Herochat

is the liberal media really that liberal

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
is the liberal media really that liberal
« on: October 06, 2018, 12:50:59 AM »
It always talk about the liberal media

But are they really liberal

My take on it..on social issue their liberal. Maybe the enviorment to (but science might be on their side). They take the metoo stuff a little to far sometime. And sometimes use the racist words to much

On war, Eccomomics, buisness...they aren't actully to the right on that stuff. And their certain bias their

Since when progressive stuff it always "How will you pay for it". Which a fair question.

But When it comes to where they will get money for the millitary, and Tax cuts...they never really asked

And yes they dislike Trump but they never gush over him more then when he bombs shit. And they ignore the the increas killing. They do that for ever president to be fair

Then the neutrality bias they have. Sometime the truth isn't neutrill

And even with social issue their somewhat the bias to the right sometime for what they decide is identity politics. If someone say the Rural white being left out and we need to do something about. That fair. Maybe they did. Maybe we should reach out to them. But that STILL talking about idenity politics...just happen to be white identity. recently they been calling out people bitching about people kneeling idenity politics. But they rarely do it.

Pillow Biter

  • ******
  • 2111
  • +5/-2
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2018, 03:10:48 AM »
There is definitely a confluence of opinions of a certain type between most mainstream media and academia. That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy or that they are always wrong. But the idea that there is a liberal bias in the media and academia, while perhaps not completely and/or technically accurate, is broadly correct.

AP

  • ********
  • 18532
  • +112/-56
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2018, 06:15:26 AM »
There is definitely a confluence of opinions of a certain type between most mainstream media and academia. That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy or that they are always wrong. But the idea that there is a liberal bias in the media and academia, while perhaps not completely and/or technically accurate, is broadly correct.

Imperial

  • Was once the Greatest of All Time
  • ******
  • 2674
  • +10/-2
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2018, 06:51:01 AM »
It varies somewhat based on what media outlet(s) one is referring to.

Frequently it's not so much that media is flat out liberal, as it is corporate. What rock says here ..........

My take on it..on social issue their liberal. Maybe the enviorment to (but science might be on their side). They take the metoo stuff a little to far sometime. And sometimes use the racist words to much

On war, Eccomomics, buisness...they aren't actully to the right on that stuff. And their certain bias their

Since when progressive stuff it always "How will you pay for it". Which a fair question.

But When it comes to where they will get money for the millitary, and Tax cuts...they never really asked

And yes they dislike Trump but they never gush over him more then when he bombs shit. And they ignore the the increas killing.

........... is largely accurate. They still think inside their bubbles. They still push the notion that milquetoast tickets which could include people like Terry McAuliffe and/or Seth Moulton are the answer for 2020 and beyond. They still play down or give sparse time to real issues that in some cases their advertisers aggravate, and profit highly from preserving. Or in other cases aren't salacious enough.

It's also pretty funny that the perpetually offended tend to be the same people that toss around terms like snowflake and identity politics. ( The latter of which does exist, but the right is far from free of using themselves. ) They also ignore, and occasionally even defend, their longterm position and general dominance in talk radio. Which for better or worse functions as an arm of media. There is also a war on basic knowledge that the American hardline right is undertaking. Thinking climate change is not a made up hoax by China does not make you are environmental extremist though. No matter how much the MAGA crowd wants to pretend otherwise.
Avatar : Scarlett Bordeaux
Sig : Sydney Maler


ProjectCornDog

  • *******
  • 4485
  • +9/-14
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2018, 10:20:30 AM »
They're definitely not liberal.

They rarely talk about criminal injustice in the system, they RARELY ever talk about the war (does the average news viewer know we are in 8 wars?), income inequality, debt, and many other genuine topics that genuine liberals care about.

But is the media anti-Trump? The majority of it? No question.

AP

  • ********
  • 18532
  • +112/-56
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2018, 10:31:09 AM »
(does the average news viewer know we are in 8 wars?)

True.  I remember during the Obama years, a surprising number of people thought Obama took troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq.  When I mentioned we never left and we are still in those countries plus five more, they refused to believe it.  I'm sure there are people who still believe we're not at war anymore.

And yeah, the media is more corporate than liberal, really.

superlurker

  • ***
  • 552
  • +23/-0
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2018, 11:54:53 AM »
I've always found the term "liberal media" to be extremely vacuous. It's pushed either by various forms of fairly extreme ideologues who push the Overton window in their direction by branding everything less extreme than themselves as some opposite extreme, or even worse, by figures that push politics of ignorance by branding anything that doesn't fit their false worldview as a form of political opposition. There are genuinely liberal media, but those aren't necessarily the mainstream ones.

