Relotius Case: Fraudulent Reporting in Spiegel

121 posts in this topic

On 24.12.2018, 16:58:39, royalplumper said:

 

Re: Germany, conversations about corrupt mass media journalism with former FAZ.net reporter, Udo Ulfkotte:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGqi-k213eE (English)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm_hWenGJKg&t= (German)

 

Udo Ulfkotte's book -- Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalists) at Amazon.de (German only, translation likely faced a "democracy-style book-burning" (i.e. suppression) in the Anglosphere):

 

To quote Ulfkotte in connection with Relotius is quite funny. 

 

For this book, Ulfkotte has exclusively glued together the research results of others and enriched them with his own exaggerations, verifiable lies and twists so that they fit into his conspiracy-theoretical worldview.

 

For those who know German, Stefan Niggemeier's article from 2014 is quite illuminating. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, alderhill said:

 

If you know how newspapers (or publishing media in general) work, you know that the layout elves are the last line before actually publishing/releasing to the public. When everything is in-house and more or less local, it's not a big deal to call up a reporter/desk and inform them for a quick rewrite. Of course, everything should be printable by then anyway... nonetheless, when the various stages of production are separated by continents, well, the problem is obvious, non? Naturally, if the material is garbage to begin with it doesn't make much of a difference, and I am sure you know that wasn't my point.

 

Webmasters/IT are usually at least in the same country as the intended market and can make fairly quick changes per request, but it's not necessarily their purview.

 

It's cheaper to pay a room full of Indians who have no connections or strong incentive to care about minutiae... and quality has thus sunk IME. They can't catch things that are obvious to locals, and the expected turnaround at the prices they are paid can't be expected to be as high quality as before. Simply how it is.

haha...Indians, Asians, Canadians, Ausssies... and other people ...were also responsible for other reprehensible stuff from 1930s which happened in Germany?

 

Someone in Spiegel should own it up... 

 

And I doubt if Indians sitting in India would have the required German skills to even read this German newspaper stuff properly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kapil354 said:

And I doubt if Indians sitting in India would have the required German skills to even read this German newspaper stuff properly.

 

What the heck are you even talking about? It's never a good idea to drink and surf, you know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, alderhill said:

 

What the heck are you even talking about? It's never a good idea to drink and surf, you know.

I was just trying to drink German cool-aid. But anyways. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018, 4:05:31, alderhill said:

 

@WiccaChica

 

The Washington Times are openly biased neo-cons. They have Birther conspiracy and climate change denial under their belts, so I'd take whatever they publish with a pinch of salt. WaPo is a more balanced, but I still wouldn't put in on the Top 10 Quality Media in America List (not that I have such a list at hand). Media discourse in general in the US is highly politicized and seems to be based on antagonism and points-scoring. Well, the genie is out of that bottle and has been for a few decades now... 

I take any media outlet with a grain salt including the Washington Times and Washington Post. However the story which was reported by the Washington Times was also covered by other media so they didn't just make it up.

 

You are, however, deluding yourself if you believe the Washington Post is "balanced". They are a left leaning newspaper just as the WT is more right wing. Furthermore they are owned by Jeff Bezos, who isn't exactly somebody without strong political leanings and is also known to underpay and mistreatment his workers. Here are some more examples:

 

1. https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Washington-Post-slammed-for-op-ed-by-antisemitic-Houthi-leader-571537

They give platforms to these types of people. If you claim it's about free speech I'll ask you when was the last time that they gave a platform to a controversial speaker like Tommy Robinson? The answer is that they choose whom they will give a column to.

 

2.  https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

WaPo seems to have relied heavily on PropOrNot to determine whether certain media had links to Russian propaganda. I'm assuming you're well versed in this so I don't need to explain why this organization needs to be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

 

 

On 12/24/2018, 4:05:31, alderhill said:


Keep in mind that there is no mandatory training or professional/association standards journalists must follow. A journalism degree helps open doors and instills certain standards, but it's no guarantee of a job. Quality is in-house and only as good as the editors care to be. These days, traditional media have to compete with literally anyone who has access to the internet. Pewdiepie (fer crissakes!), a manboy who shot to fame narrating people plying videogames, has more subscribers and more internet gravitas than any traditional media. 

PewDiePie's Youtube subscriber count is going up partly due to the fact that the MSM has been falsely labeling him a Nazi. This is what they do to anybody who has an opinion deemed unacceptable to polite society. Anybody who is critical of fourth wave feminism, uncontrolled mass migration or the left's version of racial identity politics is attacked by them so I have no sympathy if somebody like PewDiePie, whose video game videos I find retarded, has more fans than they do.

 

I'm actually a 24 year old bisexual woman but my political orientation is more conservative or right wing partly because the left has gone so far that you have to pretend to be a complete idiot to remain within the realm of political correctness. And no it wasn't Putin who brainwashed me. It was the left that did a great job of alienating me.

 

On 12/24/2018, 4:05:31, alderhill said:

 

Yea, sucks, but journalists are not judges, they are allowed to have political leanings. TV presidential debates are part of the problem, and a total dog and pony show. It's like complaining that the blackjack dealer at a mafia-owned casino was bought and paid for.

If you are going to be a moderator for two candidates running for office and you have a vested interest in one of them then there is a potential conflict of interest. If you don't disclose this information then you have acted unethically and deceptively.

 

On 12/24/2018, 4:05:31, alderhill said:

 

As for the libel case, that's another issue. I'd say the pink slime manufacturers had better lawyers. :) After all, their "lean finely textured beef" is FDA approved for human consumption as a meat filler, so it is easy enough for them to claim it's safe and that news reports about them cannot say otherwise. It's "real beef" insofar as it comes from a cow and it won't kill you to eat it in one sitting (after a lifetime, well...). Even if it is chemically treated fleshy scraps hosed off a carcass.

That case was settled so it appears that ABC was in the wrong, at least somewhat.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

You are, however, deluding yourself if you believe the Washington Post is "balanced".

 

Note I said "more balanced", not "balanced".

 

I am not American. I do read American newsmedia occasionally, but I honestly think most of it is poor quality. Life is too short to jump down the rabbit hole of American partisan fringe. Anyone is delusional to think Team Red has more scruples than Team Blue (or vice versa). There's plenty of shallow back-slapping outrage-bait and fart-sniffingly smug lefty media, and there's plenty of shouty histrionic righty media who lie through their teeth with a selective memory and total inability to be self-critical. Is it that shocking that media of a particular bent does not give bylines to those they view as extremists? Would you really trust more liberal media to give someone (such as a disreputable liar) like Tommy Robinson a fair shake? According to your own posts, just look what happens when a Houthi rebel is given bylines in liberal press. Bananas. Or do you believe they really agree with a regional/minority conspiracy-theorist Shia militia group? Come on.

 

Again, from my POV, reasonable moderate American media sources are few and far between. As I said, it's mostly based on partisan point-scoring. 

 

Quote

PewDiePie's Youtube subscriber count is going up partly due to the fact that the MSM has been falsely labeling him a Nazi. This is what they do to anybody who has an opinion deemed unacceptable to polite society.

 

From my POV, subscribing to the victim/persecution narrative is swallowing the bait. Conservatives practically invented identity politics. 

 

Most newsmedia are dependent on advertising, and advertisers are skittish, sticking to the safest lowest-common denominator bets they can. If a couple dozen random Twidiots make enough noise, this seems to them evidence of a broad opinion, and they respond accordingly.  

 

As Clay Routledge put it: We are living in an era of woke capitalism in which companies pretend to care about social justice to sell products to people who pretend to hate capitalism
 

Pewdiepie's numbers are going up despite and not because he is labelled a Nazi (mostly by painfully clueless baby boomers). I find him shallow and juvenile, but his core audience (inexperienced tweens that they are) know that he is generally joking and provoking. Anyway, my point was that he is a good example of how media gate-keeping is over. (Although actually, I think "they" just lost grip for a while and are regaining control...)

 

Quote

the left has gone so far that you have to pretend to be a complete idiot to remain within the realm of political correctness. And no it wasn't Putin who brainwashed me. It was the left that did a great job of alienating me.

 

It isn't about right or left. Think a little deeper.

 

Media are business. They tell people what they want to hear in order to sell copies (nowadays: mostly online advertising revenue, of which the lion's share is controlled by Google, Facebook and Amazon). The "truth" has something to do with it somewhere, but how exactly is debatable. At least this is how it is in the West... in some places (most of the world really, but to name and shame: Russia and its sphere, Turkey, China, most of the Middle East) the media are straight up state propaganda. 

 

In the West, media are businesses. Even state broadcasters are somewhat beholden to market forces (ad revenue). This is why youtube de-monetizes videos about hunting (FFS even just chopping down trees!), sexuality, controversial opinions, etc. Or why twitter censors or bans provocateurs and those with unpopular opinions. It's bad for business, or at least they think so. Tumblr is banning adult content despite it being the backbone of their business, because sex is for adults and we live in an infantilizing culture. It also scares off investment from the big boys. Paypal and now Patreon are limiting funding of "controversial" figures because, good gosh, what will Twitter say??

 

Freedom of speech simply means individual citizens are allowed to say what they want -- within reason. We have do limits on that. Businesses (social media companies, newspapers, TV stations, online newsmedia) are beholden to yet more regulations -- and they are also businesses. It's akin to a pub saying "no sports jerseys, running shoes or ball caps in this establishment". If it's their business, can they do what they want?

 

You maybe start to see why there is some talk of having government ministers/secretaries for social media. In some ways, it's not such a bad idea, though I think in this globalized era it's easy enough for businesses to wiggle around state laws. Amazon, FB, Google and co use tax shelters, and seem happy enough to comply with authoritarian states.

 

Quote

If you are going to be a moderator for two candidates running for office and you have a vested interest in one of them then there is a potential conflict of interest. If you don't disclose this information then you have acted unethically and deceptively.

I'm not going to defend him or ABC, but do you hold your favourite conservative media to the same standards? 'Cause it's even more of a circle jerk in the Conservabubble. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, alderhill said:

 

Note I said "more balanced", not "balanced".

And I said i take any media outlet with a grain of salt. I've given you evidence and I see no reason why the WT should be taken any less seriously than the WaPo.

 

49 minutes ago, alderhill said:

Is it that shocking that media of a particular bent does not give bylines to those they view as extremists? Would you really trust more liberal media to give someone (such as a disreputable liar) like Tommy Robinson a fair shake? According to your own posts, just look what happens when a Houthi rebel is given bylines in liberal press. Bananas. Or do you believe they really agree with a regional/minority conspiracy-theorist Shia militia group? Come on.
 

