10 ms·

The article rightly points at readers having embraced their cognitive dissonance in the face of unrelenting media bias but unfairly singles out the alt-right mo

by ihsw 10y ago

The article rightly points at readers having embraced their cognitive dissonance in the face of unrelenting media bias but unfairly singles out the alt-right movement -- one can't say that they are wrong in their dogmatic mistrust of the media. We saw non-stop coverage of the election where they talked up Clinton at every fifteen-minute segment, parroting statistics like her 98% guaranteed victory. Through Wikileaks, we can plainly see that they were very much in bed with the Clinton campaign and frankly anyone with an ounce of sensibility should see that as plain as day. That said, I would posit that the MSM orgs need to do a lot of soul-searching to restore their credibility lest they continue to drift into irrelevance. The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair due to their close adherence to progressive extremist ideology and their objectivity is rightly attacked. It's not that people are looking for somebody to pick on, but instead the media are agitators rather than reporters of fact. There is a clear desire to steer society rather than simply disseminate information, much like how cable companies have zero interest in operating as communications conduits and instead strive to provide content experiences. IMO there must be structural reform for the Fourth Estate to be restored to its previous stature -- to wit, mainstream media must be made great again.

yuncun 10y ago
>Through Wikileaks, we can plainly see that they were very much in bed with the Clinton campaign and frankly anyone with an ounce of sensibility should see that as plain as day. Thought they were pro-Trump?
- gingerrr 10y ago
  The general argument I've heard that synthesizes both: They gave Trump too much credibility by treating him as an equal while attacking Clinton (were "pro-Trump"), but endorsed Clinton and crowed triumphantly at every step that she had it in the bag (were "pro-Clinton"). We should probably stop making absolute claims about anything regarding this election, as there are so many moving parts it is impossible to conclusively place responsibility at any one group's feet. Then again, that may have been the point you were making :)
- welanes 10y ago
  'They' being the media in that sentence.
- ralmeida 10y ago
  I believe 'they' in the sentence refers to the media. As in, info from Wikileaks suggests that "[the media] is in bed with the Clinton campaign".
- bbctol 10y ago
  It's more complicated than either one.
jaynos 10y ago
>The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair due to their close adherence to progressive extremist ideology and their objectivity is rightly attacked. [citation needed]. The MSM needs some repair, but I'd say that repair should be moving away from the "both sides do it" and "two sides to every argument" mentality and delivering the truth. On issues like climate change, equal weight does not need to be given to the "it's a hoax" crowd.
- james0001 10y ago
  Why not? The science is far from settled. In much the same way that the media leans left, so does academia. Academia is not immune from corruption, and dare I say, academia is a worse swamp than Washington.
  - james0001 10y ago
    Oof, I must've offended a couple academics
    - yolesaber 10y ago
      I think it's because you denied climate change or rather hand-waved it away with "the science is far from settled" ~ as if science is EVER settled. Humans are undeniably accelerating climate change for the worse. Species are dying off left and right from it. Why is this controversial?
      - Jimbob12 10y ago
        Yes we are in a mass-extinction event, but no that is not because of climate change. Rather it is because we are destroying habitats left and right through deforestation, pollution, etc. Climate change is happening at such a slow glacial pace; I haven't seen any good data to suggest that the Climate is changing fast enough to produce harm.
  - 1024core 10y ago
    When 99% of the academics agree on something, you could say the science is more-or-less settled. If you disagree, the onus is on you to come up with the evidence/theory to challenge it. Just claiming that "science is far from settled" doesn't make it so; you might as well claim that the "science is far from settled" on the Earth not being flat.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"but unfairly singles out the alt-right movement " The left version would be the passive-aggressive, censorship-prone bullies we call Social Justice Warriors (SJW's). You'll rarely see sites call them out despite them often being a minority within a minority acting like they speak for everyone where issues are often more nuanced. Far as media reporting, corporate media work for advertisers. People hearing what they want to hear and hating who they want to hate keeps their attention. Those outlets will then selectively present information to maintain that feedback loop. Business is booming. Groups actually trying to inform people with the facts or present balanced information to let people decide themselves are rare. Often small. My old approach was to identify the bias and reliability of various outlets then read them all. These days, I read second-hand info more often as I've found reliable, biased individuals or groups that pre-filter such sites to I can get to the meat of what they're saying. I still follow-up on raw data where it matters. The election cycle this year was the biggest pile of bullshit-producing, echo chambers I've seen in a long time. That Facebook, etc have algorithms preventing opposing sides from seeing each other as often as they would in the past is the reason imho.
