8 ms·

For someone outside of U.S, both right (breitbart etc.) and left (huff etc.) are propaganda all the way down . It is your left bias. And the people on other pol

For someone outside of U.S, both right (breitbart etc.) and left (huff etc.) are propaganda all the way down . It is your left bias. And the people on other political spectrum feel the same but other way around. Watching American elections is like seeing a freak show. I don't understand who are those people who can support any of the candidates or the media.

bartread 10y ago
Agreed, and sadly not limited to the US. One of the things I (eventually) realised is that here in the UK The Guardian is equivalent to The Daily Mail, but for liberal intelligentsia instead of Conservatives and UKIP supporters.
- andygates 10y ago
  When has the Graun published bald-faced lies? It has an editorial slant, for sure, but it's not a fountain of factual untruth.
  - Chestofdraw 10y ago
    I've seen this idea pushed a ton recently, especially over on /r/ukpolitics and it seems like nonsense. I think the idea stems from the way the Graun has opened up it's 'Comment is Free' section which has lead to quite a few low quality opinion pieces particularly 'SJW' esq ones. The actual reporting from the Gruan is still good quality in my opinion, certainly head and shoulders above the DMs. And whilst the Graun has its left bias it, quite rightly, hasn't been kind to the current Labour party.
    - bartread 10y ago
      I think that's exactly it, and those are certainly what I see filtering into peoples' social media posts, and many seem at least as toxic as the average Daily Mail piece.
- retox 10y ago
  The Guarniad has become mostly opinion click/outrage bait, and then they wonder why people are turning away in droves.
  - bartread 10y ago
    This is certainly what I see a lot of in peoples' social media feeds, to the point where it's become somewhat ridiculous.
untog 10y ago
I disagree. Not well versed in Huff Po but the left-leaning likes of NYT publish stories based in fact and backed up with reporting. Breitbart report whatever they wish without ever confirming if anything in a story is true.
- Kenji 10y ago
  Can you link to a story that reports a 'fact' that is proven false? Because yes, I see the political-right spin on the facts on Breitbart but I've never seen them report something that is flat-out wrong.
  - untog 10y ago
    Paid protestors at Trump events: http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/07/breitbart-duped-by-fake-news-again/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/07/breitbart-duped-by-fake-new... Loretta Lynch as a member of Bill Clinton's defense team: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/10/breitbart/breitbart-gets-wrong-loretta-lynch-whitewater-clai/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/10/... Pretended a Cleveland Cavaliers crowd was a Trump crowd: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/04/breitbart-news-doesnt-mind-lying-to-help-trump/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/04/breitbart-news-doesnt-mind... Not to mention the whole ACORN thing in 2009: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos...
- EJTH 10y ago
  NYT published a news article about car fires in Denmark, where they blamed the "right wing lower class" for the fires. No evidence given for this at all. Infact all evidence points in a different direction: Arab Ghetto kids (I live in one of the places, where there was car fires, I can tell you that the right-wing thing is complete BS)
  - argonaut 10y ago
    If this is the article you are talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/world/europe/copenhagen-demark-car-burning.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/world/europe/copenhagen-de..., you are misreading it. "One theory is that cars in Denmark are being burned by individuals from an angry underclass in a country where far-right groups have organized bitter protests against immigration, calling it a threat to the nation’s identity." The article makes it clear the "angry underclass" is separate from the "far-right groups."
geomark 10y ago
I feel the same way. And I'm a US citizen! I've been an expat for quite a while now and looking back at the US it is indeed a freak show.
popmystack 10y ago
That's a really cheap false equivalency. You've basically side nothing while ignorning the practical reality of what we're discussing. Take for example, the fact that Fox News will continually post stories about how Global Warming is a hoax, which is something the Huffington Post definitely won't do. The Huffington Post tends to write click-baity headlines, but they've never out right used lies in their articles. That's not bias, it's an observable trend. Tell me, which is "propaganda."
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. All the scientists beg to differ. Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. The fact is both sides have bias and talk about things that for whatever reason they find most important. And usually it bothers other side of the political spectrum so it's like a never ending loop from both sides.
