Politics

[wizards8507]

Conservatives control Fox and talk radio.

The "conservatives" at FOX are everything that's wrong with "conservativism" in America today. They're real-life strawmen that liberals can point to and say "SEE!? That's what a conservative is and we don't like them." They're all New York and Beltway elitists who absolutely LOVE them some big gubbmint as long as they're the ones controlling it

 

[irishog77]

What constitutes mainstream? Fox certainly isn't leftist. CNN is vanilla. MSNBC is but no one watches them. I don't see it.

Hell I am a progressive person and I can't find any "news" programs I enjoy watching or would even consider to accurately portray a leftist position.

Its why I watch BBC if I want real news. All we get here is straight propoganda.

ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, all the major newspapers, the major news magazines (Time, Newsweek, Playgirl), etc.

I don't know the numbers, but I can say with some certainty that the vast majority of Americans get their "news" from those sources. With the exception of Fox News and a few newspapers, essentially all those others are, best case, left sympathizers, and worst case, out-and-out mouthpieces for the left.

 

[Wild Bill]

The "conservatives" at FOX are everything that's wrong with "conservativism" in America today. They're real-life strawmen that liberals can point to and say "SEE!? That's what a conservative is and we don't like them." They're all New York and Beltway elitists who absolutely LOVE them some big gubbmint as long as they're the ones controlling it

Can't say I disagree with you. Right leaning would be a better way to describe them in the context of the conversation.

 

[Cackalacky]

Question then:
If news or history is reported/written objectively and accurately, does it have a slant or bias? How many of these sources report accurately and objectively?

 

[ACamp1900]

Since ratings played into news media, and since Howard Zinn level bias played into our history books I tend to think the little true 'objectivity' you could have found went the way of the Dodo.

 

[GoIrish41]

Question then:
If news or history is reported/written objectively and accurately, does it have a slant or bias? How many of these sources report accurately and objectively?

This is the important point. Journalism is all but dead in this country. The instances of down the middle reporting are rare. Every media outlet seems to have an agenda anymore. And you are right to point out that the reason for this is that they are catering to the agenda of their corporate sponsors who are just trying to sell advertising the the audiences they are reaching. If it seems as though there are more left leaning media outlets, perhaps it is because the nation has shifted left.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

This is the important point. Journalism is all but dead in this country. The instances of down the middle reporting are rare. Every media outlet seems to have an agenda anymore. And you are right to point out that the reason for this is that they are catering to the agenda of their corporate sponsors who are just trying to sell advertising the the audiences they are reaching. If it seems as though there are more left leaning media outlets, perhaps it is because the nation has shifted left.

Keep dreaming. I could pull dozens of studies done in the past few decades showing the majority of the old media (TV, newspapers) is admittedly left leaning. For many years the only "news" you got was on 3 tv stations and newspapers. Those days are long gone. The rise of the Internet, new media, and talk radio have begun to balance this "bias" out a little bit.

 

[ACamp1900]

It could be the country leans more left... I do think both parties are more big gov than ever... it could also be that most schools of journalism or institutions of higher learning in general are shoving leftist ideologies down the throats of their students… it could be the big corporate powers that be love restricted markets and thus push policies that help their agendas… it could be that the left is more emotionally driven and that sells more… or it could be a little of all of this… there is clearly a left leaning majority in our media and entertainment today. I think that at least is clear and fair.

 

[Cackalacky]

I guess what I am getting at, poorly admittedly, is if it is inaccurate and not objective, what does it matter? If you choose to read a biased source and make decisions based off that source(s), who then really has the bias that matters.

 

[ACamp1900]

I guess what I am getting at, poorly admittedly, is if it is inaccurate and not objective, what does it matter? If you choose to read a biased source and make decisions based off that source(s), who then really has the bias that matters.

Obama.

 

[wizards8507]

It could be... there is clearly a left leaning majority in our media and entertainment today. I think that at least is clear and fair.

This is important. It's not just "news bias" when we talk about this kind of slant. It pervades the pop culture. You or me or Cackalacky can watch a news program and figure out if it's slanted one way or the other, but a lot of people don't put that much thought into their entertainment. They blindly follow whatever George Clooney and Brad Pitt tell them to follow. It's also easier to sway "low information voters" to the left because many leftist arguments are based on emotion, things like "fairness," and "compassion." Conversely, conservative arguments usually involve things like "overreach of executive authority," "rule of law," and "free market economics." That's a much harder message to sell to the E! audience than "illegal immigrants just want what's best for their children and America shouldn't be such a bully in the world."

