4 ms·

Really not trying to pick a side here, but to pontificate on the Capitol events without even mentioning BLM, CHAZ, or any of the other civil unrest of the past

Really not trying to pick a side here, but to pontificate on the Capitol events without even mentioning BLM, CHAZ, or any of the other civil unrest of the past year just seems unnecessarily biased. Almost all of that was organized, enabled, and inflamed by the exact same technologies. Can anyone recommend a commentator on recent political events that isn’t deliberately biased? Or maybe the lack of such a person is merely a reflection of the ideas the author is trying to explain.

AnHonestComment 6y ago
Social media has purposefully censored such people, for example YouTubers having to use phrases like “beer bug” to refer to COVID or “the nameless party” to refer to Amber Heard — or face the censor bots. Automated narrative enforcement is built into platforms like YouTube already. Dave Rubin might be a good option; he’s a former Democrat and what I’d describe as “mild right”.
msgilligan 6y ago
Matt Taibbi is outstanding. Example: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/we-need-a-new-media-system https://taibbi.substack.com/p/we-need-a-new-media-system
- letstalk7 6y ago
  Nobody is perfect and can have both good and bad work. I think Matt is a very gullible person who has bought into many conspiracy theories, some of which are Russian propaganda unfortunately
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Can you provide two or three of the very best examples of conspiracy theories Matt has bought into which are Russian propaganda?
- bob33212 6y ago
  Taibbi openly says that Trump is incompetent and is taking advantage of his idiot supporters. I doubt that Trump supporters will consider him objective.
  - aklemm 6y ago
    But this is either true or it's not. If it is, then is there really much value in giving the "other side" equal time to say "Trump is very competent. Some would say the most competent. We are patriots, not idiots."
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      Where have we heard this binary logic before... “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Yeah, let’s avoid that.
      - aklemm 6y ago
        That is not the case. It's absurd to entertain all absurd ideas EQUALLY. You're missing the simple point here.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    Objectivity is a hard thing to find or determine. I consider myself somewhat objective on this issue. I have biases that run counter to most on this site(I lean right politically). I would consider Trump's incompetency to be an objective assessment when considering the massive amount of political blunders that he has made combined with the instability that he has triggered, or at least amplified. I'd say he also took advantage of his base as well, seeing how wildly different their assessment of the election is compared to the mainstream narrative. If you disagree with me, then how would you measure or determine objectivity?
mightybyte 6y ago
I recently discovered Axios and have been very impressed with them so far. They are the closest I've seen to the type of news coverage I'm looking for. You can see a summary of their approach here: https://www.axios.com/about/ https://www.axios.com/about/ They stick to the facts and refrain from opinion. For example: > 3. Every item will be written or produced to inform, analyze and explain. Axios will never be a platform for incitement or argument. We will never have an opinion section.
pepperonipizza 6y ago
I would recommend Sam Harris who criticizes harshly the Trump presidency and the Capitol events but who also had the most nuanced view of the BLM protests. I am not american but from the few commentators that I heard, it seems that he is a rarety in the US, and tries to have the less bias, even if he admits that he has one.
loceng 6y ago
Don't you think it's a bit of a apples to oranges comparison, the raiding of the Capitol in an attempt to supposedly kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi and disrupt the election certification - essentially lead by Trump - is different than mass, mostly peaceful protests - that were inflamed by the police? Head on over to http://thedonald.win http://thedonald.win if you want to see the narratives they're believing, I check it out a few times a week, some comments from today: "Remember, it's not over til it's over," "Follow Trump's lead," etc - they don't understand, nor do they care to understand the election process - that there are poll watchers from any party that are present at the counting, they don't care to reason to understand they lost the election. They also have bought into a whole bunch of different conspiracy theories - they consider the Democrats as tyrants when it's Trump who's clearly attempting a coup to become a tyrant, suggesting maybe he'll even be President for 3 terms, etc; there's countless proof points relating to his behaviour that he's a tyrant wannabe.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I don’t like Trump, didn’t vote for him, and want him to go back to the reality TV fantasyland from whence he came. But the “counternarrative”, displayed aptly by your comment here, strikes me as very hypocritical and not attempting to understand the Trump supporters’ narrative.
  - loceng 6y ago
