The MSM thread
mtierney said:
Doesn’t get more MSM than the NYT. Remember that whole revisionary 1619 supplement back a couple of months or so ago? Even with a group of academics pointing out historical errors, the Times believes it did not err.
Further reading:
Gordon Wood’s reply to the Times reply: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/24/nytr-d24.html
The World Socialist Web Site’s longer response: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/28/nytr-d28.html
Both make valid points about the differences between history and journalism. Both also implicitly (or also, in the WSWS’s reply, explicitly) reject the idea that a history recorded almost entirely by white Americans might be flawed in some fundamental ways that call into question “settled” facts.
mtierney said:
Doesn’t get more MSM than the NYT. Remember that whole revisionary 1619 supplement back a couple of months or so ago? Even with a group of academics pointing out historical errors, the Times believes it did not err.
Are you moved enough by the critique to read any of the works by the authors of the critique? It's almost New Years -- good opportunity to build out your reading list for 2020.
This thread was about mainstream media, not mtierney. But the kill the messenger gene is all powerful here.
Oh, and before I am criticized for not answering a question from the stalker-in-house, let it be said I never intend to. It’s a New Year resolution
There is a tendency among supporters of a political candidate to begin to believe their own BS as the campaign goes on. They begin to believe that their candidate is the Messiah and the opponent is Satan. I may be exaggerating somewhat but those are the tendencies.
Therefore if the Press does not see things or report things the way a candidate's supporters see things those supporters must conclude that the Press is biased.
I must admit that I am not immune to this. As an active Warren supporter I could not understand why Joe Scarborough was so adamant that Buttigieg got the better of Warren in their exchange at the last Debate.
I find that supporters of Bernie Sanders are the most militant among the supporters of the various Democratic Candidates. A friend who supports Bernie asked why I "hated" Bernie. He seemed to assume that the only reason for supporting Warren was a hatred of Sanders.
Supporters of Trump will certainly view the NY Times as biased against Trump. to me they often ignore or whitewash his many crimes.
DaveSchmidt said:
mtierney said:
Doesn’t get more MSM than the NYT. Remember that whole revisionary 1619 supplement back a couple of months or so ago? Even with a group of academics pointing out historical errors, the Times believes it did not err.
Further reading:
Gordon Wood’s reply to the Times reply: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/24/nytr-d24.html
The World Socialist Web Site’s longer response: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/28/nytr-d28.html
Both make valid points about the differences between history and journalism. Both also implicitly (or also, in the WSWS’s reply, explicitly) reject the idea that a history recorded almost entirely by white Americans might be flawed in some fundamental ways that call into question “settled” facts.
Is that what you really meant to say? That they "reject the idea that a history recorded almost entirely by white Americans might be flawed"? Seems like the opposite would be true.
mtierney said:
This thread was about mainstream media, not mtierney. But the kill the messenger gene is all powerful here.
Oh, and before I am criticized for not answering a question from the stalker-in-house, let it be said I never intend to. It’s a New Year resolution
If your posts and elsewhere have demonstrated anything it is that you are incapable of answering ANYONE's simple questions. I am not sure if this is a lifelong disability or simply the toll of your advancing years. Either way, it is kind of pathetic.
drummerboy said:
Is that what you really meant to say? That they "reject the idea that a history recorded almost entirely by white Americans might be flawed"? Seems like the opposite would be true.
Yes, I meant to say that. While part of their objection is that the 1619 Project didn’t acknowledge the disputability of some of the information, their call for corrections addresses points that they describe as settled. Settled, that is, by predominantly white historians evaluating history that was documented at the time by predominantly white participants. New light is frequently being shed on previously unknown sources by nonwhite scholars looking at it from angles that might never occur to a Wood, a Wilentz or a McPherson (as talented and learned as they are, and as much as I’ve enjoyed their essays and reviews of their work in the NYRB). I was particularly scornful of the WSWS’s attempts to make its case by citing decades-old articles and consensus.
