4 ms·

> Since the majority of the media leans left and is unlikely to move to the right this currently means there is a need for right-wing main stream media to even

> Since the majority of the media leans left and is unlikely to move to the right this currently means there is a need for right-wing main stream media to even out the field. This is the opposite of your proposed ideal. > It should be clear to anyone but those blinded by their own ideology that having a less politically biased media would be a good thing. You should be promoting apolitical news, not increasingly polarized news to "even it out". Moving more right or left doesn't bring anyone closer together.

Yetanfou 6y ago
> This is the opposite of your proposed ideal. No, it is the result of the current media not willing to move away from their standpoint and as such in need of something on "the other side" to create the balance. In an ideal situation the media would be spread over the spectrum but that is obviously not where we - this phenomenon is not limited to the USA - are now. > You should be promoting apolitical news, not increasingly polarized news to "even it out". Moving more right or left doesn't bring anyone closer together. That would not work, neutral views do not balance out left- or right-wing views unless those neutral views are in a large majority. A simple (and greatly simplified) model and calculation can easily show that. Take the GAL-TAN scale which puts political ideology in a 2-dimensional grid with left-right on the x axis and libertarian-authoritarian on the y axis. Ignoring the y axis for now the majority of the media lie somewhere to the left of the middle. If the objective is for the political scale to even out there is an actual need for an even amount of media to the right of the middle, adding media on the middle will still make the scale tip to the left. Moving the left-leaning media to the middle would help but that is not happening any time soon.
- imustbeevil 6y ago
  I disagree with pretty much every statement you've made here. Extremist views on one side do not "balance" extremist views on the other side. "Left" media is already more Centrist than Liberal/Socialist. Centrist views are already the majority held beliefs. 42% of registered voters are Independent. More Independent/nonpartisan news organizations would definitely improve the political/media landscape better than more extremist organizations.
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    > I disagree with pretty much every statement you've made here. As long as you do not want to make it impossible for me to say these things I'm fine with that. > Extremist views on one side do not "balance" extremist views on the other side. They don't, but having views from both sides of the spectrum available to the public makes it clear to them that what is written on the one side is not gospel. Having only one side represented in the media means that people will not be confronted with opposing views. > "Left" media is already more Centrist than Liberal/Socialist. That is besides the point, this being that there needs to be a balance in the way the news is reported. That is also why I stated that there needed to be media on "the right of the middle", not "on the extreme right". There is a difference here, not everything to the right of the middle is "extreme", just like you stated for the left. > Centrist views are already the majority held beliefs. 42% of registered voters are Independent. They are but they are not the ones driving opinions in the media. If they were the problems I mentioned would not exist. The New York Times would not have pushed the 1619 project to give an example. They would have reported on it but not pushed it as an alternative history. The media views centrism as 'boring', probably because media consumers are more attracted to the simplified world view professed by more opinionated writers. Good versus bad is a large driving factor here through times, from the "good free west" to the "evil dictatorial east" of the 50's to the current "good ethnic minorities" to the "evil white patriarchal cis-gendered majority". The former gave us McCarthyism, the latter gives us Wokeism. These will be seen in a similar light by historians.

Yetanfou 6y ago

> This is the opposite of your proposed ideal. No, it is the result of the current media not willing to move away from their standpoint and as such in need of something on "the other side" to create the balance. In an ideal situation the media would be spread over the spectrum but that is obviously not where we - this phenomenon is not limited to the USA - are now. > You should be promoting apolitical news, not increasingly polarized news to "even it out". Moving more right or left doesn't bring anyone closer together. That would not work, neutral views do not balance out left- or right-wing views unless those neutral views are in a large majority. A simple (and greatly simplified) model and calculation can easily show that. Take the GAL-TAN scale which puts political ideology in a 2-dimensional grid with left-right on the x axis and libertarian-authoritarian on the y axis. Ignoring the y axis for now the majority of the media lie somewhere to the left of the middle. If the objective is for the political scale to even out there is an actual need for an even amount of media to the right of the middle, adding media on the middle will still make the scale tip to the left. Moving the left-leaning media to the middle would help but that is not happening any time soon.

imustbeevil 6y ago
I disagree with pretty much every statement you've made here. Extremist views on one side do not "balance" extremist views on the other side. "Left" media is already more Centrist than Liberal/Socialist. Centrist views are already the majority held beliefs. 42% of registered voters are Independent. More Independent/nonpartisan news organizations would definitely improve the political/media landscape better than more extremist organizations.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  > I disagree with pretty much every statement you've made here. As long as you do not want to make it impossible for me to say these things I'm fine with that. > Extremist views on one side do not "balance" extremist views on the other side. They don't, but having views from both sides of the spectrum available to the public makes it clear to them that what is written on the one side is not gospel. Having only one side represented in the media means that people will not be confronted with opposing views. > "Left" media is already more Centrist than Liberal/Socialist. That is besides the point, this being that there needs to be a balance in the way the news is reported. That is also why I stated that there needed to be media on "the right of the middle", not "on the extreme right". There is a difference here, not everything to the right of the middle is "extreme", just like you stated for the left. > Centrist views are already the majority held beliefs. 42% of registered voters are Independent. They are but they are not the ones driving opinions in the media. If they were the problems I mentioned would not exist. The New York Times would not have pushed the 1619 project to give an example. They would have reported on it but not pushed it as an alternative history. The media views centrism as 'boring', probably because media consumers are more attracted to the simplified world view professed by more opinionated writers. Good versus bad is a large driving factor here through times, from the "good free west" to the "evil dictatorial east" of the 50's to the current "good ethnic minorities" to the "evil white patriarchal cis-gendered majority". The former gave us McCarthyism, the latter gives us Wokeism. These will be seen in a similar light by historians.