 

[ACamp1900]

This is important. It's not just "news bias" when we talk about this kind of slant. It pervades the pop culture. You or me or Cackalacky can watch a news program and figure out if it's slanted one way or the other, but a lot of people don't put that much thought into their entertainment. They blindly follow whatever George Clooney and Brad Pitt tell them to follow. It's also easier to sway "low information voters" to the left because many leftist arguments are based on emotion, things like "fairness," and "compassion." Conversely, conservative arguments usually involve things like "overreach of executive authority," "rule of law," and "free market economics." That's a much harder message to sell to the E! audience than "illegal immigrants just want what's best for their children and America shouldn't be such a bully in the world."

You would make a great guest on 'The View'....

 

[Wild Bill]

You would make a great guest on 'The View'....

 

[Cackalacky]

Conservative talking points are not emotional or low intellect?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Conservative talking points are not emotional or low intellect?

Depends. Are you referencing Fox? Or a consistent conservative framework that fails to identify with either political party?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Depends. Are you referencing Fox? Or a consistent conservative framework that fails to identify with either political party?

"Talking points" pretty much rules out any such nuanced position.

 

[Cackalacky]

Depends. Are you referencing Fox? Or a consistent conservative framework that fails to identify with either political party?

I asked the question because of the false equivalency wizards provided like all liberal minded people get their marching orders from Hollywood but conservatives really have complex arguments that they just can't get into a relatable format. One can't frame coherent discussion in that framework. I honestly don't care what Fox or any of the other identified mainstream media have to say. It is all biased and is served up to a demographic to support revenue streams from advertisers. It just is. No broadcaster is going to step outside of what the advertisers want and therefore the consumers which is a big ol helping of confirmation bias.

Further this whole concept of what is left leaning media is kinda off base any way. I mean what is the center and at what time in history do we begin to reference it as a way point? Is it defined? Where was this place in the past? Was it always "in the center"? How do we know how far right or left anyone is from anything. Is it not really that we apply our own biases to each situation?

For example:
The kids on the border. Is it not morally right to help them? Is it immoral to do nothing? For me I can't say one way or the other. But the media will spin it any number of says making the whole situation flammable. There is no common sense reporting.

Another example:
Homosexuality on tv. Obviously this is an example of the left leaning networks pushing an agenda right ? Modern Family has a gay couple who adopted a foreign child and Ed ONiel is married to a foreigner with a step child from a delinquent dad. I mean that is obviously left leaning correct? Not to me. It is actually a good description of my real family. How is that leaning one way or the other?

 

[Ndaccountant]

I asked the question because of the false equivalency wizards provided like all liberal minded people get their marching orders from Hollywood but conservatives really have complex arguments that they just can't get into a relatable format. One can't frame coherent discussion in that framework. I honestly don't care what Fox or any of the other identified mainstream media have to say. It is all biased and is served up to a demographic to support revenue streams from advertisers. It just is. No broadcaster is going to step outside of what the advertisers want and therefore the consumers which is a big ol helping of confirmation bias.

Further this whole concept of what is left leaning media is kinda off base any way. I mean what is the center and at what time in history do we begin to reference it as a way point? Is it defined? Where was this place in the past? Was it always "in the center"? How do we know how far right or left anyone is from anything. Is it not really that we apply our own biases to each situation?

For example:
The kids on the border. Is it not morally right to help them? Is it immoral to do nothing? For me I can't say one way or the other. But the media will spin it any number of says making the whole situation flammable. There is no common sense reporting.

Another example:
Homosexuality on tv. Obviously this is an example of the left leaning networks pushing an agenda right ? Modern Family has a gay couple who adopted a foreign child and Ed ONiel is married to a foreigner with a step child from a delinquent dad. I mean that is obviously left leaning correct? Not to me. It is actually a good description of my real family. How is that leaning one way or the other?[/QUOTE]

Depends which character you are

 

[wizards8507]

I asked the question because of the false equivalency wizards provided like all liberal minded people get their marching orders from Hollywood but conservatives really have complex arguments that they just can't get into a relatable format.

That's not what I said. There are liberals/progessives who believe what they do for legitimate intellectual reasons just like there are libertarians/conservatives who believe what they do for legitimate intellectual reason. However, among the subset of people who do not form their opinions on an intellectual basis, the slant in pop culture makes it much easier to turn a "low-information voter" into a liberal than a conservative.

I'm not trying to say that "A" (Informed Liberals) do not exist, simply that "C" is greater than "D".

Another example:
Homosexuality on tv. Obviously this is an example of the left leaning networks pushing an agenda right ? Modern Family has a gay couple who adopted a foreign child and Ed ONiel is married to a foreigner with a step child from a delinquent dad. I mean that is obviously left leaning correct? Not to me. It is actually a good description of my real family. How is that leaning one way or the other?

