Red Mosquito
http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/

On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?
http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13193
Page 36 of 44

Author:  BurtReynolds [ Sat June 13, 2020 12:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Rob wrote:
:shake:

Who is censoring you or conservatives? If your answer isn't the government, then I don't think that's the right word. Remember when conservatives felt that private businesses could do what they wanted but the gov't couldn't? Do we live in a world where our head of state promotes conservative media and threatens social media when they want to speak out about what's said on their platform?

Censorship doesn't just mean government censorship. Private companies can do what they please, legally, but it's still censorship. Whether you think the Right is dumb for allowing social media sites that power for so long, that doesn't change the fact that they still censor right channels when they can.


This is a truly absurd definition of censorship.

yeah so absurd

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

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


You really got me there buddy, you linked to wikipedia.

Is it wrong?

Author:  digster [ Sat June 13, 2020 12:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

BurtReynolds wrote:
digster wrote:
Wait a minute; is Burt actually saying conservatives are ignoring media?

There's three questions, I think; 1) are the people working in 'media' more liberal than conservative (yes), 2) does the reporting of news stories have a 'liberal' bent (sometimes, though not always in the ways Burt seems to think), and 3) is the self-victimization conservatives feel about the media far outstretching whatever legitimate critiques there are to be made (of course).

I find there's quite a bit of reporting that makes more sense when you see it as reporting done by liberals who don't want conservatives to yell at them. It's how you have thousands of stories over the past four years centering and framing retired, white Trump voters in rural towns as the nation's moderate voter.

They are avoiding it, not ignoring it. And calling it what it is: Establishment liberal media.

1. are the people working in 'media' more liberal than conservative? Yes, by a lot.
2. does the reporting of news stories have a 'liberal' bent? Yes, by a lot.
3. is the self-victimization conservatives feel about the media far outstretching whatever legitimate critiques there are to be made? It's not self-victimization, and no, their arguments don't outstretch the legitimate critiques at all.

It's like we live in an entirely different world! lol


I think that in many ways that's true.

One example was how you described some of the goings on at a place like the New York Times:

Quote:
NYT is a dumpster fire that just pushed out their editorial editor after its woke staff complained about him printing a Republican, so I don't think conservative opinions are welcome there, to say nothing of that ridiculous 1619 Project. And people like George Will or Jennifer Rubin don't actually represent anyone on the right, so their editorials are irrelevant. They exist to make the left media seem unbiased.


Skipping over the evocation of the "woke" bogeyman, the bolded is indicative of the problem here. Because that's not what happened. People were not upset by the op-ed because Cotton's a Republican, and I have a feeling you may know that. But nevertheless the Narrative needs to be serviced, even if reality doesn't easily correlate with the existence of a big, bad Liberal Establishment Media. These responses sound less like a critique of the nuts and bolts of how journalism works, and about railing against a liberal behemoth where everyone from Twitter to the New York Times op-ed pages are in cahoots.

And, to be honest, it's nothing we haven't heard before. The Big Bad Media has been a part of what it means to be a conservative for as long as I remember. It certainly matters way more than something like a corporate tax rate. But that's why it's impossible for this debate to ever really go anywhere, because it's not about convincing or being convinced. To paraphrase a saying, if the hammer is conservatives feeling aggrieved about the media, then every article, op-ed and cable news show is a nail.

As I said, that's not to say that liberals don't outnumber conservatives at these places (they undoubtedly do) and that this can impact what coverage looks like and why. But the results are a lot more granular, a lot less conventionally one-sided, and a lot more complicated than would fit in an RNC e-blast. That conversation's never happened, and I doubt it ever will.

Finally, I think the carveout of the Liberal Establishment Media that excludes the most popular cable news network, much of the most popular talk radio, many podcasts, the second largest television station operator in the country, and many local news affiliates is a fairly large carveout. I understand your argument is that they're the exception that proves the rule; I just think that's a bit of a flimsy argument.