psychometry 10y ago
You know when you're talking to a Trump supporter when they think that a preference for facts over lies amounts to a "close adherence to progressive extremist ideology". What a load of bullshit.
- james0001 10y ago
  You know you're talking to a person with "close adherence to progressive extremist ideology" when they assume the facts are on their side and the other side is just lies. Real scientific integrity eh?
  - taeric 10y ago
    My personal backlash against this is from experience. I have been wrong. I will be wrong more in the future. Ignorance is normal. Nobody knows everything. However, ignorance is not to be embraced. Fact checking is not a liberal agenda. It is a general path to improvement.
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    Yes, because only progressive extremists believe the facts are on their side. Say that out loud again, it sounds ridiculous.
    - james0001 10y ago
      They have a greater tendency to do so, yes. Probably stems from the implicit assumption that since academia leans left, that these progressives will have the needed scientific support for their policy proposals.
      - yolesaber 10y ago
        You know that it was two Republicans who started the bipartisan committee on climate change in the House, right? It's not a liberal issue. It's a reality that is happening NOW Your generalizations are laughable and are only indicative of the toxic thinking that has characterized this election.
matt4077 10y ago
Much like the US today is a better country than it ever was, "the media" today is better than its critics say. People have a fantasy of how it supposedly was, how objectivity works (or doesn't) in journalism, and how much we still rely on a small handful of traditional publications. Journalism has always had, and always will, a part to play in shaping public opinion. "Simply disseminating information" is something a phone book may do. Publishing a newspaper starts being subjective when you decide on what to write about. The ecosystem of hanger-ons garnishing news with left-wing (Mother Jones, HuffPost) or right-wing (breitbart, FOX) slant adds exactly nothing but vitriol. Wikileaks has shown exactly nothing except that in a million internal e-mails you're bound to find a few embarrassing ones. And that the American right has absolutely no problem that they won an election with the proven and admitted help of the Russian government.
- drewrv 10y ago
  What annoys me is how people treat ideology as the only type of bias. People will accuse a news source of being biased in favor of the left or right and that's it. The reality is that ideology is not even the most interesting or influential type of bias. For example, news organizations heavily favor sensationalism over stories that are important but boring. News organizations will pander, reporting stories that their audience will enjoy rather than what will educate them. There's a "pre existing narrative" bias, for example Al Gore was a dorky know it all so of course he claimed to invent the internet, regardless of reality. Maybe the New York Times or CNN slightly favors the right or the left, but give them a story that is sensational and fits the narrative and they won't shut up about it no matter which ideology it harms.
mcphage 10y ago
> but unfairly singles out the alt-right movement Did you miss the part of the article where they pointed out a series of left-leaning false claims? "No, delayed military absentee ballots would not have swung the election. No, Melania Trump has not filed for divorce, nor was her husband born in Pakistan. No, Mike Pence definitely did not tell Fox News that gay conversion therapy saved his marriage."
- 1024core 10y ago
  It's called cognitive dissonance. :)
- ihsw 10y ago
  I don't see SJWs being regarded as a threat to American democracy but they are agitators and proud-idiots just the same.
chrisbennet 10y ago
>The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair due to their close adherence to progressive extremist ideology and their objectivity is rightly attacked. The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair because it's funding model was disrupted. No income source = less (real) reporters.
gaur 10y ago
> unfairly singles out the alt-right movement -- one can't say that they are wrong in their dogmatic mistrust of the media A lot of alt-righters distrust the media because they think it's controlled by Jews. That's a regular theme on alt-right websites. So yes, you can say they are wrong in their dogmatic mistrust of the media.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by ihsw 10y ago