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10148
  • +1136/-119
  • "What if I know all your secrets, Your Eminence?"
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2018, 12:42:39 PM »
I think it’s more accurate to say that mainstream media outlets have biases for particular political parties, rather than ideologies. I.e. when Bush 45 was President, he was regularly trashed by CNN and the New York Times. Now that it is beneficial for the Democratic Party to praise Bush as a kindler, gentler Republican in order to highlight the evils Trump, this is how they report on him. Similarly, Fox News was very harsh on Trump when he was a dark horse candidate taking on the GOP establishment. Now that he’s in power, they’ve completely changed their tune, to the point of downplaying any criticism of him.

Terms like liberal and conservative are by themselves too vague.


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2018, 12:37:45 PM »
I think the media bias is entertainment. That why Trump got so much free media. That why Sex stuff tend to get more media attention.  I mean people think it the stormy shit was bias...but forget that Monica blowjobgate...wasnt just the top story...but the ONLY story..at the time.

But the stormy thing...still Bullshit...because actully bigger things going on. Even if your goal was to simply shit on Trump. Because his constany breaking of the emulluments clause..bombing Yemen...is way worst..but doesnt get as nearly the media attention

Also people tend to include hollywood when they talk about the media. Which yea that wildly liberal

Uhtceare

  • *****
  • 1643
  • +19/-8
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2018, 01:03:54 PM »
They are establishment-left, which is still pretty fucking rightwing, especially when it comes to what corporations want. They are basically biased in favor what used to be called limousine-liberals: people who were liberal on social issues like gay rights and abortion, but who very much liked being rich and powerful and weren't liberal on anything that would make them even slightly less rich and powerful.

Both the Republicans and Democrats have always been composed of awkward alliances.
Rebublicans used to be an alliance of all the rich, both what would today be called neocons and neoliberals. It was an awkward alliance because the limousine-liberals/establishment-left/neoliberals/whatever-is-today's-term-for-gays-and-blacks-and-women-should-have-rights-but-I-still-like-money-guys didn't really see eye to eye with hard right rich, but it held together for a very long time, basically from Lincoln's days until the Civil Rights era.

Democrats used to be an awkward alliance of all the poor and disenfranchised. This was a very awkward alliance because many of the poor and disenfranchised hated each other. Poor southern whites and black people in particular being members of the same party was incredibly awkward, and only really held together by being an alliance of states rather than within states. That is to say, a New York black man and a Texas white man might both vote democrat, but they were otherwise bitter enemies were they to ever meet in person.

Both alliances collapsed during the civil rights era, especially once Nixon developed the southern-strategy. All the limousine-liberals fled the Republican party, and nearly all poor southern whites fled the Democratic party. 

The new alliances were rich hard-righters and tribalist poor whites in the Republican party, and poor minorities and limousine-liberals in the Democratic party.

This was too the moral detriment of both parties. The limousine-liberals, previously a moderating force in the Republican party, became a corrupting force in the Democratic party, making it a very pro-corporation party that occasionally picked away at social issues like abortion and gay rights. And the Republican party became borderline Nazis.

The result is that neither party currently cares about the poor, as the Republicans and Democrats, though technically both containing poor people, are dominated by the Neocons and Neoliberals at the top.

To get back on topic, the press is mostly Neoliberal/establishment-left/limousine-liberal/call-them-what-you-will-but-they-aint-economically-progressive.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2018, 11:01:53 PM »
It depends on what you mean by "liberal." On matters of economics or laws in general, most print and cable news is close to centrist but utterly lacking in information. You have to look hard for an intelligent center-left view (Paul Krugman) or even a smart centrist view (Fareed Zakaria). As Krugman has endlessly pointed out, much of the "liberal" media mindlessly repeats a stupid view of government debt that equates it with private household debt. Thus, you get morons who believe Paul Ryan is "serious" but Bernie Sanders is crazy. In reality, they are about equidistant from mainstream economics. If you had one Bernie to cancel out every Paul Ryan, you'd be somewhere close to the academic center.

