11 ms·

Strange thread here ignoring the very important points about the media Tara is making. 'Those of us on the inside know just how swiftly — and how dramatically

Strange thread here ignoring the very important points about the media Tara is making. 'Those of us on the inside know just how swiftly — and how dramatically — the politics of the public broadcaster have shifted. It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, frequently sparking tension by questioning identity politics. This happened in the span of about 18 months. My own politics did not change. To work at the CBC in the current climate is to embrace cognitive dissonance and to abandon journalistic integrity.' I would argue the UK BBC & US NPR are also in dire straits because of similar erosions of impartialness. Neilsen demonstrates that the legacy media are dying fast, fewer and fewer people are tuned in as the broadcasting becomes more and more toxic. This is a good thing imo. https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-business-presidential-elections-arts-and-entertainment-7cc91db0950a8e7e7bcf50d5d23dfc26 https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-busin...

deltarholamda 5y ago
>Neilsen demonstrates that the legacy media are dying fast, fewer and fewer people are tuned in as the broadcasting becomes more and more toxic. This is a good thing imo. But is it a good thing? A free press can be thought of as the sensory organs of the polity. If the sensory organs are faulty, or worse are deliberately lying, then alternative sensory organs may fill in the blanks with less robust information. These days, when you read a story from mainstream sources, it's often best to say, "well, I don't know anything about this story, but it's pretty safe to assume that what I just read is either wrong or nonsense." That's really not good. It gets worse if the only alternatives are just as wrong, or just as nonsensical, and you have to apply some kind of boolean bullshit math to get some outline of what the issue even is. The erosion of public trust isn't a short-term problem.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  By 'free press' here I think you mean state sponsored and/or corporate 'news' outlets. The internet has transcended these last century print and broadcast foundationed constructs long ago, but their owners prop up their mastheads as though they are still the top tier of 'fact checked' integrity, despite the fact they are now in some cases sloppier than the Drudge Report ever was. Tara presumably left a salaried job where her job description changed. Good for her, now the challenge is building credibility on the censorship dominated internet and staying on the right side of the big tech editorial platform gatekeepers....CDA230 where are you?
  - milderworkacc 5y ago
    >> CDA230 where are you? Right where it has always been, ensuring that online services are not held liable for third party content regardless of moderation choices. If you’re referring to being banned from twitter or not appearing on the first page of google as “censorship”, then your beef is with the first amendment, not 230.
  - deltarholamda 5y ago
    By "free press," I mean a First Amendment-type operation. Which we probably don't really have at the moment, for the reasons (state sponsored/corporate sponsored) you state. The Internet did transcend that once upon a time, except now it's just even more corporate sponsored and controlled. There is no First Amendment-type operation as, if a corporate entity wants to, they can deplatform you at the access, services, network, or financing tier, with the full support of the government. Which wouldn't be so bad, except the government is also fully co-opted by corporate interests. We had a free market and let capitalism take over, and now we don't have a free market, neither in goods and services, nor in information.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
InTheArena 5y ago
This is the Overton window at work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window In the US, it goes far beyond broadcasting. Note how lin manuel miranda's Hamilton has gone from Obama era cultural gold to "cringe-worthy" - https://www.vox.com/22641501/hamilton-parks-rec-harry-potter-cringe-obama-era-pop-culture https://www.vox.com/22641501/hamilton-parks-rec-harry-potter... Or how JKR on Harry Potter went from being vilified by conservative voices to the modern "She who will not be named" of Lefty HBO.
- consumer451 5y ago
  And a different edge of said window expanded to include actual ethno-fascists. This is not whataboutism, just want to portray the scenario in a more complete light.
  - olivermarks 5y ago
    Actual ethno-fascists?
    - boppo1 5y ago
      There is a thread of "legitimate white supremacy" winding its way around the internet at an increasing pace since around 2015. Tiktok memes, 4chan's /pol/, certain facebook groups, etc. It has a weird "shape"; the boundaries are seemingly intentionally indefinite. There were always 'stormfronters' on the internet, like the edgy kid everyone made fun of who carried around Mein Kampf in highschool. But now, all of a sudden, that kid has a bunch of new friends who have left their old cliques to start listening to this asshole. I specify this as "legitimate" because I see the "woke activist" crowd accusing basically everything of being white supremacist.
    - rurban 5y ago
      She was talking about ethno-stalinists, not fascists
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I think that the Overton Window shattered. To explain what I mean, let me start by defining a personal Overton Window. Each individual person has a range of what they, personally consider to be "acceptable ideas". I, personally, have my own politics, but I consider other views to be acceptable, even if I don't agree with them. Both Democrats and Republicans have some views that are within my personal window, but not all ideas of either side. Society has an Overton Window when most people hold views that are within most other peoples' personal Overton Windows. For example, in 1950 there was a society-wide Overton Window on gay marriage - it was outside the personal Overton Window of, say, 98% of the population, so 98% of the people had views that fit within 98% of the peoples' personal Overton Window. That's a society-wide Overton Window. Now it's different. Now, say, 40% of the people still have gay marriage outside their personal Overton Window. (All numbers made up on the spot, but I think they're approximately right.) But 25% of the people think that opposing gay marriage is unacceptable - it's outside their personal Overton Window. The remaining 35% are somewhere in the middle. There is no position that the majority of the people fit in. That's a shattered Overton Window. But the people who are in media have more of a consensus Overton Window. But it doesn't match the peoples' Overton Window (then again, nothing does, because there is no consensus view). This split - the media has a more unified view than the people do - is why so many people feel unrepresented by the media.
ineptech 5y ago
The main points of this article (roughly, that the supposedly-centrist-but-actually-left-wing media now cares more about wokeness than real news) have been made prominently and continuously since the days of Rush Limbaugh. The old joke about liberal media coverage of the apocalypse ("WORLD ENDS, WOMEN AND MINORITIES HIT HARDEST") dates from 1988.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  The political center wanders more than the magnetic north pole at the moment!
- itronitron 5y ago
  And now 'women' are no longer in that category, which may be contributing to Tara's alienation. Maybe the news media are just playing out a future where every minority within a minority needs to have it's fifteen minutes of being seen and then watch the attention it receives get diverted to the next most underrepresented group until we run out of turtles.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  I feel we have a (not accidental) misunderstanding about left/right in the US, which serves to misdirect everyone from acknowledging class. Focusing on identity serves only to split the lower and middle classes. Whereas the elites exhibit marvelous class solidarity.
john_moscow 5y ago
>It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, frequently sparking tension by questioning identity politics. This happened in the span of about 18 months. My own politics did not change. The whole left/right division has completely lost its point. You can see it if you list the typical points of disagreement, order them from most discussed to least discussed, and look at stances from left to right: COVID vaccines: mandate -> encourage -> offer for all -> offer for vulnerable -> ignore Climate Change: ban plastics/meat/kids -> subsidize solar/wind -> promote nuclear -> work on mitigations -> declare hoax Race: discriminate majority -> be color-blind -> discriminate minorities Homeless + petty crime: tolerate -> prosecute -> punish progressively Homeless + mental issues: tolerate -> offer treatment -> force treatment -> imprison LGBT: set quotas + role model for kids -> allow with no special benefits -> frown upon -> criminalize Immigration: allow arbitrarily -> set quotas -> allow high-skilled only -> ban Abortions: allow -> allow for medical reasons -> ban Housing: increase density -> ban foreign capital/increase rates -> develop new areas -> do nothing What typically happens is a vocal person holding a specific opinion on a specific topic declares everyone left from them "communist" or everyone right from them "far right", implying that they have the leftmost/rightmost stances on all other topics. So people that would normally agree on some middle-ground solution for most topics end up at the opposing sides of the artificial division. We must resist it and look at specific problems and specific solutions and call bullshit on anyone trying to generalize and alienate someone based on their affiliation. P.S. Note how impactful topics like interest rate, retirement, corporations taking place of middle class owner-operated businesses, etc. are not even on the radar.

