4 ms·

Who watches the watchers? Someone else can pick up where Paxton is blocked and have a look at how Media Matters reports on, well, anything. Preferably someone

Who watches the watchers? Someone else can pick up where Paxton is blocked and have a look at how Media Matters reports on, well, anything. Preferably someone who is neither 'progressive' like Media Matters nor 'conservative' like Paxton is supposed to be - no idea if he really is but that is besides the point. Having looked into Media Matters' reporting myself I know that they have made an art out of taking lines out of context to drive a 'progressive' narrative so I have a suspicion what such a report would look like but it would be best if this information is available to all from an 'unbiased' source (as far as such a thing exists). This goes for all 'fact checkers' and 'media watchdogs' and, really, all organisations which act in the public space as 'defenders' and 'watchdogs' since many of these have shown to be nothing more than re-badged propaganda outlets.

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
> nor 'conservative' like Paxton is supposed to be - no idea if he really is but that is besides the point. This is (intentionally or unintentionally) comedy. (If intentional, the subtlety is magnificent.) > Paxton rose to power as an ally of the Tea Party movement[3] and has been described as an ultraconservative[2][3][4][5] or far-right[6][7][8][9] politician. As attorney general, Paxton has appointed prominent opponents of LGBT rights to leading positions within his department. In June 2022, Paxton said he would defend state laws prohibiting consensual same-sex relationships if the Supreme Court precedent invalidating such laws, the Lawrence v. Texas decision, was overturned.[10] He has sued president Joe Biden's administration nearly 50 times.[6][9] There's just no way to know!
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  I'm not from the USA, not conservative and have not made a study of whether Paxton is conservative or not nor do I know whether the 'tea party movement' can be called 'conservative', from what I gather they are/were more of a populist movement? I also do not equate opposition of 'LGBT rights' with conservatism since in my eyes conservatism does not have much if anything to say about such things. Here's what Britannica says about conservatism [1]: conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. In a society where 'LGBT rights' have evolved gradually - e.g. the Netherlands (where I'm from, originally) - there is no friction between supporting such and being 'conservative'. I guess the same is true for parts of the USA - California comes to mind - but less so for others - Texas being an example of such. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    If this is what you think conservative means to an american politician (or journalist) you are frankly not informed enough about the context to have a useful opinion on this subject.
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      He's informed enough about the American conservative rhetorical techniques to claim he's being canceled and cast himself as the victim. Isn't it ironic? https://web.archive.org/web/20240415235814/https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hagbard_c https://web.archive.org/web/20240415235814/https://news.ycom...
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        lmao good shit
      - hagbard_c 3y ago
        I practice what I preach, i.e. I document what happens. I you want to label this as 'casting myself as a victim' that's on you.
        DonHopkins 3y ago
        Don't blame me for what YOU wrote in YOUR OWN profile. Now are you trying to cast yourself as the victim of me forcing you to write what you did? I didn't hold a gun to your head, or break into to your account. Maybe you should stop practicing and preaching bullshit.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Paxton, er, very much doesn’t meet the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s definition of conservatism. (For that matter, nor does the modern British Conservative Party). “Conservative”, in US politics, is a term of art, and is often used to describe quite radical right-wing politicians, like Paxton.
  - 3y ago
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Who watches the watchers? When it comes to First Amendment protected speech? Not the various Attorneys General.
klyrs 3y ago
Why does the government need to investigate this exercise of free speech? Does the constitution say we that the press should only be free if they're fair and balanced? And if so, what happens to Fox News?
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  They don't, that's why I suggest someone else should take over.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    As mentioned, Fox News is plenty happy to go after Media Matters. There's no lack of people shouting across the aisle at each other.
    - hagbard_c 3y ago
      Fox News is not unbiased and as such not the right organisation for this purpose. As far as I can see none of the 'networks' in the US are anything close to unbiased.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        By all means, let us pick an unbiased arbiter of truth. All we have to do is find one!
      - jcranmer 3y ago
        Let he who is unbiased cast the first stone.
        hagbard_c 3y ago
        Media Matters (et. al.) have been casting stones for a long time so it would not be the first one but yes, that is one of the problems in dealing with this type of actor.
  - 3y ago
rsynnott 3y ago
I mean, even if Media Matters were enormously biased… that’s _legal_. “An advocacy group was mean to a very special billionaire” is simply not something that governments should be getting involved in.
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  If is legal, yes. So is reporting on the fact that they are, in fact, enormously biased (to use your own words). You're also right than the government should not be involved in this which I why I'd like some other group - preferably a university which does not suffer from the type of bias American universities suffer from at the moment - take up this job [1]. The problem lies in Media Matters being portrayed as being unbiased while in truth they are anything but. [1] Kent Asp at the university of Göteborg (Sweden) keeps track of the political bias of the news media in Sweden which shows their move to the left: On the political scale, Swedish journalists can be placed to the left of the Swedish public and their elected politicians. And the distance between the two sides has increased significantly in recent decades, although this is more due to the public and politicians having moved to the right than to journalists having moved to the left. (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/852943 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/852943)

