8 ms·

>Then, deploying the rhetorical jujitsu Frank Luntz was so successful at popularizing on the right, Trump co-opted the term. "Fake news" wasn't webspam sites fi

>Then, deploying the rhetorical jujitsu Frank Luntz was so successful at popularizing on the right, Trump co-opted the term. "Fake news" wasn't webspam sites filled with literal manufactured news having no connection to reality or for that matter physics, but instead any news a partisan disagreed with. No, the foodfight started when two things happened. Liberal pundits began blowing fake news' impact out of proportion and suggesting that it swung the election. They also began casting it as a characteristically conservative problem and put legitimate right-wing news outlets like Breitbart on lists of fake news sites. We right-wingers then began using the term tongue-in-cheek and people got all worked up thinking it was some kind of propaganda technique. It's just lighthearted needling/trolling. Remember that right before "election hacking" became the only election topic discussed among Clinton supporters, it was "fake news".

tptacek 10y ago
It is, in fact, empirically a conservative problem: fakenews sites are something like 9-1 conservative. If you care to check (you can just take my word for it), I've been pushing back on the idea that Breitbart is fakenews, from the jump. I find Breitbart abhorrent, though. My conservative friends are sheepish about it. Do you get much value out of it? Could you explain it to me? I'm not a conservative, but I respect a lot of conservative ideology (Hayekian bottom-up economical thought, strong emphasis on the private sector, maintenance of the Pax Americana, &c). Am I crazy to think that Breitbart is a parody of serious conservative thinking?
- garanduss 10y ago
  I'll focus on the second paragraph in this response. I find it depressing how partisan and tabloidy Breitbart is, and I'm therefore unsurprised that people like Ben Shapiro have denounced it. However, Breitbart presents an alternative to the mainstream media, which has developed such a pervasive bias that it no longer understands what fair reporting is. The conservative community realized the depth of this problem in cases like the Kermit Gosnell trial, where the entire media ignores the topic and Fox, basically the only A-list conservative media outlet at this point, miss it too because it's simply under the radar. The mainstream media outlets rely so much on the AP and one another that you need a source that is fundamentally independent in determining what they find notable. So if I want news on immigration, abortion, or guns that isn't pandering garbage, Breitbart offers a better alternative. Here's an example that stuck with me. A couple months ago, the NYT had an article called "The Week In Hate" prominently listed on the front page of its website. It was a short list of hate incidents, including a high schooler sending a Snapchat with a racial epithet in it, and someone writing "black bitch" in the snow on a black woman's car. The front page of the NYT. The same people who didn't write a word on a man who murdered an estimated hundreds of infants by snipping their spinal cords because it was "local news". The world has gone insane, and although Breitbart is insane too, it might be the kind of insanity we need. In response to your last sentence: "serious" or "sensible" conservative thinking usually just means neutered conservative thinking. The current conservative revival is partially a backlash to the left's perceived entitlement to define acceptable right-wing thought.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    What's the difference between neutered conservative thinking and full-throated conservative thinking? Is it mostly about being pro-life? For whatever it's worth: I'm Catholic, from an Irish and Eastern-European Catholic family in Chicago, and I am quite familiar with the activist pro-life movement. I respect it, though I do not admire or agree with it. If you were going to characterize your view of conservativism in just a few bullets, how would you? (I could do that for my view of Democratic liberalism).
    - garanduss 10y ago
