad thing.
In practice however, the unions, especially in the past, served as a counterweight to the power of management/owners, and helped improve standards. They can also ensure the wealth is spread around reasonably rather than all going to owners.
I said might not apply outside america because in america the relation of unions to owners has been historically and continues to be very adversarial. I have heard that in some countries the relationship is much more cooperative.
|
Since we're discussing media coverage of the election, the Shorenstein center just released its final study on the tone of the election coverage in various print and television media outlets. It provides some interesting insights.
News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage during the 2016 general election, and concludes that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump received coverage that was overwhelmingly negative in tone and extremely light on policy.
The negativity was not unique to the 2016 election cycle but instead part of a pattern in place since the 1980s and one that is not limited to election coverage. “A healthy dose of negativity is unquestionably a good thing,” writes Thomas Patterson, the study’s author. “Yet an incessant stream of criticism has a corrosive effect. It needlessly erodes trust in political leaders and institutions and undermines confidence in government and policy,” resulting in a media environment full of false equivalencies that can mislead voters about the choices they face.
The study found that, on topics relating to the candidates’ fitness for office, Clinton and Trump’s coverage was virtually identical in terms of its negative tone. “Were the allegations surrounding Clinton of the same order of magnitude as those surrounding Trump?” asks Patterson. “It’s a question that political reporters made no serious effort to answer during the 2016 campaign.”
This is the final report of a multi-part research series analyzing news coverage of candidates and issues during the 2016 presidential election. The study tracks news coverage from the second week of August 2016 to the day before Election Day.
This Shorenstein Center study is based on an analysis of news reports by ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The study’s data were provided by Media Tenor, a firm that specializes in the content analysis of news coverage. The research was partially funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
The first graph, summarizing their results:
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-1-general-election-768x351.png)
Clinton's less negative coverage in the general election was to a significant extent fueled by the positive coverage she received with regards to reporting on polls which showed her winning. Worth noting, however, is that in the final week of the election, Trump's coverage was more positive in tone than Clinton's.
Source
|
These graphs are rather telling:
Trump's coverage from the major outlets:
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-9-general-election-768x390.png)
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-10-general-election-768x380.png)
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-11-general-election-768x316.png)
Clinton's coverage from the major outlets:
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-13-general-election-768x389.png)
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-14-general-election-768x392.png)
![[image loading]](http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Figure-16-general-election-768x329.png)
|
What a complete shitshow. This is not how the media should operate. This is just so, so sad to see in numbers. The presidency is so important. And this is what the media feeds us.
gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If 2016 is the year of the populist wave then Trump is absolutely the man of the year.
|
On December 07 2016 23:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 12:32 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA? I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights? None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all. You're misunderstanding needs with image. Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood? Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill? The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about. The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?" The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems. ah; I understand the needs/image distinction, I just didn't realize you were focusing on the image one. I focus on the needs one by default. I'm still not sure the difference and change is a result of what you say it is. I'd say my case that one of the big changes is simply the decline in union membership; as I previously cited it's gone down by some 10% of the total population; and the dems got a lot of their support from the unions. So less union membership = less dem trend. I'm not saying "do we really have to?" in the way wherein a whiny child does so on their toothbrushing or osmesuch (i'm not sure which inflection you're saying it with); I am aiming for an "is it actually necessary?" some things are in fact fine and are being worked on. There's representing what constituent want you to be working on, then there's actually solving the real problems they have. Also, maybe you have it the other way around, maybe some people stopped being democrat constitutents, so the dems don't cater to them as much. How do you know which way it is? Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities. It sorta feels to me like what the claims are is shifting, though that's probably from me not being clear on what you were driving it initially. Also, I'm not a dem, i'm a strongly democrat leaning independent. Why do you think union membership is down? People just got tired of having too much negotiating power and decided to work for less money and fewer benefits? Your causality is all messed up. And I'd like to know what you meant by unions are a sometimes "necessary evil." I think union membership is down due to structural changes in the economy. Certain sectors of the economy are much more likely to have unions than others. In particular, manufacturing stuff in factories tend to have unions a lot. The economy has shifted from a manufacturing one to a service one; and automation has greatly reduced the number of people working in factories. Thus union membership is down. By necessary evil here's what I mean (might not apply outside America): unions are a monopoly on the supply of labor. They use that monopoly power to get more stuff. Monopolies can cause problems, which is why there are things like anti-trust laws. monopolies are in general a bad thing. In practice however, the unions, especially in the past, served as a counterweight to the power of management/owners, and helped improve standards. They can also ensure the wealth is spread around reasonably rather than all going to owners. I said might not apply outside america because in america the relation of unions to owners has been historically and continues to be very adversarial. I have heard that in some countries the relationship is much more cooperative.
The structure of the economy is shaped by human political forces. There's nothing "natural" about the evolution of our economy towards flexibilized precarious employment in the service sector. You are, probably unconsciously, importing naturalizing norms into your assessment of the forces that have moved our economy from centralized factories to a decentralized service economy. But in doing so you are ignoring the real decisions made by employers and politicians to drive down the price of labor. What do you think people are referring to when they use the phrase "neoliberalism"? It is used quite often in relation to the ideologically driven policies that have broken up unions and reduced job security across all sectors.
|
On December 08 2016 01:28 LegalLord wrote:
If 2016 is the year of the populist wave then Trump is absolutely the man of the year.
Yeah, I don't think it took much thought to pick Trump. He was about as obvious of a pick as it gets.
|
On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016
Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention:
+ Show Spoiler +
Divided America has been in the works for quite a while.
|
On December 08 2016 01:04 Mohdoo wrote:
What a complete shitshow. This is not how the media should operate. This is just so, so sad to see in numbers. The presidency is so important. And this is what the media feeds us.
gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Or: this what you choose to consume.
Everyone always complains about what is on the telly/in the paper, but everyone still watches/reads the same shit.
And now these media people are saying "don't watch/read anything other than us, they're fake".
Yeah, right.
At a certain point, you've just got to give up on them. We should have given up on the banks in 2008, and now in 2016 we should give up on the media. I doubt we will, however, because people will say "no, they are essential, we can't live without them or try to replace them with something better. We have to save them."
Let them crash and burn this time, please.
Oh well, one can only hope this is gradually happening anyway, but it's just not come to a conclusion yet in the pages of history. On both accounts.
|
How does one give up on banks or give up on the media? Stop consuming their products? No more loans and live under a rock?
I don't get it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
