|
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 August 24 2017 02:24 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2017 01:02 IgnE wrote:On August 24 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:On August 24 2017 00:27 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2017 00:16 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2017 23:21 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, if everyone looks like a leftist from where you're standing then the odds are good that you're standing pretty far right. Consider the logical implications of the alternative. Half the press would need to be as far right as the furthest right person and the other half would need to be as far left as the furthest left person. Only then would all people see an equally divided press. The fact that you don't see them as equally divided does not show the system has failed, it shows that you're not standing above the central fulcrum. If everybody looks like a leftist, it might be because only 7% polled identify as Republicans, and the precipitous decline happened in the modern era. Statistics show unhappy logical implications. Science can do that sometimes. ..... So the middle is always in the middle. That's how it works. It's in the name. Then there is left of centre, and right of centre. These are two equally sized blocs, because, as the name suggests, the centre is in the middle. What you have just done is attempted to define the right as "Republicans" and then, by showing that there are not many Republicans, attempted to prove that there are far more people left of the centre than there are right of the centre. That's not just an unhappy logical implication, that's an impossible logical implication. If there is more on one side of the where you think the middle is than there is on the other side, you're wrong about where the middle is. I'm going to go ahead and propose a rival explanation for you. The political right is bigger than the Republican party. It includes people who don't agree with you on everything. You're just further right than they are and therefore from your perspective they look left to you. This would be fine if we used right and left as individual subjective terms. But we don't. So it's not fine. So you need to stop. So you need to open yourself up to the rival explanation. The Republican Party represents millions of Americans. It holds incredible majorities of governorships and state houses. It trades back control of the House and Senate (recently setting a record for House seats held) and the presidency every few years. But incredible majorities of journalistic talent were fostered in left wing journalism schools and joined their bubbles of opinion in New York and DC. They were then humiliated by missing the Trump phenomenon and blamed everyone but themselves. Your argument is that since there's always a center, there can never be a bias, therefore there isn't a substantial bias. Sorry, pal. They've set their ideological tent up and now you can watch the fake news roll off the presses (routinely denied here by this forums leftists). It has given Trump wide latitude to lie because they surrendered their trust with too visible of an ideological slant. It's bad for everybody societally-speaking, but simultaneously good for ratings because you can tune in to Trump bashing or media bashing at your leisure. The president's bad, the media establishment is bad, both parties are insular and poor representatives, the country is more divided than ever, and this seems unlikely to change in the intermediate term. Nobody wins Kwark, but keep pretending your preferred villains are truly villainous and your preferred outlets are fine. have you considered the rival rival explanation? that republican principles and policies are largely so intellectually and morally bankrupt that educated, thoughtful people would be too embarrassed to ever identify as such even if they ultimately want to pay lower taxes? my anecdotal evidence suggests that highly educated conservatives are more likely to identify as independent or even, god forbid, libertarian, than to identify as a republican. its like admitting to being a brain dead simpleton. Then explain to me why Trump won the white college educated vote and he got more than 40% of the total college Educated vote? That's still millions of people who voted for those intelectually and morally bankrupt principles and policies.
There's not really a lot to explain in the context of this argument. People have the capacity to believe in intellectually bankrupt ideas, a lot, for a long time. Doesn't really change the value of the ideas by itself. If you do look at the trends for everyone everywhere, you will see that educated people generally vote for the far right a lot less than non-educated people. On top of that you will see that even in the context of white people in the US in this specific election, educated whites voted for the far right much less than non-educated whites, which supports the existence of the trend regardless.
|
On August 24 2017 02:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2017 02:38 oBlade wrote:On August 24 2017 02:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 24 2017 02:24 Doodsmack wrote:On August 24 2017 02:19 oBlade wrote:On August 24 2017 02:14 Plansix wrote:
The media is made up of the people, but is somehow against the people. Everything is made up of the people, this is reductivist absurdity, ISIS is made up of the people. On August 24 2017 02:14 Plansix wrote:
Except the media that is pro trump, they are patriotic Americans.
