11 ms·

I don't understand this perspective. When CNN gets a story wrong, the right creates a huge storm and people get fired. When the right gets a story wrong (Breitb

I don't understand this perspective. When CNN gets a story wrong, the right creates a huge storm and people get fired. When the right gets a story wrong (Breitbart still pushing the hard anti-climate change line, Hannity with the Seth Rich conspiracy, the entire birther movement, Pizzagate, and on and on and on)... nothing happens. Nothing. It took Milo saying "maybe pedophelia isn't that bad" before there was enough of an outcry for him to be fired. It truly frustrates me when I see people pushing this "oh both sides are just as bad, but one is left and one is right". No. They are not. And it isn't hard to see the direct effects this is having, now. When the governor of Texas calls out the national guard to keep an eye on the US Army doing training exercises, because of right-wing conspiracy insanity that has hit the mainstream, we are having problems. When President Trump can claim that Obama is the founder of Isis and people just eat it up, we are having problems. For God's sake, the man had his press secretary go out on Day One of his presidency and lie about crowd sizes. He spouts bullshit about crime statistics in Sweden and for months, Breitbart suddenly has constant articles about how immigrants are causing everything wrong in Sweden ever (I particularly remember an article with an image of a mangled child, with the claim this was caused by immigrants, only for word to come out later it was a dog attack). The "mainstream media" (and I use the term in quotes because all the biggest radio shows are right-wing, fox is the biggest cable channel and the WSJ is the biggest paper aside from USA Today) is like a dog chasing a car, towing a pro-business line and chasing after whatever will give them the most eyeballs at the moment. But at least they aren't a goddamn propaganda force for the left, marching in lock-step and feeding off each other the way the right media does.

