The news media and how they cover (or don't cover) News/Politics. Let's argue.

[babyblob]

Not to mention that a lot of social media (which I suspect reaches more people than traditional media) is dominated by conservative/hard-right nonsense. The conservative machine has been very quick to embrace and utilize social media and has practically legitimized disinformation. Some of the stuff I read is so stupid that I wonder how anyone can believe it but it is what it is.

Traditional media houses (outside of the conservative ones) still try to "two sides" issues which completely muddies the water. As you rightly pointed out, a lot of left-leaning outlets have been very critical of Biden and Democrats even after major successes. This doesn't help anyone and is pretty much bullcrap. Especially when some conservative media is taking a sharp right turn and now willingly put out lies and idiocy just to prop up their base.

It even becomes more complicated when you realize that only a few companies control majority of media. Throw in the social media companies and their greed and everything gets very messy.

But ultimately, it falls on the political entities/parties/ whatever to take charge and utilize the channels in front of them. Trump for example used social media very effectively and celebrated every win and every dumb thing he did, there's no reason for the opposition to not do the same. The Democrats need to get out in front of their message and counter disinformation...and they need to be unified. Seriously, guys like Boebert can get away with the sh!t see says about Ilhan Omar because her own party has vilified her for a while now.

That is my issue with the Dems right now. The GOP has done an amazing job or using the media to their advantage. Meanwhile Pelosi and Schmuer send 2 tweets that say "Shame on this person" And "We are working on the BBB" and they claim they are running an effective social media campaign. They do not just flat out say what needs to be said.

I didnt see any out rage of Boebert from the Dems. Where was Pelosi saying "She said that because she is racist and the crowed laughed because they are racist. And why doesnt the GOP stop her? because 9 out of ten of them think just like her."

Too busy taking the high road and not working the media to their advantage. And on November 9th 2022 I want a reporter to ask how that worked out for her party.

[Mister Mets]

I think this is an important meta-question worthy of its own thread, as it's more evergreen than much of the political discussion, when tends to be dominated by recent developments.

It does not seem plausible that the main problem with the American press is that they go too easy on Republicans. This is a comment mainly from people who want the media to reflect their own views, which tend to be left-wing. The cliche they may use is that reality has a left-wing bias, but they'll make all sorts of selective arguments. For example, they'll suggest that aspects of a massive piece of legislation are popular without polling the entirety of it. Benefits poll well. Spending does not.

There was a recent study (mentioned in Tendrin's twitter link) that suggested the media was harsher on Biden. But a lot of it was bullshit.

Nate Silver noted that they viewed analysis of bad poll numbers as being biased against Biden. The algorithm also coded certain words as positive or negative, when the story was more nuanced or in some cases didn't match the coding. For example, the word "high" is considered favorable, even in the context of "high taxes."

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...56792390668292

There are of course unpopular things Democrats do and fight for. Their preferences on immigration or late-term abortion do not poll well. There are also all sorts of media stories defending unpopular left-wing arguments (riots are fine, defund the police, etc.) or critical of mainstream positions.

It is a fair point that there are non-partisan biases. For example, a study of middle eastern coverage showed that there was a bias of favorable coverage towards whichever side advocated for peace at a given point, but that tends to be based on military strength and temporary advantage rather than human rights or which side is the aggressor.

A major factor is going to be that the American media is largely staffed by people who are left of center, and live in liberal enclaves like coastal cities, regularly hanging out with people who have similar backgrounds. So they're more likely to be left-wing. That said, actual journalists will need to talk to Republicans on occasion, and will get an understanding of their position, which will confuse people from the same circles who follow the media but don't need to interact with Republicans. This may be why some of the most embarrassing left-wing media pieces come from people who aren't standard journalists, but are ostensibly writing about something else.

If that’s true the training must be feeble beyond belief!

Think how tough it must be for journalists in countries where the state routinely uses its full power to intimidate the media…by any method needed, including imposing jail.

By comparison life for US journalists is cushty. And they should be doing everything they can to support democracy by exposing any politician that lies.

This is true. Lies should be exposed. Voters should be given the information necessary to make up their own minds.

However, this can get difficult. Voters don't like being told that things they like don't work, so there are financial incentives against this. And there are all sorts of grey areas where you can understand how reasonable people may disagree, or even be unable to understand how someone else can believe something.

[ed2962]

I don't care about the media being critical of Democrats as long as it's fair. The problem is that they really starts to dig in when Democrats are trying to do things like BBB. When they're doing something that's the antithesis of that it doesn't get criticized or brought up. The media is on the side of their corporate overlords. And the only bias the "liberal media" has is towards the status quo.

