Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers • Hacker News Board

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#441

Post by whimsicalism » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #432

pmoriarty wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN and MSNBC are not the opposite of Fox News. The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now! .

Fox News has moderated a lot over the past few years, while CNN and MSNBC have moved quite a bit to the left. You see it more on cultural issues than say economic or foreign policy issues. Joy Reid, for example, just says the most outrageous falsehoods and goes completely unrebutted: https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1403950560907300865?s=20

> Fox News has moderated a lot over the past few years

I routinely read Fox News online. I do not think they have moderated over the last 2 years - there was perhaps some moderation 4 years ago, but no longer.

CNN has swung leftward, I don't think MSNBC has substantially changed.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#442

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

If you’re thinking of things in terms Republicans vs Democrats, or left vs right, you are already behind the 8-ball. The entire framing of this article is counterproductive to clear thinking.

If you really want to break out of your political echo chamber, you have to first decide how you want the world to be, and why, and then look for people and orgs who can help make it that way. You have to start with facts and policy and then find partners to work with, and politicians who will be open to your preferences. This is how the pros approach governing, including the names you read in the paper every day.

Partisan politics is the tool that powerful people wield to get what they want; it’s not a core part of their identity. If you’re not approaching politics with the same pragmatic skepticism, you are the one getting used by them.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#443

Post by prof-dr-ir » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #217

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #33

> "Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides," she says, "you don't understand the issue." I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. (Ironically the search for counterarguments would often strengthen my position because they would turn out to be quite weak. Nevertheless I think that the exercise is important.) I th…

The issue with this standard is it can only be applied to situations where you're making decisions about the fates of other people - where you don't have skin in the game. It would be ridiculous to, for example, require that all trans people possess in-depth knowledge of TERF arguments against the validity of their identity (along with counter-arguments) before accepting that they understand their own identity. So su…

I think I see what you are trying to argue and let me say, with as much respect as this comment box allows me to convey, that I completely disagree.

First of all, if you have skin in the game then it becomes even more important to try to understand the opposition's arguments in order to convince them to join your cause and to prevent others from joining the other side.

As for your example, I am convinced that trans people have a battle to fight for greater acceptance in most (all?) societies. But I would still insist that they have only earned the right to call someone, or something, trans-exclusionary, if they have given careful thought to the argumentation and the positions actually taken.

Sometimes this is easy: if someone says "trans women are not women" then in my mind that is not even a coherent position (define "woman"). But if someone says "most trans women have not had the same childhood experiences as cis women" then that is (to me at least) a statement of fact. Calling the latter statement trans-exclusionary is not what I would call a well-reasoned opinion.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#444

Post by sudosysgen » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #422

sudosysgen wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatism is a relative term. You can be a conservative right-winger, a conservative socialist, a conservative liberal or any other kind of conservative as long as your social situation fits it. Many articles by the Economist are conservative in that they intend to defend and conserve the status-quo, especially when dealing with foreign policy.

You're using conservativism vey much in American GOP understanding of the term, which has stopped being conservative a while ago. Conservativism is a relative position, but you can't be a conservative liberal. Economist literally had a massive article what is conservativism. And - SPOILER - UK Torries used to be conservative, while GOP has been reactionary/populist for a while now.

I am not. I don't think the GOP definition of conservatism admits conservative socialism.

You definitely can be a conservative liberal. The American society by and large is founded on liberal principles. All you have to do to be a conservative liberal is to stick to 18th-19th century liberalism, in being a so-called "classical liberal".

I agree that the GOP is reactionary more than conservative.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#445

Post by boredprograming » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

Moodles wrote: post #342

boredprograming wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fox New's actual news coverage is mostly truthful. But a huge amount of their airtime is opinion pieces and media personalities who spout BS all day. Tucker Carlson is probably the most notorious. Plus they have Republican politicians calling in and showing up constantly, and they're allowed to say whatever they want.

I mean, sure, but why are we talking about Fox specifically? CNN, MSNBC, etc. are just as bad. I find this ironic since this thread is about how bias isn't necessarily about outright falsehoods, but story selection and what is not said :)

Fox news personalities frequently allow Trump and his allies airtime where they lie about losing the election to Biden. I don't know how you get any less truthful than that

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#446

Post by mariodiana » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

Moodles wrote: post #342

boredprograming wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fox New's actual news coverage is mostly truthful. But a huge amount of their airtime is opinion pieces and media personalities who spout BS all day. Tucker Carlson is probably the most notorious. Plus they have Republican politicians calling in and showing up constantly, and they're allowed to say whatever they want.

