3 ms·

> This isn't a new, or original, thought. It's an allusion to an ongoing conversation within what is considered mainstream comedy about why we (as a culture) s

by cat199 9y ago

> This isn't a new, or original, thought. It's an allusion to an ongoing conversation within what is considered mainstream comedy about why we (as a culture) seemingly have a plethora of mainstream liberal comedians (especially political comedians), but a dearth of conservative ones. I'm sure editorial bias determining 'what is considered mainstream comedy' has 0% to do with this.. > It relates deeply to the whole "fake news" obsession that seems to have taken hold of particular strains of "conservatism" (the right). this trend has taken ahold of all sides as a way to tar-and-feather political opponents; as best as I can tell the trend started when hillary lost and everyone in her camp was trying to blame russia for everything - it was then later co-opted by trump and has subsequently been used all around.

bo1024 9y ago
I think you would benefit from more research into fake news. As referring to "news" stories that are completely false and made up, the origin is mostly in the runup to the 2016 US presidential election where such stories were widely spread, mostly on facebook, and there is indeed evidence that they were mostly anti-Clinton and often had Russian origin.
ravitation 9y ago
> I'm sure editorial bias determining 'what is considered mainstream comedy' has 0% to do with this... Ah, yes, the multitude of journalists that have written articles on the subject must be overlooking the plethora of conservative Jon Stewarts of the world purely on "editorial bias". Maybe you can shed a light on this, until recently, hidden world of conservative comedy? > this trend has taken ahold of all sides as a way to tar-and-feather political opponents; as best as I can tell the trend started when hillary lost and everyone in her camp was trying to blame russia for everything - it was then later co-opted by trump and has subsequently been used all around. Look, I'm not going to turn this into a bunch of finger pointing. You very blatantly misunderstood what I said. I'll overlook the somewhat absurd statements you make as it relates to this deep misunderstanding... I'll just say that I'm explicitly referring to the current administration's painting of the mainstream media (the MSM, as the administration's supporters like to refer to it) as "fake news". This is very clearly not a problem with "both sides" (as there is only one side that is part of the current administration). This is also not a new phenomenon, it just has (until now) only been a major part of the political fringe. Rumblings of the bias of the media is not new, this administration has just made it (among other things) mainstream.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> as best as I can tell the trend started when hillary lost No, the concept of major uptick in “fake news” became a concept fairly early in the campaign (while the primaries were still happening), starting with people pointing to similarities between a flurry of pro-Trump (and anti-Trump’s opponents) “fake news” that seemed to follow the recent Russian propaganda approach that RAND Corp had labelled the “firehose of falsehoods” approach (we now know that at least some of that was, in fact, Russian propaganda, not just something appearing stylistically similar.) Trump himself then (still fairly early in the campaign) adopted the phrase and liberally applied it to every unfavorable report in any media outlet, regardless of its veracity. (An approach which fits into, but dials up to 11, the Republican Party’s war on the media designed to push it further right by painting it as left-biased that has been going on, with tremendous success, since at least the early 1980s.)

by cat199 9y ago

bo1024 9y ago

I think you would benefit from more research into fake news. As referring to "news" stories that are completely false and made up, the origin is mostly in the runup to the 2016 US presidential election where such stories were widely spread, mostly on facebook, and there is indeed evidence that they were mostly anti-Clinton and often had Russian origin.

ravitation 9y ago

> I'm sure editorial bias determining 'what is considered mainstream comedy' has 0% to do with this... Ah, yes, the multitude of journalists that have written articles on the subject must be overlooking the plethora of conservative Jon Stewarts of the world purely on "editorial bias". Maybe you can shed a light on this, until recently, hidden world of conservative comedy? > this trend has taken ahold of all sides as a way to tar-and-feather political opponents; as best as I can tell the trend started when hillary lost and everyone in her camp was trying to blame russia for everything - it was then later co-opted by trump and has subsequently been used all around. Look, I'm not going to turn this into a bunch of finger pointing. You very blatantly misunderstood what I said. I'll overlook the somewhat absurd statements you make as it relates to this deep misunderstanding... I'll just say that I'm explicitly referring to the current administration's painting of the mainstream media (the MSM, as the administration's supporters like to refer to it) as "fake news". This is very clearly not a problem with "both sides" (as there is only one side that is part of the current administration). This is also not a new phenomenon, it just has (until now) only been a major part of the political fringe. Rumblings of the bias of the media is not new, this administration has just made it (among other things) mainstream.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> as best as I can tell the trend started when hillary lost No, the concept of major uptick in “fake news” became a concept fairly early in the campaign (while the primaries were still happening), starting with people pointing to similarities between a flurry of pro-Trump (and anti-Trump’s opponents) “fake news” that seemed to follow the recent Russian propaganda approach that RAND Corp had labelled the “firehose of falsehoods” approach (we now know that at least some of that was, in fact, Russian propaganda, not just something appearing stylistically similar.) Trump himself then (still fairly early in the campaign) adopted the phrase and liberally applied it to every unfavorable report in any media outlet, regardless of its veracity. (An approach which fits into, but dials up to 11, the Republican Party’s war on the media designed to push it further right by painting it as left-biased that has been going on, with tremendous success, since at least the early 1980s.)