Modern Family, no. Even Parks and Rec does a good job portraying a reasonable and consistent libertarian perspective (Ron Swanson). But just because two shows aren't biased doesn't disprove the trend. Remember the show "The New Normal"? It was NBC's Modern Family ripoff attempt and the pilot contained abortion jokes and a caricature of anyone who disagreed with the show's perspective as an outright bigot.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I asked the question because of the false equivalency wizards provided like all liberal minded people get their marching orders from Hollywood but conservatives really have complex arguments that they just can't get into a relatable format. One can't frame coherent discussion in that framework. I honestly don't care what Fox or any of the other identified mainstream media have to say. It is all biased and is served up to a demographic to support revenue streams from advertisers. It just is. No broadcaster is going to step outside of what the advertisers want and therefore the consumers which is a big ol helping of confirmation bias.

Further this whole concept of what is left leaning media is kinda off base any way. I mean what is the center and at what time in history do we begin to reference it as a way point? Is it defined? Where was this place in the past? Was it always "in the center"? How do we know how far right or left anyone is from anything. Is it not really that we apply our own biases to each situation?

For example:
The kids on the border. Is it not morally right to help them? Is it immoral to do nothing? For me I can't say one way or the other. But the media will spin it any number of says making the whole situation flammable. There is no common sense reporting.

Another example:
Homosexuality on tv. Obviously this is an example of the left leaning networks pushing an agenda right ? Modern Family has a gay couple who adopted a foreign child and Ed ONiel is married to a foreigner with a step child from a delinquent dad. I mean that is obviously left leaning correct? Not to me. It is actually a good description of my real family. How is that leaning one way or the other?

Normally descriptions of leaning one way or another are in reference to historical positions within this country. The fact that you use n=1 as the barometer in this discussion and then ask how we can't see it likewise isn't necessarily fair. I'm sure you'll come back to the point "not everyone has the same values" and this is certainly true but it doesn't apply. Everyone is judged based on how they view this world: in terms of what is right and wrong, what is worthy of time, whether there is sanctity in anything, etc. These views are then categorized into where the fall in relation to historical views and sometimes historical views within political parties.

If you use the gauge that has always been used: historical positioning of the group, then it becomes easier when seeking to define clear boundaries for where various positions fall.

I'm left-leaning on Greenhouse effect, pollution & environmental reform, helping the poor and immigrants

I'm right-leaning on every issue that involves a moral component (outside of immigration and the poor) because the morality of any issue immediately takes precedence over other incentives: money, personal benefit, etc.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is important. It's not just "news bias" when we talk about this kind of slant. It pervades the pop culture. You or me or Cackalacky can watch a news program and figure out if it's slanted one way or the other, but a lot of people don't put that much thought into their entertainment. They blindly follow whatever George Clooney and Brad Pitt tell them to follow. It's also easier to sway "low information voters" to the left because many leftist arguments are based on emotion, things like "fairness," and "compassion." Conversely, conservative arguments usually involve things like "overreach of executive authority," "rule of law," and "free market economics." That's a much harder message to sell to the E! audience than "illegal immigrants just want what's best for their children and America shouldn't be such a bully in the world."

Is the argument about not having to fund an employee birth contol plan not a "fairness" argument? Is the argument that marriage is between one man and one woman and not for the gays to make a mockery of the institution not emotional? For a guy who is making the case for his views to be intellectually superior to those of the easily swayed left you sure are making a lot of assumptions about why people think as they do. At least that is what me and George Clooney think. lol

 

[wizards8507]

Is the argument about not having to fund an employee birth contol plan not a "fairness" argument? Is the argument that marriage is between one man and one woman and not for the gays to make a mockery of the institution not emotional? For a guy who is making the case for his views to be intellectually superior to those of the easily swayed left you sure are making a lot of assumptions about why people think as they do. At least that is what me and George Clooney think. lol

If a conservative tried to make the argument that marriage is between one man and one woman because "it's not for the gays," then I'd be first in line to point out how big of a steaming pile that is.

 

[GoIrish41]

If a conservative tried to make the argument that marriage is between one man and one woman because "it's not for the gays," then I'd be first in line to point out how big of a steaming pile that is.

That is essentially their argument.

 

[irishog77]

This is the important point. Journalism is all but dead in this country. The instances of down the middle reporting are rare. Every media outlet seems to have an agenda anymore. And you are right to point out that the reason for this is that they are catering to the agenda of their corporate sponsors who are just trying to sell advertising the the audiences they are reaching. If it seems as though there are more left leaning media outlets, perhaps it is because the nation has shifted left.

That is essentially their argument.

Hush. The grownups are talking in this thread.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Hush. The grownups are talking in this thread.

LOL, perfect.

 

[wizards8507]

That is essentially their argument.

And I routinely call it out as a steaming pile. It's fundamentally incompatible with a political philosophy grounded in liberty. The true "conservative"* position is that the government should get out of EVERYONE'S personal/sexual/romantic/ lives, including heterosexual people. There should be no penalties nor benefits from standing in a church (or hall or on a boat) and pledging your life to another person.