I mean, sure, but why are we talking about Fox specifically? CNN, MSNBC, etc. are just as bad. I find this ironic since this thread is about how bias isn't necessarily about outright falsehoods, but story selection and what is not said :)

Jonathan Haidt (who is mentioned in the article) did a study years ago. He separated a group of people into conservatives and liberals and then gave them a questionnaire on politics. Then he got a second group, separated them, and gave them the same questionnaire. Only he asked the second group of liberals and conservatives to answer the questionnaire the way they imagined the other side would.

What he found was that conservatives had no trouble answering the way liberals do. However, liberals could not do likewise. Liberals frequently chose the red herrings on the multiple choice questions, the ones that exaggerated the conservative positions to the point of more or less demonizing conservatives.

That's why we're talking about Fox News, don't you see? CNN and MSNBC are just folks. Fox News is the Anti-Christ.

Even the article itself has this same smell of bias about it.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#447

Post by WoahNoun » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #432

pmoriarty wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN and MSNBC are not the opposite of Fox News. The opposite would be something like The Nation or Democracy Now! .

Fox News has moderated a lot over the past few years, while CNN and MSNBC have moved quite a bit to the left. You see it more on cultural issues than say economic or foreign policy issues. Joy Reid, for example, just says the most outrageous falsehoods and goes completely unrebutted: https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1403950560907300865?s=20

How is that a falsehood? The daughters of the confederacy pushed the "civil war was about state's rights" narrative that is still taught across the South.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#448

Post by ghostpepper » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #334

crazygringo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend the Economist . Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this. It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after the…

I don't recommend using the Economist as your only source for international news. It's very deeply ideological in a way that is almost invisible if you can't easily compare it to a known truth. It's certainly not only interested in solutions that can be implemented. It's interested in solutions that enforce the free market, and it paints non-market solutions as infeasible, even though they often work and are implemen…

> In any case, the Economist is not any worse than any other mainstream publication. Often they do pretty good reporting. But you absolutely must not rely on it solely especially for foreign reporting where you don't have bearings.

I think this is perhaps misguided. It's not fair to the economist to compare an article on, eg. politics in Brazil, against the nuanced understanding that a Brazilian citizen would have, because most people from North American with no other ties to Brazil would have no frame of reference.

In other words, the choice is not, a simplified version of the issues vs a nuanced understanding, it's a simplified understanding of the issue vs none at all.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#449

Post by echelon » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

mariodiana wrote: post #433

boredprograming wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fox New's actual news coverage is mostly truthful. But a huge amount of their airtime is opinion pieces and media personalities who spout BS all day. Tucker Carlson is probably the most notorious. Plus they have Republican politicians calling in and showing up constantly, and they're allowed to say whatever they want.

I've heard people characterize cable news as kayfabe —the handbook for professional wrestling. Cable news is entertainment, and the same way the WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE, we have to hope one day CNN and Fox News (along with MSNBC, etc.) will change their monikers.

> WWF was eventually pressured into changing their name to the WWE

There was no pressuring over intent. The World Wildlife Fund owned the rights to WWF and sued.

https://www.cnet.com/news/wrestling-loses-wwf-to-wildlife

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#450

Post by whimsicalism » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #346

fancyfish wrote: post #287

The elephant in the room is that this sort of enlightened centrism, while it sounds noble, rests on several ill-formed assumptions. The first is that, by reading from both sides, they’ll balance and you’ll arrive at an enlightened center. This assumes the Overton Window is balanced, stationary, and not tilted to one side or the other. You’re beholden to the good judgement of each side to not move themselves further l…

Attacking the center is always the craziest narrative to me. It's saying: not only is it not okay to disagree with me and be on the other side, it's also not okay to not passionately agree with my exact side. The only right way to view these complex issues is to sign your name to join my party and then hold the party line, and everything else is unethical. I can't imagine a more obnoxious political viewpoint than tha…

I think perhaps the reason enlightened centrism gets its reputation is because there is no well-formed critique.

There is a vague reference to the awfulness of both sides, it's never really described in depth or weighed, and then you end with the blithe "and that's why i'm a centrist."

Even in this comment, both sides are terrifying cesspools, maybe - so what are the concrete things that you are afraid of if each of the groups gets power?