The legacy of Nixon. Who are you quoting here? Your post on journalism was pretty clearly only talking about the liberal portion of the media. Well, your point was absurd (as was the article), so an absurd response seems fairly adequate. Someone posting (frequently) on a game forum should not be correlating life priorities with readership/viewership numbers. Here is the Bloomberg question: Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now?I do not think the answer is Starcraft, I don't think you think the answer is Starcraft, if anyone thought the answer was Starcraft they could have answered "None of these," it wasn't a poll about life priorities, their methodology was Starcraft-proof. Yes, exactly. The question had nothing to do with media consumption. Journalism, and news, is media. Media, shockingly, does not correlate with prioritization of issues in the country. It correlates to "if you were to turn on the TV/visit a website/read a dead tree, what is going to keep your eyes on us". Likewise, if I were to ask you what the most important issue for your current life is, it would not be Starcraft. Yet, contrary to that, your media consumption would show that Starcraft in fact takes up a disproportionate total of your life. tl;dr - Stuff people really care about is boring.
It is the same subset of issues, political issues in the country, it wasn't about Starcraft or ESPN or just any old media, it was about the news ostensibly doing its job, in the time that they talk about issues, and in that time they couldn't even focus on the right ones, or if you're implying network news coverage is meant to be entertainment then I don't see how you haven't already granted what the exact problem is.
|
Why is the critique limited to "network news coverage" as though there isn't a shitload of non-network news coverage intended to be entertainment just the same? I mean, come the fuck on, conservative talk radio blended entertainment with truthy bits of news before even the likes of Crossfire began to air.
That said, quite a few posts in this thread make more sense when you attach a Paul Harvey-esque "and now for the rest of the story..." to the end, so what do I know.
|
On August 24 2017 02:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2017 02:44 Danglars wrote:On August 24 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:
I mean all I'm really getting from your rebuttal is "fake news", "liberal colleges", and "out of touch New York elites". It's almost like all you understand is buzzwords and sound bites. I don't really know what to say. Say something other than buzzwords?
I did, but I can focus in on sound bites if that's the limit of your understanding of the topic. I edited my response to be more in keeping with your preferred method of analysis.
|
On August 24 2017 02:24 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2017 01:02 IgnE wrote:On August 24 2017 00:48 Danglars wrote:On August 24 2017 00:27 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2017 00:16 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2017 23:21 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, if everyone looks like a leftist from where you're standing then the odds are good that you're standing pretty far right. Consider the logical implications of the alternative. Half the press would need to be as far right as the furthest right person and the other half would need to be as far left as the furthest left person. Only then would all people see an equally divided press. The fact that you don't see them as equally divided does not show the system has failed, it shows that you're not standing above the central fulcrum. If everybody looks like a leftist, it might be because only 7% polled identify as Republicans, and the precipitous decline happened in the modern era. Statistics show unhappy logical implications. Science can do that sometimes. ..... So the middle is always in the middle. That's how it works. It's in the name. Then there is left of centre, and right of centre. These are two equally sized blocs, because, as the name suggests, the centre is in the middle. What you have just done is attempted to define the right as "Republicans" and then, by showing that there are not many Republicans, attempted to prove that there are far more people left of the centre than there are right of the centre. That's not just an unhappy logical implication, that's an impossible logical implication. If there is more on one side of the where you think the middle is than there is on the other side, you're wrong about where the middle is. I'm going to go ahead and propose a rival explanation for you. The political right is bigger than the Republican party. It includes people who don't agree with you on everything. You're just further right than they are and therefore from your perspective they look left to you. This would be fine if we used right and left as individual subjective terms. But we don't. So it's not fine. So you need to stop. So you need to open yourself up to the rival explanation. The Republican Party represents millions of Americans. It holds incredible majorities of governorships and state houses. It trades back control of the House and Senate (recently setting a record for House seats held) and the presidency every few years. But incredible majorities of journalistic talent were fostered in left wing journalism schools and joined their bubbles of opinion in New York and DC. They were then humiliated by missing the Trump phenomenon and blamed everyone but themselves. Your argument is that since there's always a center, there can never be a bias, therefore there isn't a substantial bias. Sorry, pal. They've set their ideological tent up and now you can watch the fake news roll off the presses (routinely denied here by this forums leftists). It has given Trump wide latitude to lie because they surrendered their trust with too visible of an ideological slant. It's bad for everybody societally-speaking, but simultaneously good for ratings because you can tune in to Trump bashing or media bashing at your leisure. The president's bad, the media establishment is bad, both parties are insular and poor representatives, the country is more divided than ever, and this seems unlikely to change in the intermediate term. Nobody wins Kwark, but keep pretending your preferred villains are truly villainous and your preferred outlets are fine. have you considered the rival rival explanation? that republican principles and policies are largely so intellectually and morally bankrupt that educated, thoughtful people would be too embarrassed to ever identify as such even if they ultimately want to pay lower taxes? my anecdotal evidence suggests that highly educated conservatives are more likely to identify as independent or even, god forbid, libertarian, than to identify as a republican. its like admitting to being a brain dead simpleton. Then explain to me why Trump won the white college educated vote and he got more than 40% of the total college Educated vote? That's still millions of people who voted for those intelectually and morally bankrupt principles and policies.