      I come from an immigrant Catholic background as well. Personally, I'm mildly pro-choice (I see first-trimester abortions as necessary but distasteful). I think that the populist conservatism I see and largely subscribe to has the following features: * a concern with upholding abortion as a woman's right and morally unambiguous (this is a peripheral one but relevant to our discussion) * a hatred of the New Left's hair trigger accusations of bigotry and hate speech, and the censorship that political correctness affords them * a frustration with the denigration of Western society that is becoming the norm in our education system * a deep-seated respect for the individual, his agency, and the importance that he take responsibility for his actions * a recognition that much of the rest of the world doesn't like us and wants to eat our lunch not because we're bad people (i.e. not because we deserve it), but because that's how tribalism works * a respect for cultural diversity in the sense that sovereign nations are entitled to do things differently (e.g. guns in America) * a recognition that no matter how much the New Left bashes colorblindness, that's the only way a multiethnic society is ever going to function * an appreciation of both masculinity and femininity, and a belief that modern feminism and gender theory is based heavily in man-hating and biological denialism * a frustration with the increasing integration of iffy and controversial progressive goals into so many aspects of corporate and academic life, and a frustration with the hegemony that threatens our livelihoods and reputations if we question these goals * a heavy suspicion that -- although most of us wish this weren't the case -- culture and genetics play a large role in the relative success of races * a disappointment in the mainstream media for so thoroughly strawmanning and denigrating right-wing thinking that people are sheltered from basic facts of reality (e.g. the relative tolerance of the US, the senses in which transgenderism may be a mental illness or a symptom thereof, to give two randomly selected examples) * a distaste for the fetishization of protest culture and the idea that any right-wing or traditionalist policymaking needs to be met with autistically shrieking hipsters and burning cars * a preference for facts and logic over feelings when justifying beliefs * a sense that "multiculturalism" often just means culturelessness, and that there is a real benefit to making sure people who immigrate are willing and able to integrate and arriving in small enough numbers to avoid major cultural disruption * a concern with the absolutist and marauding culture of the Muslim world, its resistance to Westernization in Arab immigrants, and the New Left's refusal to acknowledge this problem * and more Hopefully that wasn't too long. I'm interested to see your list.
- garanduss 10y ago
  Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more conservative fake news, but remember that those lists showing a 9-1 balance are made by leftists whining about the election and trying to delegitimize its winner.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    There are academic studies confirming the number of conservative vs. liberal fakenews sites. That doesn't make fakenews an intrinsic problem with conservativism! Clearly: both ends of the spectrum are willing to deploy almost any tactic available to them. It just means that in the last election, Trump's supporters leaned far more heavily on fakenews than Clinton's. Since fakenews sites are principally stood up to make money for fraudsters and probably secondarily stood up to jam the election process by foreign governments (no serious supporter of Trump thinks a news site with stories about demon orgies is going to help the cause), the motives of the sites themselves are almost besides the point.
  - jedikv 10y ago
    Well from a purely financial aspect - the peddlers of fake news mentioned that fake pro-right-leaning/trump stories performed much better (in terms of spread & revenue) than pro-left-leaning ones. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-do...
- Nexxxeh 10y ago
  Milo's stratospheric rise in popularity hasn't helped. But for coverage of say Gamergate, it was the only news organization I'd seen to actually investigate and show the other side, rather than just utterly misunderstanding it and labeling it as "gamers are misogynistic racist hate-peddling trolls" and "gamers are dead". I find Bannon repugnant, and I disagree with a lot of what their journalists and commentators say, but they have a different perspective that's important to hear. Edit: In case anyone hasn't actually seen what gamers were actually pissed at, it was the corruption in the gaming journalism industry. The Wikipedia article is horseshit, as was most of the mainstream press coverage. Start at http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=monster http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=monster and see for yourself.