*The definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" are so perverted these days that it's hard to keep track.

 

[pkt77242]

This is important. It's not just "news bias" when we talk about this kind of slant. It pervades the pop culture. You or me or Cackalacky can watch a news program and figure out if it's slanted one way or the other, but a lot of people don't put that much thought into their entertainment. They blindly follow whatever George Clooney and Brad Pitt tell them to follow. It's also easier to sway "low information voters" to the left because many leftist arguments are based on emotion, things like "fairness," and "compassion." Conversely, conservative arguments usually involve things like "overreach of executive authority," "rule of law," and "free market economics." That's a much harder message to sell to the E! audience than "illegal immigrants just want what's best for their children and America shouldn't be such a bully in the world."

Showing your bias a little? Both Republicans and Democrats use emotion to sway their debates, and prey upon low information voters. Hell that is just about all that Fox News does. Now both sides also have some very intelligent people on their side with well thought out opinions.

Also to your last statement how is the "illegal immigrants are stealing your jobs" any different from the "Illegal immigrants just want what is best for their family"? Both are overly simplified.

 

[Cackalacky]

Normally descriptions of leaning one way or another are in reference to historical positions within this country. The fact that you use n=1 as the barometer in this discussion and then ask how we can't see it likewise isn't necessarily fair. I'm sure you'll come back to the point "not everyone has the same values" and this is certainly true but it doesn't apply. Everyone is judged based on how they view this world: in terms of what is right and wrong, what is worthy of time, whether there is sanctity in anything, etc. These views are then categorized into where the fall in relation to historical views and sometimes historical views within political parties.

If you use the gauge that has always been used: historical positioning of the group, then it becomes easier when seeking to define clear boundaries for where various positions fall.

I'm left-leaning on Greenhouse effect, pollution & environmental reform, helping the poor and immigrants

I'm right-leaning on every issue that involves a moral component (outside of immigration and the poor) because the morality of any issue immediately takes precedence over other incentives: money, personal benefit, etc.

I want someone to define it because it is nebulous by it's very nature. We Each have our own concept but it is not consistent. It is a fair question or set of questions. It is also pertinent IMO and claiming precedence over a compass should at least have a legitimate reference point.


Being a cognizant and competent ward of the only home we have is not a moral issue or does not have a moral component to it? It's quite telling that you lump poverty, and immigration into the lot that does not have a moral component yet financial issues definitely do. I hope I am misunderstanding because for me it is quite the opposite.

Further you are implying left leaning people and issues have no moral components. This is absurd. Please tell me you mistakenly typed the bottom two sentences. You can't possibly think liberals, which all of us are btw, have no morals?

 

[wizards8507]

Showing your bias a little? Both Republicans and Democrats use emotion to sway their debates, and prey upon low information voters. Hell that is just about all that Fox News does. Now both sides also have some very intelligent people on their side with well thought out opinions.

Also to your last statement how is the "illegal immigrants are stealing your jobs" any different from the "Illegal immigrants just want what is best for their family"? Both are overly simplified.

Please read what I said:

That's not what I said. There are liberals/progessives who believe what they do for legitimate intellectual reasons just like there are libertarians/conservatives who believe what they do for legitimate intellectual reason. However, among the subset of people who do not form their opinions on an intellectual basis, the slant in pop culture makes it much easier to turn a "low-information voter" into a liberal than a conservative.

I'm not trying to say that "A" (Informed Liberals) do not exist, simply that "C" is greater than "D".

Also, I'm NOT talking about FOX or MSNBC viewers. If you're choosing to tune into a cable news channel, you probably have some idea of what's going on in the world and what you believe. Most of those people aren't told what to believe by MSNBC or FOX, they choose MSNBC and FOX because it reflects what they already believe.

I'm talking about the people who don't tune into ANY news channel, have never clicked on Drudge or HuffPo, and spend their lives arguing on Twitter about Beyonce's new shoes.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm right-leaning on every issue that involves a moral component (outside of immigration and the poor) because the morality of any issue immediately takes precedence over other incentives: money, personal benefit, etc.

It is for this reason that to the [libertarian] neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and [liberals] recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of [libertarianism] that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from [liberalism] is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant [liberal] to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the [libertarian].
-From FA Hayek's "Why I Am Not a Conservative"

I replaced Hayek's use of the term "socialist" with "liberal" and his use of the word "liberal" with "libertarian" to reflect our modern understanding of the term, but this passage highlights my biggest issue with the Republican party. They have no ground to stand on when they criticize big government for "telling people what to do" because they ALSO like to "tell people what to do," just with their version of morality. For example, I believe that prostitution is wildly immoral, but I wouldn't support laws making it illegal because it's not my job to make "immoral" equal "illegal" if no one is being harmed.