3 ms·

Of course not. But there are a myriad of wrong-doings from all sectors of the economy. Choosing to focus exclusively on the wrongdoings of interests that are ob

Of course not. But there are a myriad of wrong-doings from all sectors of the economy. Choosing to focus exclusively on the wrongdoings of interests that are obstacles to the coalition of unions, bureaucracies, and allied media that economically benefit from ever-increasing public spending (from 20% of GDP in 1950 to 38% today) is a case of shaping public opinion by selection.

port11 11mo ago
Pure whataboutism, come on. Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media.
- ETH_start 11mo ago
  >Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things. >And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media. Journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing in their ideological leanings. The result is something you could call "silence by selection": investigative reporting on corporate or conservative money is constant, but similar investigations of public-sector unions’ financial pipelines, pensions, and political leverage are almost non existent. When mainstream coverage discusses "special interests", it targets corporations or billionaires, not the public-sector class which is the single most powerful political bloc in every advanced Western democracy (and which is the reason why every major urban area in the US is controlled by Democrats).
  - ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
    > I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things. As noble as your intentions may be, it's unnecessary and muddies the conversation if you keep adding cherry-picked information about your view of the politics of those involved. Also, "left-wing" and "right-wing" are not particularly useful terms as they are ill defined and vary from place to place (e.g. the U.S. left-wing is considered very right-wing in most of Europe).
    - ETH_start 11mo ago
      The views of the politics of those involved is not controversial. They are very much part of the American left, as their X feed makes abundantly clear.
      - ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
        As I understand it, X is a cesspit of right-wing hate and vitriol, so I wouldn't trust their evaluation of "left". As I said, it's really not a useful term to use and you're diverting the discussion away from the issues involved to a discussion of politics instead. Your comments come across as if you're trying to push a specific narrative.
        ETH_start 11mo ago
        Please don't take my words for it. See their X feed and judge for themselves whether they have a partisan agenda: https://x.com/propublica https://x.com/propublica I think where an outlet stands in the larger political landscape is useful context and there's nothing distracting or inappropriate about bringing it up, so we can agree to disagree.
        ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
        I don't plan on visiting that site whilst it's being run by a blatant Nazi. There was a literal world war to stop that kind of evil and yet people seem to have forgotten. I hope you are not one of those people - I'm always suspicious of anyone that continues to use X/Twitter. It's funny, Musk has enough money to end world hunger and instead he decides to be a complete arsehole.
      - port11 11mo ago
        I couldn't open their X because it's a technological abomination, but their Bluesky doesn't paint the image of a blatantly left-wing and super partisan channel that willingly ignores reporting on the public sector. Amongst the top 10 things I saw them complaining about a state government, public regulators not doing their job well… it's not dramatic. Maybe it's my European lens indeed, but it seems like a generic centrist media outlet, with maybe an anti-elites edge, which I'd expect from the Fourth Estate.
  - port11 11mo ago
    Hmm, I don't agree that journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing. I can see how that'd be true since they're highly educated and that correlates. But the sad reality is that most media channels in the US (maybe everywhere?) are corporations owned by a handful of very conservative people. Their agenda reflects that. Local media is almost fully right-wing. You can be a leftie journalist, but usually you won't go against editorial guidelines. At least that's why I've learned in school (studying media).
    - ETH_start 11mo ago
      Statistically, they lean heavily left, and what makes more sense as an explanation for that is that it is because most major outlets’ editorial workforces are themselves unionized. Editors, drawn from the same milieu, share these priors. And yes, people with degrees lean left too, because academia leans heavily toward the Democrats. Academia is part of the public-sector ecosystem. Universities are funded by the government, staffed by people whose careers depend on public funding, and bureaucratic growth. Their personal financial interests line up with left-wing politics. Once one party is fused to the institutions that hand out degrees and public paychecks, of course it will show up as "more educated voters".

port11 11mo ago

Pure whataboutism, come on. Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media.

ETH_start 11mo ago
>Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things. >And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media. Journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing in their ideological leanings. The result is something you could call "silence by selection": investigative reporting on corporate or conservative money is constant, but similar investigations of public-sector unions’ financial pipelines, pensions, and political leverage are almost non existent. When mainstream coverage discusses "special interests", it targets corporations or billionaires, not the public-sector class which is the single most powerful political bloc in every advanced Western democracy (and which is the reason why every major urban area in the US is controlled by Democrats).
- ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
  > I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things. As noble as your intentions may be, it's unnecessary and muddies the conversation if you keep adding cherry-picked information about your view of the politics of those involved. Also, "left-wing" and "right-wing" are not particularly useful terms as they are ill defined and vary from place to place (e.g. the U.S. left-wing is considered very right-wing in most of Europe).
  - ETH_start 11mo ago
    The views of the politics of those involved is not controversial. They are very much part of the American left, as their X feed makes abundantly clear.
    - ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
      As I understand it, X is a cesspit of right-wing hate and vitriol, so I wouldn't trust their evaluation of "left". As I said, it's really not a useful term to use and you're diverting the discussion away from the issues involved to a discussion of politics instead. Your comments come across as if you're trying to push a specific narrative.
      - ETH_start 11mo ago
        Please don't take my words for it. See their X feed and judge for themselves whether they have a partisan agenda: https://x.com/propublica https://x.com/propublica I think where an outlet stands in the larger political landscape is useful context and there's nothing distracting or inappropriate about bringing it up, so we can agree to disagree.
        ndsipa_pomu 11mo ago
        I don't plan on visiting that site whilst it's being run by a blatant Nazi. There was a literal world war to stop that kind of evil and yet people seem to have forgotten. I hope you are not one of those people - I'm always suspicious of anyone that continues to use X/Twitter. It's funny, Musk has enough money to end world hunger and instead he decides to be a complete arsehole.
    - port11 11mo ago
      I couldn't open their X because it's a technological abomination, but their Bluesky doesn't paint the image of a blatantly left-wing and super partisan channel that willingly ignores reporting on the public sector. Amongst the top 10 things I saw them complaining about a state government, public regulators not doing their job well… it's not dramatic. Maybe it's my European lens indeed, but it seems like a generic centrist media outlet, with maybe an anti-elites edge, which I'd expect from the Fourth Estate.
- port11 11mo ago
  Hmm, I don't agree that journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing. I can see how that'd be true since they're highly educated and that correlates. But the sad reality is that most media channels in the US (maybe everywhere?) are corporations owned by a handful of very conservative people. Their agenda reflects that. Local media is almost fully right-wing. You can be a leftie journalist, but usually you won't go against editorial guidelines. At least that's why I've learned in school (studying media).
  - ETH_start 11mo ago
    Statistically, they lean heavily left, and what makes more sense as an explanation for that is that it is because most major outlets’ editorial workforces are themselves unionized. Editors, drawn from the same milieu, share these priors. And yes, people with degrees lean left too, because academia leans heavily toward the Democrats. Academia is part of the public-sector ecosystem. Universities are funded by the government, staffed by people whose careers depend on public funding, and bureaucratic growth. Their personal financial interests line up with left-wing politics. Once one party is fused to the institutions that hand out degrees and public paychecks, of course it will show up as "more educated voters".