  - popmystack 10y ago
    >And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed. >Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. No, it's about who is wrong _more often_ and who reports fake stories _more often_. When the standard for one set of sources is consistently absurdly low then you can't just pretend all sources are equal. Again, it's a false equivalency.
    - talmand 10y ago
      So your standard for trustworthy news is an outlet that is wrong "less often" than their competition you likely already dislike?
      - popmystack 10y ago
        I definitely didn't say anything remotely like that, so I'm really not sure how to respond to this. I'm really tired of the one-off pedantic and disingenuous posts people seem to be okay with posting on these topics. In the context of facebook "censoring" conservative media outlets, there's an observable trend that major conservative news sources are more apt to post false or misleading content that tickle's their audiences expectations, than it is for major liberal sources. This is an observable trend. Take something as scientifically sound as global warming or evolution. Fox News or Breitbart will consistently misreport on these issues, just to be in harmony with the overall conservative narrative in the U.S. It is highly unlikely you will find equivalent liberal sources that do anything remotely like that. Liberal sources are not perfect nor are they immune from criticism. It's just _more_ likely that an editor will find reason to deny a story from a conservative source than a liberal one. Again, this doesn't seem like a problem for facebook to solve by removing editors, it seems like a problem conservatives should strive to fix. No news source is going to be perfect. They're never going to report everything accurately, and sometimes they might jump the gun to just get a story out. But there is a line when you can consistently observe a set of news sources being dishonest, or even worse, malevolent. With all this mind, keep in mind the stories that were falsely trending. It's coming from the same set of sources, with the same political idealogies that Facebook got lambasted for "censoring." You have to be blatantly ignoring what's going on at this point to admit that maybe, just maybe, the problem wasn't with the editors. And as a side note, I really have never labeled myself one way or another, but I've found over the years I'm consistently labeled as a "liberal" so I've picked it up. The only thing I've ever done is looked at the evidence, been skeptical about claims, and tried my best to form opinions around an ever revolving set of information. If that means my opinions happen to be more consistently liberal than conservative then so be it, but screaming "bias" just because one side of the U.S. political spectrum consistently has absurdly low standards is the worst kind of false equivalency.
return0 10y ago
And for anyone who doubts this, please visit the candidate's reddits https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/ just to realize that it's all the media, not just some of them.
- tgb 10y ago
  /r/the_donald currently has four posts that are just pictures of portions of a centipede, such that if they are voted correctly then they will appear to form a complete centipede. I uh... I'm just not sure what's going on there.
  - fudgie 10y ago
    It's a reference to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKH6PAoUuD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKH6PAoUuD0 (swearing and loud noices) and they've adopted it as an internal name for themselves.
  - talmand 10y ago
    That's called people having fun. Not everything has to be serious all the time.
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Agreed. I'm in the U.S., and I constantly scan most of the major news source and commentary headlines. It's a cesspool out there. For a bit of history as I remember it, for what it's worth: in the 80s and 90s, I think, right-wing think tanks started providing a lot of research and background material. Of course these were slanted to right-wing views, but for the most part, unless you were really digging for stuff, it was academic. So if you had an argument about Gulf War I? You could, with effort, find some right-wing slanted stuff. But it was all alongside other academic material. It all balanced out. It was possible to consume a bit of bias and still make analysis work. Then suddenly when the net started taking off, all of that research and such became much more easily available. If you were some right-wing guy looking to bolster point X, Google was your friend! You could find some nice charts and data. Of course this was intolerable for the left, as it should be, so they started funding their own foundations and truth-providers. This quickly became an escalating war. The titles got more and more scandalous and no matter what side you were on no matter the topic, you could find some studies and PhDs somewhere