5 ms·

My parents are completely in a Fox News bubble and so are lots of other people unfortunately. It changed their views completely. Prior to Fox News they were r

My parents are completely in a Fox News bubble and so are lots of other people unfortunately. It changed their views completely. Prior to Fox News they were reasonable humans that saw things in a rounded way and that eroded upon repeated exposure to it. I wish they had never gotten cable.

dahart 8y ago
My wife and I were able to help her father escape the Fox bubble. The film “Outfoxed” was useful in our case, FWIW.
wincy 8y ago
I have two sets of grandparents, one is constantly angry and watching Fox News, and the others are angry and watching CNN. Neither will accept any sort of news story from a source that’s not “unbiased”, which means seems to mean supports their side. It’s really frustrating.
- EGreg 8y ago
  Put em at the same table at dinner! Maybe they can duke it out and come to a conclusion. I find watching biased news from both sides gives me more info than “moderate” lukewarm reporting. Biased sources tend to make stronger arguments for their narratives and omit less “inconvenient” details of the other side. Also a good way to approach any world conflict or propaganda.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    Biased sources often appeal more to emotion than reason.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > I find watching biased news from both sides gives me more info than “moderate” lukewarm reporting. Biased sources tend to make stronger arguments for their narratives and omit less “inconvenient” details of the other side. Different parties are right about different things. For example, Trump is unfairly maligned on trade. The tariffs on China are extremely modest -- we tax domestic producers more than that on net. And something has to compensate for China purposely tilting the playing field a hundred different ways. But if you look at left of center media you'd think the tariffs were destroying the economy, with no data but plenty of anecdotes from companies whinging about having to pay a little more for goods from sweatshops in China. On the other hand, Trump's position on coal is completely indefensible. Which implies "moderate" isn't a real thing. Saying he's half right on trade and half right on coal isn't moderation, it's gibberish. He's mostly right on trade and entirely wrong on coal. Sawing the baby in half every time is no better than uncritically believing one side over the other. The trouble is the mainstream sources, especially on cable, are still terrible -- even the ones with an obvious affiliation frequently don't present the best argument for their positions because their goal is to lather up the base and generate ratings rather than actually inform anyone. And both sides ignore anything that isn't politically expedient. They never really go after the banks, the insurance companies, government contractors or employees -- or if they do it's a populist call to riot rather than any kind of principled proposal to make specific changes. The best thing to do is to rely on domain experts and primary sources, which are much easier to access now that most everything is on the internet, but it's still more time consuming than most people are going to be able to commit to. Which is maybe why everything is such a mess. It seems like we need journalists with an opinion but not a party.
    - Applejinx 8y ago