    You're assuming I don't understand the Trump supporters' narrative or where it comes from. There's plenty of proof points that that multiple people at the riot, infiltration of the Capitol, was planning more than just breaking shit and disrupting it; there are also anonymous FBI leaks, maybe they're not true - aside from the truth of people at the riot chanting "Hang Mike Pence" - that Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi were targets to assassinate; https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-15/capitol-rioters-meant-to-capture-and-assassinate-officials-federal-prosecutors-say https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-15/capitol-ri... The cause is Trump et al's rhetoric of lies to rally his base, along with the problem with the political system and mainstream media - more specifically, the duopoly and how mainstream media conglomerates that perpetuate whatever industrial complex fed narratives for "their side" want, leading to only two core mainstream narratives for either the Democrats of Republicans. Andrew Yang's main policy proposals would break apart the duopoly - expanding the narratives - and take power away from the current mainstream media companies: - Freedom Dividend/UBI so people can think clearly with less stress, - Ranked Choice Voting so people aren't wasting their vote and don't feel obligated to vote one of two incumbents, - Democracy Dollars to wash out lobbyist money from industrial complexes/bad actors by a factor of 8:1 (via $100/year to every eligible voter to contribute to politician of choice), - Journalism Dollars - same idea, each citizen can "vote" with money allocated to them for journalism - local or national to cover what they have interests in knowing about. I think I'm forgetting another core policy - but also he wants to implement a government option for healthcare similar to "Medicare For All" - but not killing off private insurance due to the consequences of disrupting that industry immediately - will all strengthen Democracy because it's strengthening, taking care of, people.
newacct583 6y ago
That seems like a very narrow definition of "bias". You demand not only that news be reported from your perspective but that other news be brought into the analysis before you are willing to listen to someone? Isn't that going to lead to the standard rehash of the BLM arguments instead of understanding of what happened among the Trump base? I mean, how do you know you aren't just looking for an excuse? It's very upsetting to see people on "your side" doing stuff like attacking their own government. Are you absolutely sure you don't want to talk about left violence just to make yourself feel better?
aklemm 6y ago
False equivalence is insidious and you would do well to reflect on that. More broadly, seeking an "unbiased" source is a bit of a fool's errand. The best you can do is seek "honest" sources, and the difference is massive.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  It’s not about equivalence. If you’re going to talk about a phenomenon, but leave out all the examples which make your “side” look bad, it just seems like straight bias. I’d prefer commentators leave their identity at the door and just explore the ideas and events themselves.
krapp 6y ago
Do you also feel that any discussion of BLM, CHAZ or left-wing violence must include a mention of violence by Trump supporters and the events of the Capitol in order to be unbiased?
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  The article is about technology leading to subcultures and echo chambers, subsequently leading to political actions. Leaving out some prominent examples of such (eg. last summer) just seems like bad writing to me.
throw0101a 6y ago
> Really not trying to pick a side here, but to pontificate on the Capitol events without even mentioning BLM, CHAZ, or any of the other civil unrest of the past year just seems unnecessarily biased. I disagree. BLM (e.g.) was about protesting against police brutality and racism. These are bad things in themselves. The fact that some of the protests turned violent is bad, but it was not their intent. In the course of 2020, how many millions of people marched in support of BLM movement? 15-26: * https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-flo... On a 'per capita' basis, what was the rate of violence for all of that activity? They were overwhelmingly peaceful: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summers-black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelming-peaceful-our-research-finds/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summ... Settle and Portland were the main two exceptions: * https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1302643852545646594 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1302643852545646594 Should we go into the violence instigated by the authorities against peaceful BLM protestors? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John%27s_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._J... Meanwhile the insurrection was about fighting the results of a valid election. The purpose of gathering was bad in itself (notwithstanding the delusion that the election was stolen) and the violence only added to the badness. Lastly, major political leaders on both sides condemned the violence occurring at BLM: * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fac... * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/07/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violent-protests-several-times/6576824002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/07/fac... Whereas some political leaders seemed to encourage aggression/violence at MAGAstock.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  The article and my comment are not about determining which was better or more justified. If you’re going to talk about social media leading to political action, but you leave out the single biggest political action of the last year, it’s hard to see that as anything but biased. At best, it’s deeply uninformed.