My point was that the WaPo is biased as all media outlets are. As evidence I've shown you that the WaPo gave al-Houthi a platform whereas they wouldn't do so to Tommy Robinson. We could argue until the sun runs out of gas about who's the good guy or bad guy but the fact is that they are both controversial. And yet the WaPo gave al-Houthi a platform. I can't comment on whether the editorial staff agrees with his worldview but he is a more acceptable columnist for the left than Tommy Robinson would be. There lies the bias. You could argue that Tommy Robinson would be given a platform by Fox News or the WT but that's not the point. My point was that WaPo is just as biased.

 

55 minutes ago, alderhill said:

Conservatives practically invented identity politics.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but the left uses identity politics to an extreme degree at every opportunity. For example:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-campus-mob-came-for-meand-you-professor-could-be-next-1496187482

https://nypost.com/2017/05/31/college-melts-down-over-plan-for-white-people-free-day-on-campus/

 

Instead of denouncing extreme incidents of identity politics like this one, the left either chooses to ignore it or defend it. How do you reconcile something like this?

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

It isn't about right or left. Think a little deeper.

 

You may want to think a little deeper here. There's a culture war going on and it's a question of globalization vs nationalism. The left tends to be more active in pressuring corporations via activists and angry mobs so companies will often cave into the pressure in the hope that the problem goes away. In other words certain corporations may see it this way but the driving force behind so-called "social justice" groups is political. If you question who funds these groups, you may find yourself in some hot water especially once you obtain the right or politically incorrect answers.

 

To further demonstrate on my point, think about when Patreon banned Carl Benjamin for a statement taken out of context on some other YouTube channel. Patreon has suffered ever since both Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris have decided to step off the platform and not to mention seeing a drop in their revenue. There is no evidence of this but many speculate, due to convenient timing, that PayPal's decision not to do business with SubscribeStar, Patreon's competitor, is due to these controversial speakers moving to it. If that's true then PayPal may be guilty of violating anti-trust laws. If this decision was truly monetary then it was definitely a bad one.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

 

 

 

Freedom of speech simply means individual citizens are allowed to say what they want -- within reason. We have do limits on that. Businesses (social media companies, newspapers, TV stations, online newsmedia) are beholden to yet more regulations -- and they are also businesses. It's akin to a pub saying "no sports jerseys, running shoes or ball caps in this establishment". If it's their business, can they do what they want?

Disagree. Freedom of speech should include the freedom to offend and act as a complete twat. It is limited in the U.K. and almost everywhere in the world to the point where I am tempted to say that we don't have freedom of speech and it's only going to get worse. As for the "it's their business" argument when you run monopolies like Google or YouTube, which have a conveniently cozy relationship with the U.S. government, then these companies need to either be regulated or simply keep their hands to themselves. I wouldn't trust the Dorseys or Zuckerbergs of the world to regulate Internet speech. Can Deutsche Post stop delivering mail to you if they don't like your letters? Would you also use the "it's their business" argument, if a pub refused entry to people of a certain ethnicity, religion or skin colour?

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

 but do you hold your favourite conservative media to the same standards? 'Cause it's even more of a circle jerk in the Conservabubble. 

This is just an opinion. I've given you links and evidence that prove that the MSM fakes and edits news to suite their narrative regardless what the "Conservabubble" is like from your perspective.

 

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

And I said i take any media outlet with a grain of salt. I've given you evidence and I see no reason why the WT should be taken any less seriously than the WaPo.

I'm not here to champion the WaPo, it's your argument. FWIW, they clearly do act with a touch more journalistic integrity.

 

Quote

My point was that WaPo is just as biased.

 

As for their decisions on who's less worse, a Houthi rebel vs. a British ultra-nationalist and racist, you'll have to ask the editors. But the conclusion you reach is one that hopefully anyone leaving high school has: respective media have their biases. Nothing new here. Read widely, discuss and then judge accordingly.

 

Quote

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but the left uses identity politics to an extreme degree at every opportunity.

Instead of denouncing extreme incidents of identity politics like this one, the left either chooses to ignore it or defend it. How do you reconcile something like this?

 

The Left™ is not something which actually exists. Frankly, using popular American definitions and understandings of how the world is 'divided' is foolish. Current identity politics is the result of various factors, of which conservatives have played no small part, so reducing it to something like "it's a leftist tool" is far too simplistic. I won't defend idiocy one way or the other. To "an extreme degree" and "at every opportunity" are gross exaggerations and not true. 

 

The opportunities to "whatabout-ize" here are many. 

 

Quote

There's a culture war going on and it's a question of globalization vs nationalism.

There's always a culture war going on. Used to be that the various factions would pick up arms and fight it out with sharp pointy objects or bullets and such. I don't think it's globalization vs. nationalism though, and Right vs. Left is also a simplification for dummies, it's more complex than that.

 

Quote

If you question who funds these groups, you may find yourself in some hot water especially once you obtain the right or politically incorrect answers.

Conspiracy junk. Please don't tell me you have George Soros or Illuminati links saved and ready to paste...

 

Quote

 If this decision was truly monetary then it was definitely a bad one.

PayPal's (main) owner Peter Thiel is overtly political, and has forbidden PayPal's use for causes he disagrees with. He famously funded a lawsuit against the gossip rag Gawker which resulted in their collapse. Thiel is a Republican (and btw, German!).

 

Quote

Disagree. Freedom of speech should include the freedom to offend and act as a complete twat.

It already does, which is a good thing. Of course, we prohibit certain kinds of offence. Violence, genocide, racism, et al. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.

 

So you are also free to suffer the consequences, should you for example go into a bar where sports jerseys, running shoes and baseball hats are forbidden and aggressively swear at the barkeep and call other patrons pigs. I'm all for a light touch and letting private actors sort it out amongst themselves, but any game requires rules and a referee. 

 

Quote

It is limited in the U.K. and almost everywhere in the world to the point where I am tempted to say that we don't have freedom of speech

Yea? If you really think so, I'd hazard a guess you don't know what actual political oppression is like and know far less about the world than you imagine. There are no shortage of repressive countries in the world whose inhabitants can not tell you what it's like. We live in some of the freest times and places ever. I'd agree with that it's important we maintain this hard-fought freedom.

 

Quote

and it's only going to get worse.

That's a point we may agree on. :) Although we may disagree on specifics of the causes and outcomes.

 

Quote

As for the "it's their business" argument when you run monopolies like Google or YouTube, which have a conveniently cozy relationship with the U.S. government, then these companies need to either be regulated or simply keep their hands to themselves. I wouldn't trust the Dorseys or Zuckerbergs of the world to regulate Internet speech.

Hence the discussion of government ministries regulating them. Obviously, I don't trust internet oligarchs to regulate themselves fairly either. We know that they do not. It seems we might agree government intervention of some kind is not a bad idea? After all, government is the only body which we have a say in running, to an extent. Although I cannot vote anywhere, so personally I cannot.

 

Funny enough, American conservatives helped change anti-trust laws after IBM-Microsoft so that breaking up monopolies is now much much harder. Hence why Apple, Amazon, Facebook and the rest are allowed to go on, where IBM-Microsoft was broken up for less market saturation...

 

Quote

Can Deutsche Post stop delivering mail to you if they don't like your letters?

This used to be the case. I have some letters my grandfather sent in the 1940s (from a neutral country to Canada) which say "opened and read by censor". My other grandmother attests that some of her letters from her then husband in the navy had lines crossed out. Whether anything was undelivered I do not know.


DeutschePost, although now privatized, also has a mandate to fulfill a public service. 

 

Quote

Would you also use the "it's their business" argument, if a pub refused entry to people of a certain ethnicity, religion or skin colour?

You missed the mark if you think that's my argument. We already forbid discrimination along the lines of ... well, you know the list. Lately "gender expression" and trans status has been considered on the list. 

 

Let's take the recent gay wedding cake example. I think the Christian bakers were justified in refusing to produce a cake for a gay couple getting married. Although I'm in favour of gay marriage and would personally boycott such a bakery, I don't think what are essentially artisans-for-hire should be forced to produce "art" that goes against their earnest (we have to assume...) beliefs.

 

I thought you said you were libertarian??...

 

Quote

This is just an opinion. I've given you links and evidence that prove that the MSM fakes and edits news to suite their narrative regardless what the "Conservabubble" is like from your perspective.

 

Sure, it's nice chatting with someone who cares about these issues too. However, nothing you posted is proof of "faking". It sounds like you believe in a conspiracy. But it's pretty much the norm of partisan newsmedia (unfortunately), with rightfully criticized poor choices here and there. All editors edit news to suite the narrative. This has been the case since ye olde towne crier days. In fact it's an ancient theme. What is truth? Does it come from one infallible source? Read and listen widely, and discuss. That's how we figure it out. (Luckily, most things are mundane enough to be obvious.)

 

I wonder, do you have any criticisms of conservative media? Or is it only The Left™ who are capable of dastardly plots? 

1

Share this post


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

FWIW, they clearly do act with a touch more journalistic integrity.

 

This is just your opinion with no proof. I have shown you why the WaPo is just as biased. How do they act with a "touch more journalistic integrity" pray tell?

 

2 hours ago, alderhill said:

Current identity politics is the result of various factors, of which conservatives have played no small part, so reducing it to something like "it's a leftist tool" is far too simplistic.

It is the left who uses identity politics to a much more extreme degree than do the conservatives. I have given you an example in which Evergreen university actually supported the demands of these fanatics. Can you find an equivalent example where the establishment has given in to the demands of conservatives using identity politics?

 

2 hours ago, alderhill said:

Conspiracy junk. Please don't tell me you have George Soros or Illuminati links saved and ready to paste...

All the links I have given you are from the MSM. You have yet to provide me with any. And the fact that Soros has done quite a bit of meddling into the affairs of other countries is no conspiracy theory but a fact supported by MSM sources.

 

2 hours ago, alderhill said:

 

PayPal's (main) owner Peter Thiel is overtly political, and has forbidden PayPal's use for causes he disagrees with.

 

That just proves my point.

 

2 hours ago, alderhill said:

It already does, which is a good thing.

No it doesn't. In Britain there was a case of girl who was prosecuted and convicted because she posted hip hop lyrics on Instagram which contained the n-word. This was taken completely out of context.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

 

2 hours ago, alderhill said:

 Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences.

This is an argument totalitarians use. Most 20th century totalitarian regimes did have freedom of speech in their constitutions but the practicality of it was another matter. It's like Antifa saying "You're free to express your opinion but we are also free to let you face the consequences and send you to the hospital". Sorry but that's not freedom of speech.

 

2 hours ago, alderhill said:

Yea? If you really think so, I'd hazard a guess you don't know what actual political oppression is like and know far less about the world than you imagine. There are no shortage of repressive countries in the world whose inhabitants can not tell you what it's like. We live in some of the freest times and places ever. I'd agree with that it's important we maintain this hard-fought freedom.

