I may think much of what the other side says is reprehensible but I can generally tell when the speaker is trolling vs just speaking their mind.
They are frequently newspaper columnists, authors, and TV pundits who benefit directly or indirectly from have a large number of followers (whether they following in agreement or follow out of outrage, it matters not).
Sadly this is true of the left as well as the right; they are all selling something.
These Professionals need large mainstream audiences, which is why they love twitter and twitter loves them, but they are a different animal to the tribalists who want to satisfy their need to mix with like minded people.
Until the fringe sites enable the former as well as the latter it's not immediately obvious how they remain viable.
citation for the "both-sides"-ism very much needed.
The news business depends on division to thrive. Division and anger drives clicks and eyeballs. Oh, and let’s not forget the billions of dollars in political advertising that goes into the pockets of corporate news organizations and social media companies — the very same entities that are fomenting the division that necessitates the advertising in the first place. It’s a rage cycle.
As a starting point I would recommend reading Matt Taibbi’s Hate Inc and subscribing to Glenn Greenwald’s substack. They’re two of the only left-of-center commentators who have not lost their integrity over the past five years, and their ideas are worth listening to.
Straw man, not what I said. "they all have agendas therefor they're as bad as each other" is dangerous, dismissive and wrong.
> subscribing to Glenn Greenwald’s substack. They’re two of the only left-of-center commentators who have not lost their integrity
Thanks, now I see where you're coming from and I know that I can safely ignore your opinions.
As to the idea that Greenwald is one "of the only left-of-center commentators who have not lost their integrity", https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-...
It really doesn't come across as a good-faith argument.
Newly elected U.S House rep telling ppl that voted against him to cry more.
https://i.redd.it/uv97gw1bb5x51.jpg
Trump Jr. in front of Trump asking the crowd to make the liberals cry.
It almost always devolves into "jokes" about getting state approval to shoot immigrants, refugees, minorities in open ranges, or providing "helicopter rides" - a reference to dropping people from helicopters.
This is what currently unifies the right wing of US politics.