I think part of the question for you may be whether you believe that a liberal is capable of reporting a story that either paints someone on the right in a positive light, or someone on the left in a negative one. If you inherently don't believe that can be done, than I'd imagine the sheer fact that there are more liberals than conservatives in newsrooms (at least newsrooms of the kind I think we're talking about here) would be the end of the debate for you.

Author:  BurtReynolds [ Sat June 13, 2020 1:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

digster wrote:

One example was how you described some of the goings on at a place like the New York Times:

Quote:
NYT is a dumpster fire that just pushed out their editorial editor after its woke staff complained about him printing a Republican, so I don't think conservative opinions are welcome there, to say nothing of that ridiculous 1619 Project. And people like George Will or Jennifer Rubin don't actually represent anyone on the right, so their editorials are irrelevant. They exist to make the left media seem unbiased.


Skipping over the evocation of the "woke" bogeyman, the bolded is indicative of the problem here. Because that's not what happened. People were not upset by the op-ed because Cotton's a Republican, and I have a feeling you may know that. But nevertheless the Narrative needs to be serviced, even if reality doesn't easily correlate with the existence of a big, bad Liberal Establishment Media. These responses sound less like a critique of the nuts and bolts of how journalism works, and about railing against a liberal behemoth where everyone from Twitter to the New York Times op-ed pages are in cahoots.

And, to be honest, it's nothing we haven't heard before. The Big Bad Media has been a part of what it means to be a conservative for as long as I remember. It certainly matters way more than something like a corporate tax rate. But that's why it's impossible for this debate to ever really go anywhere, because it's not about convincing or being convinced. To paraphrase a saying, if the hammer is conservatives feeling aggrieved about the media, then every article, op-ed and cable news show is a nail.

As I said, that's not to say that liberals don't outnumber conservatives at these places (they undoubtedly do) and that this can impact what coverage looks like and why. But the results are a lot more granular, a lot less conventionally one-sided, and a lot more complicated than would fit in an RNC e-blast. That conversation's never happened, and I doubt it ever will.


What do you think happened there? Do you think there would have been such a staff uproar if an AOC or other leftist voice used the same rhetoric? I know you don't believe that it would go down like that. This is a prime example of how conservative voices are scuttled, and you are COMPLETELY blind to it. It's unreal.

This isn't some grand conspiracy theory either. I'm not saying anyone is in cahoots. They don't have to be.

Yes, we've heard conservatives complain about the Big Bad Media before. We've heard it a million times. And that fact still doesn't make it less true. None of the arguments you all are making make any sense. The fact that they complain about it so much is not proof that it isn't real.
digster wrote:
Finally, I think the carveout of the Liberal Establishment Media that excludes the most popular cable news network, much of the most popular talk radio, many podcasts, the second largest television station operator in the country, and many local news affiliates is a fairly large carveout. I understand your argument is that they're the exception that proves the rule; I just think that's a bit of a flimsy argument.


Again, their popularity is totally irrelevant. I'm not including any podcasts or independent bloggers in the mass media. And local TV and radio is probably more irrelevant than cable news and national newspapers.

Author:  Mickey [ Sat June 13, 2020 1:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

Well, I can't imagine AOC or another leftist arguing for using the military to quell domestic protests, and I'm pretty confidant about this given that there were recently right-wing protests, so. And it's more than a little disingenuous to use the no-true-Scotsman argument when a number of NYT commentators are right-wingers. Not that I'm surprised.

Author:  Mickey [ Sat June 13, 2020 1:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

BurtReynolds wrote:
Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Rob wrote:
:shake:

Who is censoring you or conservatives? If your answer isn't the government, then I don't think that's the right word. Remember when conservatives felt that private businesses could do what they wanted but the gov't couldn't? Do we live in a world where our head of state promotes conservative media and threatens social media when they want to speak out about what's said on their platform?

