4 ms·

Another article that purports to passively observe a phenomenon while, in my opinion, actually playing a role itself. > A RUDE but incoherent comment by Presid

Another article that purports to passively observe a phenomenon while, in my opinion, actually playing a role itself. > A RUDE but incoherent comment by President Donald Trump last week revealed the damage partisanship has done to America’s body politic. Everything Trump says is carefully stripped of context and misunderstood in every possible way before it's taken to press to maximize its partisan impact. That's not to say that what Trump said in this case was "right." However, many publications have since printed retractions on this. [0] Clarifying that "animals" referred specifically to MS-13 gang members. But, of course, the retraction never travels as far as the thing it's retracting. Look at the original tweet: > Trump referred to those crossing the US border illegally as "animals" and slammed California state laws as "deadly." Only 2 words are actual quotes. > Republicans heard Mr Trump’s comment as tough talk on a bunch of killers, while Democrats heard it as a dehumanising slur against migrant parents and their children. Of course they did, they read/watched/heard two very different stories from two very different media constructed realities. This article is also from one of those two realities. (I sincerely hope you know which.) > The problem is structural: the root of tribalism is human nature, and the current state of American democracy is distinctly primeval. Tribalism is natural, in a competitive context. American Democracy is that context though. So that's really the root of the tribalism. But again, the press claims to be passively observing something it's stoking. This article is basically a call to arms. Look at the closing sentences: > Americans must wait for another of the political realignments that ended previous spells of intense partisanship, including the antebellum rivalry that stirred Abraham Lincoln’s appeal to “the better angels of our nature”. The civil war, which led to one such rearrangement, started the following month. [0] https://twitter.com/AP/status/997138543817449472 https://twitter.com/AP/status/997138543817449472

elicash 8y ago
> Of course they did, they read/watched/heard two very different stories from two very different media constructed realities. The reason I heard the FULL remarks differently than you is because I'm operating under a different set of assumptions about the type of person that Donald Trump is. This isn't to say I'm right and you're wrong. It's to say that everyone uses assumptions in every single interaction in their lives - they can be useful - and based on mine I interpret a fuzzy statement about immigrants differently than you do. The media has nothing to do with it.
- jdoliner 8y ago
  If you listened to the full remarks I certainly don't fault you for applying any assumptions you have in interpreting them. Assumptions are absolutely necessary. I'm just saying don't let the media's assumptions be your assumptions. Try to get to the source, which, it seems like in this case you did.
furgooswft13 8y ago
> Another article that purports to passively observe a phenomenon while actually doing everything to perpetuate it. And this is the major problem with the mass media today. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge their own effect on the political landscape we face today. The routine use of click/outrage bait headlines and context-free quotes is one of many common practices that warrant criticism of the media, to say nothing of biased editorializing (what articles to run, what quotes to print, where in the article to print dissenting opinions etc.) and the pile-on of seemingly verbatim headlines, stories, and opinions distributed among major outlets whenever any political "event" of note happens. Yet the push-back against it is sometimes surreal. Hyperbolic accusations of "attacking the free press" or "destroying trust in the media" (as if trust should just be guaranteed) are often lobbed. Issuing the occasional retraction does not absolve them (a common lawyers trick, saying something in court that they know will rightfully be objected to, and the jurors commanded to disregard, as if people can just be told to forget things). This same media is quick to criticize alternative outlets and ideological opponents (eg Fox News and vice versa). At least with "new media", they generally don't righteously hold themselves up as unbiased arbiters of truth. An institution which criticizes anything and everything is completely unable to take any criticism of its own. That is the very definition of thin skinned. Now, the media benefits from being _big_, ie they run a lot of stories and have a lot of different contributors. So it won't be all bad all the time, and there will always be articles to point to that are decent examples of journalistic integrity (and this point is often used in their defense, while being ignored when criticizing their opponents). But the trends, especially in political content, are undeniable. An acknowledgement that they often use and profit from biased and misleading clickbait headlines, that they have an overall editorial slant etc. would be a start. But that is as likely to happen as employees of some SV startup publicly admitting that the "game-changing" product they are selling is actually a cobbled together pile of shit that probably does not exist. Or they could just admit that, regardless of all else, they are not just innocent flies on the wall, their reporting has a real effect on what they are reporting on. Take a lesson from what we've learned in Quantum Physics over the past 100 years; there's no such thing as passive observation, there's just interaction.

elicash 8y ago

> Of course they did, they read/watched/heard two very different stories from two very different media constructed realities. The reason I heard the FULL remarks differently than you is because I'm operating under a different set of assumptions about the type of person that Donald Trump is. This isn't to say I'm right and you're wrong. It's to say that everyone uses assumptions in every single interaction in their lives - they can be useful - and based on mine I interpret a fuzzy statement about immigrants differently than you do. The media has nothing to do with it.

jdoliner 8y ago
If you listened to the full remarks I certainly don't fault you for applying any assumptions you have in interpreting them. Assumptions are absolutely necessary. I'm just saying don't let the media's assumptions be your assumptions. Try to get to the source, which, it seems like in this case you did.

furgooswft13 8y ago

> Another article that purports to passively observe a phenomenon while actually doing everything to perpetuate it. And this is the major problem with the mass media today. They absolutely refuse to acknowledge their own effect on the political landscape we face today. The routine use of click/outrage bait headlines and context-free quotes is one of many common practices that warrant criticism of the media, to say nothing of biased editorializing (what articles to run, what quotes to print, where in the article to print dissenting opinions etc.) and the pile-on of seemingly verbatim headlines, stories, and opinions distributed among major outlets whenever any political "event" of note happens. Yet the push-back against it is sometimes surreal. Hyperbolic accusations of "attacking the free press" or "destroying trust in the media" (as if trust should just be guaranteed) are often lobbed. Issuing the occasional retraction does not absolve them (a common lawyers trick, saying something in court that they know will rightfully be objected to, and the jurors commanded to disregard, as if people can just be told to forget things). This same media is quick to criticize alternative outlets and ideological opponents (eg Fox News and vice versa). At least with "new media", they generally don't righteously hold themselves up as unbiased arbiters of truth. An institution which criticizes anything and everything is completely unable to take any criticism of its own. That is the very definition of thin skinned. Now, the media benefits from being _big_, ie they run a lot of stories and have a lot of different contributors. So it won't be all bad all the time, and there will always be articles to point to that are decent examples of journalistic integrity (and this point is often used in their defense, while being ignored when criticizing their opponents). But the trends, especially in political content, are undeniable. An acknowledgement that they often use and profit from biased and misleading clickbait headlines, that they have an overall editorial slant etc. would be a start. But that is as likely to happen as employees of some SV startup publicly admitting that the "game-changing" product they are selling is actually a cobbled together pile of shit that probably does not exist. Or they could just admit that, regardless of all else, they are not just innocent flies on the wall, their reporting has a real effect on what they are reporting on. Take a lesson from what we've learned in Quantum Physics over the past 100 years; there's no such thing as passive observation, there's just interaction.