4 ms·

Not to disagree with one half of your assertion (that media leaning right is corrupt and broken), but you appear completely blind to the media that leans left b

Not to disagree with one half of your assertion (that media leaning right is corrupt and broken), but you appear completely blind to the media that leans left being equally corrupt and broken. Many scandals about the left were covered up and hidden away. You just didn't look for them. I struggle to find any mass media that hasn't been rendered completely useless during this election cycle. To contrast your Fox/WSJ/WaPo list of egregious terrible media, consider BBC, CNN, TYT, HuffPo, Slate (I'll stop there, but I could list 50 more). Honestly, the best coverage I could find in this last election cycle came from dreary underground groups. All major media had clearly picked a side and was uninterested in providing useful, factual information.

pnathan 10y ago
That's factually a a half false equivalency, and will badly mislead you into conspiracy theory. - Fox, WSJ, and WaPo are news organizations. HuffPo is definitely not up to their standard, being, AFAICT, a collection of blogs; Slate is primarily essays- not news. - CNN and BBC are actual news orgs. Leaving the BBC out of it, as they are British. Please demonstrate where CNN covered a left scandal up.
- hackuser 10y ago
  IMO, Fox News is clearly the leading source of ideology, and the WSJ's editorial page, if not their news (though it's owned by the same people as Fox News), is the same ideology repackaged for the 'elite'. In my experience, that's clear to people from everywhere on the spectrum. There's a reason the ideologues on the right only listen to Fox.
hackuser 10y ago
> To contrast your Fox/WSJ/WaPo list of egregious terrible media, consider BBC, CNN, TYT, HuffPo, Slate (I'll stop there, but I could list 50 more). I agree that much is bad in that it's sensationalism, which provided Trump with free media and made them useful idiots (the technical term, not a pejorative) for his campaign. But I don't agree: 1) That it's the same as ideological news; CNN has some real journalistic standards and tries not to lie. 2) That the NY Times in particular, or the BBC, belong in that category. They were neither sensational nor ideological, IMO. (I wouldn't have listed Slate, but I don't know them well enough.) Certainly the serious journalism outlets are flawed, being human institutions, but I think they do a pretty good job. It's too easy to say, 'it's all bad' - it saves us having to carefully discern and accept imperfection.

pnathan 10y ago

That's factually a a half false equivalency, and will badly mislead you into conspiracy theory. - Fox, WSJ, and WaPo are news organizations. HuffPo is definitely not up to their standard, being, AFAICT, a collection of blogs; Slate is primarily essays- not news. - CNN and BBC are actual news orgs. Leaving the BBC out of it, as they are British. Please demonstrate where CNN covered a left scandal up.

hackuser 10y ago
IMO, Fox News is clearly the leading source of ideology, and the WSJ's editorial page, if not their news (though it's owned by the same people as Fox News), is the same ideology repackaged for the 'elite'. In my experience, that's clear to people from everywhere on the spectrum. There's a reason the ideologues on the right only listen to Fox.

hackuser 10y ago

> To contrast your Fox/WSJ/WaPo list of egregious terrible media, consider BBC, CNN, TYT, HuffPo, Slate (I'll stop there, but I could list 50 more). I agree that much is bad in that it's sensationalism, which provided Trump with free media and made them useful idiots (the technical term, not a pejorative) for his campaign. But I don't agree: 1) That it's the same as ideological news; CNN has some real journalistic standards and tries not to lie. 2) That the NY Times in particular, or the BBC, belong in that category. They were neither sensational nor ideological, IMO. (I wouldn't have listed Slate, but I don't know them well enough.) Certainly the serious journalism outlets are flawed, being human institutions, but I think they do a pretty good job. It's too easy to say, 'it's all bad' - it saves us having to carefully discern and accept imperfection.