But that's exactly how it begins. You lose freedom of thought little by little usually with national security or public order as an excuse (in this case the dreaded R-word) until you wake up one day and ask yourself how did we get here?

 

2 hours ago, alderhill said:

This used to be the case. I have some letters my grandfather sent in the 1940s (from a neutral country to Canada) which say "opened and read by censor". My other grandmother attests that some of her letters from her then husband in the navy had lines crossed out. Whether anything was undelivered I do not know.

 

That's not exactly a good thing.

 

2 hours ago, alderhill said:

You missed the mark if you think that's my argument. We already forbid discrimination along the lines of ... well, you know the list. Lately "gender expression" and trans status has been considered on the list. 

 

Let's take the recent gay wedding cake example. I think the Christian bakers were justified in refusing to produce a cake for a gay couple getting married. Although I'm in favour of gay marriage and would personally boycott such a bakery, I don't think what are essentially artisans-for-hire should be forced to produce "art" that goes against their earnest (we have to assume...) beliefs.

 

I thought you said you were libertarian??...

 

I'm not completely a libertarian although some of its traits do appeal to me. My point is that if you're going to use a "it's their business" argument in one case, why can't you use it in another? But I see that you're being consistent. I fully agree that I would boycott a place that refused me service because of my sexuality.

 

2 hours ago, alderhill said:

Sure, it's nice chatting with someone who cares about these issues too. However, nothing you posted is proof of "faking".

Did you miss the Zimmerman case? They completely slandered the guy. What about CNN and their tape editing to make somebody calling for violence seem like they were calling for peace? Just two examples.

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

This is just your opinion with no proof. I have shown you why the WaPo is just as biased. How do they act with a "touch more journalistic integrity" pray tell?

As someone who studied journalism and worked in the business for a little while, where I still have many old friends/acquaintances, I know how newspapers and other media operate. This may not be specific enough for you, but it's obvious to me that Washington Times is clearly pandering more to a partisan readership that has already decided what it believes and is looking for confirmation of that. It's a business after all. The WaPo has its political leanings (read: biases), but is not nearly as incendiary or conclusive in its headlines and use of language in articles. All authors will have a stance reflected by, among other things, the choice of words and how other's ideas are discussed. The WaPo tends to be relatively more neutral, overall.

 

Apart from editorials, better media tend not to say things along the lines of: "and THIS is what you should think", but leave it for readers to decide themselves. Whether they (i.e. WaPo) do that successfully or in earnest, you may disagree. I'm not going to write a linguistics paper on the critical discourse of WT or WaPo degree of bias.

 

As you clearly don't believe in any sort of good faith objectivity in mainstream newsmedia, I doubt there's anything I can present to change that. What kind of evidence would convince you?

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

Can you find an equivalent example where the establishment has given in to the demands of conservatives using identity politics?

With the US, pleeeeeenty of historical examples (the KKK, Jim Crow laws, a few centuries of policy vis-a-vis Indians/natives). The UK has their obsession with social class, verging on caste. We have all heard about Remoaners and Brexiteers, etc. The English (British?) have long popularly been convinced of their special snowflakeness in regards to Europe (and not being part of it, or so they think). So strong are the identity politics, that to spite their face, the Brits have voted to cut off their nose. 

 

In the US, currently, the most obvious example are Christian evangelicals, who basically invented the modern iteration of identity politics. The so-called Alt Right (personally, I think they're more of a boogeyman than a real movement). Then there are more organized members of those who identify as "pro-life". Anti-gun control nuts (Muh 2nd Amendment!). I'm all for safe and controlled borders, and I think no-border utopianism is plain senseless, but you can hardly fail to notice the xenophobia or America First ideology lately. Not even going to open the Trump can of worms, as he's a symptom of the last 20-30 years of American political trends, not the cause. Even the firm division between "I'm right/conservative" and the boogeymen Leftists™ have ruined it all, etc. etc.

 

I'm Canadian, but no one cares about Canada, so I won't bother with examples from there.

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

All the links I have given you are from the MSM. You have yet to provide me with any. And the fact that Soros has done quite a bit of meddling into the affairs of other countries is no conspiracy theory but a fact supported by MSM sources.

Any what? Links that prove the MSM is not a grand "fake news" conspiracy? I can't prove a negative. Most MSM is transparently what it purports to be. If you want fake news, look at the newsmedia landscape in China, Russia, Turkey, or any of your favourite authoritarian states.

 

Do you really think conservatives don't meddle in the affairs of other countries? Of course they do. There are plenty of examples. I already said this is not a right vs. left thing though.

 

If you believe in conspiracy theories and that Soros is the anti-christ or whatever, then I may have overjudged your intelligence... 

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

That just proves my point.

Yes, that conservatives also manipulate politics. Peter Thiel is "one of yours".  

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

No it doesn't. In Britain there was a case of girl who was prosecuted and convicted because she posted hip hop lyrics on Instagram which contained the n-word. This was taken completely out of context.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

She broke concepts of modern secular blasphemy. She might as well have used the word Voldemort. Stupid, but I'm not sure how this is proof of Leftist™ plots.

 

I notice you use the term "n-word".

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

This is an argument totalitarians use.

No, it isn't. Totalitarian states tell their inhabitants what their opinions are. Watch any documentary about North Korea, or currently Xinjiang. 

 

I think you seriously misunderstand the legal/cultural evolution of Anglosphere "freedom of speech". It has a specific history and meaning, it is not simply what you want it to mean, nor is it absolute (it never has been).

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

Most 20th century totalitarian regimes did have freedom of speech in their constitutions but the practicality of it was another matter.

Puh-lease.

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

It's like Antifa saying "You're free to express your opinion but we are also free to let you face the consequences and send you to the hospital".

You are losing the plot here. A punch is not a speech act, so it's not protected by free speech. If Antifa say that, they are mistaken. I'll spell out my point with the pub: you are free to break the house rules and say what you want to the barkeep. No one can punish you for that, but what happens after is a different aspect. We are not automatically free from consequences. To think otherwise is to deeply misunderstand the concept of free speech. It is not carte blanche. We have laws that regulate the 1001 consequences of free speech. Assault is forbidden.

 

Free speech debates in the past were about the right to say something. The King is ugly, the princess has illegitimate children, the mine owner is a crook. Whatever. Vladimir Nabokov faced restrictions, bans and censorship on Lolita. Eventually it was freely sold, but this doesn't (didn't) protect him from being called puerile, a pedo, or simply that the book sucked (which many contemporary critics thought, despite the theme). 

 

In the last few decades, art and expression have been stretched to be considered free speech.

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

Sorry but that's not freedom of speech.

Didn't say it was. My point is that free speech has its limits. It doesn't cover anything. The clue is in the name.

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

But that's exactly how it begins. You lose freedom of thought little by little usually with national security or public order as an excuse (in this case the dreaded R-word) until you wake up one day and ask yourself how did we get here?

I'm not sure what R word you are referring to.

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

That's not exactly a good thing.

And yet it's an example of what Western society used to be like. Granted, the War was on and they had their excuses, but even post-war peacetime censorship was far greater than today. Today, it's the more conservative elements that would like to read our mail. After all, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?...

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

Did you miss the Zimmerman case? They completely slandered the guy. What about CNN and their tape editing to make somebody calling for violence seem like they were calling for peace? Just two examples.

Yea, these still aren't "fake news". Zimmerman got away with legal murder, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. FWIW, we can probably bet that if Trayvon were Asian or White and were wearing a yellow raincoat, he'd be alive. They didn't make up racist statements and attribute them to Zimmerman, they wrongly edited what he said to give the impression he was probably racist. Yes, it makes a difference. Whether that was carelessness, Freudian slip, or an intentional dastardly deed neither you nor I know. 

 

Again, do you have any criticisms of conservative media?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Apart from editorials, better media tend not to say things along the lines of: "and THIS is what you should think", but leave it for readers to decide themselves. Whether they (i.e. WaPo) do that successfully or in earnest, you may disagree. I'm not going to write a linguistics paper on the critical discourse of WT or WaPo degree of bias.

 

It is not that reporting will be slanted, but rather that stories will simply not appear.    Count the number of stories about Stormy Daniels versus the Saudi war against Yemen in the WaPo.   

 

Quote

With the US, pleeeeeenty of historical examples (the KKK, Jim Crow laws, a few centuries of policy vis-a-vis Indians/natives). 

 

Are you aware that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and that Democrats until Lyndon Johnson came along were a party of the white working class.   The south in the US voted Democrat until the late 1980s or early 1990s.   

 

Every major labor union in the US supported the Vietnam War at a time when labor unions were a major part of the Democrats base.     As you mention earlier, it is more complicated and things have rotated 180 degrees in the past 50 years.   

 

Do you have any examples from the past 20 years which are more likely to be connected to current times?

 

Quote

In the US, currently, the most obvious example are Christian evangelicals, who basically invented the modern iteration of identity politics. The so-called Alt Right (personally, I think they're more of a boogeyman than a real movement). Then there are more organized members of those who identify as "pro-life". Anti-gun control nuts (Muh 2nd Amendment!). 

 

Which media outlets do any of those movements control?    How did Christian evangelicals invent identity politics (not that i have anything in common with them) ?   

 

You have just showed your hand.    You are contemptuous of people who are pro-life and against gun control.   If you want to be unbiased, it is important to understand those ideas without condemning them as something radical or anti-social.   

 

Quote

If you believe in conspiracy theories and that Soros is the anti-christ or whatever, then I may have overjudged your intelligence... 

 

Soros definitely meddles as do the Koch brothers.   The idea that the very rich and powerfulwork together to maintain their power and wealth is hardly a conspiracy theory.   

3

Share this post


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

As someone who studied journalism and worked in the business for a little while, where I still have many old friends/acquaintances, I know how newspapers and other media operate. This may not be specific enough for you, but it's obvious to me that Washington Times is clearly pandering more to a partisan readership that has already decided what it believes and is looking for confirmation of that. It's a business after all. The WaPo has its political leanings (read: biases), but is not nearly as incendiary or conclusive in its headlines and use of language in articles. All authors will have a stance reflected by, among other things, the choice of words and how other's ideas are discussed. The WaPo tends to be relatively more neutral, overall.

 

Apart from editorials, better media tend not to say things along the lines of: "and THIS is what you should think", but leave it for readers to decide themselves. Whether they (i.e. WaPo) do that successfully or in earnest, you may disagree. I'm not going to write a linguistics paper on the critical discourse of WT or WaPo degree of bias.

