4 ms·

I've discovered over the years that when someone starts spouting random complaints about Fox News brainwashing, it's an easy "tell" that they are probably an ou

by yesco 5y ago

I've discovered over the years that when someone starts spouting random complaints about Fox News brainwashing, it's an easy "tell" that they are probably an out of touch liberal "elite" with an ego that probably needs some deflating (at least when it comes to politics). I say this as someone who fit this description to a tee in the past. Its amazing how when I starting taking my own medicine and actually began speaking directly with the people I disagreed with I found what they believed in was very different than what the talking heads told me they were. More often than not, they knew my position better than me, and yet I knew hardly anything about theirs, it's embarrassing in retrospect. Speaking as someone with now very in the middle political leanings, I don't see Fox News as any different than any other mainstream outlet who is a member of the Associated Press. They take a story off the AP conveyor belt, spin it in a way that is advantageous to their billionaire owners and add a bit of spice to keep the lemmings listening.

netsharc 5y ago
Ah, the both-sides-ism. > I found what they believed in was very different than what the talking heads told me they were. Lucky you, to have encountered that particular niche, and I guess it's telling when they knew more than you. But what percentage of Fox News watchers take what their talking heads are saying as truth, and what percentage as "spin"? Even Fox News pundits and guests are now being fact-checked by a Fox News employee: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/04/jennifer-griffin-fox-news-fact-checking-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/04/jennifer-griff... . So, why is Tucker Carlson defending Putin. Just for his billionaires owners? Is it defensible? To read your comment, yes it is, because the other side spins too?
- yesco 5y ago
  > Lucky you, to have encountered that particular niche, and I guess it's telling when they knew more than you Your condescending attitude is doing you no favors, I wasn't trying to be humble here, I was using an anecdote from my past to politely tell you that what you are saying is embarrassingly out of touch and that reasonable people in real life wont be kind enough to tell you unless you ask directly. In fact, I only even replied at all because your original comment had the audacity to say the following with zero self awareness: > Sadly a lot of people probably don't even want their minds to be changed, they're already certain that the other side are the spawn of Satan and that their side is the right one. The point I was making here is that the news they *report* is ultimately the same as every other AP member, with the difference being how they spin it. If Fox is reporting about anti-vaxxers in a positive light, then CNN is reporting on them in a negative, at the end of the day the substance of the story is the same *because it is*, if you want it unseasoned look at the AP directly, that doesn't mean it lacks bias though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press#Litigation_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press#Litigation_an.... >Ah, the both-sides-ism. Oh no, there is of course absolutely more than one side here: news organizations within the AP bubble and those outside it. Fox News is a mainstream outlet that gets more viewers than CNN, yet you still decided to turn this entire discussion about representing dissenting viewpoints in media about them, I want you to take a moment to think about that. Don't misunderstand though, this discussion was never about the politics itself, I'm not saying left-wing politics are the same as right-wing, I'm just informing you that the media's distortion of them is.
  - netsharc 5y ago
    > zero self awareness You can buy this or not, but I wrote that with the awareness that this applies to both sides. I guess I needed an ";)" to make it clear to people I'm condesending to. On the topic of buying stuff, sorry, your anecdote of being schooled by clever other-siders doesn't mean to me you get to know 100% that criticism of Fox News is 'an easy "tell" that [the critic is] probably an out of touch liberal "elite" with an ego that probably needs some deflating (at least when it comes to politics).'. Where's that humility in that sentence, with you being so cocksure that you get it and I don't? You even said "anecdote", just because some smart Fox News viewers convinced you they're not being brainwashed, it doesn't mean the majority of FN viewers them are that clever and un-brainwashed - here I go again saying I'm not buying your shit, like I know better, right? I didn't write any criticism of NBC or CNN, but no, I don't watch them either, they're garbage.