yuncun 10y ago

>Through Wikileaks, we can plainly see that they were very much in bed with the Clinton campaign and frankly anyone with an ounce of sensibility should see that as plain as day. Thought they were pro-Trump?

gingerrr 10y ago
The general argument I've heard that synthesizes both: They gave Trump too much credibility by treating him as an equal while attacking Clinton (were "pro-Trump"), but endorsed Clinton and crowed triumphantly at every step that she had it in the bag (were "pro-Clinton"). We should probably stop making absolute claims about anything regarding this election, as there are so many moving parts it is impossible to conclusively place responsibility at any one group's feet. Then again, that may have been the point you were making :)
welanes 10y ago
'They' being the media in that sentence.
ralmeida 10y ago
I believe 'they' in the sentence refers to the media. As in, info from Wikileaks suggests that "[the media] is in bed with the Clinton campaign".
bbctol 10y ago
It's more complicated than either one.

jaynos 10y ago

>The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair due to their close adherence to progressive extremist ideology and their objectivity is rightly attacked. [citation needed]. The MSM needs some repair, but I'd say that repair should be moving away from the "both sides do it" and "two sides to every argument" mentality and delivering the truth. On issues like climate change, equal weight does not need to be given to the "it's a hoax" crowd.

james0001 10y ago
Why not? The science is far from settled. In much the same way that the media leans left, so does academia. Academia is not immune from corruption, and dare I say, academia is a worse swamp than Washington.
- james0001 10y ago
  Oof, I must've offended a couple academics
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    I think it's because you denied climate change or rather hand-waved it away with "the science is far from settled" ~ as if science is EVER settled. Humans are undeniably accelerating climate change for the worse. Species are dying off left and right from it. Why is this controversial?
    - Jimbob12 10y ago
      Yes we are in a mass-extinction event, but no that is not because of climate change. Rather it is because we are destroying habitats left and right through deforestation, pollution, etc. Climate change is happening at such a slow glacial pace; I haven't seen any good data to suggest that the Climate is changing fast enough to produce harm.
- 1024core 10y ago
  When 99% of the academics agree on something, you could say the science is more-or-less settled. If you disagree, the onus is on you to come up with the evidence/theory to challenge it. Just claiming that "science is far from settled" doesn't make it so; you might as well claim that the "science is far from settled" on the Earth not being flat.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"but unfairly singles out the alt-right movement " The left version would be the passive-aggressive, censorship-prone bullies we call Social Justice Warriors (SJW's). You'll rarely see sites call them out despite them often being a minority within a minority acting like they speak for everyone where issues are often more nuanced. Far as media reporting, corporate media work for advertisers. People hearing what they want to hear and hating who they want to hate keeps their attention. Those outlets will then selectively present information to maintain that feedback loop. Business is booming. Groups actually trying to inform people with the facts or present balanced information to let people decide themselves are rare. Often small. My old approach was to identify the bias and reliability of various outlets then read them all. These days, I read second-hand info more often as I've found reliable, biased individuals or groups that pre-filter such sites to I can get to the meat of what they're saying. I still follow-up on raw data where it matters. The election cycle this year was the biggest pile of bullshit-producing, echo chambers I've seen in a long time. That Facebook, etc have algorithms preventing opposing sides from seeing each other as often as they would in the past is the reason imho.

psychometry 10y ago

You know when you're talking to a Trump supporter when they think that a preference for facts over lies amounts to a "close adherence to progressive extremist ideology". What a load of bullshit.

james0001 10y ago
You know you're talking to a person with "close adherence to progressive extremist ideology" when they assume the facts are on their side and the other side is just lies. Real scientific integrity eh?
- taeric 10y ago
  My personal backlash against this is from experience. I have been wrong. I will be wrong more in the future. Ignorance is normal. Nobody knows everything. However, ignorance is not to be embraced. Fact checking is not a liberal agenda. It is a general path to improvement.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  Yes, because only progressive extremists believe the facts are on their side. Say that out loud again, it sounds ridiculous.
  - james0001 10y ago
    They have a greater tendency to do so, yes. Probably stems from the implicit assumption that since academia leans left, that these progressives will have the needed scientific support for their policy proposals.
    - yolesaber 10y ago
      You know that it was two Republicans who started the bipartisan committee on climate change in the House, right? It's not a liberal issue. It's a reality that is happening NOW Your generalizations are laughable and are only indicative of the toxic thinking that has characterized this election.

matt4077 10y ago

Much like the US today is a better country than it ever was, "the media" today is better than its critics say. People have a fantasy of how it supposedly was, how objectivity works (or doesn't) in journalism, and how much we still rely on a small handful of traditional publications. Journalism has always had, and always will, a part to play in shaping public opinion. "Simply disseminating information" is something a phone book may do. Publishing a newspaper starts being subjective when you decide on what to write about. The ecosystem of hanger-ons garnishing news with left-wing (Mother Jones, HuffPost) or right-wing (breitbart, FOX) slant adds exactly nothing but vitriol. Wikileaks has shown exactly nothing except that in a million internal e-mails you're bound to find a few embarrassing ones. And that the American right has absolutely no problem that they won an election with the proven and admitted help of the Russian government.

drewrv 10y ago
What annoys me is how people treat ideology as the only type of bias. People will accuse a news source of being biased in favor of the left or right and that's it. The reality is that ideology is not even the most interesting or influential type of bias. For example, news organizations heavily favor sensationalism over stories that are important but boring. News organizations will pander, reporting stories that their audience will enjoy rather than what will educate them. There's a "pre existing narrative" bias, for example Al Gore was a dorky know it all so of course he claimed to invent the internet, regardless of reality. Maybe the New York Times or CNN slightly favors the right or the left, but give them a story that is sensational and fits the narrative and they won't shut up about it no matter which ideology it harms.

mcphage 10y ago

> but unfairly singles out the alt-right movement Did you miss the part of the article where they pointed out a series of left-leaning false claims? "No, delayed military absentee ballots would not have swung the election. No, Melania Trump has not filed for divorce, nor was her husband born in Pakistan. No, Mike Pence definitely did not tell Fox News that gay conversion therapy saved his marriage."

1024core 10y ago
It's called cognitive dissonance. :)
ihsw 10y ago
I don't see SJWs being regarded as a threat to American democracy but they are agitators and proud-idiots just the same.

chrisbennet 10y ago

>The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair due to their close adherence to progressive extremist ideology and their objectivity is rightly attacked. The Fourth Estate has fallen into disrepair because it's funding model was disrupted. No income source = less (real) reporters.

gaur 10y ago

> unfairly singles out the alt-right movement -- one can't say that they are wrong in their dogmatic mistrust of the media A lot of alt-righters distrust the media because they think it's controlled by Jews. That's a regular theme on alt-right websites. So yes, you can say they are wrong in their dogmatic mistrust of the media.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]