4 ms·

Maybe it's my bias, but I feel like I actually hear a lot of stories about rural white people. Especially since the election, every outlet keeps wanting to do t

Maybe it's my bias, but I feel like I actually hear a lot of stories about rural white people. Especially since the election, every outlet keeps wanting to do think pieces on their plight.

ethbro 9y ago
I'd agree with taurath that if bias is there it's in the story framing or selection. And also sometimes interviewee: the various shows seem to like "Here's an archetype (e.g. soldier) who you would expect to be conservative, but actually has liberal views." If you summarize every story, you end up with a lot more "affirming a liberal view of the world" ones than "affirming a conservative view." That said, I still believe the content of the stories presented hews far closer to objective fact and truth than what I've seen from conservative media. So I wouldn't say it's nearly that biased.
Bartweiss 9y ago
I think a lot of sources generally treated as liberal have swerved in their coverage over the last ~year, since Trump began to look credible. I'd argue that stretch is non-representative compared to, say, 2014, but I'd also argue you can still see a distinctive outlook when they do cover those topics. A source like Vox covers urban/coastal issues from the 'inside', treating first-hand sources as credible and writing like the reader is included in the topic. There's also a significant assumption that readers inherently care. It writes rural white plight stories as 'explainers', approaching them the way you would approach some international crisis your readers are unlikely to know about. One big human-interest frame example to make your readers care, lots of background and statistics, first-hand interviews that add flavor, but are aggressively contextualized by talking to professors and experts who aren't part of the community. And, of course, a necessity to say "which maybe caused Trump" or otherwise justify why such stories are relevant to their readers. Basically, I think NPR/Vox/etc have started covering rural plight stuff far more, but they're still explaining those people to their readers.
- taurath 9y ago
  You hit the nail on the head - and nothing really turns off a viewership than being "taught" about yourself. 90% of conservative talk radio is "teaching" about how liberals think.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Yes, that's a much more succinct way of putting it! A source feels biased to me any time it's talking to one side, but 'teaching' about another side - no matter how the mechanisms of that bias vary.
    - taurath 9y ago
      Polsplaining has a nice ring to it!

Maybe it's my bias, but I feel like I actually hear a lot of stories about rural white people. Especially since the election, every outlet keeps wanting to do think pieces on their plight.

ethbro 9y ago

I'd agree with taurath that if bias is there it's in the story framing or selection. And also sometimes interviewee: the various shows seem to like "Here's an archetype (e.g. soldier) who you would expect to be conservative, but actually has liberal views." If you summarize every story, you end up with a lot more "affirming a liberal view of the world" ones than "affirming a conservative view." That said, I still believe the content of the stories presented hews far closer to objective fact and truth than what I've seen from conservative media. So I wouldn't say it's nearly that biased.

Bartweiss 9y ago

I think a lot of sources generally treated as liberal have swerved in their coverage over the last ~year, since Trump began to look credible. I'd argue that stretch is non-representative compared to, say, 2014, but I'd also argue you can still see a distinctive outlook when they do cover those topics. A source like Vox covers urban/coastal issues from the 'inside', treating first-hand sources as credible and writing like the reader is included in the topic. There's also a significant assumption that readers inherently care. It writes rural white plight stories as 'explainers', approaching them the way you would approach some international crisis your readers are unlikely to know about. One big human-interest frame example to make your readers care, lots of background and statistics, first-hand interviews that add flavor, but are aggressively contextualized by talking to professors and experts who aren't part of the community. And, of course, a necessity to say "which maybe caused Trump" or otherwise justify why such stories are relevant to their readers. Basically, I think NPR/Vox/etc have started covering rural plight stuff far more, but they're still explaining those people to their readers.

taurath 9y ago
You hit the nail on the head - and nothing really turns off a viewership than being "taught" about yourself. 90% of conservative talk radio is "teaching" about how liberals think.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Yes, that's a much more succinct way of putting it! A source feels biased to me any time it's talking to one side, but 'teaching' about another side - no matter how the mechanisms of that bias vary.
  - taurath 9y ago
    Polsplaining has a nice ring to it!