 

As you clearly don't believe in any sort of good faith objectivity in mainstream newsmedia, I doubt there's anything I can present to change that. What kind of evidence would convince you?

This is exactly the impression that I have when I read the WaPo. I have a feeling that they are saying "this is what you should think". The tone, especially articles regarding Trump and Brexit, has a propagandist flare to it. Generally speaking media outlets have always chosen to reveal certain facts or word them in a specific way in order to get their message across but in the past few years or so they have been preaching and the WaPo is no exception.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

With the US, pleeeeeenty of historical examples (the KKK, Jim Crow laws, a few centuries of policy vis-a-vis Indians/natives). The UK has their obsession with social class, verging on caste. We have all heard about Remoaners and Brexiteers, etc. The English (British?) have long popularly been convinced of their special snowflakeness in regards to Europe (and not being part of it, or so they think). So strong are the identity politics, that to spite their face, the Brits have voted to cut off their nose. 

 

In the US, currently, the most obvious example are Christian evangelicals, who basically invented the modern iteration of identity politics. The so-called Alt Right (personally, I think they're more of a boogeyman than a real movement). Then there are more organized members of those who identify as "pro-life". Anti-gun control nuts (Muh 2nd Amendment!). I'm all for safe and controlled borders, and I think no-border utopianism is plain senseless, but you can hardly fail to notice the xenophobia or America First ideology lately. Not even going to open the Trump can of worms, as he's a symptom of the last 20-30 years of American political trends, not the cause. Even the firm division between "I'm right/conservative" and the boogeymen Leftists™ have ruined it all, etc. etc.

 

I'm Canadian, but no one cares about Canada, so I won't bother with examples from there.

 

I was looking for recent examples but I have a few things:

 

- The KKK was founded by disgruntled Southerners, many whom were Democrats. I'm not saying that the Democratic party founded the KKK but I am saying there were plenty of Democrats among them. The Democrats were known at that time for being an anti-black party.

- Christian evangelicals, as much as they annoy me as a Wiccan, don't organize along the lines of race but religion. And the establishment is not exactly fond of them but rather makes fun of them as being ignorant country bumpkins.

- Pro-Lifers and Gun Lovers - Again this has nothing to do with race. But the MSM along with Hollywood generally has a negative opinion of them. Also when was the last time that a radical evangelical, pro-life or gun lover group came on campus and demanded that those with opposing opinions of them be absent for a day only to have the university administration support them?

- Alt-Right - This is a fringe movement (if you are talking about actual white supremacists) and has no support in the mainstream.

- I see nothing wrong with America or Britain First. The job of a government is to put its voters' interest first. This was accepted as the norm until very recently. I will agree that this is non-racial identity politics but it doesn't go anywhere near the level of stupidity as in the example that I have shown you.

- Many on the left claim they are also for secure borders and wouldn't allow just anybody to enter and stay in the country. But whenever anybody tries to enforce existing laws with regards to border security there is immediate criticism and shouts of xenophobia and racism. I have personally paid a very heavy price for Britain's incompetence in guarding its border.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

If you believe in conspiracy theories and that Soros is the anti-christ or whatever, then I may have overjudged your intelligence...

 

As I said Soros has meddled into the affairs of other countries. That's not a conspiracy theory but a fact:

 

Quote

I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent from Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1405/25/fzgps.01.html

 

This is him talking.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Yes, that conservatives also manipulate politics. Peter Thiel is "one of yours".  

One of mine such as a gay conservative? But that wasn't my point. My point was that the driving force in media political correctness isn't just monetary but also politically motivated.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

She broke concepts of modern secular blasphemy. She might as well have used the word Voldemort. Stupid, but I'm not sure how this is proof of Leftist™ plots.

 

I notice you use the term "n-word".

This proves that freedom of speech is increasing an illusion in Britain. Read my initial point. I said that freedom of speech should include the right to offend and be a twat and you said that it does. I gave you a counter example. Even though this girl wasn't trying to be offensive, what she copy and pasted was taken out of context and she was convicted.

 

By the way, what's wrong with me using the term "n-word"?

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

No, it isn't. Totalitarian states tell their inhabitants what their opinions are. Watch any documentary about North Korea, or currently Xinjiang. 

 

I think you seriously misunderstand the legal/cultural evolution of Anglosphere "freedom of speech". It has a specific history and meaning, it is not simply what you want it to mean, nor is it absolute (it never has been).

 

Actually the East bloc used a similar argument. Although freedom of speech was officially written in most constitutions the argument was that certain actions, including thoughts and words, have consequences that must be balanced in favour of nationality security.

 

And no I have not misunderstood freedom of speech in the Anglosphere. I am talking about freedom of speech as it is defined in the United States.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

 

Puh-lease.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10

 

Article 125 of the Soviet constitution in 1936

Quote

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

 

freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
reedom of street processions and demonstrations.


These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

I think we can both agree that there was no such thing in the USSR.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

You are losing the plot here. A punch is not a speech act, so it's not protected by free speech. If Antifa say that, they are mistaken. I'll spell out my point with the pub: you are free to break the house rules and say what you want to the barkeep. No one can punish you for that, but what happens after is a different aspect. We are not automatically free from consequences. To think otherwise is to deeply misunderstand the concept of free speech. It is not carte blanche. We have laws that regulate the 1001 consequences of free speech. Assault is forbidden.

 

Free speech debates in the past were about the right to say something. The King is ugly, the princess has illegitimate children, the mine owner is a crook. Whatever. Vladimir Nabokov faced restrictions, bans and censorship on Lolita. Eventually it was freely sold, but this doesn't (didn't) protect him from being called puerile, a pedo, or simply that the book sucked (which many contemporary critics thought, despite the theme). 

 

In the last few decades, art and expression have been stretched to be considered free speech.

 

 

 

Ok I misunderstood you. I'm not saying that if somebody calls you an idiot, you have no right to call him a jerk. If I say something you disagree with then you are free to call me whatever you like and I can do the same thing to you. But I should not be prosecuted legally because I offended you.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Yea, these still aren't "fake news". Zimmerman got away with legal murder, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. FWIW, we can probably bet that if Trayvon were Asian or White and were wearing a yellow raincoat, he'd be alive. They didn't make up racist statements and attribute them to Zimmerman, they wrongly edited what he said to give the impression he was probably racist. Yes, it makes a difference. Whether that was carelessness, Freudian slip, or an intentional dastardly deed neither you nor I know. 

 

Yes they are fake news. I'm not going to debate whether Zimmerman got away with murder. The fact is that the 911 call was deliberately edited to make Zimmerman imply that the man, whom he eventually shot, was up to no good because he was black. By doing this they swayed public opinion and since it was based on dishonest editing it was fake news.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Today, it's the more conservative elements that would like to read our mail. After all, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?...

I'm assuming you are referring to the neo-Con Patriot Act. 15 years ago I would have agreed with your statement but today it's also the Merkels, Macrons and Mays who want to monitor and regulate what we can and cannot say on social media. They may be "conservative" but in reality they are globalists.

 

 

 

 

3

Share this post


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

It is not that reporting will be slanted, but rather that stories will simply not appear.    Count the number of stories about Stormy Daniels versus the Saudi war against Yemen in the WaPo.   

Yet again, I'm not here to champion the WaPo and I don't consider them a great source of info. Pick a new strawman already. Once again, I don't find most American newsmedia that great. Too basic, too partisan, too America-centric.

 

All newsmedia make decisions about what to cover or not, based on what they think their readers will want to read (i.e. pay for). We can just as easily scrutinize conservative sources and pick out their selective story choices.

 

Ever notice that when, for example, there is a particularly nasty shark attack, you will then see several more shark attack stories in the months afterwards? It's not because there are suddenly more shark attacks, but because the timeliness of the story results in its inclusion with the hope of more sales, and to scratch the itch of reader's concerns. A conservative paper is deciding which "shark attacks" will interest its readers, just as a more liberal/socialist/business-focused/eco-focused etc. source will do too. (The dark side of course is that it leads to panics about suddenly "more" shark attacks! Oh noes!) 

 

2 hours ago, balticus said:

Are you aware that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and that Democrats until Lyndon Johnson came along were a party of the white working class.   The south in the US voted Democrat until the late 1980s or early 1990s.   

Oh boy, in my earlier post I almost wrote "and please don't tell me about southern Democrats, etc". It's a spurious argument. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It is not 1960 anymore, and even the Dems/Reps of 1998 are not quite the same parties of today. It's almost as if party affiliation doesn't seem to matter... Like I said, this isn't simply a right vs. left thing. 

 

2 hours ago, balticus said:

Do you have any examples from the past 20 years which are more likely to be connected to current times?

Try reading again, and don't move the goal posts. 

 

2 hours ago, balticus said:

Which media outlets do any of those movements control? How did Christian evangelicals invent identity politics (not that i have anything in common with them) ?   

Control? Who said anything about control? Which media outlets do the Lefty™ boogeymen control? 

 

If you are truly ignorant of history of evangelical Christianity's role in US politics over the last 30 years, then you need to remove yourself from this conversation right away do some catch-up reading. 

 

2 hours ago, balticus said:

You have just showed your hand.    You are contemptuous of people who are pro-life and against gun control.   If you want to be unbiased, it is important to understand those ideas without condemning them as something radical or anti-social.   

Where did I say they were radical or anti-social? If you are already this triggered and think my statements are "contemptuous" then I don't see much hope in continuing conversation with you.

 

I was asked to provide examples of conservative identity politics groups. There you go.

 

2 hours ago, balticus said:

Soros definitely meddles as do the Koch brothers.   The idea that the very rich and powerfulwork together to maintain their power and wealth is hardly a conspiracy theory.   

 

OK, and how much of your life have you spent railing against the Kochs? Indeed, they are conspiracy theories.

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

I was looking for recent examples but I have a few things:

Identity politics is not strictly about racial identity. You seem to have in mind that it's only/mostly a racial thing. It encompasses race, but not only. The clue, again, is in the name. 

 

Who cares what party members were in the KKK? The "hurr durr DEMOCRATS were the racist party in the past" is so tiresome. The British monarchy, your and my head of state, used to put people's heads on spikes outside their front window, traded narcotics and slaves, burned "witches" and during the colonial era, engaged in all kinds of nefarious deeds. So what? What year is it now? Today the very same monarchy sells organic pesto and teacups with their monograms on it, and run charity events for endangered animals and handicapped children.

 

You still seem to think this is a right vs. left thing, and that Team Red is the true persecuted underdog hero. I'm not interested in defending exceptional "WHAT ABOUT" points for some side of a debate which I do not hold. They are red herrings, besides.