add-sub-mul-div 3y ago

> nor 'conservative' like Paxton is supposed to be - no idea if he really is but that is besides the point. This is (intentionally or unintentionally) comedy. (If intentional, the subtlety is magnificent.) > Paxton rose to power as an ally of the Tea Party movement[3] and has been described as an ultraconservative[2][3][4][5] or far-right[6][7][8][9] politician. As attorney general, Paxton has appointed prominent opponents of LGBT rights to leading positions within his department. In June 2022, Paxton said he would defend state laws prohibiting consensual same-sex relationships if the Supreme Court precedent invalidating such laws, the Lawrence v. Texas decision, was overturned.[10] He has sued president Joe Biden's administration nearly 50 times.[6][9] There's just no way to know!

hagbard_c 3y ago
I'm not from the USA, not conservative and have not made a study of whether Paxton is conservative or not nor do I know whether the 'tea party movement' can be called 'conservative', from what I gather they are/were more of a populist movement? I also do not equate opposition of 'LGBT rights' with conservatism since in my eyes conservatism does not have much if anything to say about such things. Here's what Britannica says about conservatism [1]: conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics. In a society where 'LGBT rights' have evolved gradually - e.g. the Netherlands (where I'm from, originally) - there is no friction between supporting such and being 'conservative'. I guess the same is true for parts of the USA - California comes to mind - but less so for others - Texas being an example of such. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism https://www.britannica.com/topic/conservatism
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  If this is what you think conservative means to an american politician (or journalist) you are frankly not informed enough about the context to have a useful opinion on this subject.
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    He's informed enough about the American conservative rhetorical techniques to claim he's being canceled and cast himself as the victim. Isn't it ironic? https://web.archive.org/web/20240415235814/https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hagbard_c https://web.archive.org/web/20240415235814/https://news.ycom...
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      lmao good shit
    - hagbard_c 3y ago
      I practice what I preach, i.e. I document what happens. I you want to label this as 'casting myself as a victim' that's on you.
      - DonHopkins 3y ago
        Don't blame me for what YOU wrote in YOUR OWN profile. Now are you trying to cast yourself as the victim of me forcing you to write what you did? I didn't hold a gun to your head, or break into to your account. Maybe you should stop practicing and preaching bullshit.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Paxton, er, very much doesn’t meet the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s definition of conservatism. (For that matter, nor does the modern British Conservative Party). “Conservative”, in US politics, is a term of art, and is often used to describe quite radical right-wing politicians, like Paxton.
- 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago

> Who watches the watchers? When it comes to First Amendment protected speech? Not the various Attorneys General.

klyrs 3y ago

Why does the government need to investigate this exercise of free speech? Does the constitution say we that the press should only be free if they're fair and balanced? And if so, what happens to Fox News?

hagbard_c 3y ago
They don't, that's why I suggest someone else should take over.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  As mentioned, Fox News is plenty happy to go after Media Matters. There's no lack of people shouting across the aisle at each other.
  - hagbard_c 3y ago
    Fox News is not unbiased and as such not the right organisation for this purpose. As far as I can see none of the 'networks' in the US are anything close to unbiased.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      By all means, let us pick an unbiased arbiter of truth. All we have to do is find one!
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      Let he who is unbiased cast the first stone.
      - hagbard_c 3y ago
        Media Matters (et. al.) have been casting stones for a long time so it would not be the first one but yes, that is one of the problems in dealing with this type of actor.
- 3y ago

rsynnott 3y ago

I mean, even if Media Matters were enormously biased… that’s _legal_. “An advocacy group was mean to a very special billionaire” is simply not something that governments should be getting involved in.

hagbard_c 3y ago
If is legal, yes. So is reporting on the fact that they are, in fact, enormously biased (to use your own words). You're also right than the government should not be involved in this which I why I'd like some other group - preferably a university which does not suffer from the type of bias American universities suffer from at the moment - take up this job [1]. The problem lies in Media Matters being portrayed as being unbiased while in truth they are anything but. [1] Kent Asp at the university of Göteborg (Sweden) keeps track of the political bias of the news media in Sweden which shows their move to the left: On the political scale, Swedish journalists can be placed to the left of the Swedish public and their elected politicians. And the distance between the two sides has increased significantly in recent decades, although this is more due to the public and politicians having moved to the right than to journalists having moved to the left. (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/852943 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/852943)