I’m not qualified to pass judgment on the specific factual counterarguments to the 1619 Project. As I said, there appear to be some valid points. But the primary value of the project, to me, was the new light it shed, and I question their view that historical light must be, or ever was, colorblind.
DaveSchmidt said:
Yes, I meant to say that. While part of their objection is that the 1619 Project didn’t acknowledge the disputability of some of the information, their call for corrections addresses points that they describe as settled. Settled, that is, by predominantly white historians evaluating history that was documented at the time by predominantly white participants. New light is frequently being shed on previously unknown sources by nonwhite scholars looking at it from angles that might never occur to a Wood, a Wilentz or a McPherson (as talented and learned as they are, and as much I’ve enjoyed their essays and reviews of their work in the NYRB). I was particularly scornful of the SWSW’s attempts to make its case by citing decades-old articles and consensus.
I’m not qualified to pass judgment on the specific factual counterarguments to the 1619 Project. As I said, there appear to be some valid points. But the primary value of the project, to me, was the new light it shed, and I question their view that historical light must be, or ever was, colorblind.
gotcha
good piece on the sins of the MSM over the last decade.
https://www.thenation.com/article/decade-politics-both-sides/
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
I take exception to the term "rant" to describe my pointing out that the MSM has censored the liberation of a territory in Bolivia from its coverage of the Bolivian coup.
It's necessary to point out manipulation and distortion of information by the MSM -- as well as outright censorship -- to get an accurate picture of what is really happening in Bolivia.
So - is your point of the bolivia thread - lack of msm coverage - or are you trying to educate us on what's happening - I posed a few questions on there that you aren't answering.
Why do you think the MSM is "censoring" this story?
I posted in the "Bolivia thread" about that.
Spoiler alert - things aren't exactly as described by Paul.
Replying here so as not to derail the 2020 Candidates thread, where this topic arose.
ml1 said:
DaveSchmidt said:
The commentary shifts from media coverage of politics to the shibboleths of the political elite themselves, which muddies Beauchamp’s point somewhat. (I don’t think he’s saying the former affects the centrist ideology of the latter. More that they share it.) It sounds like Beauchamp believes that a centrist bias is the wrong bias for the mainstream media to have, that “an instinctual suspicion of anything suggesting ideological zealotry, an admiration for difference-splitting, a conviction that politics should be a tidier and more rational process than it usually is” should be replaced by a different POV. Given that it’s the mainstream media, what should the biases be instead?
ETA: I realize there’s a separate discussion on this topic, and I don’t intend to carry on a long thread drift here. I’ll leave it at whatever replies might come.
the biases should be toward accurately reporting, and commentary should be based as much as possible on observable fact. For example this issue, which is not based on anything other than a shared assumption among the political and pundit elite:
The influence of this version of centrist ideology should not be underestimated. It’s particularly popular among the very wealthy, who lavishly fund organizations like No Labels and Fix the Debt to promote it. It often crops up among “straight” or “objective” news reporters, who see it as entirely uncontroversial to say the national debt is a pressing policy problem (it isn’t) or to hold up the American military as a paragon of national virtue. It partly explains why Democratic presidential debates get so hung up on debating how to pay for Medicare-for-all: The underlying assumption is that debt financing is obviously unacceptable.Click to Read MoreThe influence of this version of centrist ideology should not be underestimated. It’s particularly popular among the very wealthy, who lavishly fund organizations like No Labels and Fix the Debt to promote it. It often crops up among “straight” or “objective” news reporters, who see it as entirely uncontroversial to say the national debt is a pressing policy problem (it isn’t) or to hold up the American military as a paragon of national virtue. It partly explains why Democratic presidential debates get so hung up on debating how to pay for Medicare-for-all: The underlying assumption is that debt financing is obviously unacceptable.And the negative effects on regular people of this bias was actually the topic of another column this week:
That's where I think Beauchamp’s point got muddied. Even if it’s true that the political elite believes the federal debt is a pressing policy priority and hold up the military as a paragon of national virtue, is the MSM — which includes Krugman — really covering them that way, on the whole? (In the specific case of M4A, if the question is not asked at a debate, will voters just forget all about the potential costs?)