 

The KKK were/are about identity politics. Christian evangelicals are about identity politics. Pro-lifers (the politically active kind) are about identity politics. Anti-gun control nuts are about identity politics ("we are people who love the 2nd amendment THIS much" -- "everyone is out to take away our sacred rights").

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

when was the last time that a radical evangelical, pro-life or gun lover group came on campus and demanded that those with opposing opinions of them be absent for a day only to have the university administration support them?


They don't need to. Have you lived in the US?

 

Despite what your favourite Henny Penny conservative commentators shout, exceptional outlying examples of lunacy are not indication of common practice. Pretty much everyone thinks the Evergreen College fiasco was just that. 

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

- I see nothing wrong with America or Britain First.

That doesn't speak to an informed handle on this... Leftists™ didn't invent globalization. In fact, they have spent a lot of the last several decades protesting it while conservatives mocked them for being smelly, naive and anti-business. Well, too late now. 

 

Nativist policy more often hurts friends rather than intended rivals. Trump's trade wars and Brexit are prime examples. 

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

But whenever anybody tries to enforce existing laws with regards to border security there is immediate criticism and shouts of xenophobia and racism.

These impulses of yours to to say "anybody", "always", "an extreme degree" and "at every opportunity" are a bad habit and hurt your trustworthiness. It is simply not true. Most border controls are carried out quietly and without much incident. The current migration crisis is obviously an exceptional moment.

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

I have personally paid a very heavy price for Britain's incompetence in guarding its border.

How so? You mean Brexit?

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

My point was that the driving force in media political correctness isn't just monetary but also politically motivated.

It's only political in the sense of a calculation of what consumers will consume. Gay pride parades used to be overtly political low-budget protests. Now they are highly-sponsored displays for corporations (and government, police, etc.) to show how tolerant and modern they are, so all's fine, you can keep on trusting them.

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

Article 125 of the Soviet constitution in 1936

I think we can both agree that there was no such thing in the USSR.

Yea, the Soviet Union legal code was bogus. And...? Why is that relevant here? 

 

Gee whiz, have you ever noticed that North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, yet is neither democratic nor a republic nor does much for its people? It's almost as if labels don't always matter. In North Korea, you literally cannot publicly say that Kim Jong-un is a lying selfish fat-arse with a bad haircut (he's officially divine, after all). Here, we can say what we want, as long as its within certain widely agreed-upon guidelines.

 

If you want, you can start a Youtube channel right now saying all the conservative Wiccan things you want, no matter how bonkers and woo woo it is, and if enough people watch it, and youtube doesn't demonetize you, you can even receive cheques, or try your hand at getting a Patreon going, etc.  

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

By doing this they swayed public opinion and since it was based on dishonest editing it was fake news.

It was poor journalism, but this is not "fake news". It was quickly rescinded with an apology. Swaying public opinion is not forbidden - quite the opposite. Billions are spent on it, and you clearly have had your opinion swayed.

 

Repeatedly publishing unapologetic conspiracy that e.g. Obama is a (secret) Muslim, not really American and is bent on destroying the country through whatever the conspiracy alleges, this is "fake news".

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

the Merkels, Macrons and Mays who want to monitor and regulate what we can and cannot say on social media.

They join a long line of rulers who realize that knowledge is valuable and even dangerous. Nothing new there, and nothing uniquely Left™ or right about it. 

 

3 hours ago, WiccaChica said:

They may be "conservative" but in reality they are globalists.

An old catchline comes to mind: It's the economy, stupid.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, alderhill said:

Yet again, I'm not here to champion the WaPo and I don't consider them a great source of info. Pick a new strawman already. Once again, I don't find most American newsmedia that great. 

 

Yet you have asserted at least three times that the journalistic standards of the WaPo are better than the Wash Times.   I would argue that they are both poor but that the delivery of the message is much different.   

 

American news media is terrible.    Americans (and their neighbors to the north) refuse to come to terms with the idea that their media is basically controlled by oligarchs.    Many people are unaware that the WaPo, for example, is owned by the richest man in the world.  

 

19 hours ago, alderhill said:

All newsmedia make decisions about what to cover or not, based on what they think their readers will want to read (i.e. pay for). We can just as easily scrutinize conservative sources and pick out their selective story choices.

 

Reading the news is a great way to reinforce confirmation bias.   

 

If you have studied journalism, you can certainly see a difference between the Bild Zeitung and the Spiegel.   The lies, deception, propaganda, misdirection, and lies of omission in the Bild, will not be quite as subtle as they are in the Spiegel, but that does not mean that the Spiegel is more honest.   Its readers will only accept lies delivered with a more sophisticated vocabulary and a few historical references to Adenauer, Goethe, Frederick II or Gustav Stresemann.   

 

Don't confuse honesty and subtlety.  

 

19 hours ago, alderhill said:

Oh boy, in my earlier post I almost wrote "and please don't tell me about southern Democrats, etc". It's a spurious argument. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It is not 1960 anymore, and even the Dems/Reps of 1998 are not quite the same parties of today. It's almost as if party affiliation doesn't seem to matter... Like I said, this isn't simply a right vs. left thing. 

 

Why not use current examples?   Your introduction of examples from 50 years ago while complaining that they are irrelevant and declaring counter arguments as spurious is strange.   If you would like to make a point, there are probably several examples you could use from the past 10 years.  

 

19 hours ago, alderhill said:

Try reading again, and don't move the goal posts. 

 

When there are so many current examples, you have chosen to go way back in time and then complained about outdated examples.   It is a very strange debating strategy.   

19 hours ago, alderhill said:

Control? Who said anything about control? Which media outlets do the Lefty™ boogeymen control? 

 

Let me state the obvious.    Political blame is often attributed to groups which have little power.   Anyone who thinks that unemployed coal miners or illegal aliens or poor African-Americans are driving any agenda, you can forget it.   Demonizing Black-Lives-Matter or the white nationalists in Charlottesville is stupid.   Nobody cares what these people think and they have no power to influence the agenda outside of serving as a bogeyman.   Evangelical Christians are more organized and powerful (and they vote), but their influence is greatly overstated.    

 

19 hours ago, alderhill said:

 

If you are truly ignorant of history of evangelical Christianity's role in US politics over the last 30 years, then you need to remove yourself from this conversation right away do some catch-up reading. 

 

If the points are so obvious, you will be able to make them without resorting to personal insults.   

 

19 hours ago, alderhill said:

 

Where did I say they were radical or anti-social? If you are already this triggered and think my statements are "contemptuous" then I don't see much hope in continuing conversation with you.

 

Perhaps my English is deficient, but referring to people with opinions differing from your own as "nuts" is not a sign of mutual respect and tolerance.   I am enjoying the debate and have never been triggered in my life outside of people talking loudly on their handy in crowded places.   

 

19 hours ago, alderhill said:

OK, and how much of your life have you spent railing against the Kochs? Indeed, they are conspiracy theories.

 

I don't dismiss their influence, but neither do I see Koch Brothers' money behind everything. 

 

People who fail to treat Soros and the Kochs in the same way simply show their partisanship.   It is the hope that their particular oligarch is a good guy and the other oligarchs are bad.   It is surprising that people fall for it.    

19 hours ago, alderhill said:

Identity politics is not strictly about racial identity. You seem to have in mind that it's only/mostly a racial thing. It encompasses race, but not only. The clue, again, is in the name. 

 

Who cares what party members were in the KKK? The "hurr durr DEMOCRATS were the racist party in the past" is so tiresome. 

 

It was an odd choice to use examples from decades ago and then complain that the rebuttal is tiresome.   Feel free to use examples from the current century.  

 

 

2

Share this post


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

Yet you have asserted at least three times that the journalistic standards of the WaPo are better than the Wash Times.   I would argue that they are both poor but that the delivery of the message is much different.   

I said they're relatively less bad. It's plain to see just by scanning their websites which one is aiming somewhere near objectivity, and which one is barely bothering. 

 

Your argument seems to be that all newsmedia are liars, propagandists and puppets of oligarchs. To you perhaps it makes no difference because they're all liars, it's only a difference of who lies more confidently or not, or with better dressing or not. 

 

The fact is, nobody seems to want (pay for) totally objective pure-facts newsmedia. Would we all agree on what that even is? Turns out business is better when you're a little biased.

 

Perhaps you see Relotius as typical and nothing surprising, exactly the way the lying press operates all the time. I see it as exception, a break of trust and a failure of quality control. It is not the way the journalists I know operate. But aha, you'll say, they're all brainwashed tools anyway...

 

Well, if so (and it seems this way), this casts you as incapable of debating in good faith about any of this, if you reject out of hand the entire concept of a free press. Additionally, if you do not believe that conservatives also practice identity politics, then you are also wasting my/your time, arguing in bad faith.

 

Quote

American news media is terrible.    Americans (and their neighbors to the north) refuse to come to terms with the idea that their media is basically controlled by oligarchs.    Many people are unaware that the WaPo, for example, is owned by the richest man in the world.  

Corporate ownership of newsmedia (conservative or liberal or what have you) is nothing new and is part of basic media literacy. We learned this stuff in school. Didn't you?

 

We are not Russia or some post-soviet satellite state, however.  Admittedly, with the change in media (more internet, less printed material), the smaller independent or co-op owned media have been dying. The majority of online advertising is (literally) ultimately controlled by Google, Facebook and Amazon. This is not good. 

 

Re: Canada. Unless you have an ace up your sleeve, I highly doubt you know much about the Canadian newsmedia scene, so please don't pretend you do. 

 

Quote

Reading the news is a great way to reinforce confirmation bias.   

When you stick to only one source, or one cluster of 'samey' sources.

 

Statistics show that fewer and fewer people even watch/listen to news, much less read it. The media scene in general, not just newsmedia, has splintered and fractured much in the past couple decades. As I said earlier, anyone with internet access can become the media, which is a two-edged sword. In some ways, this only strengthens echo chamber effects, which also plays a role in identity politics.

 

Quote

that does not mean that the Spiegel is more honest. Its readers will only accept lies delivered with a more sophisticated vocabulary and a few historical references to Adenauer, Goethe, Frederick II or Gustav Stresemann.   

 

You enter this conversation with such cynical dismissive bias (newsmedia are all liars and propagandists and so on). Feel free to clarify what sources you do trust.

 

Quote

Why not use current examples?   Your introduction of examples from 50 years ago while complaining that they are irrelevant and declaring counter arguments as spurious is strange.   If you would like to make a point, there are probably several examples you could use from the past 10 years.  

The examples are current. The KKK are by now mostly a footnote in history, although they (and others) do still exist. That one can consign to yesteryear, if you insist on moving the goal posts. It's still an example of conservative identity politics. Today's racists realize they can't be that open about it as before, yet the underlying ideas of racial superiority are still there and play a role in society (and to be fair, not only in the US -- Westerners are often naive of just how racist other parts of the world are).  