Censorship doesn't just mean government censorship. Private companies can do what they please, legally, but it's still censorship. Whether you think the Right is dumb for allowing social media sites that power for so long, that doesn't change the fact that they still censor right channels when they can.


This is a truly absurd definition of censorship.

yeah so absurd

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

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


You really got me there buddy, you linked to wikipedia.

Is it wrong?


In general? No, of course not--if Twitter came out today and said "we will not allow users to post the n-word," that would be censorship. I wouldn't get up in arms about it, but sure, it's censorship. More broadly, I can't imagine anyone looking at 2020 and thinking that private corporations aren't able to be censors. But as far as this specific case, it is *absurd* to argue that, by virtue of not appearing or having the opportunity to appear on certain news networks or in the pages of certain newspapers, you or your ideas are being "censored," because by that definition the New York Times would have to print *every* idea, every op-ed, every perspective that comes their way in order to avoid the charge of censorship. It would abolish the notion of editorial standards and perspective. Does those phenomena share some structural similarity with censorship, insofar as they are all based on a prohibition or exclusion? Sure, but there's no useful definition of censorship where it includes the fact that CNN won't let me come on the air to talk about gamer's rights. It might make a certain semantic sense if you stretch the terms far enough, but it *purposefully* obfuscates rather than clarifies the workings of mass media.

Author:  BurtReynolds [ Sat June 13, 2020 1:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Rob wrote:
:shake:

Who is censoring you or conservatives? If your answer isn't the government, then I don't think that's the right word. Remember when conservatives felt that private businesses could do what they wanted but the gov't couldn't? Do we live in a world where our head of state promotes conservative media and threatens social media when they want to speak out about what's said on their platform?

Censorship doesn't just mean government censorship. Private companies can do what they please, legally, but it's still censorship. Whether you think the Right is dumb for allowing social media sites that power for so long, that doesn't change the fact that they still censor right channels when they can.


This is a truly absurd definition of censorship.

yeah so absurd

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

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


You really got me there buddy, you linked to wikipedia.

Is it wrong?


In general? No, of course not--if Twitter came out today and said "we will not allow users to post the n-word," that would be censorship. I wouldn't get up in arms about it, but sure, it's censorship. More broadly, I can't imagine anyone looking at 2020 and thinking that private corporations aren't able to be censors. But as far as this specific case, it is *absurd* to argue that, by virtue of not appearing or having the opportunity to appear on certain news networks or in the pages of certain newspapers, you or your ideas are being "censored," because by that definition the New York Times would have to print *every* idea, every op-ed, every perspective that comes their way in order to avoid the charge of censorship. It would abolish the notion of editorial standards and perspective. Does those phenomena share some structural similarity with censorship, insofar as they are all based on a prohibition or exclusion? Sure, but there's no useful definition of censorship where it includes the fact that CNN won't let me come on the air to talk about gamer's rights. It might make a certain semantic sense if you stretch the terms far enough, but it *purposefully* obfuscates rather than clarifies the workings of mass media.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about appearances on news networks or op-eds. I was just talking about social media specifically. (that seems pretty obvious)

Author:  Mickey [ Sat June 13, 2020 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

BurtReynolds wrote:
Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Mickey wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
Rob wrote:
:shake:

Who is censoring you or conservatives? If your answer isn't the government, then I don't think that's the right word. Remember when conservatives felt that private businesses could do what they wanted but the gov't couldn't? Do we live in a world where our head of state promotes conservative media and threatens social media when they want to speak out about what's said on their platform?

Censorship doesn't just mean government censorship. Private companies can do what they please, legally, but it's still censorship. Whether you think the Right is dumb for allowing social media sites that power for so long, that doesn't change the fact that they still censor right channels when they can.


This is a truly absurd definition of censorship.

yeah so absurd

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."

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


You really got me there buddy, you linked to wikipedia.

Is it wrong?


