5 ms·

Does that make a difference or are y'all just constantly moving goalposts to fuel the narrative that media is inherently left-leaning? Because it's really not

Does that make a difference or are y'all just constantly moving goalposts to fuel the narrative that media is inherently left-leaning? Because it's really not - especially not in the US. Go look through their articles. How many serve corporate interests? How many are fundamentally ultra-capitalists? You guys act like these are commies. No, they're right-leaning, just not far right insane wackos (Fox News). You're right, they're not out here questioning how black Kamala is. No, that absolutely does not make them left wing.

dgfitz 2y ago
> ...to fuel the narrative that media is inherently left-leaning? Right around this time 8 years ago, the election was over... in the media. Clinton won, trump didn't, in like September of 2016. Like, the world was collectively shocked. Because, according to the media, trump was cooked. How does that square?
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  A big part of why Clinton won in the media while her rivals didn't is because she was the least left-leaning Democrat president candidate since, well, Clinton. Clinton's' vast corporate support is because she would lean to the right of the average American on most economic issues and was business as usual, in vast opposition to her rival. Compare for example media treatment of Sanders or even Warren when he opposed her and you can see that it's not her leftist tendencies that made her win in the media.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    > Compare for example media treatment of Sanders or even Warren when he opposed her and you can see that it's not her leftist tendencies that made her win in the media. Respectfully I don’t accept your premise here. You’re saying she was center of left? But still “left”, as it were? And you agree the media crowned her king months before the election? So the media ordained her the winner. You do agree or you do not?
    - sudosysgen 2y ago
      I am saying that the media was enamored with her because she represented a shift rightwards compared to her predecessors, and that her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate. In that the media vastly prefered her over Trump, it was because she was pro-establishment and better aligned with corporate interests, not because she was economically to his left. The case of Warren and Sanders (where famously the media was happy to compare Sanders to Trump, reinforcing the idea that their opposition to Trump is not due to his right-wing economic policies) as well as the comparison to previous Democratic candidates is evidence I think is much more compelling than the assumption of leftwing/rightwing partisanship.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        > … her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate. Huh. If that were true she would have won. So it can’t be true. Unless your claim is “the right was too far right” in which case your “right-of-the-electorate” cannot be mathematically true. Were you trying to make a different point? The current one doesn’t hold water.
        mtalantikite 2y ago
        > If that were true she would have won. Not who you're discussing with, but Hillary did win the popular vote by about 3 million votes.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        Fair point.
        sudosysgen 2y ago
        70% of people who voted for Hillary Clinton said that they voted against Trump, not for her. And people don't vote for whatever candidate is closer to them on the left-right spectrum, they care about personality, about how the candidate makes them feel. In those terms Trump was extremely polarizing, many people whose policies were closer to Trump than Clinton voted for Clinton because Trump was, as a person, unacceptable. Besides, there are people who just don't vote if your platform or personality is not engaging. That was a big phenomenon with Clinton and is generally what decided whether or not Democrats win: the higher the turnout, the higher their chances. If a Democrat runs to the right, they lose turnout from leftwing voters who stay home, they don't (just) win votes from the center. Also, Clinton did win the popular vote, despite all of this.
ImJamal 2y ago
[flagged]
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  This would have been a much better comment without the last sentence.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    The person I was responding to said I thought Harris is a communist. Where did he get that from? Nowhere. He invented it out of whole cloth. He also implied that I am a supporter of "far right insane wackos" for asking for a basic confirmation. He formed an entire narrative about me from asking a simple question. A question that nobody sane could really come to the conclusions that he came to. Perhaps it would be better if I didn't word my response the way I did, but I am just so tired of being accused of all sorts of things just because people think I am opposed to what they believe for asking for clarification. He doesn't know what I think and instead of asking he went on a rant about what he perceived my views to be. It is utterly ridiculous and it is so tiring.
    - consteval 2y ago
      I didn't, and I said nothing of the sort. I said the NYT, and other media outlets, are not "far right insane wackos". Some people then run with that and say they're left-wing. That's not the case. NYT is center-right, maybe center, and absolute worst-case slightly center-left. Our perception is warped, because we compare it to the likes of Fox News. Which is so unbelievably far right, that just about anything looks left-leaning in comparison. > went on a rant about what he perceived my views to be This didn't happen. Please, reread my comment and you'll notice I said absolutely nothing about you or your beliefs. I spoke of extreme right-wing beliefs. Whether you identify with that or feel shame about that is not my problem. If you're privy to creating personal attacks to fuel a sense of victimhood, that's on you.
      - ImJamal 2y ago

dgfitz 2y ago

> ...to fuel the narrative that media is inherently left-leaning? Right around this time 8 years ago, the election was over... in the media. Clinton won, trump didn't, in like September of 2016. Like, the world was collectively shocked. Because, according to the media, trump was cooked. How does that square?