If only there were some posters around here who fit into that demographic....
|
On August 24 2017 03:03 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2017 02:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 24 2017 02:38 oBlade wrote:On August 24 2017 02:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 24 2017 02:24 Doodsmack wrote:On August 24 2017 02:19 oBlade wrote:On August 24 2017 02:14 Plansix wrote:
The media is made up of the people, but is somehow against the people. Everything is made up of the people, this is reductivist absurdity, ISIS is made up of the people. On August 24 2017 02:14 Plansix wrote:
Except the media that is pro trump, they are patriotic Americans.
The legacy of Nixon. Who are you quoting here? Your post on journalism was pretty clearly only talking about the liberal portion of the media. Well, your point was absurd (as was the article), so an absurd response seems fairly adequate. Someone posting (frequently) on a game forum should not be correlating life priorities with readership/viewership numbers. Here is the Bloomberg question: Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now?I do not think the answer is Starcraft, I don't think you think the answer is Starcraft, if anyone thought the answer was Starcraft they could have answered "None of these," it wasn't a poll about life priorities, their methodology was Starcraft-proof. Yes, exactly. The question had nothing to do with media consumption. Journalism, and news, is media. Media, shockingly, does not correlate with prioritization of issues in the country. It correlates to "if you were to turn on the TV/visit a website/read a dead tree, what is going to keep your eyes on us". Likewise, if I were to ask you what the most important issue for your current life is, it would not be Starcraft. Yet, contrary to that, your media consumption would show that Starcraft in fact takes up a disproportionate total of your life. tl;dr - Stuff people really care about is boring. It is the same subset of issues, political issues in the country, it wasn't about Starcraft or ESPN or just any old media, it was about the news ostensibly doing its job, in the time that they talk about issues, and in that time they couldn't even focus on the right ones, or if you're implying network news coverage is meant to be entertainment then I don't see how you haven't already granted what the exact problem is.
You said the news media is against the people.
I'm telling you, simply and plainly, that the news media reflects the people. Talking about health care is long, detailed, and ultimately dull. Hence why you have a few detailed articles per month in a major newspaper, or a longer segment on the TV. And it's there if you are the person who cares about finding those.
Same attitude that effects your office gossip pool. Talking about health care reform is fun for an occasional debate, but it's not what you talk about every day unless something is actually happening that day. Things that are new and exciting are the topics du jour, and that is rarely the "important" stuff.
|
On August 24 2017 03:10 farvacola wrote:
Why is the critique limited to "network news coverage" as though there isn't a shitload of non-network news coverage intended to be entertainment just the same? I mean, come the fuck on, conservative talk radio blended entertainment with truthy bits of news before even the likes of Crossfire began to air.
That said, quite a few posts in this thread make more sense when you attach a Paul Harvey-esque "and now for the rest of the story..." to the end, so what do I know.
The person who counted the minutes of coverage in the article, https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/06/27/study-tv-news-obsessed-trump-russia-probe chose to limit his analysis thusly, presumably to something tractable instead of measuring every minute of TV on 24/7 cable news stations. This isn't meant to suggest other media is good, it just means he only analyzed what he analyzed. Think of it this way: Even network news, that reaches everybody, that's hosted presidential debates for decades, supposed to be the cream of the crop? can't get it right.
|
The news provides what people want to hear. You can't force people to watch news that's good fo rthem anymore than you can get people to eat fruits and vegetables.
|
The government used to regulate the media more. They stopped in the 80s and 90s. They stopped with the rise of cable tv and the removal of the laws preventing a single entity from owning more than one media outlet. Like banks, the publicly owned cable companies will not self regulate.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On August 24 2017 01:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2017 01:33 Falling wrote:
Right of centre professors still exist; no one says they don't. I think statistically they just exist in smaller numbers and the numbers get smaller all the time- Canada is pretty left leaning academically, I understand, but I found conservative instructors and professors... I wonder if there was a selection bias though. I tended to choose history courses with descriptions that included words like 'military' 'imperial' 'political history' or 'European' aka the dreaded history of the old, dead, white man and I wonder if one can more reliably find them there. My sociology professor was an outright Marxist (His advice: ignore USSR and China, read Das Kapital). so when are you going to follow his advice?
