4 ms·

If you look closely, the point is that media outlets regularly contradict themselves in pursuit of a consistent political agenda. When you collect the headlines

If you look closely, the point is that media outlets regularly contradict themselves in pursuit of a consistent political agenda. When you collect the headlines and list them side by side, the implicitly (or explicitly?) coordinated propaganda becomes obvious.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> If you look closely, the point is that media outlets regularly contradict themselves in pursuit of a consistent political agenda. One is more likely to read political/cultural agendas into everything they can when one primarily consumes media that compulsively frames everything it doesn't like in political/cultural terms.
- stronglikedan 5y ago
  No, it really is as simple as "media outlets regularly contradict themselves in pursuit of a consistent political agenda." It's blatantly obvious, and not even questionable. However, it's also not new.
  - themitigating 5y ago
    "blatantly obvious, and not even questionable." Is it objectively true?
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  This narrative presents “the media” as one collective group. People have different opinions even within the same program so of course they’ll have different points of view across an organization. The people working there are also human, bias and all.
- lliamander 5y ago
  > One is more likely to read political/cultural agendas into everything they can when one primarily consumes media that compulsively frames everything it doesn't like in political/cultural terms. Well, when one sees how much evidence there is that the corporate press has an agenda[1], one tends to believe that the corporate press has an agenda[2]. The medical arguments[3] given for why January 6th was a greater COVID risk than the BLM protests are quite weak. Each one of the arguments either relies on contested science (asymptomatic spread) or exaggeration of the facts (ignoring that the majority of the January 6th protesters remained outside). This is not the work of people who are engaged in the disinterested pursuit of the truth. [1]https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1348352300746731523?s=09 https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1348352300746731523?... [2]https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1361011464513880065 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1361011464513880065 [3]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/was-the-capitol-siege-a-covid-super-spreader-event-here-s-what-experts-say/ar-BB1cyRAC https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/was-the-capitol-siege-a-co...
tw04 5y ago
I'm looking closely and not seeing the contradiction. I see a bunch of stuff about corona virus and super-spread events occurring when people aren't masked and show up even if they're sick. Which is exactly what I would expect. You seem to be implying that any gathering has the exact same odds of being a super-spread event regardless of personal responsibility and precautions. That's not how this works...
- lugged 5y ago
  The contradiction is in the spin. Neither the peacful capitol protest or the thousand days of violent riots in Portland lead to significant upticks in corona virus spreading, but some spreading did happen.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    And to hammer the point home, the spin is consistently and ubiquitously slanted against anything right leaning. Its way past confirmation bias, and yeah, one could argue that the right has its own media wing, except right leaning sources have unilaterally been defined as "unreliable" and are collusively excluded from all manner of popular information sources - stackexchange, wikipedia, default news/politics subreddits... Reality's supposed liberal bias is an illusion, concocted by a decentralized network of activists who have quietly infiltrated all of our institutions and suppress right leaning opinions with what amounts to bullying. Don't believe me? Try editing any remotely political article on wikipedia with anything but the "approved" narrative carried by lefwting sources with a suspicious consistency. There is more than enough uncertainty in the reporting of contemporary events for news agencies to disagree while remaining factual; yet, suspiciously, the set of "reliable" sources are nearly always consistent in their interpretation of events and the language they choose to slyly inject political bias into their articles. Objective journalism is dead, and was long ago replaced by increasingly naked political activism. Sure, it's impossible to be truly objective, but that's not an excuse to constantly manufacture one sided propaganda. Apparently people are so hung up on diversity of skin color/gender/sexuality that they've lost sight of the entire point, diversity of thought.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

> If you look closely, the point is that media outlets regularly contradict themselves in pursuit of a consistent political agenda. One is more likely to read political/cultural agendas into everything they can when one primarily consumes media that compulsively frames everything it doesn't like in political/cultural terms.

stronglikedan 5y ago
No, it really is as simple as "media outlets regularly contradict themselves in pursuit of a consistent political agenda." It's blatantly obvious, and not even questionable. However, it's also not new.
- themitigating 5y ago
  "blatantly obvious, and not even questionable." Is it objectively true?
alphabettsy 5y ago
This narrative presents “the media” as one collective group. People have different opinions even within the same program so of course they’ll have different points of view across an organization. The people working there are also human, bias and all.
lliamander 5y ago
> One is more likely to read political/cultural agendas into everything they can when one primarily consumes media that compulsively frames everything it doesn't like in political/cultural terms. Well, when one sees how much evidence there is that the corporate press has an agenda[1], one tends to believe that the corporate press has an agenda[2]. The medical arguments[3] given for why January 6th was a greater COVID risk than the BLM protests are quite weak. Each one of the arguments either relies on contested science (asymptomatic spread) or exaggeration of the facts (ignoring that the majority of the January 6th protesters remained outside). This is not the work of people who are engaged in the disinterested pursuit of the truth. [1]https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1348352300746731523?s=09 https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1348352300746731523?... [2]https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1361011464513880065 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1361011464513880065 [3]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/was-the-capitol-siege-a-covid-super-spreader-event-here-s-what-experts-say/ar-BB1cyRAC https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/was-the-capitol-siege-a-co...

tw04 5y ago

I'm looking closely and not seeing the contradiction. I see a bunch of stuff about corona virus and super-spread events occurring when people aren't masked and show up even if they're sick. Which is exactly what I would expect. You seem to be implying that any gathering has the exact same odds of being a super-spread event regardless of personal responsibility and precautions. That's not how this works...

lugged 5y ago
The contradiction is in the spin. Neither the peacful capitol protest or the thousand days of violent riots in Portland lead to significant upticks in corona virus spreading, but some spreading did happen.
- twofornone 5y ago
  And to hammer the point home, the spin is consistently and ubiquitously slanted against anything right leaning. Its way past confirmation bias, and yeah, one could argue that the right has its own media wing, except right leaning sources have unilaterally been defined as "unreliable" and are collusively excluded from all manner of popular information sources - stackexchange, wikipedia, default news/politics subreddits... Reality's supposed liberal bias is an illusion, concocted by a decentralized network of activists who have quietly infiltrated all of our institutions and suppress right leaning opinions with what amounts to bullying. Don't believe me? Try editing any remotely political article on wikipedia with anything but the "approved" narrative carried by lefwting sources with a suspicious consistency. There is more than enough uncertainty in the reporting of contemporary events for news agencies to disagree while remaining factual; yet, suspiciously, the set of "reliable" sources are nearly always consistent in their interpretation of events and the language they choose to slyly inject political bias into their articles. Objective journalism is dead, and was long ago replaced by increasingly naked political activism. Sure, it's impossible to be truly objective, but that's not an excuse to constantly manufacture one sided propaganda. Apparently people are so hung up on diversity of skin color/gender/sexuality that they've lost sight of the entire point, diversity of thought.