Jump to content
progressivecitizen

Next test question for you guys

Recommended Posts

Talking with someone who is pretty ignorant. They are unknowingly giving me examples of what I would think would be typical right wing statements. Here's the next one: the news media is mainly liberal, so how can you trust its coverage of American politics? Responses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, progressivecitizen said:

Talking with someone who is pretty ignorant.........

 

I try to avoid this situation. The person obviously is attempting to set up a straw man.

 

The premise is wrong. The news entertainment media is mainly  editorialized opinion.

It is opinions about other people's opinion, rarely given by someone with knowledge, and command of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, progressivecitizen said:

the news media is mainly liberal, so how can you trust its coverage of American politics? Responses?

 

1. The smartest people in the country, that is, scientists, are mostly liberal.

2. The next smartest people in the country, economists, are not all liberal, but are much more liberal than typical conservatives.

3. The next smartest people, historians and journalists, are not all liberal, but are much more liberal than typical conservatives.

4. Intelligent conservatives of long standing, for example George Will, have left the Republican party because of the current extremism. The former Republican president GHW Bush, didn't vote for the current president because of the current extremism.

5. Trump and his ilk are not conservative. They're populist mafia, opportunists who have contempt for all the above: smart people and real conservatives.

6. So who's left that supports Trump? Stupid and angry people who barely got out of high school (if they even graduated), and a few more easily fooled angry mopes.

 

Ask your interlocutor: Are you one of those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that the main news sources that you get on cable news are for the most part tilted slightly to the left of center, and yet at the same time rational policy gets talked down even by them with words like socialist, with no explanation of the policy behind say someone like Bernie Sanders or AOC. Typically in the mainstream media you don't get mention of the causes inequality, and demonstrations about how the economy is rigged for those at the top. 

But then, you also have Fox News, and also across the country some really far right talk radio which is a huge industry in itself. This is not to say that there are not plenty of truly fantastic news sources out there which could be thought as being in a completely different category.

Example: Truth-Out.org is mostly opinion but it also has some very intelligent contributors who value the truth. To really understand the world in a truthful way you should go to many different sources. You can venture out from Beat the press.org to a wide foray of economic sites that are dedicated to all kinds of facts and figures regarding everything from war, to healthcare, to climate change and more. 

Going back to Craig234's post about the difference between the right and the left, one needs sound information that cites where studies come from, as well as brings non-opinionated news from journalists on the ground in far away places, from sources one can trust that truly are non-political. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 8:47 PM, progressivecitizen said:

Talking with someone who is pretty ignorant. They are unknowingly giving me examples of what I would think would be typical right wing statements. Here's the next one: the news media is mainly liberal, so how can you trust its coverage of American politics? Responses?

 

If this "pretty ignorant", "someone" could plant a doubt in your mind sufficient that you need to resort to an internet forum for opinions, you are probably leaning toward that point of view already.  If this is not accurate, you can easily answer your own question without help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know why you would say that. I know the person's views are foolish, but like to articulate my responses through ideas for intelligent explanations from others. And they had a good point about the media, since it is mostly liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, laripu said:

 

1. The smartest people in the country, that is, scientists, are mostly liberal.

2. The next smartest people in the country, economists, are not all liberal, but are much more liberal than typical conservatives.

3. The next smartest people, historians and journalists, are not all liberal, but are much more liberal than typical conservatives.

4. Intelligent conservatives of long standing, for example George Will, have left the Republican party because of the current extremism. The former Republican president GHW Bush, didn't vote for the current president because of the current extremism.

5. Trump and his ilk are not conservative. They're populist mafia, opportunists who have contempt for all the above: smart people and real conservatives.

6. So who's left that supports Trump? Stupid and angry people who barely got out of high school (if they even graduated), and a few more easily fooled angry mopes.

 

Ask your interlocutor: Are you one of those?

Are you getting this data from somewhere or just assuming these points (1-3)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, progressivecitizen said:

Are you getting this data from somewhere or just assuming these points (1-3)?

from my experience purely anecdotal, Laripu has it exactly right.

but then, thinking about what I've studied since going to college, the news, reading, watching and witnessing the world at large, 

I agree with Laripu even more. 

It's true. And you can even go back in time and study it all you like.

What do you want statistics from the BLS, or the CBO, or the IMF?

How about rational common sense? Would that suffice?

 

I'm not talking about Neoliberalism, nor is Laripu. 

Well, I can't speak for Laripu..

 

damn that cat Stevie Ray Vaughn could really play...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, progressivecitizen said:

Are you getting this data from somewhere or just assuming these points (1-3)?