to back you up. It became a post-truth era. Now it's all grown into vertical silos. Left-wing news sources publish left-wing commentators who repeat left-wing studies. Same thing happens on the right. It's reached the point now where not only are the headlines and articles slanted trash, but it's problematic to sort it all out. In many cases you need to track an issue over time in both left and right-wing silos to arrive at something that works. The cognitive load for the average reader is simply too great. So instead they just stick inside their bubble and go through their lives not worrying about it. I think this election a large percentage of people are finally figuring out how hosed up and colluding the systems of news and politics are. I'm not sure there will be improvement, but it's good to see a little daylight shining on things.
- jonah 10y ago
  If you haven't already, this Harper's piece from 2004[0] might be interesting to you. Here is the first publicly available mirror I came across.[1] [0] Tentacles of Rage The Republican propaganda mill, a brief history LEWIS H LAPHAM / Harpers Magazine v.309, n.1852, September 2004 [1] http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1s...
panic 10y ago
The top Breitbart headline, "Criminal Aliens Sexually Assault 70,000 American Women — But Paul Ryan Targets Trump", is willfully inciting anti-immigrant sentiment by taking numbers out of context. According to the report they cite, 69,929 criminal aliens (or 3% of the total criminal alien population they measured) had been arrested for sex-related crimes between August 1955 and April 2010. The number is true but the inference is false. While the Huffington Post obviously sensationalizes things too, their top headline, "SEX ASSAULT SPREE / ACCUSATIONS PILE UP", is completely true: the accusations are piling up. I don't think you can draw an equivalence here.
- seertaak 10y ago
  > The top Breitbart headline ... is willfully [sic] inciting anti-immigrant sentiment by taking numbers out of context. > The number is true but the inference is false. How are the numbers taken out of context? In your opinion, how would that headline read if the numbers weren't taken out of context? Or does the mere act of publishing the headlines (at all) make Breitbart guilty of taking the numbers out of context in your opinion? Honest question. Also, it's not clear to me what you mean by "inference". Are you referring to the "-- But Paul Ryan Targets Trump" phrase? If so, then I would contend that "inference" is not the correct word. Instead, I would perhaps use the word "juxtaposition". Whether or not you agree to Breitbart's thinking, it seems to me that what they're trying to do is call attention to what they see as false priorities -- essentially, IIUC, they're saying "Paul Ryan is attacking the wrong person, because 70K women are targeted by criminal aliens and this is worse than anything Trump has done". You can agree to that or not, but it seems to me unfair to accuse them of bad logic.
  - panic 10y ago
    In your opinion, how would that headline read if the numbers weren't taken out of context? "Criminal Aliens Arrested for Sex-Related Crimes 70,000 Times Between 1955 and 2010 — But Paul Ryan Targets Trump" The original headline creates an emotional impact by implying certain things: that these 70,000 events are sexual assaults (not generic sex crimes like indecent exposure etc.) against women (implying a relationship with Trump's actions where none specifically exists) that happened recently (not during a 55-year period that ended six years ago). The headline with context doesn't have the same emotional impact because you can't make the same misleading inferences. Maybe these crimes are a problem, maybe they aren't, but either way this headline is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.
ap22213 10y ago
As an outsider, what are some of the things that you find troubling with Clinton? She seems pretty status quo to me.
- ionised 10y ago
  That is what is troubling.
  - ap22213 10y ago
    We managed to get by with status quo for as long as I've been alive (since Regan). It's never perfect, but it's been better than burning it all down (as I hear a lot of people now saying). Change takes time. If people really want it they'll have to work hard for it for at least the next eight years, regardless.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  For me, it is very short: She is a habitual liar. Without any remorse. I really don't understand how a human being can go to these debates, give interviews and ignore that she has psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies. And no, it doesn't mean that Trump is any better or any worse. It's all bullshit.
  - ap22213 10y ago
    I don't see that, personally. But, to each their own. It's not surprising that you and others people do, though. In the US, there are a lot of politicians who seem 'psycho/sociopathic' to many people. And, there are lots of CEOs like that, too. But, it doesn't prevent those people from leading or being effective.