    - yesco 5y ago
      >You can buy this or not, but I wrote that with the awareness that this applies to both sides. I can somewhat see your attempt at this in your original comment, but it was very off the mark. To be absolutely clear here and because I don't see myself replying further: Representing a dissenting viewpoint would mean showing multiple perspectives on an issue instead of just a single "narrative". This means for example, that for Fox to represent a dissenting viewpoint about anti-vaxxers, they would need to include arguments in favor of vaccination, the opposite is true for CNN or MSNBC. The existence of outlets containing views you disagree with do not count as representing a popular dissenting view. This is compounded even further by the fact that basically all mainstream American media outlets just report the same news they get from the AP now. So even if Fox or CNN did what I described, it would still fall short because there is a centralized narrative hidden in the selective reporting of the AP. So not only is mainstream news filtered through the lense of the AP, it's also filtered through their billionaire owners and finally to appease the lemmings, some talking heads give their (bad) opinion on what remains to add some political flair to it. This bullshit is what drives people to alternative media. > On the topic of buying stuff, sorry, your anecdote of being schooled by clever other-siders doesn't mean to me you get to know 100% that criticism of Fox News is 'an easy "tell" that [the critic is] probably an out of touch liberal "elite" with an ego that probably needs some deflating (at least when it comes to politics).'. Where's that humility in that sentence, with you being so cocksure that you get it and I don't? You even said "anecdote", just because some smart Fox News viewers convinced you they're not being brainwashed, it doesn't mean the majority of FN viewers them are that clever and un-brainwashed - here I go again saying I'm not buying your shit, like I know better, right? Quite a bit to unpack here huh ;) I'll admit my original choice of words may have been poor, I considered your original take to be ridiculously bad and felt that it was quite self evident, causing me to leave out a lot of details I thought you would notice. I never considered it humble, only my self deprecating anecdote. That doesn't mean I think anything I said was wrong, just that I didn't do a good enough job at making it not seem like an attack and devolving into a flame war (too late now). I'm going to break down why I've assigned you to the category of "out of touch liberal 'elite'" to maybe clear things up before exiting: * To assume that dissent == Fox News (aka the outlet you disagree with) is silly. Someone who likes Fox could make the same argument about CNN being dissent, it is at it's root a fallacy because it assumes dissent just means anything counter to what you subjectively consider the truth * The weirdly combative statement (sarcastic self-deprecation?) about being called a "commie-lib" was both unessesary and felt like you were waving a flag no one asked to see * Offering up examples where "leftist media" got it wrong to demonstrate a degree of impartiality but failing to recognize that you were once again associating them with a truth/narrative that qualifies opposing arguments on alternative mainstream outlets as dissent. * Further demonstration that your red blue glasses blinded you to what was actually being proposed you literally allude to desiring the very premise of OPs comment: "It'd be great if people who listened to Fox News could be asked to listen to someone who challenges their assertions", it goes both ways though * Your replies further cemented my image of you by both suggesting my argument is "both-sideism" a misapplied meme often parroted by cult-like radicals (on both sides ironically) but also by suggesting that the people I've spoken too watch Fox News when the point I was trying to make was that the image of each side that the mainstream media paints is radically different than reality. I'll admit the fact that you have misunderstood this key point regardless of if you agree fills me with a bit of rage. The amount of people actually watching any "mainstream" outlet these days is a rapidly decreasing minority, if you want to know what they actually think, then don't get it from Fox News, because like you, most on the right also think it's garbage, funny how that works huh?