The Dixiecrat fallacy is a favourite of Republican speeches/rallies, and a cheap attempt to imply guilt by association. Democrats KKK bad, Republicans Abe Lincoln good. It works on the ignorant (many!) by grossly simplifying a complex history (tip: southern Democrats were conservatives, not liberals). Exactly the kind of lying spin-doctoring you seem to dislike, so surely you must be in opposition to this? Are the modern Democrats racial supremacists? At the time, were Democrats of Oregon or Maine or California equally racist? Were people in general? Were average southern Republican not racist at the time?

 

If you feel there are other contemporary examples that I've missed, feel free to show your good faith and objectivity and announce them. From my POV, these are relevant and modern examples. People who have had their lives and livelihood permanently altered by the KKK are still living. 

 

Quote

Political blame is often attributed to groups which have little power. ... Nobody cares what these people think and they have no power to influence the agenda outside of serving as a bogeyman. 

We can basically agree on that, although I suppose we'd disagree on the reasons. Grassroots politics are possible, but these days less and less effective I think. 

 

Quote

Evangelical Christians are more organized and powerful (and they vote), but their influence is greatly overstated.    

It is an often hypocritical lobby to be sure, but it is still firmly there. There is overlap here with pro-life activists, and this does have a very real influence on access to certain healthcare. Not even talking abortions per se, but contraceptives, simple advice and counselling, etc. Sometimes Christian identity is very earnest, sometimes it is a virtue signal as much as anything else. This is also identity politics.

 

Quote

If the points are so obvious, you will be able to make them without resorting to personal insults.   

Sorry, but to an extent it's your role to inform yourself. As you notice, these posts are long enough! I'm really not interested in writing chapters of introductory background history for you (would you even trust me?). They are freely available, so visit the library, get an e-book or watch experts lecture, whatever you prefer. Better yet, read multiple sources. Whether you are genuinely naive of this information or playing coy, I cannot know. But if you are naive of this information, it is hard to take any of your further arguments seriously when you have a major gap in what is basic contemporary American history.

 

Quote

Perhaps my English is deficient, but referring to people with opinions differing from your own as "nuts" is not a sign of mutual respect and tolerance.   I am enjoying the debate and have never been triggered in my life outside of people talking loudly on their handy in crowded places.   

I cannot comment on the deficiency of your English. Nuts to me means something like fanatics, zealots. Do you even care about mutual respect and tolerance, or are you trying to shame me by appealing to what you suspect are my liberal sensibilities?

 

I am not using nuts as a slur for ALL gun-owners, but referring especially to people who are fervent enough in their gun-ownership that this is how they identify themselves and wish to influence politics to this end. Yes, they exist. FWIW, I'm not "anti-gun". I've hunted in the past and may do so again (not in Germany though -- even fishing here isn't worth the hassle). 

 

The "gun problem" it not even about guns so much really, it's about the power/limits of government. So to make a point on these limits, this rich and influential special interest group (i.e. an identity group), courts politicians and other patronage networks (including newsmedia). In this way, they wield their influence. Perhaps not all gun owners identify strongly as such, but enough do to make a difference. This is identity politics. 

 

Quote

People who fail to treat Soros and the Kochs in the same way simply show their partisanship.   It is the hope that their particular oligarch is a good guy and the other oligarchs are bad.   It is surprising that people fall for it.

On that, we can again agree. Nonetheless, they are both the frequent boogeymen of modern ghost stories. Dismissing all newsmedia as lying oligarch's propaganda is, besides paranoid, factually wrong. Western newsmedia are not quite Russia or China yet. 

 

Do you also believe all professional sports are fake? That all players, coaches, referees and team/club employees are also the knowing puppets of the oligarch owners' interests?

 

Quote

It was an odd choice to use examples from decades ago and then complain that the rebuttal is tiresome.   Feel free to use examples from the current century. 

 Feel free to inform yourself about the current century.

0

Share this post


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

I said they're relatively less bad. It's plain to see just by scanning their websites which one is aiming somewhere near objectivity, and which one is barely bothering. 

 

You maintain that you are not defending the WaPo when you clearly are.   WashTimes and WaPo are not at the same level.   WaPo is not objective, but the level of language is higher.   Just because the methods are subtle does not make the source honest.   You might not be smart enough to understand how you are lied to when reading the WaPo.   

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

 

Your argument seems to be that all newsmedia are liars, propagandists and puppets of oligarchs. To you perhaps it makes no difference because they're all liars, it's only a difference of who lies more confidently or not, or with better dressing or not. 

 

All newsmedia are biased either due to the interests of their owners and operators or to pander to the interests of their readers.    Your first sentence is a logical flaw unless joined by an "or" rather than an "and" with a few other possibilities added.  

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

The fact is, nobody seems to want (pay for) totally objective pure-facts newsmedia. Would we all agree on what that even is? Turns out business is better when you're a little biased.

 

Maybe you are right.   People who actually need facts about say, financial markets, will probably not rely on the MSM for info.  

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Perhaps you see Relotius as typical and nothing surprising, exactly the way the lying press operates all the time. I see it as exception, a break of trust and a failure of quality control. It is not the way the journalists I know operate.

 

I have read the Spiegel for a long time and i see Relotius as nothing new.     Gabor Steingart, Marc Pitzke, and Gregor Peter Schmidt were just as bad or worse.  

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

But aha, you'll say, they're all brainwashed tools anyway...

 

Where ?   Why make things up?   Quote me.   

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Well, if so (and it seems this way), this casts you as incapable of debating in good faith about any of this, if you reject out of hand the entire concept of a free press. 

 

We need to read skeptically, read multiple sources and recognize the editorial bias of the sources we use.   That is common sense and not a rejection of the free press but rather a description of the risks of relying on the free press.  

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Additionally, if you do not believe that conservatives also practice identity politics, then you are also wasting my/your time, arguing in bad faith.

 

I do.  I am not a conservative.    You are biased. 

 

Any idiot recognizes that Fox, CNN, and MSNBC don't really report the news.    It is harder to read publications like the NY Times, The Economist,  and Wall Street Journal,  and Financial Times and see their angles.   I have subscribed to all of those publications at one time or another.    The bias is easier to detect now than it was 10 years ago.   

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Corporate ownership of newsmedia (conservative or liberal or what have you) is nothing new and is part of basic media literacy. We learned this stuff in school. Didn't you?

 

I think you will agree that a binary scale is oversimplified.   Some publications have their own niche interests.  

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

We are not Russia or some post-soviet satellite state, however.  Admittedly, with the change in media (more internet, less printed material), the smaller independent or co-op owned media have been dying. The majority of online advertising is (literally) ultimately controlled by Google, Facebook and Amazon. This is not good. 

 

Consolidation of media started in the mid-1990s after the passage of the Telecom Bill of 1996.   Surprised you don't know that. 

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

The media scene in general, not just newsmedia, has splintered and fractured much in the past couple decades. 

 

The media have consolidated.    

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

You enter this conversation with such cynical dismissive bias (newsmedia are all liars and propagandists and so on). Feel free to clarify what sources you do trust.

 

I use twitter and follow specific journalists, analysts, and subject matter experts.   I mostly follow geopolitics and various markets.   

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

 

The examples are current. The KKK are by now mostly a footnote in history, although they (and others) do still exist. That one can consign to yesteryear, if you insist on moving the goal posts. It's still an example of conservative identity politics.

The KKK has not been a significant force since the 1970s.   

 

The example of conservative identity politics which you may never read about is the people who reacted to desegregation in the public schools in the US by sending their kids to private schools.     "White flight" to the suburbs as well.    Those issues get no traction because the phenomena are not limited to one part of the political spectrum.    They cannot be weaponized.

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Today's racists realize they can't be that open about it as before, yet the underlying ideas of racial superiority are still there and play a role in society (and to be fair, not only in the US -- Westerners are often naive of just how racist other parts of the world are).

 

See example above.   Many racists realized that a long time ago and avoided being detected as racists.   Many of them would identify as liberals.  

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

The Dixiecrat fallacy is a favourite of Republican speeches/rallies, and a cheap attempt to imply guilt by association. Democrats KKK bad, Republicans Abe Lincoln good.

 

Could be.   I cited those examples to show that the landscape has changed and is constantly changing.   In addition, they underscore the importance of using recent examples.  

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Are the modern Democrats racial supremacists?

 

Neither party is "supremacist", but both parties have racists.    You don't need to look very hard to see it.     

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

 

If you feel there are other contemporary examples that I've missed, feel free to show your good faith and objectivity and announce them. From my POV, these are relevant and modern examples. People who have had their lives and livelihood permanently altered by the KKK are still living. 

 

You are asking me to make your argument for you to show good faith?    You are hilarious.    

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Grassroots politics are possible, but these days less and less effective I think. 

 

Agree, but i think they are quite rare.  

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

 

It is an often hypocritical lobby to be sure, but it is still firmly there.

 

Most lobbies are.   I don't care.   

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

There is overlap here with pro-life activists, and this does have a very real influence on access to certain healthcare. Not even talking abortions per se, but contraceptives, simple advice and counselling, etc. Sometimes Christian identity is very earnest, sometimes it is a virtue signal as much as anything else. This is also identity politics.

 

That is a stretch.    There are lot of people who are pro-life who are not religious.   

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Sorry, but to an extent it's your role to inform yourself. As you notice, these posts are long enough! I'm really not interested in writing chapters of introductory background history for you (would you even trust me?). They are freely available, so visit the library, get an e-book or watch experts lecture, whatever you prefer. Better yet, read multiple sources. Whether you are genuinely naive of this information or playing coy, I cannot know. But if you are naive of this information, it is hard to take any of your further arguments seriously when you have a major gap in what is basic contemporary American history.

 

I simply don't agree with you and your only synthesis seems to be that anyone who does not agree is ignorant.   

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Do you even care about mutual respect and tolerance, or are you trying to shame me by appealing to what you suspect are my liberal sensibilities?

 

I have been polite during this exchange.   You have used personal insults which don't bother me one bit.   

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

The "gun problem" it not even about guns so much really, it's about the power/limits of government. So to make a point on these limits, this rich and influential special interest group (i.e. an identity group), courts politicians and other patronage networks (including newsmedia). In this way, they wield their influence. Perhaps not all gun owners identify strongly as such, but enough do to make a difference. This is identity politics. 

 

This is politics but not identity politics.

 

This is a bogeyman.  Look at the amount of money the NRA dishes out each year and tell me that the billionaires trying to push gun control couldn't outspend the NRA.    It is surprising how many people fall for this.   