Well Kwark made a useful distinction, so I would amend my original argument.
So long as a Marxist is hyper-Calvinist in their belief- that is the Marxist revolution is predestined and therefore there is no reason to strive to make it happen (it will come about inexorably and inevitably), then I have few problems. I think the eschatology is wrong- 'pie in the sky bye and bye'. But I suppose it is ultimately harmless- no more than anything else I disagree with.
However, if ever they lose faith in the inevitability of the revolution and try to make it come to pass by their own hands (aka revolutionary Marxism) then we will get another USSR or China. We've had the results of enough grand experiments on the national level that I am doubtful of any other outcome.
|
Goodness, lets start by delineating liberals from leftist (on the American scale). Pretty sure we got Igne at the far end here, then neb then me, then some spattering of Europeans and P6. p6 waffles between a leftist and a liberal lately. Pretty much everyone else on "the left" here falls into the "liberal" group or you got Kwark who is a less than murderous conservative.
I know the labels are stupid in general, but if those on the right care to distinguish the Democrats/liberals who fit their complaints from the leftists who fit a very different set of complaints, the words that people have been self identifying with have been "liberal/Democrat" and "leftist"
Like don't try to lump leftists in with people who supported Hillary in the Democratic primary we're two distinct factions on the left.
As to the media thing, our media is shit. Our journalism comes out of a tradition of EXACTLY WHAT EVERYONE HATES. The highest award in journalism is named after a guy who intentionally ran "fake news" and built his fortune and the first school of journalism (school was built after his death with a willed donation) on a foundation of journalism being whatever sold papers.
The idea that the "News media" has always (or ever) occupied a place of sacred responsibilities and informing the public is one fabricated by our imaginations and the news media themselves (assisted by them occasionally doing so). They were, are, and will be a misinformation tool used to manipulate the public's perceptions.
That's not to say every news person is bad, just that the ones who aren't are the exception, not the rule. That's also not to say you can't find legitimate news at these outlets, it's there to maintain the illusion of credibility.
As for the political tilt of these organizations they aren't left or right in the traditional sense, they are simply pro-corporation.
|
|
|
I can't be contained in leftist or liberal labels. Like most posters in the thread, I'm human and single word labels are always insufficient.
|
On August 24 2017 04:25 Plansix wrote:
I can't be contained in leftist or liberal labels. Like most posters in the thread, I'm human and single word labels are always insufficient.
There's a label for people who can't be contained in leftist or liberal labels. They are called centrists.
|
The guy who re-tweeted Hillary Clinton on a David star and a pile of money fuels anti-semitsm? Shocker
|
United States42008 Posts
Ought to be popular with his base at least.
|
If west coast leftism is a thing, GH is a card carrying member.
|
For all kinds of fun confusion, up here in BC our right-leaning party is the Liberal party, which was previously a centrist party compared to now defunct Social Credit party (ain't that a conservative name). Which would still lean closer to an Obama or Hillary Democrat party than any Republican party, so I guess by US terms it is both the Liberal and liberal party.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On August 24 2017 04:33 KwarK wrote:Ought to be popular with his base at least.
Ha. Yeah, certain elements will see this as all good- international Jewry on the run or some such.
@Wolf
"so I guess by US terms it is both the Liberal and liberal party."
You must not be a hardline NDP voter, as I doubt many would think that 
|
Hmm... Interesting stuff here:
Trump continues to trail both Bernie Sanders (51/38) and Joe Biden (51/39) by double digits in possible 2020 match ups. PPP never found Hillary Clinton up by more than 7 points on Trump in 2016. Sanders and Biden each win over 12-14% of the folks who voted for Trump last year. Also leading Trump in hypothetical contests at this point are Elizabeth Warren (45/40), Mark Cuban (42/38), and Cory Booker and Trump Twitter Target Richard Blumenthal (42/39). Trump ties Kamala Harris at 39% each and John Delaney at 38% each.
Generally speaking just 57% of Republicans want Trump to be the party's nominee again in 2020 to 29% who say they would prefer someone else. That 28 point margin for Trump against 'someone else' is the same as his 28 point lead over Mike Pence at 52/24. Both Ted Cruz (a 40 point deficit to Trump at 62/22) and John Kasich (a 47 point deficit to Trump at 68/21) are evidently weaker potential opponents than 'someone else.'
Source
Why does it not surprise me that Democrats are leaning towards the worst performers against Trump for 2020?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