King-Aaron 9y ago
> When CNN gets a story wrong, the right creates a huge storm and people get fired. When the right gets a story wrong (Breitbart still pushing the hard anti-climate change line, Hannity with the Seth Rich conspiracy, the entire birther movement, Pizzagate, and on and on and on)... nothing happens. Nothing. We see this in Australian media too, and I'm guessing everywhere else in the world is seeing it becoming more prevalent too. There's a real elitism around "what you are allowed to say"...
ryandrake 9y ago
But they are! At least that's how it is perceived by the other side, and that's how you understand that perspective. For a large number of people, truth is in the eye of the beholder. If a story confirms your preconceived biases, the journalist got it right and is telling the truth. If it opposes your beliefs, it's factually wrong. Truth is like relativity: There is no aether, no privileged reference frame. When one believes, for example, with all of their soul and being, that climate change isn't happening, or that vaccines are good for you, then any reporting on the "facts" is ridiculous conspiracy, no matter how measurable it is. It's those greedy ivory tower elite, at it again! Reports about the falseness of climate change and the dangers of vaccinations are the lone voice of truth shining through. You could write a report that you believe has zero bias. All observable facts. It will be seen as ridiculous, biased conspiracy by some people out there.
- banned1 9y ago
  Maybe it's because defining what the "truth" is is complicated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
  - Filligree 9y ago
    The way humanity uses that word can sometimes be complicated, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that truth is: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/
    - banned1 9y ago
      Good one. But what happens when you have two competing truths?
      - Filligree 9y ago
        You discover that "truth" is the wrong word to describe at least one of them.
refurb 9y ago
... nothing happens That because of expectations. Everyone knows Breitbart is hard right. Even conservatives will admit that. Even Breitbart will admit that. CNN like to position itself as the news. You know, the straight shit. When they go off the rails people get pissed because they don't expect CNN to do that.
- banned1 9y ago
  I stopped watching CNN during election night when the table was full of people who at least once said "we" when they intended to say "the Democrats".
  - justin66 9y ago
    They hire political consultants to do the commentary for those election-night shows. They outnumber the journalists pretty overwhelmingly, that's just the way it works. In defense of CNN, Democratic consultant James Carville was the first person on any of those shows - I was scanning pretty heavily - to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was really hosed. Nobody else, even on Fox, seemed to believe it.
  - slice_of_life 9y ago
    I stopped watching CNN as well because the bias was all too blatant and here I was all these years thinking that it was unbiased or at least tried to be balanced. Marc Andreessen (whom I consider one of the smartest people I like to learn from) touches on this media issue here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhBVBBBNs0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhBVBBBNs0 Even Marc is deeply conflicted when it comes to this particular issue. I think Marc is a partially closeted rightist and it's understandable because he works in California which is largely leftist. If you've followed Marc on Twitter(when he used to post) and on is interviews, you'll notice he'll be deeply inclined towards rightist views (he'll mention Venezuela as a cautionary tale) but not even he had the courage to support the republican party during the last election. The only person I know who had the chutzpah to come out, so to speak, was Peter Thiel and I respect him deeply for this. That said, even Thiel is human after all; he was supposed to attend the PFS(a conference led by one of the best right leaning economists of our times - Hans-Hermann Hoppe) last year but cancelled as it had begun to draw unwanted attention.
banned1 9y ago
I recommend this article to you about the failure and death of journalism. https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-jo...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
FooHentai 9y ago
>It took Milo saying "maybe pedophelia isn't that bad" before there was enough of an outcry for him to be fired. Your example is nonsense and disproves your point. Read the transcript, that is not at all what was said: http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/ http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-t... An actual quote: "I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst." You say you don't feel there is as much accountability for talking heads on the right, yet here is a clear example of a talking head on the right being misquoted ('conveniently abbreviated') and actual, real consequences occurring.
- spamizbad 9y ago
  He was clearly paraphrasing and it doesn't refute what actually happened: Milo made a statement about underage relationships that caused him to get the boot from the conservative sphere. As an aside, probably the most damning thing about the Milo affair is the fact that Milo has little conservative credentials beyond trolling liberals but was nevertheless wholly embraced as a conservative. It turns out all the gusto for free speech and logical arguments flies out the window if your topic of discussion shifts to pederasty.
didibus 9y ago
The truth is, there's actually a huge amount of centrist in the USA. Those centrists are reasonable people. They'll hear you out, think, analyze and make up their mind. They'll accept compromise, and they'll try hard to see if maybe there's truth to consider, even if most things said appears exaggerated, or ridiculous. And then there's unreasonable people. They don't want to think, or consider options. In the USA, if you are unreasonable, you're most likely on the right. Most reasonable people are clustered with the left. And a minority of unreasonable people are also on the left, with another minority of reasonable people clustered on the right. Effectively, the right averages to be unreasonable, and the left to be reasonable. I find the media reflect that quite well. Maybe CNN forgot to consider an option, so they reconsider. Fox news doesn't, they're not trying to be reasonable. So what's happening currently is all reasonable people on the left is trying to give a chance to the minority of reasonable people on the right. While the bigger chunk of unreasonable people on the right are trying to avoid all reasoning about alternative options. In that sense, its normal for most reasonable news source to appear tied to the left. And most unreasonable news source to appear tied to the right.
- kogepathic 9y ago
  > In the USA, if you are unreasonable, you're most likely on the right. Most reasonable people are clustered with the left. And a minority of unreasonable people are also on the left, with another minority of reasonable people clustered on the right. I don't think it's fair to generalize 330 million people like this. Certainly it feels like there are more reality-denying theories peddled by right wing media, but that could be for a variety of reasons, not limited to: 1. Right wing media is louder in their publicizing of these issues 2. Your media sources are more liberal and you view right wing media outlets as "unreasonable" I am not American, but I have American friends. You cannot generalize political beliefs into who is reasonable or unreasonable in all their beliefs. Politics is a spectrum, and right now in America you have the loudest people screaming from the extreme right and (IMHO) the centre left. If you identify as more liberal, you're far more inclined to view this coverage as "reasonable" compared to more right leaning coverage. > Effectively, the right averages to be unreasonable, and the left to be reasonable. I find the media reflect that quite well. No, this is the current media situation in America. In other countries this kind of propaganda from both sides of the political spectrum is not as prominent, and it's far easier to have a rational and reasonable debate about political issues. You can draw your own conclusions about America, but please do not come away with the impression that all right-leaning people are unreasonable. It's a big world, and this most certainly is not the case in other countries. I'd argue it's also not the case in America. American media has just been hijacked by the most loud, extreme group of people (from both sides) because the executives have figured out this style of coverage earns more money. From an outside view, American news media has basically turned into The Jerry Springer Show. It's trashy and devoid of almost any meaningful content, but people watch it to be entertained.
jrs95 9y ago
CNN's Trump/Russia coverage has been ridiculous, theyre running that story 33% of the time 24 hours a day, and nobody has or will be fired for that. Unless their ratings sink so far that upper management needs to be changed.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  Do you not think that covering the (admitted!) collusion between a presidential candidate and a foreign power warrants that coverage?
  - jrs95 9y ago
    How was this admitted? You're probably misusing the word collusion. There's no evidence of collusion yet, and there's barely evidence of the Russia hacks. Those intelligence agencies are relying on the investigation that CrowdStrike did. They were the only ones with access to the compromised servers. It's not like they all took a look themselves and came to the same conclusion. It's been consistently exaggerated and misrepresented by the media because they have a bias.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      > How was this admitted? When Don Jr. tweeted out the emails specifically inviting him and other Trump campaign staff to a meeting in Trump Tower (fairly good chance Don Sr. was there too) with a Russian government connected lawyer to get dirt on the Clinton campaign. > compromised servers I think you're only talking about the DNC hacks? Where this is now a much wider scope and context due to their own admittances.
      - jrs95 9y ago
        The Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, has closer ties to Fusion GPS, the people who came up with that "dossier" with the whole golden shower blackmail conspiracy theory, than she does the Russian government. The worst you can reliably take away from that meeting is that they decided to take a meeting with someone who claimed to be a Russian government lawyer with information on Clinton. Plus, there's more evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with the Ukrainian government against Trump than there is evidence of Trump colluding with the Russian government. And yes, I was referring to the DNC hacks.

