You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by all the other mass media outlets. They just cater to a different bubble.
"No reasonable viewer would think Tucker Carlson is news." The media barons believe their consumers are idiots, and treat them accordingly.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-news-lawyer-suggest...
You're going to have a hard time finding an equivalent statement from the progressive media.
This is about clash of fundamentally incompatible moral systems - one in which one group would like to operate entirely above the law on the superficial basis of skin colour and inherited wealth by appealing to lies and fantasy and the basest and most distorted human instincts, and another which wants humans, politics, society, business, science, and art to be better than that.
https://deadline.com/2020/05/rachel-maddow-one-america-news-...
How many people know that Fox News's news division only has 2 hours of programming a day?
"..about clash of fundamentally incompatible moral systems - one in which one group would like to operate entirely above the law on the superficial basis of skin colour and inherited wealth by appealing to lies and fantasy and the basest and most distorted human instincts, and another which wants humans, politics, society, business, science, and art to be better than that."
All? C'mon.
You can make the argument that MSNBC is a mirror of Fox News in terms of coddling its viewers, but if you're calling NPR or the New York Times "fact-free," you're only betraying your own ignorance of journalism standards.
Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved problem. There are people who go to universities to study how to do this well, then go to work for institutions committed to doing this well. Their words should be treated differently than the words of some idiot with a Twitter account or a personality on an infotainment TV show.
The burden of evidence no longer applies neither with NYT not any other heavily biased liberal outlets like WaPo or CNN.
Some sort of myth seems to have been created that news reporting can't use anonymous sources. It's not only wrong, but not disclosing sources is an absolutely foundational accepted element of journalism.
But if you're skeptical about whether they completely made it up, published a rumour without any confirmation or are deliberately substantially altering it in how they portray it - that's an extremely serious allegation for a reputable news organisation. For example, I think that would stretch beyond "reasonable" in most cases for NYT based on my observation of their practices over time.
There is no way to tell if a lie originated with two anonymous sources or with a reporter with an agenda. The "trust but verify" approach only works if something can be verified. IMO the nyt damages its reputation when it posts rumors which cannot be verified.
This is just a more general case of having a trusted broker. How do you trust your bank? How do you trust airlines to be safe? How do you know your doctor is competent? You don't demand first hand evidence for all of these. You trust a regulator to oversee them and the regulator may absolutely rely on evidence that is not made publicly available. A lot of society ceases to operate if you throw out reputational trust.
Airline crashes are regularly in the news when they occur and are easily verifiable.
My doctor has a licensing board and such to report to.
What recourse do I have if the new york times posts something not truthful that can't be verified? How would I even know? I am not the only person to not trust the new york times, they do not have near the level of public support as the Medical/Airline industries. Given the fundamental lack of accountability inherent to anonymously sourced articles, why wouldn't they be abused?
This was a rumor started by The Atlantic article citing 'anonymous sources' which spread and re-broadcasted by all news networks and NYT, some of these third-hand versions of the rumor claimed additional verification by, guess what, another group of 'high-ranked anonymous sources', completely ignoring rejection of these allegations by everyone who actually attended that particular event with the President.
This is the definition of slander which is somehow acceptable if you (and your reader base) hate a particular person or ideology.
And if they later investigated themselves and found that they published information that was not true, would that cancel the war pushed on us by the military industrial complex across all of our media and bring 500,000 dead Iraqis back to life?
I think a browser extension that alerted you when an article you read was corrected would be interesting.
I think that giving more recent examples would strengthen your argument.
There has been no incident as bad as the reporting that lead to the war in Iraq because the US had recognized that entering the war was a huge mistake and became somewhat resistant to the type of propaganda that lead to it.
It does not matter if the nyt is usually factful. If they can be subverted by powerful interests to push an agenda, they are not trustworthy.
OP also contains: "Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved problem."
NYT remains one of the more reliably correct news sources in the US but they all make mistakes - sometimes accidentally sometimes maliciously. Since there are humans involved you need to understand the biases the news sources have and compensate for that yourself.
But shouldn't we not continue to consume sources that have made malicious mistakes? Even if the maliciousness was a bad outside actor feeding incorrect information to ethical reporters, isn't it likely that such a source will make a malicious mistake again? When the consequences are on the scale of directing the country into a fraudulent war, how can we ever trust their reporting on anything of consequence again?
I can't really answer what the best tactic for weighing news sources is since I think that the true measure would need to involve observing the reporters and editors behind each specific article which isn't really feasible. I don't think it's wrong for you to be hesitant about trusting NYT, and feel free to never trust an article written by Miller - I personally think she's shown a lack of care for discovering the truth - but... Eh, balance in all things.
Do tell. What is a fact? Is it an assertion that is truthful? If something is not asserted is it still a fact? Is gravity a fact or an assertion without evidence? Was Ptolemy wrong or just complicated?
Who are these people who go to universities and study how to investigate facts and report them clearly? Are they the in journalism or normal schools? Are they philosophers? Are they physics majors?
How much of a fact is bound in the frame of reference or context in which it is asserted? Can two nominally opposed assertions both be true? Does that make them both facts? Can all facts be recorded someplace?
If it's something you're interested in, nothing's stopping you from taking a journalism class or two, and after doing so you'd probably look at certain media outlets differently.
People sometimes say we live in a post-truth society. I would say that we live in a world where the narrative is more important than the truth, and part of the reason for that is that journalist are so well trained in creating narratives out of the crumbs of a few facts. I can even see the journalist students be given a handful of facts and asked to write a long article, each being graded on how well the narrative story end up.
