21–30 of 964 posts
I didn't know about https://www.theflipside.io/latest-issue which compares news coverage of left and right leaning sources. Anyone know more sites like that they can recommend?
TBH I am over political news and over biased sites on both spectrums. Too much information and too much making hay. Soo much of it isn't news - and it hamstrings any politicians able to talk to the other side when they report on the minutiae.
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…
I do the same thing, and I've noticed that this "they don't present the other side" thing is getting worse with time. I recently read [this HuffPo article][0] about how only 1% of American film characters are identifiably Muslim ; however, nowhere in the article does it even mention the share of Americans who are Muslim, nor the share of movie characters that are of other religions. These things are certainly obvious…
Yet both Muslims and Christians are in the news a lot, and there's a lot of political discussion about them.
It would be refreshing if more mainstream fictional media featured them in realistic, three-dimensional portrayals rather than as faceless stereotypes, wouldn't you agree?
I identify pretty closely with one side. But certainly there are Outrage Machines on both sides, a network of media and personalities hyping up the latest calumny that the other side committed, for views and clicks. These machines can't slow down -- even if the other side has been quiet lately, all those people need something to do and talk about. They'll find something.
One thing a lot of people miss is that there is a profit motive here. You can make money, sometimes a lot of money, by building a huge social media following being a political outrage merchant. You can find examples of people doing this on all sides, especially at the extremes where outrage and other powerful negative emotions can most easily be stirred up. All the outrage over "cancel culture" is not about censorshi…
Since when? You're attempting to give default context to a word that has none.
Somehow, api, I doubt that you'd be attempting that redefinition if Facebook, Twitter, etc. were silencing people and organizations of the Left.
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…
> They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives I remember seeing Twitter chatter from the right re: the Fauci email dump, and so I went on various liberal outlets to try to get the left-wing perspective, and it was complete crickets. Especially when it's something I can't just read and form an opinion on myself (Fauci's email dump was absolute…
https://www.readtangle.com/p/dr-anthony-fauci-emails-coronav...
But I recently visited my senior citizen parents and got some exposure to Fox News. During their commentary shows they just throw outrage after outrage at the wall and see what sticks. One example was trying to stir up a controversy over not covid testing people crossing the board illegally. Another was a rich part of Atlanta trying to break away from Atlanta and they were blaming it all on defund the police and black lives matter.
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…
Ive recently started reading the Tangle newsletter. It’s a daily drop that focuses on 1 topic and provides the left, right and their take on an issue. https://www.readtangle.com/
He operates just a little to the right of my own political persuasions, but even when I disagree with him, it's a respectful disagreement. Isaac's positions are nuanced, well-reasonsed and kind.
That newsletter is exactly what we all wish political debate in the US was like.
And then you read how some Supreme Court justices make a decision and you’re wondering if they are even reading the same document
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…
I think the idea that media can be neutral is pretty unrealistic anyway. Even non-profits like PBS or government orgs like VOA will have their slant so it'll always require the extra work.
I learned nothing except that this guy was a tremendous asshole, saying things like "I want the US to nuke a country in the Middle East, I don't even care which one". Hearing shit like that, and his arrogant, bigoted, hate-filled bashing of everything to the left of Hitler diatribes just pissed me off, and I decided I really didn't need to hear more right-wing garbage.
While I was there, though, I did listen to others, like Rush Limbaugh and various other right wing "luminaries" (including going back to William F Buckley), and while Michael Savage was the most extreme of the ones I listened to, they were all just different shades of crap.
The same goes for listening, reading, or watching mainstream media like CNN or MSNBC, which I consider way too conservative for me. When I heard them defending the Iraq war, endlessly interviewing generals and other pro-war figures without interviewing any serious anti-war opposition (like, say, Noam Chomsky, or any of the other leaders of the antiwar movement), when they give trite, superficial coverage of protests and focus on sensationalism rather than issues the protests are about, when they (say) crap all over Obama for not wearing a lapel pin (instead of something serious like him enabling the surveillance state), when they give endless air time to Trump or can't stop talking about him (pre-election.. it's harder to ignore him when he's President), when they have an unquestioning support of capitalism, then I wonder why the fuck am I listening to this?
Yes, I'm out of my echo chamber when I listen to right-wing and mainstream news, but what's the point? They're really not telling me anything new... I already know how pro-war, pro-capitalist, right wing, anti-left they are.
Even consuming left-wing media mostly just upsets me because all they do is talk about the injustices of the right and quote right-wing media back at me, which just pisses me off more.
If I was politically active maybe this would be more bearable, as I'd have an outlet for my frustration, but as I'm not I really try to limit my consumption of news, left-or-right.
In theory it would be nice if there was more real communication between the left and the right, mutual understanding, and cooperation on issues we do agree on.. but I just don't see it happening. Both sides see each other as super biased, unfair, and close-minded, and it's hard to see how that's going to change... just getting out of one's echo chamber is not enough.