bartread 10y ago

Agreed, and sadly not limited to the US. One of the things I (eventually) realised is that here in the UK The Guardian is equivalent to The Daily Mail, but for liberal intelligentsia instead of Conservatives and UKIP supporters.

andygates 10y ago
When has the Graun published bald-faced lies? It has an editorial slant, for sure, but it's not a fountain of factual untruth.
- Chestofdraw 10y ago
  I've seen this idea pushed a ton recently, especially over on /r/ukpolitics and it seems like nonsense. I think the idea stems from the way the Graun has opened up it's 'Comment is Free' section which has lead to quite a few low quality opinion pieces particularly 'SJW' esq ones. The actual reporting from the Gruan is still good quality in my opinion, certainly head and shoulders above the DMs. And whilst the Graun has its left bias it, quite rightly, hasn't been kind to the current Labour party.
  - bartread 10y ago
    I think that's exactly it, and those are certainly what I see filtering into peoples' social media posts, and many seem at least as toxic as the average Daily Mail piece.
retox 10y ago
The Guarniad has become mostly opinion click/outrage bait, and then they wonder why people are turning away in droves.
- bartread 10y ago
  This is certainly what I see a lot of in peoples' social media feeds, to the point where it's become somewhat ridiculous.

untog 10y ago

I disagree. Not well versed in Huff Po but the left-leaning likes of NYT publish stories based in fact and backed up with reporting. Breitbart report whatever they wish without ever confirming if anything in a story is true.

Kenji 10y ago
Can you link to a story that reports a 'fact' that is proven false? Because yes, I see the political-right spin on the facts on Breitbart but I've never seen them report something that is flat-out wrong.
- untog 10y ago
  Paid protestors at Trump events: http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/07/breitbart-duped-by-fake-news-again/ http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/07/breitbart-duped-by-fake-new... Loretta Lynch as a member of Bill Clinton's defense team: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/10/breitbart/breitbart-gets-wrong-loretta-lynch-whitewater-clai/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/10/... Pretended a Cleveland Cavaliers crowd was a Trump crowd: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/04/breitbart-news-doesnt-mind-lying-to-help-trump/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/04/breitbart-news-doesnt-mind... Not to mention the whole ACORN thing in 2009: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos...
EJTH 10y ago
NYT published a news article about car fires in Denmark, where they blamed the "right wing lower class" for the fires. No evidence given for this at all. Infact all evidence points in a different direction: Arab Ghetto kids (I live in one of the places, where there was car fires, I can tell you that the right-wing thing is complete BS)
- argonaut 10y ago
  If this is the article you are talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/world/europe/copenhagen-demark-car-burning.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/world/europe/copenhagen-de..., you are misreading it. "One theory is that cars in Denmark are being burned by individuals from an angry underclass in a country where far-right groups have organized bitter protests against immigration, calling it a threat to the nation’s identity." The article makes it clear the "angry underclass" is separate from the "far-right groups."

geomark 10y ago

I feel the same way. And I'm a US citizen! I've been an expat for quite a while now and looking back at the US it is indeed a freak show.

popmystack 10y ago

That's a really cheap false equivalency. You've basically side nothing while ignorning the practical reality of what we're discussing. Take for example, the fact that Fox News will continually post stories about how Global Warming is a hoax, which is something the Huffington Post definitely won't do. The Huffington Post tends to write click-baity headlines, but they've never out right used lies in their articles. That's not bias, it's an observable trend. Tell me, which is "propaganda."