AnHonestComment 6y ago

Social media has purposefully censored such people, for example YouTubers having to use phrases like “beer bug” to refer to COVID or “the nameless party” to refer to Amber Heard — or face the censor bots. Automated narrative enforcement is built into platforms like YouTube already. Dave Rubin might be a good option; he’s a former Democrat and what I’d describe as “mild right”.

msgilligan 6y ago

Matt Taibbi is outstanding. Example: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/we-need-a-new-media-system https://taibbi.substack.com/p/we-need-a-new-media-system

letstalk7 6y ago
Nobody is perfect and can have both good and bad work. I think Matt is a very gullible person who has bought into many conspiracy theories, some of which are Russian propaganda unfortunately
- mistermann 6y ago
  Can you provide two or three of the very best examples of conspiracy theories Matt has bought into which are Russian propaganda?
bob33212 6y ago
Taibbi openly says that Trump is incompetent and is taking advantage of his idiot supporters. I doubt that Trump supporters will consider him objective.
- aklemm 6y ago
  But this is either true or it's not. If it is, then is there really much value in giving the "other side" equal time to say "Trump is very competent. Some would say the most competent. We are patriots, not idiots."
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Where have we heard this binary logic before... “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Yeah, let’s avoid that.
    - aklemm 6y ago
      That is not the case. It's absurd to entertain all absurd ideas EQUALLY. You're missing the simple point here.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  Objectivity is a hard thing to find or determine. I consider myself somewhat objective on this issue. I have biases that run counter to most on this site(I lean right politically). I would consider Trump's incompetency to be an objective assessment when considering the massive amount of political blunders that he has made combined with the instability that he has triggered, or at least amplified. I'd say he also took advantage of his base as well, seeing how wildly different their assessment of the election is compared to the mainstream narrative. If you disagree with me, then how would you measure or determine objectivity?

mightybyte 6y ago

I recently discovered Axios and have been very impressed with them so far. They are the closest I've seen to the type of news coverage I'm looking for. You can see a summary of their approach here: https://www.axios.com/about/ https://www.axios.com/about/ They stick to the facts and refrain from opinion. For example: > 3. Every item will be written or produced to inform, analyze and explain. Axios will never be a platform for incitement or argument. We will never have an opinion section.

pepperonipizza 6y ago

I would recommend Sam Harris who criticizes harshly the Trump presidency and the Capitol events but who also had the most nuanced view of the BLM protests. I am not american but from the few commentators that I heard, it seems that he is a rarety in the US, and tries to have the less bias, even if he admits that he has one.