sudosysgen 2y ago
A big part of why Clinton won in the media while her rivals didn't is because she was the least left-leaning Democrat president candidate since, well, Clinton. Clinton's' vast corporate support is because she would lean to the right of the average American on most economic issues and was business as usual, in vast opposition to her rival. Compare for example media treatment of Sanders or even Warren when he opposed her and you can see that it's not her leftist tendencies that made her win in the media.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  > Compare for example media treatment of Sanders or even Warren when he opposed her and you can see that it's not her leftist tendencies that made her win in the media. Respectfully I don’t accept your premise here. You’re saying she was center of left? But still “left”, as it were? And you agree the media crowned her king months before the election? So the media ordained her the winner. You do agree or you do not?
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    I am saying that the media was enamored with her because she represented a shift rightwards compared to her predecessors, and that her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate. In that the media vastly prefered her over Trump, it was because she was pro-establishment and better aligned with corporate interests, not because she was economically to his left. The case of Warren and Sanders (where famously the media was happy to compare Sanders to Trump, reinforcing the idea that their opposition to Trump is not due to his right-wing economic policies) as well as the comparison to previous Democratic candidates is evidence I think is much more compelling than the assumption of leftwing/rightwing partisanship.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      > … her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate. Huh. If that were true she would have won. So it can’t be true. Unless your claim is “the right was too far right” in which case your “right-of-the-electorate” cannot be mathematically true. Were you trying to make a different point? The current one doesn’t hold water.
      - mtalantikite 2y ago
        > If that were true she would have won. Not who you're discussing with, but Hillary did win the popular vote by about 3 million votes.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        Fair point.
      - sudosysgen 2y ago
        70% of people who voted for Hillary Clinton said that they voted against Trump, not for her. And people don't vote for whatever candidate is closer to them on the left-right spectrum, they care about personality, about how the candidate makes them feel. In those terms Trump was extremely polarizing, many people whose policies were closer to Trump than Clinton voted for Clinton because Trump was, as a person, unacceptable. Besides, there are people who just don't vote if your platform or personality is not engaging. That was a big phenomenon with Clinton and is generally what decided whether or not Democrats win: the higher the turnout, the higher their chances. If a Democrat runs to the right, they lose turnout from leftwing voters who stay home, they don't (just) win votes from the center. Also, Clinton did win the popular vote, despite all of this.

ImJamal 2y ago

[flagged]

jakelazaroff 2y ago
This would have been a much better comment without the last sentence.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  The person I was responding to said I thought Harris is a communist. Where did he get that from? Nowhere. He invented it out of whole cloth. He also implied that I am a supporter of "far right insane wackos" for asking for a basic confirmation. He formed an entire narrative about me from asking a simple question. A question that nobody sane could really come to the conclusions that he came to. Perhaps it would be better if I didn't word my response the way I did, but I am just so tired of being accused of all sorts of things just because people think I am opposed to what they believe for asking for clarification. He doesn't know what I think and instead of asking he went on a rant about what he perceived my views to be. It is utterly ridiculous and it is so tiring.
  - consteval 2y ago
    I didn't, and I said nothing of the sort. I said the NYT, and other media outlets, are not "far right insane wackos". Some people then run with that and say they're left-wing. That's not the case. NYT is center-right, maybe center, and absolute worst-case slightly center-left. Our perception is warped, because we compare it to the likes of Fox News. Which is so unbelievably far right, that just about anything looks left-leaning in comparison. > went on a rant about what he perceived my views to be This didn't happen. Please, reread my comment and you'll notice I said absolutely nothing about you or your beliefs. I spoke of extreme right-wing beliefs. Whether you identify with that or feel shame about that is not my problem. If you're privy to creating personal attacks to fuel a sense of victimhood, that's on you.
    - ImJamal 2y ago