5 ms·

75% of those who identify as being on the right thought coverage of their views is unfair. This is interesting given how many local news outlets are owned by t

by dfxm12 5y ago

75% of those who identify as being on the right thought coverage of their views is unfair. This is interesting given how many local news outlets are owned by the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group. I guess it doesn't help when they run segments like this, sowing more distrust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI

handrous 5y ago
Coverage (let's say) of left-wing bias in the media has been a major part of right-wing media since at least the early 90s. Limbaugh, for instance, talked about it a lot back then (and I doubt he ever stopped—don't know why he would have), and if he wasn't receiving payment from the advertising department of Fox News, when they started up, he sure should have been (there was a lot of, "well, except Fox News" in his, ah, coverage of left-wing bias). The "the media hates conservatives" thing got his treatment where he acted like it was just a fact that he and his listeners, of course, knew to be true, sometimes calling out what he perceived as examples, but more often just stating it on the way to some other point. From what I've seen, the rest of right-wing punditry (I suppose you'd call it) picked up on this and took a similar approach to it.
- andyxor 5y ago
  The media leftist bias is real, I guess it’s hard to notice from inside the bubble I was never interested in politics , left or right and never listened to conservative or liberal commentary you mentioned but the coverage of BLM riots, Trump etc especially in 2020 was mostly fake news and blatant propaganda. That’s what brought me to vote for Trump in the first place, the constant lying and manipulation by the media. I don’t know how otherwise reasonable people can not notice these 24/7 lies by CNN, WaPo, NYT etc. I’m a first gen immigrant, from former communist country, we have a good nose for propaganda and can smell it from afar, I’m surprised American-born Americans are so easily fooled.
  - handrous 5y ago
    I didn't claim it's not. I just meant to point out that people on the right have been told, consistently and repeatedly, that it exists since at least the early 90s, by people whose opinions they sure seem to take seriously, so it'd be unsurprising that many wouldn't trust the media even if it weren't true. The truth of it's almost irrelevant to the poll results.
    - convexfunction 5y ago
      So you'd predict that without Fox and talk radio telling those people that almost everyone working in national mainstream media falls somewhere on the spectrum of "has no respect for you" and "likes to sincerely fantasize in public about the elimination of your culture", most of them wouldn't be able to independently observe that fact with their own eyes and ears?
      - handrous 5y ago
        I don't think the media abruptly changed at exactly the same time right-wing personalities started talking a ton about media bias, no. Yet I'm sure perceptions did. So yes, I think deliberate promotion of a view to a huge audience, whether it's correct or not, will result in more people believing it's true than people's "own eyes and ears".
        convexfunction 5y ago
        I think it's obvious and I haven't spent a second of my life voluntarily consuming any mainstream right-leaning news, but maybe I'm just way, way smarter than all those rubes who you believe have basically no connection with reality outside of when their propaganda happens to be accurate. shrug!!!
        handrous 5y ago
        [EDIT] removed mean sarcasm—poster engaging sincerely elsewhere and I felt this was unwarranted. Sorry.
rscoots 5y ago
I'm on the left but I always saw the argument of >how many local news outlets are owned by the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group. ...to itself be dishonest 'journalistic' spin, in this case perpetuated by John Oliver among others. "How many" local news outlets is irrelevant when you consider a vast majority of Sinclair's outlets are for tiny rural channels, meanwhile large urban and coastal channels will undoubtedly skew more liberal but be fewer in #. When else has the metric of "how many channels" ever been used to determine reach and engagement? Not sure of the numbers, just wanted to point this out.
- patentatt 5y ago
  Decent point, but I think the relevance is that there are large swaths of the US that are blanketed by this conservative news bubble, and that our Senate is apportioned (and to a lesser extent the House) to land, not people. So the fact that lots of land is covered by this bubble is relevant at least to the functioning of the Senate.
  - rscoots 5y ago
    But for the Senate the size discrepancy is at the state level not within state races. A senator from Connecticut has less constituents than Texas but still has to win a pure majority in Connecticut. In any case I think you'll agree this is now a much narrower point about Sinclair than ppl like Oliver intended to make. (Got my account rate limited cuz too many fellow liberals downvoted me w/o comment. Seems like HN might not be a good place for reasonable discussion on controversial topics.)
- dfxm12 5y ago
  Couple targeted messaging with gerrymandering and Sinclair doesn't need full coverage to ensure conservatives can control or make gains in state governments/the house.
  - rscoots 5y ago
    Then why talk about the number of channels they have when this is what you actually mean? Like I said, it just strikes me as dishonest in that specific way.