 

You asked what to say to conservatives. I gave your an answer, an answer that I'd give in a similar conversation. I didn't look up sources, and wouldn't do so in a conversation.

 

I'm guessing that if you really wanted sources, you could look them up yourself. But since you didn't, I'm guessing that you want me to do it, and then you'll find fault with them.

 

Here. Have fun.

 

https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/most-scientists-in-this-country-are-democrats-that-s-a-problem.html

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/02/18/why-are-scientists-so-often-liberal-in-political-outlook/#.XGB-PflOk0M

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_beliefs_of_academics

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/#50d357ad3fba

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/economists-arent-as-nonpartisan-as-we-think/

 

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/43528.html

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

 

https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/

 

https://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2013/12/30/why-are-so-many-college-professors-politically-liberal

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/tom-nichols-why-im-leaving-republican-party/572419/

 

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/10/11/corrosion-of-conservatism-republican-gop-max-boot

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/395767-george-will-joe-scarborough-lead-midterm-exodus-from-gop

 

Enough for you?

Let the cherry-picking begin!! 😛😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

from my experience purely anecdotal, Laripu has it exactly right.

 

 

Thanks, Barney. Experience is what I was going on when I wrote it too. Since then, I've looked at a few web pages. See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bludog said:

you can easily answer your own question without help

 

Give the man a cigar. No wait, cigars are bad for you. Give the man a chocolate cigar.

 

Godiva-Milk-Chocolate-Cigars-Pack-of-4-r

 

 

Godiva chocolate: tastes better than a Medieval naked woman on a horse.

 

Lady_Godiva_(John_Collier,_c._1897).jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

from my experience purely anecdotal, Laripu has it exactly right.

but then, thinking about what I've studied since going to college, the news, reading, watching and witnessing the world at large, 

I agree with Laripu even more. 

It's true. And you can even go back in time and study it all you like.

What do you want statistics from the BLS, or the CBO, or the IMF?

How about rational common sense? Would that suffice?

 

I'm not talking about Neoliberalism, nor is Laripu. 

Well, I can't speak for Laripu..

 

damn that cat Stevie Ray Vaughn could really play...

 

 

No need to get defensive. I am sure we share many political views. But how many scientists have you known in your life and how many of those can you say you knew well enough to understand their political views? Making sweeping statements about scientists, economists and journalists will get you into trouble in a debate with a conservative (if they are smart and well-informed). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

from my experience purely anecdotal, Laripu has it exactly right.

but then, thinking about what I've studied since going to college, the news, reading, watching and witnessing the world at large, 

I agree with Laripu even more. 

It's true. And you can even go back in time and study it all you like.

What do you want statistics from the BLS, or the CBO, or the IMF?

How about rational common sense? Would that suffice?

 

I'm not talking about Neoliberalism, nor is Laripu. 

Well, I can't speak for Laripu..

 

damn that cat Stevie Ray Vaughn could really play...

 

 

Common sense means two different things (at least) to conservatives and liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, laripu said:

 

You asked what to say to conservatives. I gave your an answer, an answer that I'd give in a similar conversation. I didn't look up sources, and wouldn't do so in a conversation.

 

I'm guessing that if you really wanted sources, you could look them up yourself. But since you didn't, I'm guessing that you want me to do it, and then you'll find fault with them.

 

Here. Have fun.

 

https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/most-scientists-in-this-country-are-democrats-that-s-a-problem.html

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/02/18/why-are-scientists-so-often-liberal-in-political-outlook/#.XGB-PflOk0M

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_beliefs_of_academics

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/#50d357ad3fba

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/economists-arent-as-nonpartisan-as-we-think/

 

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/43528.html

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

 

https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/

 

https://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2013/12/30/why-are-so-many-college-professors-politically-liberal

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/tom-nichols-why-im-leaving-republican-party/572419/

 

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/10/11/corrosion-of-conservatism-republican-gop-max-boot

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/395767-george-will-joe-scarborough-lead-midterm-exodus-from-gop

 

Enough for you?

Let the cherry-picking begin!! 😛😄

I will check these, thanks- though I didn't ask for them. I asked for a simple response. Mine might be showing this chart to the conservative. Pretty widely seen I'm sure.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/#iLightbox[gallery138]/0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, progressivecitizen said:

No need to get defensive. I am sure we share many political views. But how many scientists have you known in your life and how many of those can you say you knew well enough to understand their political views? Making sweeping statements about scientists, economists and journalists will get you into trouble in a debate with a conservative (if they are smart and well-informed). 