On the other hand, most of the media wholeheartedly disseminates lies, distortions, and dishonesty in the service of illiberal identity politics. The Kavanaugh hearings and the reporting of Elizabeth Warren's ancestry study are clear examples. So is the James Damore Google Memo. After Christine Blasey Ford's ex-boyfriend said she was lying about numerous items, including never having coached anyone on polygraph tests, every non-right wing media outlet ignored the news for a full day. CNN waited until Monica McLean gave a (non-sworn) statement to the media, denying the allegation, before it would even report the allegation at all. Seriously. The "news" organizations refused to report news until they had a way to try to discredit the implications of what they'd be reporting. That sort of delay implies extreme ideological bias. So does the fact that mainstream outlets like the Washington Post pretend that Warren's possible .09% - 3% Cherokee ancestry vindicates her claiming that she is a Native American rather than a standard, boring, plain vanilla white American. Only right wing media pointed out the gigantic elephant in the room -- the median "white" person in the US has as much or more Native American ancestry than the low end estimate of Warren's Native ancestry.

The worst part is that sometimes, these reasonable and non-reasonable ideas can exist in the same brain. Paul Krugman's economic arguments involve facts and logical arguments. You can fault him for sometimes misstating or distorting evidence, but he at least recognizes the need for evidence and open debate. But then you look at his absurd claims about the "white male rage caucus" and he cites no evidence beyond personal anecdotes:

https://quillette.com/2018/10/08/privilege-and-double-standards-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings/

It's sort of the same thing with Vox. They at least tend to engage honestly with right wing economic arguments (despite occasional gaffes, like Yglesias's dishonest misquoting of Paul Ryan), yet they utterly fail to engage any criticism of identity politics in a serious manner.

This is not an accident. Most academic identity politics theories incorporate postmodernism (along with critical theory and intersectionality), which claims that "lived experience" is all the evidence you need for any claim of demographic bias. No statistical evidence is needed. According to postmodern theory, you don't need statistical evidence because all factual claims are relative and everyone is so biased that you can't even decide that some claims are more likely than others. This idea is just as stupid as the Trumpian concept of "alternative facts." A real extreme but logical leftist, Noam Chomsky, has explained why this cult on the left is roughly as incoherent as the Trumpian fringe of the right:

http://www.openculture.com/2018/02/noam-chomsky-explains-whats-wrong-with-postmodern-philosophy-french-intellectuals.html

Chomsky is on to something. The identity politics of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other mainstream outlets can hardly be described as "liberal." It is deeply illiberal and authoritarian, almost the mirror image of Trump's authoritarianism. Examples of illiberal authoritarianism:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/12/thanks-not-raping-us-all-you-good-men-its-not-enough/?utm_term=.cddbd8f57d56

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/opinion/trump-reflects-white-male-fragility.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/opinion/trump-white-male-victimization.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/opinion/kavanaugh-white-male-privilege.html

In reality, all of this is a distraction from real laws and policies that would help most Americans of all backgrounds -- especially the under-privileged minority -- but mildly inconvenience those who are privileged in a genuine economic sense. Many of these identity politics academics are so gullible and lacking in intellectual rigor that they published a chapter of Mein Kampf that was re-written using feminist buzzwords:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/gabriel-rossman/sokal-square-hoax-taking-down-the-grievance-industry-with-parody-and-satire

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

These illiberal "academics" exemplify George Orwell's comment: "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."

Another good example is the reporting on the James Damore memo. Virtually every media outlet dishonestly claimed that he said female engineers were not as good as male engineers. That bald-faced lie was repeated  throughout the mainstream, the one exception being The Economist (which was heavily biased against his argument, but at least engaged with what he actually said). This has led to morons like Howard Dean repeating the same caricatured portrayals, which were promptly demolished in debate by Steven Pinker and Heather MacDonald:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZZSYPs1_ng

Bottom line, you can be pro-choice, pro-gun control, in favor of economic policies that favor the poor, and on the liberal side in every social policy, economic policy, or foreign policy argument ... And still be insufficiently "left" for the “woke" crowd, which doesn't seem to care all that much about the poor or lower middle class.  Since around 2014, the "left" has shifted to embrace previously fringe social movements that devalue logic and claim the scientific method itself is a racist, colonialist, heteropatriarchical social construct. This is insanity. Hopefully, it will pass.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 11:46:56 AM by Rufio »

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2018, 12:17:06 AM »
The Term indenity politics makes me wonder why Are something called indenity politics and some things arent

Like it was big talk about Dems need to reach out to Rural whites.  Now they may very well need to and should do that. Some may of felt left out. But that isn't that indenity politics. Isn't the whole southern stragedy that was a huge part of politics, idenity politics, or the war on christmas, or the whole kneeling thing, or thinking the country becoming to different..all idenity politics

But it seem rarely called that

It more complicated with the rise of ever SJW having a blog thus sounding louder. fighting petty issues. And at the same time a President..who a birther and making a dog Whistle blow Horn

An media who dislike him and him really disliking the media. And that all feeding to each other. Then you have a metoo..that became like a witch hunt. But that might of came out from people ignoring a lot of bad shit, in Hollywood, the goverment, the church and many other places. And shit just blowing up. So then thing feed into one another. And it kind of like a war. Change coming and it messy.

