4 ms·

could you expand on this a bit?

by toofy 4y ago

zmgsabst 4y ago
In what way? My experience of WarnerMedia is that they have politics among their staff reflective of the cities they’re in, but which may not reflect the overall demographics of the US. Eg, their Seattle office had politics at place in Seattle — but those are far left of most US politics. That bias impacts the choices made about content. This matches other peoples experience and apparent business decisions — eg, the other poster referring to this same bias and CNN experiencing a sharp drop in ratings followed by corporate restructuring under a new CEO.
- toofy 4y ago
  > in what way expand on how this in any way shows that a "...chorus of coastal media types..." (again, still waiting for a definition of this) are somehow factually "...asking for people they disagree with to be prevented from speaking in any public forum"
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Sorry — I didn’t realize you were being disingenuous. I don’t believe you’re sincerely unaware of the calls to censor misinformation in media; and we literally just explained which media companies based in politically biased bubbles we were discussing. Have a great evening!
    - toofy 4y ago
      im trying to understand what is being argued here. the person i responded to said it was a fact that "a chorus of coastal media types" are "asking for people they disagree with to be prevented from speaking in any public forum" the comment said this was a fact. and i still don't think thats a fact. now in this comment you say they're sending "calls to censor misinformation in media"--then sure. are you implying that journalists should be forced to report misinformation? and if they choose _not_ to report misinformation, they're censoring?
      - cxr 4y ago
        From the last comment by the other person, it sounds like they're not going to answer. I'll answer for them (at my peril): > "calls to censor misinformation in media"[...] are you implying that journalists should be forced to report misinformation? No, they weren't saying that. > and if they choose _not_ to report misinformation, they're censoring? Also no.
        toofy 4y ago
        when considering the context from above, what do you think they were implying?
        cxr 4y ago
        Nothing. Looking for subtext is an error on your part. The words they wrote were what they meant.
        toofy 4y ago
        i wasn't asking for subtext, i was asking so it would be clear and _not_ vagueness. i asked specifically so we could remove subtext.
        cxr 4y ago
        You asked explicitly what the other person was implying. If you ask that and then say that you weren't asking about any subtext, then one of us has some misunderstanding about the meaning of these words—and that person is not me. (This comment by me, for example, is definitely imbued with subtext.) Separately, put some effort into your attempts to have a discussion, please. I.e., beyond the bare minimum that it takes to type one or two sentences and press "reply" without giving it much more thought.
        toofy 4y ago
        i asked: > what do you think they were implying? …because in the previous comment you felt confident enough to answer for them. you said: > No, they weren't saying that. is asking what you think they meant unreasonable?

could you expand on this a bit?

by toofy 4y ago

could you expand on this a bit?

In what way? My experience of WarnerMedia is that they have politics among their staff reflective of the cities they’re in, but which may not reflect the overall demographics of the US. Eg, their Seattle office had politics at place in Seattle — but those are far left of most US politics. That bias impacts the choices made about content. This matches other peoples experience and apparent business decisions — eg, the other poster referring to this same bias and CNN experiencing a sharp drop in ratings followed by corporate restructuring under a new CEO.

toofy 4y ago
> in what way expand on how this in any way shows that a "...chorus of coastal media types..." (again, still waiting for a definition of this) are somehow factually "...asking for people they disagree with to be prevented from speaking in any public forum"
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Sorry — I didn’t realize you were being disingenuous. I don’t believe you’re sincerely unaware of the calls to censor misinformation in media; and we literally just explained which media companies based in politically biased bubbles we were discussing. Have a great evening!
  - toofy 4y ago
    im trying to understand what is being argued here. the person i responded to said it was a fact that "a chorus of coastal media types" are "asking for people they disagree with to be prevented from speaking in any public forum" the comment said this was a fact. and i still don't think thats a fact. now in this comment you say they're sending "calls to censor misinformation in media"--then sure. are you implying that journalists should be forced to report misinformation? and if they choose _not_ to report misinformation, they're censoring?
    - cxr 4y ago
      From the last comment by the other person, it sounds like they're not going to answer. I'll answer for them (at my peril): > "calls to censor misinformation in media"[...] are you implying that journalists should be forced to report misinformation? No, they weren't saying that. > and if they choose _not_ to report misinformation, they're censoring? Also no.
      - toofy 4y ago
        when considering the context from above, what do you think they were implying?
        cxr 4y ago
        Nothing. Looking for subtext is an error on your part. The words they wrote were what they meant.
        toofy 4y ago
        i wasn't asking for subtext, i was asking so it would be clear and _not_ vagueness. i asked specifically so we could remove subtext.
        cxr 4y ago
        You asked explicitly what the other person was implying. If you ask that and then say that you weren't asking about any subtext, then one of us has some misunderstanding about the meaning of these words—and that person is not me. (This comment by me, for example, is definitely imbued with subtext.) Separately, put some effort into your attempts to have a discussion, please. I.e., beyond the bare minimum that it takes to type one or two sentences and press "reply" without giving it much more thought.
        toofy 4y ago
        i asked: > what do you think they were implying? …because in the previous comment you felt confident enough to answer for them. you said: > No, they weren't saying that. is asking what you think they meant unreasonable?