      Well, that depends: what you see as left of center media might actually be rather centrist along some axes. To be frothing at the mouth in rage at tariffs identifies you as a globalist thinker of some 'neo' persuasion: neocon, or neoliberal. Either way, though you may disagree sharply on social issues you've got a shared committment to frictionless commerce over national boundaries in the belief that this will cause all the world to prosper (by all the world, you might mean 'the richest individuals and companies in any given country') So, if that's your agenda, you (a) will hate tariffs whether they're proposed by Trump or a socialist like Bernie Sanders, and (b) you'll see to it that things are framed with the perspective that NO PERSON could possibly doubt the evilness of tariffs and the benevolence of maximally frictionless global trade. You might even insist that nobody is actually trapped in a filter bubble about it, as there is no possibility that anyone can have an intelligent thought that DOESN'T embrace ultimately free trade. This position automatically forbids thinking about externalities or epiphenomena that arise from this embracing of trade across the widest possible market. Hell, even the idea of 'market' is a filter bubble. Certainly the phrase 'Trump is unfairly maligned' used for any reason, is a filter bubble. I myself have to resist the tendency to react negatively just because of the association with the man, and would instead say: nah, he is fairly maligned because he's not approaching an 'anti-globalist' position for any constructive reason. In no way is he addressing the underlying mechanisms of the problem, he's just throwing sand in the gears. If it's a mechanism causing catastrophic damage, that alone might seem good, but we're gonna need better answers than just breaking stuff. I would prefer to see something like unionization or communism break the ability to conduct labor arbitrage (not as an ultimate final goal, but as a counter-force to capital's ability to have things all its own way), but I do not think that's what Trump is up to. If he was, I'd say he was unfairly maligned too. Since he's not, I consider him fairly maligned .
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > I would prefer to see something like unionization or communism break the ability to conduct labor arbitrage (not as an ultimate final goal, but as a counter-force to capital's ability to have things all its own way), but I do not think that's what Trump is up to. If he was, I'd say he was unfairly maligned too. Since he's not, I consider him fairly maligned . You seem to be saying that Trump has an anti-globalist position, which is reasonable for a number of reasons, but he should still be maligned because he is not a communist. Is that actually what you're saying, or am I misreading it?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
matwood 8y ago
I don't want to sound like I'm defending Fox News (I'm not), but this is a cable news problem in general. Making every story somehow an outrage is how they get ratings. Whether CNN is following Stormy Daniels from strip club to strip club, or MSNBC is yelling about some random comment it's much of the same thing. There just isn't enough news to fill 24 hours of content every single day across multiple stations.
- tekkk 8y ago
  I wonder, were there ever a neutral state-owned news media in US that provided sensible news without much of the agitating fear-mongering that seems so prevalent? In many EU countries, Finland for example, there is a state-owned media organization (YLE) which main purpose is to provide unbiased and high-quality news reporting to all Finnish citizens. It's not without its faults, but in general you can expect YLE to provide quality content that wouldn't be possible if its monetary value was the only concern. Also I like that there's no ads in YLEs programs. And you can watch most of them free on internet.
  - showdead 8y ago
    The US does have a television network called PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) which is a non-profit organization although it is only partially government funded (they generally ask for donations from viewers about once a year). The quality of the reporting is usually pretty good, but news is only a subset of their programming, so it doesn't compare to something like the 24-hour cable news channels.
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      And even though they strive to be even handed, one particular segment of the US claims that they belong to the opposite end of the political spectrum.