DaveSchmidt said:
That where I think Beauchamp’s point got muddied. Even if it’s true that the political elite believes the federal debt is a pressing policy priority and hold up the military as a paragon of national virtue, is the MSM — which includes Krugman — really covering them that way, on the whole? (In the specific case of M4A, if the question is not asked at a debate, will voters just forget all about the potential costs?)
of course they won't. Because voters have been pounded for years with the notion that new social programs have to be "paid for" (while no one ever seems to ask a Republican how they intend to "pay for" tax cuts).
and aside from Krugman and a handful of others, the mainstream press does generally accept that bias -- hence the constant debate questions on how to "pay for" Sanders' and Warren's policy proposals. There is a general assumption that adding to the national debt to give more people food stamps, or to give everyone health coverage or affordable college quite simply can't be done. In a country that added a mountain of new debt with tax cuts.
ml1 said:
DaveSchmidt said:
That where I think Beauchamp’s point got muddied. Even if it’s true that the political elite believes the federal debt is a pressing policy priority and hold up the military as a paragon of national virtue, is the MSM — which includes Krugman — really covering them that way, on the whole? (In the specific case of M4A, if the question is not asked at a debate, will voters just forget all about the potential costs?)
of course they won't. Because voters have been pounded for years with the notion that new social programs have to be "paid for" (while no one ever seems to ask a Republican how they intend to "pay for" tax cuts).
and aside from Krugman and a handful of others, the mainstream press does generally accept that bias -- hence the constant debate questions on how to "pay for" Sanders' and Warren's policy proposals. There is a general assumption that adding to the national debt to give more people food stamps, or to give everyone health coverage or affordable college quite simply can't be done. In a country that added a mountain of new debt with tax cuts.
On top of that, there is the MSM's desire to turn M4A funding into a "Will you have to raise taxes?" gotcha question - completely ignoring the fact that any rise in taxes is actually just a shift from paying premiums to private companies. They act as if we're not paying anything for healthcare at the moment, therefore implying that a rise in taxes is a rise in total expenses for a family.
To be fair, this is partly a failure of the candidates, especially Sanders and Warren, to message this properly.
drummerboy said:
On top of that, there is the MSM's desire to turn M4A funding into a "Will you have to raise taxes?" gotcha question - completely ignoring the fact that any rise in taxes is actually just a shift from paying premiums to private companies. They act as if we're not paying anything for healthcare at the moment, therefore implying that a rise in taxes is a rise in total expenses for a family.
To be fair, this is partly a failure of the candidates, especially Sanders and Warren, to message this properly.
IIRC, Warren was trying to convey that message (that any taxes would be offset by no insurance premiums), and she was getting slammed for allegedly being evasive.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
On top of that, there is the MSM's desire to turn M4A funding into a "Will you have to raise taxes?" gotcha question - completely ignoring the fact that any rise in taxes is actually just a shift from paying premiums to private companies. They act as if we're not paying anything for healthcare at the moment, therefore implying that a rise in taxes is a rise in total expenses for a family.
To be fair, this is partly a failure of the candidates, especially Sanders and Warren, to message this properly.
IIRC, Warren was trying to convey that message (that any taxes would be offset by no insurance premiums), and she was getting slammed for allegedly being evasive.
I'm a Warren fan, and I think she completely bungled that message, because she was clearly being evasive. She refused to even mention the word tax, and her explanations were too dense to sink in. She would say a family's total medical expense would not rise, but I don't think she talked about existing payments for premiums.
I admit, it's a tough issue, because it actually requires a few sentences to explain. But they've had a lot of time for this, and someone should have figured out how to reduce it to a sound bite. They should have called existing payments to private insurance a "tax" (which I think Bernie started to do belatedly) so that people would come to understand that's exactly what it is.