King-Aaron 9y ago

> When CNN gets a story wrong, the right creates a huge storm and people get fired. When the right gets a story wrong (Breitbart still pushing the hard anti-climate change line, Hannity with the Seth Rich conspiracy, the entire birther movement, Pizzagate, and on and on and on)... nothing happens. Nothing. We see this in Australian media too, and I'm guessing everywhere else in the world is seeing it becoming more prevalent too. There's a real elitism around "what you are allowed to say"...

ryandrake 9y ago

But they are! At least that's how it is perceived by the other side, and that's how you understand that perspective. For a large number of people, truth is in the eye of the beholder. If a story confirms your preconceived biases, the journalist got it right and is telling the truth. If it opposes your beliefs, it's factually wrong. Truth is like relativity: There is no aether, no privileged reference frame. When one believes, for example, with all of their soul and being, that climate change isn't happening, or that vaccines are good for you, then any reporting on the "facts" is ridiculous conspiracy, no matter how measurable it is. It's those greedy ivory tower elite, at it again! Reports about the falseness of climate change and the dangers of vaccinations are the lone voice of truth shining through. You could write a report that you believe has zero bias. All observable facts. It will be seen as ridiculous, biased conspiracy by some people out there.

banned1 9y ago
Maybe it's because defining what the "truth" is is complicated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
- Filligree 9y ago
  The way humanity uses that word can sometimes be complicated, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that truth is: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/
  - banned1 9y ago
    Good one. But what happens when you have two competing truths?
    - Filligree 9y ago
      You discover that "truth" is the wrong word to describe at least one of them.

refurb 9y ago

... nothing happens That because of expectations. Everyone knows Breitbart is hard right. Even conservatives will admit that. Even Breitbart will admit that. CNN like to position itself as the news. You know, the straight shit. When they go off the rails people get pissed because they don't expect CNN to do that.

banned1 9y ago
I stopped watching CNN during election night when the table was full of people who at least once said "we" when they intended to say "the Democrats".
- justin66 9y ago
  They hire political consultants to do the commentary for those election-night shows. They outnumber the journalists pretty overwhelmingly, that's just the way it works. In defense of CNN, Democratic consultant James Carville was the first person on any of those shows - I was scanning pretty heavily - to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was really hosed. Nobody else, even on Fox, seemed to believe it.
- slice_of_life 9y ago
  I stopped watching CNN as well because the bias was all too blatant and here I was all these years thinking that it was unbiased or at least tried to be balanced. Marc Andreessen (whom I consider one of the smartest people I like to learn from) touches on this media issue here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhBVBBBNs0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZhBVBBBNs0 Even Marc is deeply conflicted when it comes to this particular issue. I think Marc is a partially closeted rightist and it's understandable because he works in California which is largely leftist. If you've followed Marc on Twitter(when he used to post) and on is interviews, you'll notice he'll be deeply inclined towards rightist views (he'll mention Venezuela as a cautionary tale) but not even he had the courage to support the republican party during the last election. The only person I know who had the chutzpah to come out, so to speak, was Peter Thiel and I respect him deeply for this. That said, even Thiel is human after all; he was supposed to attend the PFS(a conference led by one of the best right leaning economists of our times - Hans-Hermann Hoppe) last year but cancelled as it had begun to draw unwanted attention.

banned1 9y ago

I recommend this article to you about the failure and death of journalism. https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-jo...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

FooHentai 9y ago

>It took Milo saying "maybe pedophelia isn't that bad" before there was enough of an outcry for him to be fired. Your example is nonsense and disproves your point. Read the transcript, that is not at all what was said: http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/ http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-t... An actual quote: "I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst." You say you don't feel there is as much accountability for talking heads on the right, yet here is a clear example of a talking head on the right being misquoted ('conveniently abbreviated') and actual, real consequences occurring.