tptacek 10y ago

It is, in fact, empirically a conservative problem: fakenews sites are something like 9-1 conservative. If you care to check (you can just take my word for it), I've been pushing back on the idea that Breitbart is fakenews, from the jump. I find Breitbart abhorrent, though. My conservative friends are sheepish about it. Do you get much value out of it? Could you explain it to me? I'm not a conservative, but I respect a lot of conservative ideology (Hayekian bottom-up economical thought, strong emphasis on the private sector, maintenance of the Pax Americana, &c). Am I crazy to think that Breitbart is a parody of serious conservative thinking?

garanduss 10y ago
I'll focus on the second paragraph in this response. I find it depressing how partisan and tabloidy Breitbart is, and I'm therefore unsurprised that people like Ben Shapiro have denounced it. However, Breitbart presents an alternative to the mainstream media, which has developed such a pervasive bias that it no longer understands what fair reporting is. The conservative community realized the depth of this problem in cases like the Kermit Gosnell trial, where the entire media ignores the topic and Fox, basically the only A-list conservative media outlet at this point, miss it too because it's simply under the radar. The mainstream media outlets rely so much on the AP and one another that you need a source that is fundamentally independent in determining what they find notable. So if I want news on immigration, abortion, or guns that isn't pandering garbage, Breitbart offers a better alternative. Here's an example that stuck with me. A couple months ago, the NYT had an article called "The Week In Hate" prominently listed on the front page of its website. It was a short list of hate incidents, including a high schooler sending a Snapchat with a racial epithet in it, and someone writing "black bitch" in the snow on a black woman's car. The front page of the NYT. The same people who didn't write a word on a man who murdered an estimated hundreds of infants by snipping their spinal cords because it was "local news". The world has gone insane, and although Breitbart is insane too, it might be the kind of insanity we need. In response to your last sentence: "serious" or "sensible" conservative thinking usually just means neutered conservative thinking. The current conservative revival is partially a backlash to the left's perceived entitlement to define acceptable right-wing thought.
- tptacek 10y ago
  What's the difference between neutered conservative thinking and full-throated conservative thinking? Is it mostly about being pro-life? For whatever it's worth: I'm Catholic, from an Irish and Eastern-European Catholic family in Chicago, and I am quite familiar with the activist pro-life movement. I respect it, though I do not admire or agree with it. If you were going to characterize your view of conservativism in just a few bullets, how would you? (I could do that for my view of Democratic liberalism).
  - garanduss 10y ago
    I come from an immigrant Catholic background as well. Personally, I'm mildly pro-choice (I see first-trimester abortions as necessary but distasteful). I think that the populist conservatism I see and largely subscribe to has the following features: * a concern with upholding abortion as a woman's right and morally unambiguous (this is a peripheral one but relevant to our discussion) * a hatred of the New Left's hair trigger accusations of bigotry and hate speech, and the censorship that political correctness affords them * a frustration with the denigration of Western society that is becoming the norm in our education system * a deep-seated respect for the individual, his agency, and the importance that he take responsibility for his actions * a recognition that much of the rest of the world doesn't like us and wants to eat our lunch not because we're bad people (i.e. not because we deserve it), but because that's how tribalism works * a respect for cultural diversity in the sense that sovereign nations are entitled to do things differently (e.g. guns in America) * a recognition that no matter how much the New Left bashes colorblindness, that's the only way a multiethnic society is ever going to function * an appreciation of both masculinity and femininity, and a belief that modern feminism and gender theory is based heavily in man-hating and biological denialism * a frustration with the increasing integration of iffy and controversial progressive goals into so many aspects of corporate and academic life, and a frustration with the hegemony that threatens our livelihoods and reputations if we question these goals * a heavy suspicion that -- although most of us wish this weren't the case -- culture and genetics play a large role in the relative success of races * a disappointment in the mainstream media for so thoroughly strawmanning and denigrating right-wing thinking that people are sheltered from basic facts of reality (e.g. the relative tolerance of the US, the senses in which transgenderism may be a mental illness or a symptom thereof, to give two randomly selected examples) * a distaste for the fetishization of protest culture and the idea that any right-wing or traditionalist policymaking needs to be met with autistically shrieking hipsters and burning cars * a preference for facts and logic over feelings when justifying beliefs * a sense that "multiculturalism" often just means culturelessness, and that there is a real benefit to making sure people who immigrate are willing and able to integrate and arriving in small enough numbers to avoid major cultural disruption * a concern with the absolutist and marauding culture of the Muslim world, its resistance to Westernization in Arab immigrants, and the New Left's refusal to acknowledge this problem * and more Hopefully that wasn't too long. I'm interested to see your list.
garanduss 10y ago
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more conservative fake news, but remember that those lists showing a 9-1 balance are made by leftists whining about the election and trying to delegitimize its winner.
- tptacek 10y ago
  There are academic studies confirming the number of conservative vs. liberal fakenews sites. That doesn't make fakenews an intrinsic problem with conservativism! Clearly: both ends of the spectrum are willing to deploy almost any tactic available to them. It just means that in the last election, Trump's supporters leaned far more heavily on fakenews than Clinton's. Since fakenews sites are principally stood up to make money for fraudsters and probably secondarily stood up to jam the election process by foreign governments (no serious supporter of Trump thinks a news site with stories about demon orgies is going to help the cause), the motives of the sites themselves are almost besides the point.
- jedikv 10y ago
  Well from a purely financial aspect - the peddlers of fake news mentioned that fake pro-right-leaning/trump stories performed much better (in terms of spread & revenue) than pro-left-leaning ones. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-do...
Nexxxeh 10y ago
Milo's stratospheric rise in popularity hasn't helped. But for coverage of say Gamergate, it was the only news organization I'd seen to actually investigate and show the other side, rather than just utterly misunderstanding it and labeling it as "gamers are misogynistic racist hate-peddling trolls" and "gamers are dead". I find Bannon repugnant, and I disagree with a lot of what their journalists and commentators say, but they have a different perspective that's important to hear. Edit: In case anyone hasn't actually seen what gamers were actually pissed at, it was the corruption in the gaming journalism industry. The Wikipedia article is horseshit, as was most of the mainstream press coverage. Start at http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=monster http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=monster and see for yourself.