3 ms·

One other contributor (and I hear this often repeated but rarely substantiated) was 24 news. There's only so many facts to present (and facts are difficult to

by pfranz 10y ago

One other contributor (and I hear this often repeated but rarely substantiated) was 24 news. There's only so many facts to present (and facts are difficult to find and vet). To fill the extra time they focused more on pundits and opinions. Since this was now a majority of the content each side got stronger and more polarized. I still think this has a stronger effect than people realize because not everyone uses computers. I try to do what they recommend and it's tough to listen to both sides. They start with the basis you're already supporting them so they skip the "foundation" of their argument and the content generally is lies and condescension for the other (to be clear, I'm talking about both sides).

noobiemcfoob 10y ago
I don't believe the issue is an actual dearth of facts. The reality is (and presumably always will be) there are far too many facts to report them all, particularly in an entertaining way. Editors must make a selection of which facts are relevant and interesting enough to make it into... whatever it is they're editing. When that's political news, that selection bias becomes more important. And in today's age, it can be so extreme that both sides are operating with inconsistent perspectives. Not because someone is lying or misleading. /Then you add lying and misleading and the whole thing is a dumpster fire.
- pohl 10y ago
  Also worth mentioning: hours upon hours of free, unedited broadcast of raw campaign rally footage and stump speeches.
- bbctol 10y ago
  There's too many facts and not enough truth. There are enough individual facts, anecdotes, and incidents out there to support any possible narrative, and make people believe anything without directly lying to them. It's a serious problem of the information age that we have yet to fix.
- pfranz 10y ago
  Yes, there's more raw data there, but it's not always useful until it's aggregated and analyzed. Not everyone has time to sift through raw CSPAN footage or census data (I try). People (myself included) rely on sources for that. If some breaking news is happening, spotty raw data from the front lines can be really misleading about what's actually happening. You can also see the money draining out of traditional long-form reporting (and polls). These outlets more and more rely on rhetoric, opinions, and emotions instead of facts. I think part of it is that incentives are misaligned. I didn't want to throw shade on one side, but the Les Moonves quote, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." I think in addition to a news businesses focusing on being the best and financially successful, there's focus in politics where the only goal for each side is on winning instead of being right or living up to some ideals.

by pfranz 10y ago

noobiemcfoob 10y ago

I don't believe the issue is an actual dearth of facts. The reality is (and presumably always will be) there are far too many facts to report them all, particularly in an entertaining way. Editors must make a selection of which facts are relevant and interesting enough to make it into... whatever it is they're editing. When that's political news, that selection bias becomes more important. And in today's age, it can be so extreme that both sides are operating with inconsistent perspectives. Not because someone is lying or misleading. /Then you add lying and misleading and the whole thing is a dumpster fire.

pohl 10y ago
Also worth mentioning: hours upon hours of free, unedited broadcast of raw campaign rally footage and stump speeches.
bbctol 10y ago
There's too many facts and not enough truth. There are enough individual facts, anecdotes, and incidents out there to support any possible narrative, and make people believe anything without directly lying to them. It's a serious problem of the information age that we have yet to fix.
pfranz 10y ago
Yes, there's more raw data there, but it's not always useful until it's aggregated and analyzed. Not everyone has time to sift through raw CSPAN footage or census data (I try). People (myself included) rely on sources for that. If some breaking news is happening, spotty raw data from the front lines can be really misleading about what's actually happening. You can also see the money draining out of traditional long-form reporting (and polls). These outlets more and more rely on rhetoric, opinions, and emotions instead of facts. I think part of it is that incentives are misaligned. I didn't want to throw shade on one side, but the Les Moonves quote, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." I think in addition to a news businesses focusing on being the best and financially successful, there's focus in politics where the only goal for each side is on winning instead of being right or living up to some ideals.