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

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#471

Post by rejectedandsad » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

TMWNN wrote: post #407

rejectedandsad wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of this is because the cultural tastemakers have long been college educated cosmopolitans, and the modern right has taken an extreme turn that has alienated them. Orange County votes Democrat on the presidential level now! > Even longtime bastions of the Right like the military, FBI, etc. have been taken over by the Left. What? What does this even mean? The idea that the right understands the left better than th…

>The idea that the right understands the left better than the right is silly - how many Fox News profiles are there of Whole Foods shopping Democrats in Arlington? Of Black voters in Gwinnett county? Meanwhile, NYTimes did countless stories for four years about rural voters in diners that still like Trump despite the scandal of the week. myfavoritedog's point is that the default position in the Times is of Whole Food…

> without anti-Trump snark suddenly appearing in there regardless of the subject matter (seriously, it was like there was a quota to meet),

This sounds like some sort of victimhood complex. I think you should understand that 54% of the country did not like that man, ever, and we gave outsized influence to the 46% that did at the expense of the otherwise silent majority. Joe Biden blew the doors off turnout in history despite never having blockbuster rallies like Donald Trump or his Democratic rivals.

> frame their fears and hopes, needs and concerns, in very patronizing ways

I don't really disagree, which should mean they would do the same for working class black folk in the same cities, yes? But no, they don't.

> If in Ohio—for the past 150 years perhaps the quintessential swing state—and Iowa Trump was 10 points up in the polls, the right conclusion was that the rest of the Midwest was swinging to him too

This is not a good example - when a state stops being within 2-3 points of the national margin (~+0 R in '04, +3 R in '08, +1 R in '12) and starts becoming +10 R and then +12 R in '16 and '20 it does stop being a bellwether.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#472

Post by munificent » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #339

munificent wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most non-religious americans are something like Christian Atheists. They don't believe in a god, but their worldview, ethics, and cultural norms are still originating in Christianity. I like latkes and challah, but that doesn't make me Jewish. All groups influence culture and culture influences all individuals. But simply having adopted a piece of culture that came from some group does not make one a member of that…

To add to it, even the Christmas tree doesn't originate from Christianity. It was just adapted from a pagan tradition. The Santa Claus image was created by commercialism. The original saint Claus is celebrating on December 6 (or 7, don't remeber exactly) and that was a priest that anonymously was donating toys to children in orphanages and later was discovered. Easter Bunny is another commercialisation of a Christian…

> The Santa Claus image was created by commercialism.

We Americans celebrating Christmas are definitely celebrating commercialism, though, so that checks out. :)

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#473

Post by Ajedi32 » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

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…

I don't think this article is necessarily arguing for centrism. Being able to understand the perspective of all sides of an issue doesn't mean your own views will necessarily fall directly in the "middle" of those perspectives. It probably does mean, however, that you're less likely to demonize those who disagree with you.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#474

Post by Moodles » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

boredprograming wrote: post #445

Moodles wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They allow the previous president airtime!? Quick, someone call the cops.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#475

Post by cwkoss » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

boredprograming wrote: post #263

losvedir wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They dont talk about or even cover the same things Yeah, this is a key thing to realize. People seem to think that Fox News, for example, just trots out falsehoods all the time, but if you skim the news, I'd say very little is actually factually incorrect. It's more about the story selection, who they choose to interview to get the quote, how they contextualize (or don't) statistics, etc. But once you realize that,…

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.

Isn't the exact same thing true of CNN and MSNBC, but just in the other direction?

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#476

Post by jkingsbery » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

> Until you can passionately make arguments for both sides, you don’t understand the issue.

Russ Roberts, host of the podcast Econ Talk, is really good at this. Independent of the guests political background, he does a good job of offering debate using a charitable interpretation of other people's arguments (even ones he doesn't disagree with). He also is pretty good at trying to find common ground with people he disagrees with, and when he realizes he's made a statement that would demonstrate his bias, he's pretty quick to call out his own bias.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#477

Post by whimsicalism » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

JAlexoid wrote: post #369

sudosysgen wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Economist is one of the least biased sources of news, that routinely publishes letters, opeds and articles contradicting the sated editorial agenda. Very few other news sources actually do that. They're not perfect, but it sure beats NYT. If you want the optimal news coverage without needing to read a million sources - The Economist, Financial Times, WSJ and The Guardian.

I read both the NYT and the Economist, they are quite different publications so not really comparable in my view.

That said, the editorial stance of the Economist comes through extremely clearly in their writings and they are unabashedly economically liberal.

Your characterization of NYT as being less ideologically diverse really doesn't match my experience.

Your list is incredibly West focused and honestly not that ideologically diverse, with the Guardian I guess supposed to take the "left" position.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#478

Post by tehnub » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:47 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.

It seems that the change from WWF to WWE was mainly caused by a trademark dispute with the World Wildlife Fund, but they used the opportunity to emphasize their entertainment focus.

>Mrs. McMahon [(CEO of WWE)] said the company began considering dropping the word "Federation" from its name when World Wildlife Fund (a/k/a World Wide Fund for Nature) prevailed in a recent court action in the United Kingdom. The court ruling prevents the World Wrestling Federation from the use of the logo it adopted in 1998 and the letters WWF in specified circumstances. The "Fund" has indicated that although the two organizations are very different, there is the likelihood of confusion in the market place by virtue of the fact that both organizations use the letters WWF. The Fund has indicated that it does not want to have any association with the World Wrestling Federation. "Therefore," said, Mrs.McMahon, "we will utilize this opportunity to position ourselves emphasizing the entertainment aspect of our company, and, at the same time, allay the concerns of the Fund." [0]

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090119180317/http://corporate....

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#479

Post by damagednoob » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

no-dr-onboard wrote: post #390

apocolyps6 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do your Muslim friends celebrate Christmas? Do your Jewish friends? Most non-religious americans are something like Christian Atheists. They don't believe in a god, but their worldview, ethics, and cultural norms are still originating in Christianity.

I watched a Christian apologist recently who said basically this. He was debating a $social-leftist and basically said: >You say you're not religious, but the things you hold as value, the trappings of your ethics, and your decision making process seems to be more aligned with judeo-christianity than your self-proclaimed naturalist atheism"

I watched something similar recently and I don't understand why it's so difficult for atheists to concede this point. I'm happy that Jesus argues for separation of church and state ("Render unto Caesar") and I don't need to find a non-religious inspiration. There are many examples of Christians coming up with good ideas. The fact that they did/do means very little in the debate regarding the existence of God.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#480

Post by sudosysgen » Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

ghostpepper wrote: post #448

sudosysgen wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

But this is a bit of a false dichotomy. There is no reason why you would have to limit yourself to North-American sources here. Plenty of news agencies around the world have articles in English without the anglophone bias it may bring.

And even non-local sources may still bring some enlightenment. If you were trying to understand Brazilian politics but couldn't read any Brazilian sources, it would still be much better to read Anglo, European and, say, Middle Eastern reporting and then consider the differences in reporting and how they might be linked to their worldview.

Besides, oftentimes a simplistic and biased understanding whose inaccuracy is not understood is much worse than no understanding at all. At least in the second case you are aware of your ignorance and will probably be more weary of rash action.