3 ms·

> every other one is liberal I don't agree. First, there are plenty of smaller conservative ideological publications (two were listed in the original comment,

> every other one is liberal I don't agree. First, there are plenty of smaller conservative ideological publications (two were listed in the original comment, plus endless more: RedState, Daily Caller, Breitbart, etc.). Almost all talk- radio, as I mentioned, is conservative. Also I said in another comment, there is plenty of apolitical journalism. (!conservative) != (liberal) The ideologues adopt a Manichean, binary view of the world: With us or against us. They say everyone is ideological and anyone who doesn't agree with them must be in the 'other' camp. They seek ideological conflict, to justify their beliefs and behavior. But the world is more complex than that and everyone is not ideological (most are not). There are leftist ideologues, and they say the NY Times is conservative and there is no difference between the parties (as incredible as that sounds). Either you share their ideology, or you are in the 'other' camp. The right-wing ideologues are the same: They define any journalism as not ideologically conservative as liberal. (They also call themselves outsiders when the control the 2/3 of the states and both houses of Congress). But it's not the case.

pythia__ 10y ago
>there is plenty of apolitical journalism Could you name three major sources of it, preferably not personal blogs? I am asking out of curiosity and disbelief.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I think the real issue is to consider why many people have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea. I think it undermines their worldview that everyone is an angry ideologue, necessary to justify their own behavior.
  - pythia__ 10y ago
    I think to focus on the angry ideologues is actually to divert the attention from the real issue, to the extent there is one; namely, that neurotypical humans, whether happy or angry, have a strong, automatic in-group bias. If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, worse yet, the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist. In short, I doubt you could staff a newsroom full of people receptive to out-group ideas. (And if you think that you, yourself, aren't biased this way without very strong evidence for it I would suggest you take an outside view, per https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view) Because of all of this I'd appreciate a genuine answer to my question even if I end up disagreeing with it.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. > Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I disagree that it's nearly so difficult or rare. The U.S. rarely has been this polarized, and everyone used to share the same news sources (major network nightly news - which probably still are the leading sources). Again, I think this approach is just the justification of those who want ideological war rather than finding ways, as so many have done so often in history, to bring people together. > the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have no reason to believe this statement is accurate.

pythia__ 10y ago

>there is plenty of apolitical journalism Could you name three major sources of it, preferably not personal blogs? I am asking out of curiosity and disbelief.

hackuser 10y ago
I think the real issue is to consider why many people have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea. I think it undermines their worldview that everyone is an angry ideologue, necessary to justify their own behavior.
- pythia__ 10y ago
  I think to focus on the angry ideologues is actually to divert the attention from the real issue, to the extent there is one; namely, that neurotypical humans, whether happy or angry, have a strong, automatic in-group bias. If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I wouldn't be surprised if, worse yet, the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist. In short, I doubt you could staff a newsroom full of people receptive to out-group ideas. (And if you think that you, yourself, aren't biased this way without very strong evidence for it I would suggest you take an outside view, per https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Outside_view) Because of all of this I'd appreciate a genuine answer to my question even if I end up disagreeing with it.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > If you are one you can't really stop having an in-group; the best you can do is try to give out-group ideas a fair shake. > Now, this ability appears to be quite rare. I disagree that it's nearly so difficult or rare. The U.S. rarely has been this polarized, and everyone used to share the same news sources (major network nightly news - which probably still are the leading sources). Again, I think this approach is just the justification of those who want ideological war rather than finding ways, as so many have done so often in history, to bring people together. > the kind of personality needed to do it made you less likely to become a journalist You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have no reason to believe this statement is accurate.