 

Maybe those people demonizing the NRA and professing their great sadness for the victims of gun violence don't really care.     

 

Maybe it is not just a question of money.  

 

1 hour ago, alderhill said:

Dismissing all newsmedia as lying oligarch's propaganda is, besides paranoid, factually wrong.

 

You are twisting my words and you know it.   

 

The largest and most influential media are controlled by oligarchs.   Those people generally don't allow their outlets to publish stories which are against their interest. 

 

Find a recent story in the WaPo critical of Amazon labor practices or questioning the efficacy of bidding for the second Amazon Headquarters.   That is hardly paranoia. 

 

I would doubt that oligarchs get involved in the day to day editorial decisions on political matters, but it seems unlikely that someone who owns or influences a large media outlet is naive about the potential political power and leverage at hand.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018, 2:33:02, alderhill said:

The KKK were/are about identity politics. Christian evangelicals are about identity politics. Pro-lifers (the politically active kind) are about identity politics. Anti-gun control nuts are about identity politics ("we are people who love the 2nd amendment THIS much" -- "everyone is out to take away our sacred rights").

The KKK are a fringe movement that had no influence for 40+ years. The Pro-lifers, evangelicals and the "gun nuts" are all shunned by the establishment and often mocked. Some of them may be about identity politics but they have far less power than those from the example that I've given you. The Evergreen College case was supported by academia and by the media to a certain degree.

 

By the way, how are pro-lifers and the 2nd amendment people about identity politics? Because they have strong opinion on the issues that they lobby for? By that logic every time you express a political opinion, you are engaging in identity politics.

 

On 12/31/2018, 2:33:02, alderhill said:

They don't need to. Have you lived in the US?

 

Despite what your favourite Henny Penny conservative commentators shout, exceptional outlying examples of lunacy are not indication of common practice. Pretty much everyone thinks the Evergreen College fiasco was just that.

They don't do it because the mainstream doesn't support them and this only proves my point further that there is more identity politics lunacy coming from the left. Yes every reasonably minded individual, both left and right, thinks that the Evergreen College fiasco was insane but it was supported by the university administration. And though this may not be common practice there are heaps of other examples.

 

On 12/31/2018, 2:33:02, alderhill said:

That doesn't speak to an informed handle on this... Leftists™ didn't invent globalization. In fact, they have spent a lot of the last several decades protesting it while conservatives mocked them for being smelly, naive and anti-business. Well, too late now. 

 

Nativist policy more often hurts friends rather than intended rivals. Trump's trade wars and Brexit are prime examples. 

 

You are talking about neo-Cons like Romney or McCain who are disconnected from the average bloke. Trump and Brexit happened for that very reason.

 

On 12/31/2018, 2:33:02, alderhill said:

 

These impulses of yours to to say "anybody", "always", "an extreme degree" and "at every opportunity" are a bad habit and hurt your trustworthiness. It is simply not true. Most border controls are carried out quietly and without much incident. The current migration crisis is obviously an exceptional moment.

 

I didn't realize those four expressions were forbidden... In any case you are talking about most border controls being carried out quietly. What about the cases that are not so quiet? You will immediately hear anybody who tries to enforce existing laws called a xenophobe and racist.

 

On 12/31/2018, 2:33:02, alderhill said:

How so? You mean Brexit?
 

A bit personal but it involved three men, who were in the country illegally, but what it didn't involve was my consent. Unfortunately for them two of the men are no longer among the living and the third one, I am told, is very ill.

 

On 12/31/2018, 2:33:02, alderhill said:

 

Yea, the Soviet Union legal code was bogus. And...? Why is that relevant here? 

 

 

Gee whiz, have you ever noticed that North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, yet is neither democratic nor a republic nor does much for its people? It's almost as if labels don't always matter. In North Korea, you literally cannot publicly say that Kim Jong-un is a lying selfish fat-arse with a bad haircut (he's officially divine, after all). Here, we can say what we want, as long as its within certain widely agreed-upon guidelines.

That's exactly my point. The Soviet Union had free speech in name only. If you're going to keep on adding exceptions to the rule you will end up with the same scenario in Europe as well. Freedom of speech is being more and more pushed aside in favour of "maintaining the peace".

 

On 12/31/2018, 2:33:02, alderhill said:

If you want, you can start a Youtube channel right now saying all the conservative Wiccan things you want, no matter how bonkers and woo woo it is, and if enough people watch it, and youtube doesn't demonetize you, you can even receive cheques, or try your hand at getting a Patreon going, etc. 

You seem a bit frustrated here...

 

On 12/31/2018, 2:33:02, alderhill said:

 

It was poor journalism, but this is not "fake news". It was quickly rescinded with an apology. Swaying public opinion is not forbidden - quite the opposite. Billions are spent on it, and you clearly have had your opinion swayed.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion however the tape was edited in order to mislead the public about Zimmerman and here is a quotation from Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

 

Quote

Fake news is written and published usually with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically

 

Was this tape edited with the intent to mislead the public and damage a person (Zimmerman)? Most definitely. It was only rescinded with an apology after they were caught but the damage was already done. In other words they were not sorry; they were only sorry they were caught.

 

On 12/31/2018, 2:33:02, alderhill said:

An old catchline comes to mind: It's the economy, stupid.

Who benefits from this economy? I keep on hearing how great the economy is in Britain but an average Londoner can barely afford to pay for his flat. In fact some working couples are resorting to shared accommodations with others. It seems that this economy is great for the elites. You can keep those kinds of conservatives.

 

 

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019, 10:57:21, balticus said:

You maintain that you are not defending the WaPo when you clearly are.

I am less defending the WaPo as such, as disagreeing with you to what degree they are as subjective or biased as the Washington Times. You are trying a slight of hand. 

 

We obviously disagree on the degree of their respective bias. I think it matters, for you it's immaterial since one bad fish spoils the whole pond. I am not convinced, and I disagree.

 

Further, WaPo and Washington Times (I'm a regular reader of neither) are but two newsmedia of hundreds more in the Anglosphere. Somehow implying that these stand in for all newsmedia in general is a gross reduction. And no, not all newsmedia are owned by oligarchs, besides.

 

Quote

All newsmedia are biased either due to the interests of their owners and operators or to pander to the interests of their readers. 

And?

 

Quote

Your first sentence is a logical flaw unless joined by an "or" rather than an "and" with a few other possibilities added.  

Nah.

 

Quote

Where ?   Why make things up?   Quote me. 

You seem to be beating around the bush a lot.

 

Quote

We need to read skeptically, read multiple sources and recognize the editorial bias of the sources we use.   That is common sense and not a rejection of the free press but rather a description of the risks of relying on the free press.  

Good to hear you say it. Short of mass telepathy, we'll have to make do. ;)

 

Dealing with bias is part of life.

 

Quote

You are biased. 

So are you. So are we all.

 

Quote

The bias is easier to detect now than it was 10 years ago.   

You see it as a top-down push of Y. I see that too, in some places very obvious, but I'd say there's also a vacuum effect, a demand for X. As I said earlier, because newsmedia revenues are falling, to catch more of a smaller but devoted audience we are seeing more 'pandering' to audiences. Here, one could go further into the economics of the media, but I'll just say readers (we can also say consumers) have to demand better, and this requires awareness and having high-standards. 

 

For example, I remember when I was in journalism school and then briefly in The Biz, the sorts of headlines that are nowadays considered "clickbait" were absolutely forbidden (except in tabloids and gossip rags, etc.). It was considered cheap and sensational, and worst of all: barely informative, or not at all. Now, more than 10 years later, it's quite common and I have even seen pieces by old instructors or colleagues in "good sources" (I think there's a distinction) that are pure clickbait. (That said, authors of a piece generally do not choose their headlines, editors do). The reason is because 1) it works, 2) online world = short attention spans and 3) people seem not to reject it anymore.

 

Statistics suggest that younger people generally don't watch/listen to/read mainstream newsmedia as much as in the past several decades. They might start when they're older... Most of us do not sit under a rock, so we still consume media of various kinds. It tends now to be more splintered and niche, after our own interests. Thanks first to cable TV and later the internet, this is very easy to do, and generally low-cost or free. I haven't had a TV in over 10 years, but I still find more media than I have time for, via YouTube channels, podcasts, books, magazines, occasional movies, music, certain news sources, etc. Much of it, to be honest, I do not have to pay for directly (barring Netflix which I actually barely use -- remind me to cancel, some online subscriptions, and GEZ...).

 

You and I have paid for newsmedia, but many people do not want to. With much less buys/subscriptions, newsmedia are more 'reliant' on advertisers and strings-attached corporate/government handouts.  Even the likes of PayPal, Patreon and creditcards are beginning to be politicized.

 

Quote

I think you will agree that a binary scale is oversimplified.   Some publications have their own niche interests.  

For sure.

 

Recently, I've been reading/listening about overseas-Chinese media. Some are literal organs of the CPC, some are independent critics of the CPC and China's authoritarianism more generally. Many of the latter seem to have a Falun Gong "connection" (which the CPC loves to point out). Falun Gong does have a large enough following to collect donations, which are then used to sponsor (sometimes found) overseas media. Still, most of these media are not purely mouthpieces of the Falun Gong, but willing to accept donations where they can. Depending on the source, a lot of what they report about Chinese human rights abuses is essentially true. Of course, it comes from the Chinese equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses...

 

Quote

Consolidation of media started in the mid-1990s after the passage of the Telecom Bill of 1996.   Surprised you don't know that. 

Sure, it is a piece of the puzzle. 

 

Quote

The media have consolidated.    

For some large players, yes. That's not the full story. At the same time, media has also splintered. We are not so reliant on the 'mainstream media'. This is also one reason for the surge in vocal identity politics groups, or in other corners, radicalization.

 

Quote

The KKK has not been a significant force since the 1970s.   

So what? It's an example of conservative identity politics (pre-dating for example the fiasco of Evergreen College), which is what was asked for. You continue to try moving the goalposts on this.

 

They are relevant examples, all.

 

Quote

The example of conservative identity politics which you may never read about is the people who reacted to desegregation in the public schools in the US by sending their kids to private schools.    "White flight" to the suburbs as well.   Those issues get no traction because the phenomena are not limited to one part of the political spectrum.    They cannot be weaponized.

Yes it's hard to yell what a big ugly nose someone has when you yourself have a big ugly nose. Doesn't stop some from trying though.

 

Anyway, another good example. We'll call it Exhibit #156. Of course, I've heard of these too. But guess what? It is most certainly not from the last 10 years. Voluntary segregation (school voucher, anyone?), white flight and attendant phenomena go back decades.

 

Quote

You are asking me to make your argument for you to show good faith?    You are hilarious.    