In general? No, of course not--if Twitter came out today and said "we will not allow users to post the n-word," that would be censorship. I wouldn't get up in arms about it, but sure, it's censorship. More broadly, I can't imagine anyone looking at 2020 and thinking that private corporations aren't able to be censors. But as far as this specific case, it is *absurd* to argue that, by virtue of not appearing or having the opportunity to appear on certain news networks or in the pages of certain newspapers, you or your ideas are being "censored," because by that definition the New York Times would have to print *every* idea, every op-ed, every perspective that comes their way in order to avoid the charge of censorship. It would abolish the notion of editorial standards and perspective. Does those phenomena share some structural similarity with censorship, insofar as they are all based on a prohibition or exclusion? Sure, but there's no useful definition of censorship where it includes the fact that CNN won't let me come on the air to talk about gamer's rights. It might make a certain semantic sense if you stretch the terms far enough, but it *purposefully* obfuscates rather than clarifies the workings of mass media.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about appearances on news networks or op-eds. I was just talking about social media specifically. (that seems pretty obvious)


Bullshit. You were talking about Tom Cotton's op-ed and the 1619 project and the WaPo columnists. If your original point is about social media you're not doing a great job of staying focused here.

Author:  BurtReynolds [ Sat June 13, 2020 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

Lol just admit you got burned. MAYBE IF I HAD POLLING RIGHTS I could do a poll to see how most people understood me.

Author:  Mickey [ Sat June 13, 2020 7:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

Lol okay buddy. Your posts are all within the last two pages so it's not exactly hard to track whether you're referring exclusively to social media or not.

Author:  digster [ Sat June 13, 2020 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

BurtReynolds wrote:

What do you think happened there? Do you think there would have been such a staff uproar if an AOC or other leftist voice used the same rhetoric? I know you don't believe that it would go down like that. This is a prime example of how conservative voices are scuttled, and you are COMPLETELY blind to it. It's unreal.


Again, I get why you would want it framed that way; I was just pointing out that that wasn't what happened.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Again, their popularity is totally irrelevant. I'm not including any podcasts or independent bloggers in the mass media. And local TV and radio is probably more irrelevant than cable news and national newspapers.


Local news isn't irrelevant at all; though dwindling, it's still where more people watch news compared to cable television. And of course popularity is relevant; you wouldn't care about the Liberal Media Establishment Empire Alliance at the New York Times if no one read the New York Times. So again, I think if your definition of mass media has to have this many caveats it's not a very good definition.

Author:  McParadigm [ Wed June 17, 2020 1:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?


Author:  96583UP [ Wed June 17, 2020 2:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

McParadigm wrote:


the people in the bunny rabbit costumes were clearly the most menacing

Author:  BurtReynolds [ Wed June 17, 2020 11:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

I came across this old article from Tucker. Pretty fascinating read.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a ... beria-rev/

Author:  Rob [ Wed June 17, 2020 11:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

BurtReynolds wrote:
I came across this old article from Tucker. Pretty fascinating read.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a ... beria-rev/



Came across after some specific googling, right? :)

Author:  Norris [ Wed June 17, 2020 11:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

A lot of layoffs at WBUR today. Only a Game canceled.

Author:  BurtReynolds [ Thu June 18, 2020 12:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

Rob wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
I came across this old article from Tucker. Pretty fascinating read.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a ... beria-rev/



Came across after some specific googling, right? :)

nah. twitter

Author:  tragabigzanda [ Thu June 18, 2020 12:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

cutuphalfdead wrote:
A lot of layoffs at WBUR today. Only a Game canceled.

:-(

Author:  Bammer [ Thu June 18, 2020 12:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

I get my news from RM and if Down Rodeo wins I might as well live under a rock.

Author:  BurtReynolds [ Thu June 18, 2020 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

just checking the facts

Image

Author:  Anders [ Thu June 18, 2020 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

In a way it's true. I just got to read about him because of it. Sounds like he was a cool guy.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/defaced-abolitionist-statue/

Page 36 of 44 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/