Exactly this. Viacom, Disney, Comcast, CBS and the rest win no matter who's in the white house or who's Democrat or Republican.

[numberthirty]

Unfortunately, those corporate interests align with the Republican agenda, or visa versa.

Honestly, this take is totally buying the snake oil.

It's not "Republican..."/"Democratic..."/"Whatever..."

It's just looking out for the "Haves..."

The rest of it is just whatever the method of distracting folks is.

Way too many folks will easily let themselves get distracted by "Republican..." versus "Democratic..." when things like the Press Secretary of a "Democratic..." administration just asked a member of the press if the government should be mailing everyone a free Covid test like that member of the press was nuts happen all of the time.

[numberthirty]

I don't care about the media being critical of Democrats as long as it's fair. The problem is that they really starts to dig in when Democrats are trying to do things like BBB. When they're doing something that's the antithesis of that it doesn't get criticized or brought up. The media is on the side of their corporate overlords. And the only bias the "liberal media" has is towards the status quo.

How often are they even slightly critical of them?

When a Democratic administration's press secretary dogs out the idea of government actually providing everyone in America a single Covid test kit in the midst of a pandemic?

Every Democrat holding office at the Federal level should have to answer for exactly what the issue with that would be for as long as they are holding office.

Never mind the Press Secretary in question...

[Iron Maiden]

I think this is an important meta-question worthy of its own thread, as it's more evergreen than much of the political discussion, when tends to be dominated by recent developments.

It does not seem plausible that the main problem with the American press is that they go too easy on Republicans. This is a comment mainly from people who want the media to reflect their own views, which tend to be left-wing. The cliche they may use is that reality has a left-wing bias, but they'll make all sorts of selective arguments. For example, they'll suggest that aspects of a massive piece of legislation are popular without polling the entirety of it. Benefits poll well. Spending does not.

There was a recent study (mentioned in Tendrin's twitter link) that suggested the media was harsher on Biden. But a lot of it was bullshit.

Nate Silver noted that they viewed analysis of bad poll numbers as being biased against Biden. The algorithm also coded certain words as positive or negative, when the story was more nuanced or in some cases didn't match the coding. For example, the word "high" is considered favorable, even in the context of "high taxes."

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...56792390668292

There are of course unpopular things Democrats do and fight for. Their preferences on immigration or late-term abortion do not poll well. There are also all sorts of media stories defending unpopular left-wing arguments (riots are fine, defund the police, etc.) or critical of mainstream positions.

It is a fair point that there are non-partisan biases. For example, a study of middle eastern coverage showed that there was a bias of favorable coverage towards whichever side advocated for peace at a given point, but that tends to be based on military strength and temporary advantage rather than human rights or which side is the aggressor.

A major factor is going to be that the American media is largely staffed by people who are left of center, and live in liberal enclaves like coastal cities, regularly hanging out with people who have similar backgrounds. So they're more likely to be left-wing. That said, actual journalists will need to talk to Republicans on occasion, and will get an understanding of their position, which will confuse people from the same circles who follow the media but don't need to interact with Republicans. This may be why some of the most embarrassing left-wing media pieces come from people who aren't standard journalists, but are ostensibly writing about something else.

This is true. Lies should be exposed. Voters should be given the information necessary to make up their own minds.

However, this can get difficult. Voters don't like being told that things they like don't work, so there are financial incentives against this. And there are all sorts of grey areas where you can understand how reasonable people may disagree, or even be unable to understand how someone else can believe something.

I have to make a point about late term abortions. IMO it is an event that is largely misunderstood. First of all, this is not done on a whim or as a matter of convenience. Even the Roe vs Wade ruling was very cautionary about limiting third semester abortions in the case of the mother's health being threatened. But tragically there are times when the parents are faced with terrible choices dealing with a life threatening situation for the mother or several fetal abnormalities that have been detected, like the total absence of a brain in the development of the fetus. Thankfully 3rd semester abortions only account for about 1 percent of those performed. It is not something that I think the government should interfere with. This decision is done with extreme cases and I think the physician and parents should be the ones making the decision, not the courts.

If this procedure is "unpopular" with Republicans then they can just take a long walk off a short pier as far as I am concerned.

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

How often are they even slightly critical of them?

When a Democratic administration's press secretary dogs out the idea of government actually providing everyone in America a single Covid test kit in the midst of a pandemic?

Every Democrat holding office at the Federal level should have to answer for exactly what the issue with that would be for as long as they are holding office.

Never mind the Press Secretary in question...