If you approach with a "I know something yoooou don't knooooow" attitude, I will ask you to just bloody say it. You seem to imply some superior knowledge. If that's the case, enlighten us. 

 

Quote

That is a stretch.    There are lot of people who are pro-life who are not religious.   

Sure, and there are many religious people who are totally OK with contraceptives and abortions. Since we are talking about identity politics, it necessarily includes those who identify strongly with the cause, and organize around it in a political way. Many who are politically active on this are inspired by their religious convictions. And if they're not, fine, it doesn't change the point.

 

Have you never walked past a Planned Parenthood in the US? Pro-life activists are definitely among the more active. In many places, they have been quite successful in obstructing access to what is nowadays called 'reproductive rights'.

 

Quote

I simply don't agree with you and your only synthesis seems to be that anyone who does not agree is ignorant.   

When you (more than once) seem to express surprise or lack of knowledge in basics of recent American history, I interpret that as a genuine lack of knowledge. Christian 'identity politics' in American culture and politics is absolutely there, whether you disagree or not. 

 

What if I were to tell you that I disagree that Russian/Soviet imperialism plays any role in Estonian history? What would you think?

 

Quote

I have been polite during this exchange.   

If you say so yourself... :unsure:

 

Quote

You have used personal insults which don't bother me one bit.   

I don't think so. But this is an international forum, communication styles differ, and as often the case with written communication, some nuance may be lost. I do not find your style polite, but like you I am not bothered one bit. 

 

Quote

This is politics but not identity politics.

billionaires trying to push gun control couldn't outspend the NRA.

Believe it or not, but there are some things even money cannot buy so easily. Gun control in the US is a constitutional and judicial issue. But there are those for whom it is an identity issue. 

 

Quote

You are twisting my words and you know it.   

No, it's how I really see you. You seem to have a very cynical and dismissive perspective, i.e. that motivations of journalists and newsmedia are necessarily malign. I disagree, based on what I know, and on my interpretation of the evidence, and (if nothing else) on the people I know.

 

Feel free to correct me where I've mischaracterized you. Until now, you say very little of what you believe or why, but a lot of what you reject without much explanation. 

 

Quote

The largest and most influential media are controlled by oligarchs.   Those people generally don't allow their outlets to publish stories which are against their interest. 

A diverse and free media scene operates as a system of checks and balances. I hope the implications are obvious to you.

 

Perhaps you'll find this interesting: https://ncase.me/trust/

 

Quote

Find a recent story in the WaPo critical of Amazon labor practices or questioning the efficacy of bidding for the second Amazon Headquarters.   That is hardly paranoia. 

So find other newsmedia that are critical. It shouldn't be hard. Why again is the WaPo being held up as a standard?... 

 

Quote

I would doubt that oligarchs get involved in the day to day editorial decisions on political matters,

Traditionally, it would damage the reputation (editorial independence) of a media source to allow this. It is a strong taboo in Western media, but of course it can happen. It takes guts to bite the hand that feeds you, especially in the newsmedia with its dismal job security, and non-compliant editors can always be replaced. In a media environment with fewer choices, there are then fewer checks and balances. We may even get cartels or collusion. Meanwhile, many online niche newsmedia aren't competing for a wide audience, but of course a niche readership. Hobby boat builders, knitters and crocheters, coin collectors, karate enthusiasts, raw vegan cooks, organic permaculturists, Salafists, Wiccans, Illuminati conspiracy theorists, video gamers, Christian pro-lifers, Alt-Right memesters, Black queer feminists, whatever.

 

Quote

but it seems unlikely that someone who owns or influences a large media outlet is naive about the potential political power and leverage at hand.  

Otherwise they wouldn't be in the media business. Humans, as social animals, can be influenced, and clearly there is power in being able to do so.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

I am less defending the WaPo as such, as disagreeing with you to what degree they are as subjective or biased as the Washington Times. You are trying a slight of hand. 

 

You confuse subtlety with honesty and you might not be smart enough to understand the difference or to detect misinformation wrapped in sophistication or sophistry.     

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

We obviously disagree on the degree of their respective bias.

 

No.   You see different levels of bias.   I see different levels of subtlety.   

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

one bad fish spoils the whole pond.

Strange use of that idiom.    With respect to the original topic, i have mentioned at least twice the Relotius' bias is not much different than 3 other members of the Spiegel staff who were active in the time i have read it. 

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

Further, WaPo and Washington Times (I'm a regular reader of neither) are but two newsmedia of hundreds more in the Anglosphere. Somehow implying that these stand in for all newsmedia in general is a gross reduction. And no, not all newsmedia are owned by oligarchs, besides.

 

Of these hundreds, which do you read regularly?   I never implied that WaPo or WashTimes stands in for anything, but i believe they exemplify the problems of American media. 

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

You seem to be beating around the bush a lot.

 

You have attributed ideas to me which i have not written.   If your points were solid, you wouldn't need to do that. 

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

You see it as a top-down push of Y. I see that too, in some places very obvious, but I'd say there's also a vacuum effect, a demand for X. As I said earlier, because newsmedia revenues are falling, to catch more of a smaller but devoted audience we are seeing more 'pandering' to audiences. Here, one could go further into the economics of the media, but I'll just say readers (we can also say consumers) have to demand better, and this requires awareness and having high-standards. 

 

I am not convinced that making or losing money is the only reason people go into the media business.  

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

For example, I remember when I was in journalism school and then briefly in The Biz, the sorts of headlines that are nowadays considered "clickbait" were absolutely forbidden (except in tabloids and gossip rags, etc.). It was considered cheap and sensational, and worst of all: barely informative, or not at all. Now, more than 10 years later, it's quite common and I have even seen pieces by old instructors or colleagues in "good sources" (I think there's a distinction) that are pure clickbait. (That said, authors of a piece generally do not choose their headlines, editors do). The reason is because 1) it works, 2) online world = short attention spans and 3) people seem not to reject it anymore.

 

There are very few internet articles which are worth the 60 - 220 seconds which offer more than 2-3 seconds worth of content.   I have found that in addition to clickbait, there is so little factual reporting, that it is less irritating and more efficient to read short summaries from smart people on Twitter.    

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

Recently, I've been reading/listening about overseas-Chinese media. Some are literal organs of the CPC, some are independent critics of the CPC and China's authoritarianism more generally. Many of the latter seem to have a Falun Gong "connection" (which the CPC loves to point out). Falun Gong does have a large enough following to collect donations, which are then used to sponsor (sometimes found) overseas media. Still, most of these media are not purely mouthpieces of the Falun Gong, but willing to accept donations where they can. Depending on the source, a lot of what they report about Chinese human rights abuses is essentially true. Of course, it comes from the Chinese equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses...

 

Who has financed Falun Gong since the beginning?   

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

Sure, it is a piece of the puzzle. 

 

For some large players, yes. That's not the full story. At the same time, media has also splintered. We are not so reliant on the 'mainstream media'. This is also one reason for the surge in vocal identity politics groups, or in other corners, radicalization.

 

Distribution is important.   People can self-publish novels but without marketing and distribution, it is difficult to reach a big audience. 

 

Director David Lynch tried to release the film Mulholland Drive independent of the normal distribution channels and failed spectacularly.   It was re-released a few months later with "help" and did well.   

 

Anybody can start a blog, but branding in media matters.   You find the WaPo brand less unreliable than the WashTimes brand, for example.    

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

So what? It's an example of conservative identity politics (pre-dating for example the fiasco of Evergreen College), which is what was asked for. You continue to try moving the goalposts on this.

Perhaps your assertion that others don't know much about American history or current events is simply projection.  

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

white flight and attendant phenomena go back decades.

 

They do, they are observable in self proclaimed liberals and progressives.   

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

Sure, and there are many religious people who are totally OK with contraceptives and abortions. Since we are talking about identity politics, it necessarily includes those who identify strongly with the cause, and organize around it in a political way. Many who are politically active on this are inspired by their religious convictions. And if they're not, fine, it doesn't change the point.

 

Anti-war, climate change activists, animal rights activists, pro-abortion activists,  animal rights activists, and people who want a new stadium in their respective city because they identify as fans of a certain sports team could also fit under your definition of those driven by identity politics.   I don't think it is so broad.  

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

Have you never walked past a Planned Parenthood in the US? Pro-life activists are definitely among the more active. In many places, they have been quite successful in obstructing access to what is nowadays called 'reproductive rights'.

 

PETA seems to be quite active near places which experiment on animals, butcher animals for food, or skin animals for fur.   This is unsurprising.     They think it is wrong.   

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

When you (more than once) seem to express surprise or lack of knowledge in basics of recent American history, I interpret that as a genuine lack of knowledge. 

If you say so.  I tend to think that evangelical Christians have far less power than you think.  

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

What if I were to tell you that I disagree that Russian/Soviet imperialism plays any role in Estonian history? What would you think?

If you had lived in Russia and / or Estonia, I would ask for your reasons.   Otherwise i wouldn't put a whole lot of weight on your opinion.  

 

Estonia is a small pawn in a bigger game and like Canada, it is pretty dependent on the US for its security and economic well being.  

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

Believe it or not, but there are some things even money cannot buy so easily. Gun control in the US is a constitutional and judicial issue. But there are those for whom it is an identity issue. 

 

Yet you have mentioned the amount of money the NRA showers on politicians as if support is simply a question of money.   Are you backing away from that?    

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

You seem to have a very cynical and dismissive perspective, i.e. that motivations of journalists and newsmedia are necessarily malign. I disagree, based on what I know, and on my interpretation of the evidence, and (if nothing else) on the people I know.

 

Biased by design rather than necessarily malign.   Without knowing where you have worked (and that is private) i cannot really judge your experience. 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

A diverse and free media scene operates as a system of checks and balances. I hope the implications are obvious to you.

 

In theory, but not in practice.     I don't see multiple independent voices on many topics.  

 

31 minutes ago, alderhill said:

Otherwise they wouldn't be in the media business. Humans, as social animals, can be influenced, and clearly there is power in being able to do so.

 

If people buy media businesses which don't make money, but can sway public opinion, why do you think they buy those businesses?   

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018, 3:33:02, alderhill said:

That doesn't speak to an informed handle on this... Leftists™ didn't invent globalization. In fact, they have spent a lot of the last several decades protesting it while conservatives mocked them for being smelly, naive and anti-business. Well, too late now. 

 

Hard to say what you mean by "Leftist".  

 

Nobody invented globalization.   It has been part of human existence for a very long time.   

 

The Democratic Presidential administration of Bill Clinton paved the way for the destruction of the US manufacturing base via NAFTA and premature entry of China into the WTO.    

 

You are stuck in an outdated and oversimplified left versus right paradigm.   

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now