4 ms·

> 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

> 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...

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...