5 ms·

I thought those 3 publications were widely known to be left of centre so I have to agree with the person you're responding to, because if you don't know they're

I thought those 3 publications were widely known to be left of centre so I have to agree with the person you're responding to, because if you don't know they're left of centre and that they clearly share an outlook, then you must be in an echo chamber. As a simple test, do you think someone who says "I read the Federalist, Spectator and the WSJ" would notice a change if they read the NYT? I know they all have some contributors that go against their own ideological grain, so to speak, but still, you provided a good example of what being in an echo chamber might look like. Just being honest.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
I'm unfamiliar with those so I took a look at Federalist and it's polarizing garbage. > Right Responds To Cancel Culture By Building Its Own Infrastructure, And The Left Goes Nuts > 10 Christmas Songs That Must Be Cancelled By The End Of 2021 > BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ENDORSES MORE BABY KILLING BY GREEN-LIGHTING MAIL-ORDER ABORTION PILLS NYT right now: > Hidden pentagon records reveal patterns of failure in deadly airstrikes > As COVID surges, experts say U.S. booster effort is far behind. The Spectator or WSJ looks a lot better, if you told me Spectator was Atlantic or New Yorker at a glance I might believe you.
- selectodude 5y ago
  The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page is awful garbage but their journalism is exceptionally good.
- roenxi 5y ago
  It is obvious that the Federalist is appealing to outrage with those headlines; which makes it quite hard to take seriously. But those headlines are legitimate issues. The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure, which is a big deal. The headline manages to make it sound stupid but that doesn't change the fact that it is worthy of being headline news. And again with Baby Killing vs Boosters - one of the two papers is much better at writing headlines, but both of those go to largely the same issue which is how the state should interfere with individual medical decisions. If you ignore the fact that the Federalist is targeting people who don't appreciate good writing, the dismissal of one and favouring of the other isn't as obvious.
  - spaced-out 5y ago
    >The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure The "right" does not have to build it's own infrastructure, plenty of right wing media personalities and publications maintain a presence on Facebook/Twitter/etc... as long as they follow the rules of the platform. That headline is just clickbait nonsense.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      In the case of Trump, Twitter was actively interfering with one of the main channels being used by a Republican president, up to and including banning him while claiming "I will not be going to the inauguration" is an incitement of violence. That isn't an acceptable situation for a wing of politics. The right will need friendly, or at least neutral, versions of the big social media platforms and they will keep losing elections until they figure that out. People may or may not agree about the specific case, but looking at the capabilities in a strategic sense and it isn't something that can be glossed over. The outrageous treatment Trump received on social media is a big deal; insofar as the right wing is a political entity it has to respond.
    - hellojesus 5y ago
      And if they want to be able to have social media that isn't subject to the terms of the mainstream ones... they have to build their own. Which I'm happy about! The more competition, the better! It baffles me why people act like Twitter is the only place on the web. It's popular, sure, but it's easily cloned and could be extended upon. The real issue hindering competition is dollars.
    - syshum 5y ago
      >> rules of the platform. Which are themselves politically bias to one world view, that of the US political left. To be clear I am not talking about the enforcement of the rules, which is a problem in itself, but the actual rules as laid out are such they favor the identity politics of the modern "left" in the US. Those that do not support, or agree with identity politics must do verbal, and ideological self censorship to exist on said platforms.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  The reason the right wing needs to build their own communication infrastructure is that they need to publish dishonest propaganda and they need entire organizations that are corrupt to the core.
- brigandish 5y ago
  Your opinion of those titles is irrelevant to the point. In fact, your calling the Federalist "polarizing garbage", and that you compared a magazine to the news section of the NYT and don't seem to know 2 of the most famous right-leaning titles in the world, should be a sign that you're not reading widely enough and that you're not doing it without bias. What you should be doing is reading them, agreeing with them is beside the point - that's what getting out of an echo chamber looks like.
zimpenfish 5y ago
> those 3 publications were widely known to be left of centre They might be "US left of centre" but coming from the UK left, they're centrist at best, slightly right at worst.
- brigandish 5y ago
  In no way is the NYT any longer able to be called centrist from a UK outlook, that's long in the past, it shares a space with the Guardian now and seems happy to be doing so.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