angry-hacker 10y ago
And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. All the scientists beg to differ. Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. The fact is both sides have bias and talk about things that for whatever reason they find most important. And usually it bothers other side of the political spectrum so it's like a never ending loop from both sides.
- popmystack 10y ago
  >And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. They definitely don't do this. It seems like you have a significant misunderstanding of the literature being discussed. >Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. No, it's about who is wrong _more often_ and who reports fake stories _more often_. When the standard for one set of sources is consistently absurdly low then you can't just pretend all sources are equal. Again, it's a false equivalency.
  - talmand 10y ago
    So your standard for trustworthy news is an outlet that is wrong "less often" than their competition you likely already dislike?
    - popmystack 10y ago
      I definitely didn't say anything remotely like that, so I'm really not sure how to respond to this. I'm really tired of the one-off pedantic and disingenuous posts people seem to be okay with posting on these topics. In the context of facebook "censoring" conservative media outlets, there's an observable trend that major conservative news sources are more apt to post false or misleading content that tickle's their audiences expectations, than it is for major liberal sources. This is an observable trend. Take something as scientifically sound as global warming or evolution. Fox News or Breitbart will consistently misreport on these issues, just to be in harmony with the overall conservative narrative in the U.S. It is highly unlikely you will find equivalent liberal sources that do anything remotely like that. Liberal sources are not perfect nor are they immune from criticism. It's just _more_ likely that an editor will find reason to deny a story from a conservative source than a liberal one. Again, this doesn't seem like a problem for facebook to solve by removing editors, it seems like a problem conservatives should strive to fix. No news source is going to be perfect. They're never going to report everything accurately, and sometimes they might jump the gun to just get a story out. But there is a line when you can consistently observe a set of news sources being dishonest, or even worse, malevolent. With all this mind, keep in mind the stories that were falsely trending. It's coming from the same set of sources, with the same political idealogies that Facebook got lambasted for "censoring." You have to be blatantly ignoring what's going on at this point to admit that maybe, just maybe, the problem wasn't with the editors. And as a side note, I really have never labeled myself one way or another, but I've found over the years I'm consistently labeled as a "liberal" so I've picked it up. The only thing I've ever done is looked at the evidence, been skeptical about claims, and tried my best to form opinions around an ever revolving set of information. If that means my opinions happen to be more consistently liberal than conservative then so be it, but screaming "bias" just because one side of the U.S. political spectrum consistently has absurdly low standards is the worst kind of false equivalency.

return0 10y ago

And for anyone who doubts this, please visit the candidate's reddits https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/ just to realize that it's all the media, not just some of them.

tgb 10y ago
/r/the_donald currently has four posts that are just pictures of portions of a centipede, such that if they are voted correctly then they will appear to form a complete centipede. I uh... I'm just not sure what's going on there.
- fudgie 10y ago
  It's a reference to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKH6PAoUuD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKH6PAoUuD0 (swearing and loud noices) and they've adopted it as an internal name for themselves.
- talmand 10y ago
  That's called people having fun. Not everything has to be serious all the time.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

Agreed. I'm in the U.S., and I constantly scan most of the major news source and commentary headlines. It's a cesspool out there. For a bit of history as I remember it, for what it's worth: in the 80s and 90s, I think, right-wing think tanks started providing a lot of research and background material. Of course these were slanted to right-wing views, but for the most part, unless you were really digging for stuff, it was academic. So if you had an argument about Gulf War I? You could, with effort, find some right-wing slanted stuff. But it was all alongside other academic material. It all balanced out. It was possible to consume a bit of bias and still make analysis work. Then suddenly when the net started taking off, all of that research and such became much more easily available. If you were some right-wing guy looking to bolster point X, Google was your friend! You could find some nice charts and data. Of course this was intolerable for the left, as it should be, so they started funding their own foundations and truth-providers. This quickly became an escalating war. The titles got more and more scandalous and no matter what side you were on no matter the topic, you could find some studies and PhDs somewhere to back you up. It became a post-truth era. Now it's all grown into vertical silos. Left-wing news sources publish left-wing commentators who repeat left-wing studies. Same thing happens on the right. It's reached the point now where not only are the headlines and articles slanted trash, but it's problematic to sort it all out. In many cases you need to track an issue over time in both left and right-wing silos to arrive at something that works. The cognitive load for the average reader is simply too great. So instead they just stick inside their bubble and go through their lives not worrying about it. I think this election a large percentage of people are finally figuring out how hosed up and colluding the systems of news and politics are. I'm not sure there will be improvement, but it's good to see a little daylight shining on things.