loceng 6y ago

Don't you think it's a bit of a apples to oranges comparison, the raiding of the Capitol in an attempt to supposedly kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi and disrupt the election certification - essentially lead by Trump - is different than mass, mostly peaceful protests - that were inflamed by the police? Head on over to http://thedonald.win http://thedonald.win if you want to see the narratives they're believing, I check it out a few times a week, some comments from today: "Remember, it's not over til it's over," "Follow Trump's lead," etc - they don't understand, nor do they care to understand the election process - that there are poll watchers from any party that are present at the counting, they don't care to reason to understand they lost the election. They also have bought into a whole bunch of different conspiracy theories - they consider the Democrats as tyrants when it's Trump who's clearly attempting a coup to become a tyrant, suggesting maybe he'll even be President for 3 terms, etc; there's countless proof points relating to his behaviour that he's a tyrant wannabe.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
I don’t like Trump, didn’t vote for him, and want him to go back to the reality TV fantasyland from whence he came. But the “counternarrative”, displayed aptly by your comment here, strikes me as very hypocritical and not attempting to understand the Trump supporters’ narrative.
- loceng 6y ago
  You're assuming I don't understand the Trump supporters' narrative or where it comes from. There's plenty of proof points that that multiple people at the riot, infiltration of the Capitol, was planning more than just breaking shit and disrupting it; there are also anonymous FBI leaks, maybe they're not true - aside from the truth of people at the riot chanting "Hang Mike Pence" - that Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi were targets to assassinate; https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-15/capitol-rioters-meant-to-capture-and-assassinate-officials-federal-prosecutors-say https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-15/capitol-ri... The cause is Trump et al's rhetoric of lies to rally his base, along with the problem with the political system and mainstream media - more specifically, the duopoly and how mainstream media conglomerates that perpetuate whatever industrial complex fed narratives for "their side" want, leading to only two core mainstream narratives for either the Democrats of Republicans. Andrew Yang's main policy proposals would break apart the duopoly - expanding the narratives - and take power away from the current mainstream media companies: - Freedom Dividend/UBI so people can think clearly with less stress, - Ranked Choice Voting so people aren't wasting their vote and don't feel obligated to vote one of two incumbents, - Democracy Dollars to wash out lobbyist money from industrial complexes/bad actors by a factor of 8:1 (via $100/year to every eligible voter to contribute to politician of choice), - Journalism Dollars - same idea, each citizen can "vote" with money allocated to them for journalism - local or national to cover what they have interests in knowing about. I think I'm forgetting another core policy - but also he wants to implement a government option for healthcare similar to "Medicare For All" - but not killing off private insurance due to the consequences of disrupting that industry immediately - will all strengthen Democracy because it's strengthening, taking care of, people.

newacct583 6y ago

That seems like a very narrow definition of "bias". You demand not only that news be reported from your perspective but that other news be brought into the analysis before you are willing to listen to someone? Isn't that going to lead to the standard rehash of the BLM arguments instead of understanding of what happened among the Trump base? I mean, how do you know you aren't just looking for an excuse? It's very upsetting to see people on "your side" doing stuff like attacking their own government. Are you absolutely sure you don't want to talk about left violence just to make yourself feel better?

aklemm 6y ago

False equivalence is insidious and you would do well to reflect on that. More broadly, seeking an "unbiased" source is a bit of a fool's errand. The best you can do is seek "honest" sources, and the difference is massive.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
It’s not about equivalence. If you’re going to talk about a phenomenon, but leave out all the examples which make your “side” look bad, it just seems like straight bias. I’d prefer commentators leave their identity at the door and just explore the ideas and events themselves.

krapp 6y ago

Do you also feel that any discussion of BLM, CHAZ or left-wing violence must include a mention of violence by Trump supporters and the events of the Capitol in order to be unbiased?

ceilingcorner 6y ago
The article is about technology leading to subcultures and echo chambers, subsequently leading to political actions. Leaving out some prominent examples of such (eg. last summer) just seems like bad writing to me.

throw0101a 6y ago

> Really not trying to pick a side here, but to pontificate on the Capitol events without even mentioning BLM, CHAZ, or any of the other civil unrest of the past year just seems unnecessarily biased. I disagree. BLM (e.g.) was about protesting against police brutality and racism. These are bad things in themselves. The fact that some of the protests turned violent is bad, but it was not their intent. In the course of 2020, how many millions of people marched in support of BLM movement? 15-26: * https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-flo... On a 'per capita' basis, what was the rate of violence for all of that activity? They were overwhelmingly peaceful: * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summers-black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelming-peaceful-our-research-finds/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/16/this-summ... Settle and Portland were the main two exceptions: * https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1302643852545646594 https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1302643852545646594 Should we go into the violence instigated by the authorities against peaceful BLM protestors? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John%27s_Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._J... Meanwhile the insurrection was about fighting the results of a valid election. The purpose of gathering was bad in itself (notwithstanding the delusion that the election was stolen) and the violence only added to the badness. Lastly, major political leaders on both sides condemned the violence occurring at BLM: * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fac... * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/07/fact-check-joe-biden-has-condemned-violent-protests-several-times/6576824002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/07/fac... Whereas some political leaders seemed to encourage aggression/violence at MAGAstock.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
The article and my comment are not about determining which was better or more justified. If you’re going to talk about social media leading to political action, but you leave out the single biggest political action of the last year, it’s hard to see that as anything but biased. At best, it’s deeply uninformed.