by yesco 5y ago

netsharc 5y ago

Ah, the both-sides-ism. > I found what they believed in was very different than what the talking heads told me they were. Lucky you, to have encountered that particular niche, and I guess it's telling when they knew more than you. But what percentage of Fox News watchers take what their talking heads are saying as truth, and what percentage as "spin"? Even Fox News pundits and guests are now being fact-checked by a Fox News employee: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/04/jennifer-griffin-fox-news-fact-checking-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/mar/04/jennifer-griff... . So, why is Tucker Carlson defending Putin. Just for his billionaires owners? Is it defensible? To read your comment, yes it is, because the other side spins too?

yesco 5y ago
> Lucky you, to have encountered that particular niche, and I guess it's telling when they knew more than you Your condescending attitude is doing you no favors, I wasn't trying to be humble here, I was using an anecdote from my past to politely tell you that what you are saying is embarrassingly out of touch and that reasonable people in real life wont be kind enough to tell you unless you ask directly. In fact, I only even replied at all because your original comment had the audacity to say the following with zero self awareness: > Sadly a lot of people probably don't even want their minds to be changed, they're already certain that the other side are the spawn of Satan and that their side is the right one. The point I was making here is that the news they *report* is ultimately the same as every other AP member, with the difference being how they spin it. If Fox is reporting about anti-vaxxers in a positive light, then CNN is reporting on them in a negative, at the end of the day the substance of the story is the same *because it is*, if you want it unseasoned look at the AP directly, that doesn't mean it lacks bias though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press#Litigation_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press#Litigation_an.... >Ah, the both-sides-ism. Oh no, there is of course absolutely more than one side here: news organizations within the AP bubble and those outside it. Fox News is a mainstream outlet that gets more viewers than CNN, yet you still decided to turn this entire discussion about representing dissenting viewpoints in media about them, I want you to take a moment to think about that. Don't misunderstand though, this discussion was never about the politics itself, I'm not saying left-wing politics are the same as right-wing, I'm just informing you that the media's distortion of them is.
- netsharc 5y ago
  > zero self awareness You can buy this or not, but I wrote that with the awareness that this applies to both sides. I guess I needed an ";)" to make it clear to people I'm condesending to. On the topic of buying stuff, sorry, your anecdote of being schooled by clever other-siders doesn't mean to me you get to know 100% that criticism of Fox News is 'an easy "tell" that [the critic is] probably an out of touch liberal "elite" with an ego that probably needs some deflating (at least when it comes to politics).'. Where's that humility in that sentence, with you being so cocksure that you get it and I don't? You even said "anecdote", just because some smart Fox News viewers convinced you they're not being brainwashed, it doesn't mean the majority of FN viewers them are that clever and un-brainwashed - here I go again saying I'm not buying your shit, like I know better, right? I didn't write any criticism of NBC or CNN, but no, I don't watch them either, they're garbage.
  - yesco 5y ago
    >You can buy this or not, but I wrote that with the awareness that this applies to both sides. I can somewhat see your attempt at this in your original comment, but it was very off the mark. To be absolutely clear here and because I don't see myself replying further: Representing a dissenting viewpoint would mean showing multiple perspectives on an issue instead of just a single "narrative". This means for example, that for Fox to represent a dissenting viewpoint about anti-vaxxers, they would need to include arguments in favor of vaccination, the opposite is true for CNN or MSNBC. The existence of outlets containing views you disagree with do not count as representing a popular dissenting view. This is compounded even further by the fact that basically all mainstream American media outlets just report the same news they get from the AP now. So even if Fox or CNN did what I described, it would still fall short because there is a centralized narrative hidden in the selective reporting of the AP. So not only is mainstream news filtered through the lense of the AP, it's also filtered through their billionaire owners and finally to appease the lemmings, some talking heads give their (bad) opinion on what remains to add some political flair to it. This bullshit is what drives people to alternative media. > On the topic of buying stuff, sorry, your anecdote of being schooled by clever other-siders doesn't mean to me you get to know 100% that criticism of Fox News is 'an easy "tell" that [the critic is] probably an out of touch liberal "elite" with an ego that probably needs some deflating (at least when it comes to politics).'. Where's that humility in that sentence, with you being so cocksure that you get it and I don't? You even said "anecdote", just because some smart Fox News viewers convinced you they're not being brainwashed, it doesn't mean the majority of FN viewers them are that clever and un-brainwashed - here I go again saying I'm not buying your shit, like I know better, right? Quite a bit to unpack here huh ;) I'll admit my original choice of words may have been poor, I considered your original take to be ridiculously bad and felt that it was quite self evident, causing me to leave out a lot of details I thought you would notice. I never considered it humble, only my self deprecating anecdote. That doesn't mean I think anything I said was wrong, just that I didn't do a good enough job at making it not seem like an attack and devolving into a flame war (too late now). I'm going to break down why I've assigned you to the category of "out of touch liberal 'elite'" to maybe clear things up before exiting: * To assume that dissent == Fox News (aka the outlet you disagree with) is silly. Someone who likes Fox could make the same argument about CNN being dissent, it is at it's root a fallacy because it assumes dissent just means anything counter to what you subjectively consider the truth * The weirdly combative statement (sarcastic self-deprecation?) about being called a "commie-lib" was both unessesary and felt like you were waving a flag no one asked to see * Offering up examples where "leftist media" got it wrong to demonstrate a degree of impartiality but failing to recognize that you were once again associating them with a truth/narrative that qualifies opposing arguments on alternative mainstream outlets as dissent. * Further demonstration that your red blue glasses blinded you to what was actually being proposed you literally allude to desiring the very premise of OPs comment: "It'd be great if people who listened to Fox News could be asked to listen to someone who challenges their assertions", it goes both ways though * Your replies further cemented my image of you by both suggesting my argument is "both-sideism" a misapplied meme often parroted by cult-like radicals (on both sides ironically) but also by suggesting that the people I've spoken too watch Fox News when the point I was trying to make was that the image of each side that the mainstream media paints is radically different than reality. I'll admit the fact that you have misunderstood this key point regardless of if you agree fills me with a bit of rage. The amount of people actually watching any "mainstream" outlet these days is a rapidly decreasing minority, if you want to know what they actually think, then don't get it from Fox News, because like you, most on the right also think it's garbage, funny how that works huh?