deltarholamda 5y ago

>Neilsen demonstrates that the legacy media are dying fast, fewer and fewer people are tuned in as the broadcasting becomes more and more toxic. This is a good thing imo. But is it a good thing? A free press can be thought of as the sensory organs of the polity. If the sensory organs are faulty, or worse are deliberately lying, then alternative sensory organs may fill in the blanks with less robust information. These days, when you read a story from mainstream sources, it's often best to say, "well, I don't know anything about this story, but it's pretty safe to assume that what I just read is either wrong or nonsense." That's really not good. It gets worse if the only alternatives are just as wrong, or just as nonsensical, and you have to apply some kind of boolean bullshit math to get some outline of what the issue even is. The erosion of public trust isn't a short-term problem.

olivermarks 5y ago
By 'free press' here I think you mean state sponsored and/or corporate 'news' outlets. The internet has transcended these last century print and broadcast foundationed constructs long ago, but their owners prop up their mastheads as though they are still the top tier of 'fact checked' integrity, despite the fact they are now in some cases sloppier than the Drudge Report ever was. Tara presumably left a salaried job where her job description changed. Good for her, now the challenge is building credibility on the censorship dominated internet and staying on the right side of the big tech editorial platform gatekeepers....CDA230 where are you?
- milderworkacc 5y ago
  >> CDA230 where are you? Right where it has always been, ensuring that online services are not held liable for third party content regardless of moderation choices. If you’re referring to being banned from twitter or not appearing on the first page of google as “censorship”, then your beef is with the first amendment, not 230.
- deltarholamda 5y ago
  By "free press," I mean a First Amendment-type operation. Which we probably don't really have at the moment, for the reasons (state sponsored/corporate sponsored) you state. The Internet did transcend that once upon a time, except now it's just even more corporate sponsored and controlled. There is no First Amendment-type operation as, if a corporate entity wants to, they can deplatform you at the access, services, network, or financing tier, with the full support of the government. Which wouldn't be so bad, except the government is also fully co-opted by corporate interests. We had a free market and let capitalism take over, and now we don't have a free market, neither in goods and services, nor in information.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