spamizbad 9y ago
He was clearly paraphrasing and it doesn't refute what actually happened: Milo made a statement about underage relationships that caused him to get the boot from the conservative sphere. As an aside, probably the most damning thing about the Milo affair is the fact that Milo has little conservative credentials beyond trolling liberals but was nevertheless wholly embraced as a conservative. It turns out all the gusto for free speech and logical arguments flies out the window if your topic of discussion shifts to pederasty.

didibus 9y ago

The truth is, there's actually a huge amount of centrist in the USA. Those centrists are reasonable people. They'll hear you out, think, analyze and make up their mind. They'll accept compromise, and they'll try hard to see if maybe there's truth to consider, even if most things said appears exaggerated, or ridiculous. And then there's unreasonable people. They don't want to think, or consider options. In the USA, if you are unreasonable, you're most likely on the right. Most reasonable people are clustered with the left. And a minority of unreasonable people are also on the left, with another minority of reasonable people clustered on the right. Effectively, the right averages to be unreasonable, and the left to be reasonable. I find the media reflect that quite well. Maybe CNN forgot to consider an option, so they reconsider. Fox news doesn't, they're not trying to be reasonable. So what's happening currently is all reasonable people on the left is trying to give a chance to the minority of reasonable people on the right. While the bigger chunk of unreasonable people on the right are trying to avoid all reasoning about alternative options. In that sense, its normal for most reasonable news source to appear tied to the left. And most unreasonable news source to appear tied to the right.

kogepathic 9y ago
> In the USA, if you are unreasonable, you're most likely on the right. Most reasonable people are clustered with the left. And a minority of unreasonable people are also on the left, with another minority of reasonable people clustered on the right. I don't think it's fair to generalize 330 million people like this. Certainly it feels like there are more reality-denying theories peddled by right wing media, but that could be for a variety of reasons, not limited to: 1. Right wing media is louder in their publicizing of these issues 2. Your media sources are more liberal and you view right wing media outlets as "unreasonable" I am not American, but I have American friends. You cannot generalize political beliefs into who is reasonable or unreasonable in all their beliefs. Politics is a spectrum, and right now in America you have the loudest people screaming from the extreme right and (IMHO) the centre left. If you identify as more liberal, you're far more inclined to view this coverage as "reasonable" compared to more right leaning coverage. > Effectively, the right averages to be unreasonable, and the left to be reasonable. I find the media reflect that quite well. No, this is the current media situation in America. In other countries this kind of propaganda from both sides of the political spectrum is not as prominent, and it's far easier to have a rational and reasonable debate about political issues. You can draw your own conclusions about America, but please do not come away with the impression that all right-leaning people are unreasonable. It's a big world, and this most certainly is not the case in other countries. I'd argue it's also not the case in America. American media has just been hijacked by the most loud, extreme group of people (from both sides) because the executives have figured out this style of coverage earns more money. From an outside view, American news media has basically turned into The Jerry Springer Show. It's trashy and devoid of almost any meaningful content, but people watch it to be entertained.

jrs95 9y ago

CNN's Trump/Russia coverage has been ridiculous, theyre running that story 33% of the time 24 hours a day, and nobody has or will be fired for that. Unless their ratings sink so far that upper management needs to be changed.

zimpenfish 9y ago
Do you not think that covering the (admitted!) collusion between a presidential candidate and a foreign power warrants that coverage?
- jrs95 9y ago
  How was this admitted? You're probably misusing the word collusion. There's no evidence of collusion yet, and there's barely evidence of the Russia hacks. Those intelligence agencies are relying on the investigation that CrowdStrike did. They were the only ones with access to the compromised servers. It's not like they all took a look themselves and came to the same conclusion. It's been consistently exaggerated and misrepresented by the media because they have a bias.
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    > How was this admitted? When Don Jr. tweeted out the emails specifically inviting him and other Trump campaign staff to a meeting in Trump Tower (fairly good chance Don Sr. was there too) with a Russian government connected lawyer to get dirt on the Clinton campaign. > compromised servers I think you're only talking about the DNC hacks? Where this is now a much wider scope and context due to their own admittances.
    - jrs95 9y ago
      The Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, has closer ties to Fusion GPS, the people who came up with that "dossier" with the whole golden shower blackmail conspiracy theory, than she does the Russian government. The worst you can reliably take away from that meeting is that they decided to take a meeting with someone who claimed to be a Russian government lawyer with information on Clinton. Plus, there's more evidence of the Clinton campaign colluding with the Ukrainian government against Trump than there is evidence of Trump colluding with the Russian government. And yes, I was referring to the DNC hacks.