I'm unfamiliar with those so I took a look at Federalist and it's polarizing garbage. > Right Responds To Cancel Culture By Building Its Own Infrastructure, And The Left Goes Nuts > 10 Christmas Songs That Must Be Cancelled By The End Of 2021 > BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ENDORSES MORE BABY KILLING BY GREEN-LIGHTING MAIL-ORDER ABORTION PILLS NYT right now: > Hidden pentagon records reveal patterns of failure in deadly airstrikes > As COVID surges, experts say U.S. booster effort is far behind. The Spectator or WSJ looks a lot better, if you told me Spectator was Atlantic or New Yorker at a glance I might believe you.

selectodude 5y ago
The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page is awful garbage but their journalism is exceptionally good.
roenxi 5y ago
It is obvious that the Federalist is appealing to outrage with those headlines; which makes it quite hard to take seriously. But those headlines are legitimate issues. The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure, which is a big deal. The headline manages to make it sound stupid but that doesn't change the fact that it is worthy of being headline news. And again with Baby Killing vs Boosters - one of the two papers is much better at writing headlines, but both of those go to largely the same issue which is how the state should interfere with individual medical decisions. If you ignore the fact that the Federalist is targeting people who don't appreciate good writing, the dismissal of one and favouring of the other isn't as obvious.
- spaced-out 5y ago
  >The right wing is being forced in to a position where it needs to build its own internet infrastructure The "right" does not have to build it's own infrastructure, plenty of right wing media personalities and publications maintain a presence on Facebook/Twitter/etc... as long as they follow the rules of the platform. That headline is just clickbait nonsense.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    In the case of Trump, Twitter was actively interfering with one of the main channels being used by a Republican president, up to and including banning him while claiming "I will not be going to the inauguration" is an incitement of violence. That isn't an acceptable situation for a wing of politics. The right will need friendly, or at least neutral, versions of the big social media platforms and they will keep losing elections until they figure that out. People may or may not agree about the specific case, but looking at the capabilities in a strategic sense and it isn't something that can be glossed over. The outrageous treatment Trump received on social media is a big deal; insofar as the right wing is a political entity it has to respond.
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    And if they want to be able to have social media that isn't subject to the terms of the mainstream ones... they have to build their own. Which I'm happy about! The more competition, the better! It baffles me why people act like Twitter is the only place on the web. It's popular, sure, but it's easily cloned and could be extended upon. The real issue hindering competition is dollars.
  - syshum 5y ago
    >> rules of the platform. Which are themselves politically bias to one world view, that of the US political left. To be clear I am not talking about the enforcement of the rules, which is a problem in itself, but the actual rules as laid out are such they favor the identity politics of the modern "left" in the US. Those that do not support, or agree with identity politics must do verbal, and ideological self censorship to exist on said platforms.
DarylZero 5y ago
The reason the right wing needs to build their own communication infrastructure is that they need to publish dishonest propaganda and they need entire organizations that are corrupt to the core.
brigandish 5y ago
Your opinion of those titles is irrelevant to the point. In fact, your calling the Federalist "polarizing garbage", and that you compared a magazine to the news section of the NYT and don't seem to know 2 of the most famous right-leaning titles in the world, should be a sign that you're not reading widely enough and that you're not doing it without bias. What you should be doing is reading them, agreeing with them is beside the point - that's what getting out of an echo chamber looks like.

zimpenfish 5y ago

> those 3 publications were widely known to be left of centre They might be "US left of centre" but coming from the UK left, they're centrist at best, slightly right at worst.

brigandish 5y ago
In no way is the NYT any longer able to be called centrist from a UK outlook, that's long in the past, it shares a space with the Guardian now and seems happy to be doing so.