InTheArena 5y ago

This is the Overton window at work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window In the US, it goes far beyond broadcasting. Note how lin manuel miranda's Hamilton has gone from Obama era cultural gold to "cringe-worthy" - https://www.vox.com/22641501/hamilton-parks-rec-harry-potter-cringe-obama-era-pop-culture https://www.vox.com/22641501/hamilton-parks-rec-harry-potter... Or how JKR on Harry Potter went from being vilified by conservative voices to the modern "She who will not be named" of Lefty HBO.

consumer451 5y ago
And a different edge of said window expanded to include actual ethno-fascists. This is not whataboutism, just want to portray the scenario in a more complete light.
- olivermarks 5y ago
  Actual ethno-fascists?
  - boppo1 5y ago
    There is a thread of "legitimate white supremacy" winding its way around the internet at an increasing pace since around 2015. Tiktok memes, 4chan's /pol/, certain facebook groups, etc. It has a weird "shape"; the boundaries are seemingly intentionally indefinite. There were always 'stormfronters' on the internet, like the edgy kid everyone made fun of who carried around Mein Kampf in highschool. But now, all of a sudden, that kid has a bunch of new friends who have left their old cliques to start listening to this asshole. I specify this as "legitimate" because I see the "woke activist" crowd accusing basically everything of being white supremacist.
  - rurban 5y ago
    She was talking about ethno-stalinists, not fascists
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I think that the Overton Window shattered. To explain what I mean, let me start by defining a personal Overton Window. Each individual person has a range of what they, personally consider to be "acceptable ideas". I, personally, have my own politics, but I consider other views to be acceptable, even if I don't agree with them. Both Democrats and Republicans have some views that are within my personal window, but not all ideas of either side. Society has an Overton Window when most people hold views that are within most other peoples' personal Overton Windows. For example, in 1950 there was a society-wide Overton Window on gay marriage - it was outside the personal Overton Window of, say, 98% of the population, so 98% of the people had views that fit within 98% of the peoples' personal Overton Window. That's a society-wide Overton Window. Now it's different. Now, say, 40% of the people still have gay marriage outside their personal Overton Window. (All numbers made up on the spot, but I think they're approximately right.) But 25% of the people think that opposing gay marriage is unacceptable - it's outside their personal Overton Window. The remaining 35% are somewhere in the middle. There is no position that the majority of the people fit in. That's a shattered Overton Window. But the people who are in media have more of a consensus Overton Window. But it doesn't match the peoples' Overton Window (then again, nothing does, because there is no consensus view). This split - the media has a more unified view than the people do - is why so many people feel unrepresented by the media.

ineptech 5y ago

The main points of this article (roughly, that the supposedly-centrist-but-actually-left-wing media now cares more about wokeness than real news) have been made prominently and continuously since the days of Rush Limbaugh. The old joke about liberal media coverage of the apocalypse ("WORLD ENDS, WOMEN AND MINORITIES HIT HARDEST") dates from 1988.

olivermarks 5y ago
The political center wanders more than the magnetic north pole at the moment!
itronitron 5y ago
And now 'women' are no longer in that category, which may be contributing to Tara's alienation. Maybe the news media are just playing out a future where every minority within a minority needs to have it's fifteen minutes of being seen and then watch the attention it receives get diverted to the next most underrepresented group until we run out of turtles.
nescioquid 5y ago
I feel we have a (not accidental) misunderstanding about left/right in the US, which serves to misdirect everyone from acknowledging class. Focusing on identity serves only to split the lower and middle classes. Whereas the elites exhibit marvelous class solidarity.

john_moscow 5y ago

>It used to be that I was the one furthest to the left in any newsroom, occasionally causing strain in story meetings with my views on issues like the housing crisis. I am now easily the most conservative, frequently sparking tension by questioning identity politics. This happened in the span of about 18 months. My own politics did not change. The whole left/right division has completely lost its point. You can see it if you list the typical points of disagreement, order them from most discussed to least discussed, and look at stances from left to right: COVID vaccines: mandate -> encourage -> offer for all -> offer for vulnerable -> ignore Climate Change: ban plastics/meat/kids -> subsidize solar/wind -> promote nuclear -> work on mitigations -> declare hoax Race: discriminate majority -> be color-blind -> discriminate minorities Homeless + petty crime: tolerate -> prosecute -> punish progressively Homeless + mental issues: tolerate -> offer treatment -> force treatment -> imprison LGBT: set quotas + role model for kids -> allow with no special benefits -> frown upon -> criminalize Immigration: allow arbitrarily -> set quotas -> allow high-skilled only -> ban Abortions: allow -> allow for medical reasons -> ban Housing: increase density -> ban foreign capital/increase rates -> develop new areas -> do nothing What typically happens is a vocal person holding a specific opinion on a specific topic declares everyone left from them "communist" or everyone right from them "far right", implying that they have the leftmost/rightmost stances on all other topics. So people that would normally agree on some middle-ground solution for most topics end up at the opposing sides of the artificial division. We must resist it and look at specific problems and specific solutions and call bullshit on anyone trying to generalize and alienate someone based on their affiliation. P.S. Note how impactful topics like interest rate, retirement, corporations taking place of middle class owner-operated businesses, etc. are not even on the radar.