And then there when to fight Indenity poltics. Like maybe dont make as huge a deal about collumbus day (even though the guy a monster) maybe and know people may not like that phrase not die on that hill. but the thing that happening in georgia with voting...they kind of HAVE to fight that. or tossing mexicans in cages.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2018, 09:21:36 AM »
The Term indenity politics makes me wonder why Are something called indenity politics and some things arent

Like it was big talk about Dems need to reach out to Rural whites.  Now they may very well need to and should do that. Some may of felt left out. But that isn't that indenity politics. Isn't the whole southern stragedy that was a huge part of politics, idenity politics, or the war on christmas, or the whole kneeling thing, or thinking the country becoming to different..all idenity politics

But it seem rarely called that

It more complicated with the rise of ever SJW having a blog thus sounding louder. fighting petty issues. And at the same time a President..who a birther and making a dog Whistle blow Horn

An media who dislike him and him really disliking the media. And that all feeding to each other. Then you have a metoo..that became like a witch hunt. But that might of came out from people ignoring a lot of bad shit, in Hollywood, the goverment, the church and many other places. And shit just blowing up. So then thing feed into one another. And it kind of like a war. Change coming and it messy.

And then there when to fight Indenity poltics. Like maybe dont make as huge a deal about collumbus day (even though the guy a monster) maybe and know people may not like that phrase not die on that hill. but the thing that happening in georgia with voting...they kind of HAVE to fight that. or tossing mexicans in cages.

I think maybe the distinction between “common humanity” identity politics and “common enemy” identity politics is useful here. Much of the media is promoting the latter. So is Donald Trump, just from a different angle.

Trump went after foreign nations and immigrants from poor countries as the source of problems for people in the Rustbelt. He blatantly appeals to xenophobia. The right response to that is basically what Obama did: remain calm, make logical arguments, and be inclusive instead of divisive.

Mark Lilla identified that the problem with the current Democratic platform is it lacks unifying principles. He went to the DNC website and saw individual sections for each identity group, but no core principles that unite everyone regardless of their background. Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren do promote some unifying principles, but much of the party does not.

The problem is that much of the mainstream left-leaning media is focused on common enemy identity politics. I’m not talking about Mother Jones or the Nation or HuffPost. I mean the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN. Even NPR does this a little bit, though it’s much better than most outlets. Recently, one of CNN’s guests asked why they kept talking about “old white men” in the Republican Party. That’s a great way to alienate three separate demographic categories.

Now, a good example of common humanity identity politics is the campaign to end qualified immunity for cops, which is promoted by left-leaning media like the NYT and Above the Law and right-wing media like National Review:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/nyregion/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

https://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/end-qualified-immunity-supreme-court/amp/

A good political platform would explain why qualified immunity invites abuses of power that can hurt anyone. You can then show why certain demographics may be more affected than others, appealing to a common humanity. The wrong way to go about it is to propose no policy solution, but broadly argue that cops are racists.

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: is the liberal media really that liberal
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2018, 11:42:52 AM »
Well dems always been like hurding cats

Best way to do idenity issue I think. Is to say something that start as seeming to just effect one groups tends to effect others later. Since the ostricize group sometimes just the canary in the coal mind

Like the patriot act seem was sold as just something that would target the others, but obviously was spread to everyone. Or the Drug promblem started in the inner city but of course spread to everyone. Or voting rights going to effect everyone.

Now dems got to be carefull. Because politicaly the republican can afford to play indenity politics due to the democgraphics and where the electoral votes are located. since progressive tend to pack themselves in the city. So losing the certain miniorities wont kill the Right. That why you see conversation from Dems how to win over the fox news ground. I mean Roy moore was pretty Racist. But he really only lost because he also got into the sex shit. You know that he might of been perving on teens. And he barely lost.  If he s

But not the right going "Hey we really need to reach other to those college kids where Che shirts..or the liberals"

Also then you got what is the media Job. Since if a president or canidate..says or does something super racist..do you not report on it. No..but you should also only not call something racist that a just a Gaffe..becuase it lessen real stuff