5 ms·

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

by 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]

by wincy 8y ago

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]