Many conservatives are not well informed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, progressivecitizen said:

I will check these, thanks- though I didn't ask for them. I asked for a simple response. Mine might be showing this chart to the conservative. Pretty widely seen I'm sure.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/#iLightbox[gallery138]/0

 

 

I like the chart. Most tea party supporters of Trump will say that anything to the left of the extreme right of the chart is biased left.

 

They'll tell you for example, that the National Review are traitors that support the deep-state. You can't argue with someone who is simultaneously ill-intentioned and dim.

 

They only time they'll stop supporting Trump will be when his policies directly hurt them, like with taxes. And if they can find a scapegoat, they'll still support him.

 

Potential scapegoats:

1. Mexicans taking jobs

2. Illegal immigrants using tax dollars for welfare, prisons etc

3. Journalism (Trump says they're the lying press, the enemy of the people)

4. Scientists (Trump calls them liars about climate change, about which he knows more than the scientists, he says)

5. Military (Trump says he knows more than the generals)

6. Deep state (slow-walking dangerous Trump whims)

7. Black people, a perennial favorite.

8. Kushner (and by extension an imagined Jewish globalist conspiracy headed by Soros)

9. Adam Schiff (and of course the same imagined Jewish globalist conspiracy)

 

I'm pretty sure he'll soon be throwing Kushner under the bus. I think Ivanka will stick with Daddy, and abandon hubby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 10:47 PM, progressivecitizen said:

Talking with someone who is pretty ignorant. They are unknowingly giving me examples of what I would think would be typical right wing statements. Here's the next one: the news media is mainly liberal, so how can you trust its coverage of American politics? Responses?

 

Discussions with them are futile because they are either ignorant or they will feign ignorance. They are so inflexible, paranoid and resistant to anything that proves their world view is distorted. There really is no reasoning with them. They are unwilling to accept the fact that their hero Trump is a pig, a traitor and a liar.  It goes far beyond ignorance with them.  It's evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, laripu said:

 

I like the chart. Most tea party supporters of Trump will say that anything to the left of the extreme right of the chart is biased left.

 

I question the accuracy of this chart beyond subjective generalizations. .....

 

The methodology is extremely subjective.

In fact, it appears to be simply one person's(Ms. Otero's) subjective opinion of articles she "read(s) most often and those I am exposed to most often".

She is not a journalist, or a statistician, but appears to be a lawyer who blogs as a hobby.

Note: The Enquirer ranks about as biased to the right as CNN is to the left.LOL

 

While I appreciate her good intentions, I find it amusing that she is attempting to judge the 'journalistic quality' of real journalists, but defends her own work by saying "a lot of people don’t care about accuracy and quality".  See 'Methodology' for a good statistical laugh.

 

Perhaps she should rank her own work and place it on the chart. It should rise no higher than 6, or 7 on her vertical scale of overall journalistic quality.

But that is just my subjective opinion.

 

As I said above.:

On 2/9/2019 at 8:49 AM, ExPDXer said:

 

It is opinions about other people's opinion, rarely given by someone with knowledge, and command of the facts. 

Ms Otero takes this to a whole 'nother level,

by giving her opinion about (more qualified) people giving their opinions, on subjects they have no background, or expertise.

 

She admits it ironically:

" I’m not a journalist by training, and I don’t claim to be one. So why should you listen to me about the quality of news sources? You shouldn’t. "

 

 

Anyway, this is all different than information, and knowledge.

You could consume vast quantities of C-SPAN, Reuters, and AP........

 

But it still will not make up for sleeping through that Economics (or History, or Statistics, or Philosophy) lecture in college.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 12:07 AM, progressivecitizen said:

they had a good point about the media, since it is mostly liberal.

 

The root cause of the rise of malignant conservatism in the US, for the last 35 years, is an overwhelmingly conservative media.

 

The vast majority of talk on US radio is by conservative talking heads.  They parrot conservative think tanks, (which greatly outnumber liberal ones), they spread conspiracy theories and they spew racial hate and hate of "liberals".  Even NPR, widely portrayed as liberal by the conservative media, makes an effort to represent both left and right equally.  Contrary to propaganda, NPR does not advocate a political point of view.

 

https://variety.com/2014/voices/columns/how-conservatives-dominate-tvradio-talk-game-1201022387/

Quote

How Conservatives Dominate TV/Radio Talk Game

The end of progressive talk in Los Angeles underscores the advantage conservatives hold

-snip-

 

TV and to a lesser extent, print media are owned by majority conservative billionaires:

Michael Bloomberg - Bloomberg  LP and Bloomberg Media

Rupert Murdoch - News Corp

Donald and Samuel "Si" Newhouse -  Advance Publications

Cox Family - Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Jeff Bezos - The Washington Post

Sheldon Adelson - The Las Vegas Review-Journal

Joe Mansueto - Inc. and Fast Company magazines

Mortimer Zuckerman - US News & World Report, New York Daily News

Barbey family - Village Voice

Stanley Hubbard – Hubbard Broadcasting

Patrick Soon-Shiong - Tribune Publishing Co.