dahart 8y ago

My wife and I were able to help her father escape the Fox bubble. The film “Outfoxed” was useful in our case, FWIW.

wincy 8y ago

I have two sets of grandparents, one is constantly angry and watching Fox News, and the others are angry and watching CNN. Neither will accept any sort of news story from a source that’s not “unbiased”, which means seems to mean supports their side. It’s really frustrating.

EGreg 8y ago
Put em at the same table at dinner! Maybe they can duke it out and come to a conclusion. I find watching biased news from both sides gives me more info than “moderate” lukewarm reporting. Biased sources tend to make stronger arguments for their narratives and omit less “inconvenient” details of the other side. Also a good way to approach any world conflict or propaganda.
- speedplane 8y ago
  Biased sources often appeal more to emotion than reason.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > I find watching biased news from both sides gives me more info than “moderate” lukewarm reporting. Biased sources tend to make stronger arguments for their narratives and omit less “inconvenient” details of the other side. Different parties are right about different things. For example, Trump is unfairly maligned on trade. The tariffs on China are extremely modest -- we tax domestic producers more than that on net. And something has to compensate for China purposely tilting the playing field a hundred different ways. But if you look at left of center media you'd think the tariffs were destroying the economy, with no data but plenty of anecdotes from companies whinging about having to pay a little more for goods from sweatshops in China. On the other hand, Trump's position on coal is completely indefensible. Which implies "moderate" isn't a real thing. Saying he's half right on trade and half right on coal isn't moderation, it's gibberish. He's mostly right on trade and entirely wrong on coal. Sawing the baby in half every time is no better than uncritically believing one side over the other. The trouble is the mainstream sources, especially on cable, are still terrible -- even the ones with an obvious affiliation frequently don't present the best argument for their positions because their goal is to lather up the base and generate ratings rather than actually inform anyone. And both sides ignore anything that isn't politically expedient. They never really go after the banks, the insurance companies, government contractors or employees -- or if they do it's a populist call to riot rather than any kind of principled proposal to make specific changes. The best thing to do is to rely on domain experts and primary sources, which are much easier to access now that most everything is on the internet, but it's still more time consuming than most people are going to be able to commit to. Which is maybe why everything is such a mess. It seems like we need journalists with an opinion but not a party.
  - Applejinx 8y ago
    Well, that depends: what you see as left of center media might actually be rather centrist along some axes. To be frothing at the mouth in rage at tariffs identifies you as a globalist thinker of some 'neo' persuasion: neocon, or neoliberal. Either way, though you may disagree sharply on social issues you've got a shared committment to frictionless commerce over national boundaries in the belief that this will cause all the world to prosper (by all the world, you might mean 'the richest individuals and companies in any given country') So, if that's your agenda, you (a) will hate tariffs whether they're proposed by Trump or a socialist like Bernie Sanders, and (b) you'll see to it that things are framed with the perspective that NO PERSON could possibly doubt the evilness of tariffs and the benevolence of maximally frictionless global trade. You might even insist that nobody is actually trapped in a filter bubble about it, as there is no possibility that anyone can have an intelligent thought that DOESN'T embrace ultimately free trade. This position automatically forbids thinking about externalities or epiphenomena that arise from this embracing of trade across the widest possible market. Hell, even the idea of 'market' is a filter bubble. Certainly the phrase 'Trump is unfairly maligned' used for any reason, is a filter bubble. I myself have to resist the tendency to react negatively just because of the association with the man, and would instead say: nah, he is fairly maligned because he's not approaching an 'anti-globalist' position for any constructive reason. In no way is he addressing the underlying mechanisms of the problem, he's just throwing sand in the gears. If it's a mechanism causing catastrophic damage, that alone might seem good, but we're gonna need better answers than just breaking stuff. I would prefer to see something like unionization or communism break the ability to conduct labor arbitrage (not as an ultimate final goal, but as a counter-force to capital's ability to have things all its own way), but I do not think that's what Trump is up to. If he was, I'd say he was unfairly maligned too. Since he's not, I consider him fairly maligned .
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > I would prefer to see something like unionization or communism break the ability to conduct labor arbitrage (not as an ultimate final goal, but as a counter-force to capital's ability to have things all its own way), but I do not think that's what Trump is up to. If he was, I'd say he was unfairly maligned too. Since he's not, I consider him fairly maligned . You seem to be saying that Trump has an anti-globalist position, which is reasonable for a number of reasons, but he should still be maligned because he is not a communist. Is that actually what you're saying, or am I misreading it?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

matwood 8y ago

I don't want to sound like I'm defending Fox News (I'm not), but this is a cable news problem in general. Making every story somehow an outrage is how they get ratings. Whether CNN is following Stormy Daniels from strip club to strip club, or MSNBC is yelling about some random comment it's much of the same thing. There just isn't enough news to fill 24 hours of content every single day across multiple stations.

tekkk 8y ago
I wonder, were there ever a neutral state-owned news media in US that provided sensible news without much of the agitating fear-mongering that seems so prevalent? In many EU countries, Finland for example, there is a state-owned media organization (YLE) which main purpose is to provide unbiased and high-quality news reporting to all Finnish citizens. It's not without its faults, but in general you can expect YLE to provide quality content that wouldn't be possible if its monetary value was the only concern. Also I like that there's no ads in YLEs programs. And you can watch most of them free on internet.
- showdead 8y ago
  The US does have a television network called PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) which is a non-profit organization although it is only partially government funded (they generally ask for donations from viewers about once a year). The quality of the reporting is usually pretty good, but news is only a subset of their programming, so it doesn't compare to something like the 24-hour cable news channels.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    And even though they strive to be even handed, one particular segment of the US claims that they belong to the opposite end of the political spectrum.