I'm just pissed off at how it was bungled, by everyone.
In general, I think candidates should be talking about how our current system has many hidden taxes, like health insurance, college tuition, drug prices, childcare, etc. Items that most of the rest of the world build into their welfare state, but that we're expected to pay for out of pocket, even though we have no choice about it.
I think the average person grasps that although taxes will go up they will not be paying monthly health insurance premiums. Where I suspect there is resistance is the trust that it will actually balance out in their favor.
I think we might need to take the Finnish approach to political education.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/europe/finland-fake-news-intl/
Conservatism and Generation Z ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/dennis-prager-university.html
mtierney said:
Conservatism and Generation Z ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/dennis-prager-university.html
good luck with that.
I wonder how the Pew findings on Generation Z would compare with attitudes of previous generations when they were 13 to 21 years old. That’d be useful information when stacking up the liberal leanings of different generations, but it doesn’t appear from the links that Pew went there.
mtierney said:
Conservatism and Generation Z ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/dennis-prager-university.html
Praeger is just another child predator grooming victims on the internet. I am not at all surprised to see mtierney supporting him.
DaveSchmidt said:
I wonder how the Pew findings on Generation Z would compare with attitudes of previous generations when they were 13 to 21 years old. That’d be useful information when stacking up the liberal leanings of different generations, but it doesn’t appear from the links that Pew went there.
they did examine that question in 2014
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/
Klinker said:
mtierney said:
Conservatism and Generation Z ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/dennis-prager-university.html
Praeger is just another child predator grooming victims on the internet. I am not at all surprised to see mtierney supporting him.
Please provide factual support for your claim of "Praeger [sic] is just another child predator grooming victims on the internet."
ml1 said:
they did examine that question in 2014
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/
What I meant was Gen Z at ages 13-21 (or thereabouts) vs. boomers at 13-21 vs. Gen X at 13-21 vs. millennials at 13-21. I doubt there’s good data along those lines, but if you’re comparing how liberal generations are, I think you have to control to some extent for the age at which you’re gauging their views. In other words, is Gen Z really more liberal than boomers were in 1967, and how would you determine that?
DaveSchmidt said:
What I meant was Gen Z at ages 13-21 (or thereabouts) vs. boomers at 13-21 vs. Gen X at 13-21 vs. millennials at 13-21. I doubt there’s good data along those lines, but if you’re comparing how liberal generations are, I think you have to control to some extent for the age at which you’re gauging their views. In other words, is Gen Z really more liberal than boomers were in 1967, and how would you determine that?
they did hedge with a "may be." But there are enough bits of info to suggest it's true. One is that it is the most ethnically diverse US generation ever. Another is that even self-professed young Republicans are more liberal than older Republicans.
My job requires me to look at a lot of attitudinal research among young adults, and families with kids. I haven't seen anything that would cause me to dispute that Americans under 40 are more liberal than those who are older, and that that isn't likely to change a lot as they age, barring some cataclysmic societal event.
ml1 said:
My job requires me to look at a lot of attitudinal research among young adults, and families with kids. I haven't seen anything that would cause me to dispute that Americans under 40 are more liberal than those who are older, and that that isn't likely to change a lot as they age, barring some cataclysmic societal event.
Not the issue...the question is not whether they are more liberal than their elders, but whether they are more liberal than their elders were when the elders were at that age.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Not the issue...the question is not whether they are more liberal than their elders, but whether they are more liberal than their elders were when the elders were at that age.
This question is very interesting. Perhaps boomers were liberal on issues that involved the law.
Burning draft cards to protest the draft.
Marching for women's reproductive rights.
Sitting in at lunch counters in segregated cities.
Could it be that now there are less legal challenges. Just throwing the idea out there. Its a great topic to consider.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Rentals
Advertisement
With what part of the Times response do you disagree?