jonah 10y ago
If you haven't already, this Harper's piece from 2004[0] might be interesting to you. Here is the first publicly available mirror I came across.[1] [0] Tentacles of Rage The Republican propaganda mill, a brief history LEWIS H LAPHAM / Harpers Magazine v.309, n.1852, September 2004 [1] http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1s...

panic 10y ago

The top Breitbart headline, "Criminal Aliens Sexually Assault 70,000 American Women — But Paul Ryan Targets Trump", is willfully inciting anti-immigrant sentiment by taking numbers out of context. According to the report they cite, 69,929 criminal aliens (or 3% of the total criminal alien population they measured) had been arrested for sex-related crimes between August 1955 and April 2010. The number is true but the inference is false. While the Huffington Post obviously sensationalizes things too, their top headline, "SEX ASSAULT SPREE / ACCUSATIONS PILE UP", is completely true: the accusations are piling up. I don't think you can draw an equivalence here.

seertaak 10y ago
> The top Breitbart headline ... is willfully [sic] inciting anti-immigrant sentiment by taking numbers out of context. > The number is true but the inference is false. How are the numbers taken out of context? In your opinion, how would that headline read if the numbers weren't taken out of context? Or does the mere act of publishing the headlines (at all) make Breitbart guilty of taking the numbers out of context in your opinion? Honest question. Also, it's not clear to me what you mean by "inference". Are you referring to the "-- But Paul Ryan Targets Trump" phrase? If so, then I would contend that "inference" is not the correct word. Instead, I would perhaps use the word "juxtaposition". Whether or not you agree to Breitbart's thinking, it seems to me that what they're trying to do is call attention to what they see as false priorities -- essentially, IIUC, they're saying "Paul Ryan is attacking the wrong person, because 70K women are targeted by criminal aliens and this is worse than anything Trump has done". You can agree to that or not, but it seems to me unfair to accuse them of bad logic.
- panic 10y ago
  In your opinion, how would that headline read if the numbers weren't taken out of context? "Criminal Aliens Arrested for Sex-Related Crimes 70,000 Times Between 1955 and 2010 — But Paul Ryan Targets Trump" The original headline creates an emotional impact by implying certain things: that these 70,000 events are sexual assaults (not generic sex crimes like indecent exposure etc.) against women (implying a relationship with Trump's actions where none specifically exists) that happened recently (not during a 55-year period that ended six years ago). The headline with context doesn't have the same emotional impact because you can't make the same misleading inferences. Maybe these crimes are a problem, maybe they aren't, but either way this headline is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.

ap22213 10y ago

As an outsider, what are some of the things that you find troubling with Clinton? She seems pretty status quo to me.

ionised 10y ago
That is what is troubling.
- ap22213 10y ago
  We managed to get by with status quo for as long as I've been alive (since Regan). It's never perfect, but it's been better than burning it all down (as I hear a lot of people now saying). Change takes time. If people really want it they'll have to work hard for it for at least the next eight years, regardless.
angry-hacker 10y ago
For me, it is very short: She is a habitual liar. Without any remorse. I really don't understand how a human being can go to these debates, give interviews and ignore that she has psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies. And no, it doesn't mean that Trump is any better or any worse. It's all bullshit.
- ap22213 10y ago
  I don't see that, personally. But, to each their own. It's not surprising that you and others people do, though. In the US, there are a lot of politicians who seem 'psycho/sociopathic' to many people. And, there are lots of CEOs like that, too. But, it doesn't prevent those people from leading or being effective.