Again, like i said when they're doing something that's the opposite of directly helping the general public the media doesn't say anything. This still proves my point lol

[CaptCleghorn]

I enjoy listening to baseball games on the radio while driving. When the opportunity presents itself to allow me to switch back and forth between opposing broadcasts, I love doing that and comparing reactions to certain plays and events. The exact same effect is had when switching between Fox News and MSNBC on election night coverage.

[Mister Mets]

I have to make a point about late term abortions. IMO it is an event that is largely misunderstood. First of all, this is not done on a whim or as a matter of convenience. Even the Roe vs Wade ruling was very cautionary about limiting third semester abortions in the case of the mother's health being threatened. But tragically there are times when the parents are faced with terrible choices dealing with a life threatening situation for the mother or several fetal abnormalities that have been detected, like the total absence of a brain in the development of the fetus. Thankfully 3rd semester abortions only account for about 1 percent of those performed. It is not something that I think the government should interfere with. This decision is done with extreme cases and I think the physician and parents should be the ones making the decision, not the courts.

If this procedure is "unpopular" with Republicans then they can just take a long walk off a short pier as far as I am concerned.

The majority of what is colloquially referred to as late-term abortions are not due to fetal abnormalities or risk to the life of the mother. The proposed laws by Democrats are not limited to those exceptions (or others like rape and incest.) This is relevant to any honest and unbiased discussion of the topic.

I don't care about the media being critical of Democrats as long as it's fair. The problem is that they really starts to dig in when Democrats are trying to do things like BBB. When they're doing something that's the antithesis of that it doesn't get criticized or brought up. The media is on the side of their corporate overlords. And the only bias the "liberal media" has is towards the status quo.

There are so many more alternatives to the corporate-controlled media today. I am curious as to what concessions you feel major institutions make to corporate overlords. How does the New York Times, for example, compromise its values?

Do you feel that there's a status quo bias on social issues? Has the media been against the expansion of gay marriage, or laws protecting trans rights?

They also refuse to fact-check police reports, and instead report it as fact without scrutiny. That's definitely intentional too, since they're very cosy with police departments. Because for local reporters on the crime beat their law enforcement sources are their daily bread & butter. Regardless though, they have to treat them like any other source & actually fact check. But they rarely do, likely do to fear of losing access. There's also probably pressure from up top too.

It's a fair point that the media relies a lot on police for crime reporting. The alternative is very expensive, and that may get to one of the major problems with media reform efforts- some of the solutions will be costly. How should the media recoup expenses?

[Catlady in training]

The majority of what is colloquially referred to as late-term abortions are not due to fetal abnormalities or risk to the life of the mother.

What? That would be news to me, do you have any source on that? What I know and what has been the general consensus as far as I remember is just as Iron Maiden said, due to health reasons on woman's side or the fetus'.

[Kirby101]

Some clarity, and "late term abortion" is not used in medicine.
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...-in-pregnancy/

And we are talking about 1% of abortions. But the anti-abortion side has used this to ban all abortions. And the fact that the MSM continues to use this non-medical term is another example of how the GOP controls their narrative.

[Mister Mets]

What? That would be news to me, do you have any source on that? What I know and what has been the general consensus as far as I remember is just as Iron Maiden said, due to health reasons on woman's side or the fetus'.

The congressional research service looked into this question.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45161.pdf

There are some caveats, but the expert consensus is that fetal anomalies and situations where the mother's health is at risk are a small minority of abortions at or over twenty weeks.

[Madam-Shogun-Assassin]

CNN quietly hiring Alyssah Farah https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16/stat...513329160?s=20

[Mister Mets]

CNN quietly hiring Alyssah Farah https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16/stat...513329160?s=20

So?

There is a revolving door between media and politics. It's normal for political consultants to go into media analysis and vice versa.

See George Stephanopoulos, Van Jones, Jay Carney and plenty of others.

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

Yikes!

For better or worse, campaign coverage emphasizes what candidates are doing and saying. Washington policy and politics coverage emphasizes what the president and other leaders are trying to move through Congress. If Democratic candidates aren’t talking about America’s anti-democratic movement, and if President JOE BIDEN, Speaker NANCY PELOSI and Senate Majority Leader CHUCK SCHUMER aren’t doing it every day in Washington, then the coverage will reflect that. That is not a defense of the political-media ecosystem but just a description of it.

http://https://www.politico.com/news...e-media-495453

*Translation* - "we don’t think covering attempts to violently overthrow democracy, subvert will of people & oust legit POTUS is important because reasons."

Why the press doesn’t think it has skin in game of protecting Constitution both flabbergasts & enrages me. So the news media has no obligation to inform the public about political crises if the politicians aren't talking about it? If a politician is corrupt and no politicians are talking about it, does that mean there's no story?