Carlos Slim Helu - The New York Times

Warren Buffett - regional daily papers

Viktor Vekselberg - Gawker

John Henry - The Boston Globe

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/#1874e5a7660a

 

Because of the public's constant exposure to extreme right wing points of view over the last 35 years:  What used to be conservative slanted commentary, is now perceived as moderate.  What was considered moderate is now regarded as liberal.  And what once would have been widely labeled liberal is now considered radical.  There has been a shifting of the entire political spectrum to the right. 

 

Take the case of MSNBC, owned by COMCAST and considered the farthest left in their presentation of mainstream TV news and commentary.  Yet any in-depth coverage of labor issues or the wealth gap is banned ...  As is anything left of the traditional rivalry between the two parties.  Despite very respectable ratings, Ed Schultz was fired from MSNBC for too much concentration of labor issues and unions. 

 

The list of commentators who were fired for being too far left include Sam Seder, Keith Olbermann and Cenk Uygur.  MSNBC, under its conservative management is only moderately left.  Any discussion of, IMO, the most important non-environmental issue of our times, income inequality, has unpleasant results for the commentator that dares persist.  Presumably because of her top ratings, Rachael Maddow has been able to get away with it from time-to-time. But she did not persist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

TV and to a lesser extent, print media are owned by majority conservative billionaires:

 

 

And thus my point in another thread. Long term change in the US can probably not be accomplished through convincing the electorate. You might convince them for an election or two, then the other side wins and the gains revert.

 

If you want long term change, you have to convince the people that really run things: the billionaires. You have to convince them that allowing the general population to have better lives is in their own, the billionaires', interest.  I'm talking about universal healthcare, a living wage, safe and clean workplaces, universal merit-based education, environmental protection, clean energy. They will then advocate for those goals from their media.

 

The billionaires will still be billionaires, just somewhat less 'billiony'. Everyone will live a better and more secure life. It's worked elsewhere, and the number of people to convince is much smaller.

 

According to this website, in 2015, 5000 households had a net worth of over $100 million. There were, in 2016, 540 billionaires in the United States says Forbes. It's a lot easier to convince 5000 pretty smart people than it is to convince 250 million registered voters, at least half of whom are genetically predetermined fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, laripu said:

If you want long term change, you have to convince the people that really run things: the billionaires.

 

This would be the most effective approach, by far.  The problem is how to achieve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The news media isn't liberal in the slightest.  It's Corporate.  Which leans conservative.  While they appear to support Democrats in some cases, that's an instance of them trying to get the best ratings.  There's no major news media outlet that's as liberal as Fox News is conservative.  If there were a Liberal version of FOX News, you'd have endless stories of how poor people are forced into prison because they can't afford bail while Roger Stone is released on his own recognizance.  You'd have stories about ALEC, and constant stories about gun violence and how bad it really is.  You'd never hear someone on the network say something along the lines of "This is the day Trump became President".  You'd also have stories about how bad wealth inequality has gotten daily.  Most media outlets are fairly moderate -- not liberal.  They fiscally lean conservative, but socially lean liberal.  When people say the media is LIBERAL what they are doing is attempting to move the scale to the right even more.  They're taking the proverbial line in the sand and moving 'left-wing' from "Everybody left of George W. Bush" and moving it to "George W. Bush and Leftward".  When really Hillary Clinton should be a moderate, but with Conservatives drawing the scales she's far left wing (Making Bernie and AOC really far left wing).  This plays to their advantage and allows further right-wing people to claim moderate (which gives them a lot more influence with other moderates) while not allowing moderate dems to claim moderate at all.  By dismissing the Moderate Corporate News as liberal, we're letting them draw that line in the sand.  Moderate = Liberal.  This has, in some ways, backfired as moderate leftists have become more loyal to the Democratic Party (though should we go too far left, they may jump ship).  But moderates have moved themselves into the conservative category (despite being on the other side of the line as far as conservatives are concerned) because many moderates prefer 'balance' (Both sides are bad!) to actual issues.  That's why conservatives are constantly moving that line back.  And the idea that the media is liberal is a big part of how they're doing it.  They're defining anything not PURE CONSERVATIVE as Liberal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very insightful post.    ^    ^    ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...