by dfxm12 5y ago

handrous 5y ago

Coverage (let's say) of left-wing bias in the media has been a major part of right-wing media since at least the early 90s. Limbaugh, for instance, talked about it a lot back then (and I doubt he ever stopped—don't know why he would have), and if he wasn't receiving payment from the advertising department of Fox News, when they started up, he sure should have been (there was a lot of, "well, except Fox News" in his, ah, coverage of left-wing bias). The "the media hates conservatives" thing got his treatment where he acted like it was just a fact that he and his listeners, of course, knew to be true, sometimes calling out what he perceived as examples, but more often just stating it on the way to some other point. From what I've seen, the rest of right-wing punditry (I suppose you'd call it) picked up on this and took a similar approach to it.

andyxor 5y ago
The media leftist bias is real, I guess it’s hard to notice from inside the bubble I was never interested in politics , left or right and never listened to conservative or liberal commentary you mentioned but the coverage of BLM riots, Trump etc especially in 2020 was mostly fake news and blatant propaganda. That’s what brought me to vote for Trump in the first place, the constant lying and manipulation by the media. I don’t know how otherwise reasonable people can not notice these 24/7 lies by CNN, WaPo, NYT etc. I’m a first gen immigrant, from former communist country, we have a good nose for propaganda and can smell it from afar, I’m surprised American-born Americans are so easily fooled.
- handrous 5y ago
  I didn't claim it's not. I just meant to point out that people on the right have been told, consistently and repeatedly, that it exists since at least the early 90s, by people whose opinions they sure seem to take seriously, so it'd be unsurprising that many wouldn't trust the media even if it weren't true. The truth of it's almost irrelevant to the poll results.
  - convexfunction 5y ago
    So you'd predict that without Fox and talk radio telling those people that almost everyone working in national mainstream media falls somewhere on the spectrum of "has no respect for you" and "likes to sincerely fantasize in public about the elimination of your culture", most of them wouldn't be able to independently observe that fact with their own eyes and ears?
    - handrous 5y ago
      I don't think the media abruptly changed at exactly the same time right-wing personalities started talking a ton about media bias, no. Yet I'm sure perceptions did. So yes, I think deliberate promotion of a view to a huge audience, whether it's correct or not, will result in more people believing it's true than people's "own eyes and ears".
      - convexfunction 5y ago
        I think it's obvious and I haven't spent a second of my life voluntarily consuming any mainstream right-leaning news, but maybe I'm just way, way smarter than all those rubes who you believe have basically no connection with reality outside of when their propaganda happens to be accurate. shrug!!!
        handrous 5y ago
        [EDIT] removed mean sarcasm—poster engaging sincerely elsewhere and I felt this was unwarranted. Sorry.

rscoots 5y ago

I'm on the left but I always saw the argument of >how many local news outlets are owned by the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group. ...to itself be dishonest 'journalistic' spin, in this case perpetuated by John Oliver among others. "How many" local news outlets is irrelevant when you consider a vast majority of Sinclair's outlets are for tiny rural channels, meanwhile large urban and coastal channels will undoubtedly skew more liberal but be fewer in #. When else has the metric of "how many channels" ever been used to determine reach and engagement? Not sure of the numbers, just wanted to point this out.

patentatt 5y ago
Decent point, but I think the relevance is that there are large swaths of the US that are blanketed by this conservative news bubble, and that our Senate is apportioned (and to a lesser extent the House) to land, not people. So the fact that lots of land is covered by this bubble is relevant at least to the functioning of the Senate.
- rscoots 5y ago
  But for the Senate the size discrepancy is at the state level not within state races. A senator from Connecticut has less constituents than Texas but still has to win a pure majority in Connecticut. In any case I think you'll agree this is now a much narrower point about Sinclair than ppl like Oliver intended to make. (Got my account rate limited cuz too many fellow liberals downvoted me w/o comment. Seems like HN might not be a good place for reasonable discussion on controversial topics.)
dfxm12 5y ago
Couple targeted messaging with gerrymandering and Sinclair doesn't need full coverage to ensure conservatives can control or make gains in state governments/the house.
- rscoots 5y ago
  Then why talk about the number of channels they have when this is what you actually mean? Like I said, it just strikes me as dishonest in that specific way.