Any news org can only cover so much, there is an (editorial) call on what to cover and what not to cover. And in that (I've seen studies years go, so not handy) there is a detectable bias.
IMO this is fine. I understand that story selection has editorial bias, even in news reporting. I compensate by reading several different sources that have different editorial slants, but still fact based reporting.
And a lot of these people have lost their minds. I’m trying to explain to my college educated friends right now why using “whiteness” as a pejorative is a bad thing. As an engineer I’ve always been skeptical of liberal arts education. But I didn’t think it would destroy America.
Imagine we’re not talking about America. Imagine we’re talking about Hindu treatment of Muslims in India. And India is on track to become majority Muslim. But people decide to remediate past imbalances by attaching negative characteristics to “Hinduness.” A small minority of Hindus, who control the media and universities, pipe this message to to Hindu households. “The challenges we face dealing with our Muslim immigrants are due to our Hinduness.” What happens? Like millions of people die in a civil war. Obviously. Americans can’t see how obviously wrong this approach is because they’re the fish inside the fishbowl.
The use of “whiteness” as a pejorative is rooted in an odd psychological phenomenon of liberal whites: https://us-central1-spirit-fish-function.cloudfunctions.net/.... They are the only demographic group to express an out-group ethnic bias. Black, Hispanic, and Asian people, along with non-liberal whites all display a moderate (and about equal) in-group preference for people of the same ethnicity. So attaching negative connotations to “whiteness” doesn’t bother them. They view white people as the out-group. They understand that you can be white but not “white” and have a range of other identities: liberal, Democrat, New Yorker, etc. But for non-liberal whites, the same rhetoric serves to reinforce the moderate in-group bias.
Put differently: if you draw a circle on the floor and call it “whiteness” and say it’s bad, liberal whites will happily step out of the circle. But for non-liberal whites (the majority) they will feel attacked on the basis of their skin color, exactly the same as if you did the same thing with “Blackness” or “Asianness.”
To get people to disassociate from something bad, you need to attach it to an identity they can reject, while embracing some other, shared identity. When you say “this is not how we do things in America” people can all come together around that shared identity and reject the bad thing. If you attach it to some characteristic they think they can’t change, you force them to double down on it.
A great example of this is George W. Bush versus versus Macron. When Muslim terrorists hit the twin towers, Bush gave a speech where he said brought Muslims into the fold: https://qz.com/1074258/911-video-and-text-of-george-w-bushs-.... He said we all watched the planes crash into the towers and we Muslims condemned it all around the world. (Which of course wasn’t strictly true.) It worked. If you were a Muslim and you heard that speech, you had no reason to feel attacked. You were being invited into a group where you could condemn this bad thing while doubling down on your identity. As someone with a Muslim last name during that time, I’m eternally grateful for that. I wasn’t thankful then, because at the time, I just assumed this was how America did things. I didn’t realize appeal to universal values would one day be on the chopping block.
Contrast what’s happening in France with Charlie Hebdo and subsequent events. Macron responded by making Islam the issue. He’s giving speeches about radicalization of Islam, etc. He’s not strictly wrong. Almost 1 in 5 French Muslims polled said the didn’t condemn the killings. But the other 80% now feel attacked and forced to maintain group solidarity.
This is happening right now in America and it’s bad. When my aunt in law (who is a sweet woman but a Trump supporter) reads on Breitbart the New York Times tweets blaming the Capitol insurrection on “whiteness” how does she react? “Yes, I condemn the lawlessness and I will strive to be less white!” She doesn’t even think of herself as “white” but she knows she is white as a factual matter, and she doesn’t have a college degree and doesn’t understand how we can “get rid of whiteness” without getting rid of white people. She would absolutely condemn what happened. She votes Republican because she doesn’t believe in abortion. But now she feels attacked based on her skin color. And what other identity would she latch onto anyway? She’s not a New York lawyer who has a plethora of other identity groups to fall back on, and the media shits on those too. She lives in rural Oregon, she’s white and so is almost everyone around her (except her grandkids and us, which include a range of brown and Black), and she works a service job.
White people who aren’t privileged don’t feel privileged. Liberals do not understand this and it’s a dangerous misconception about our reality. Normal white people don’t believe in this “punch up versus punch down stuff.” Those are ideas that exist in books, not in peoples’ heads. All you’re doing when you use “whiteness” is attacking people for something they can’t control and creating a white identity that didn’t exist before. And that’s a recipe for disaster.
It’s not that they don’t understand it, it’s that they insist there is no such thing. They’re all in on Critical Race Theory fairy tales, and it’s career suicide at these companies to even question this.
I’m extremely liberal about social justice, I am. But this critical theory stuff is a powder keg. Building a multi-racial democracy that hasn’t descended into civil war is hard. Look at what’s happening in France right now. Trying to make these untested academic theory into what governs relationships between races in this country is a recipe for disaster.
And at the end of the day, most non-white people don’t want it. The majority of every minority racial demographic doesn’t even want to use race as a factor, even a small one, in college admissions. The recent California affirmative action ban failed miserably. It’s a boutique ideology.
But it’s a boutique ideology with a massive platform. Tomorrow a bunch of people will wake up and see the New York Times and CNN talking about how you can blame the Capitol breach on “whiteness.” And most will brush it off because Americans are good people. But for some it will make them feel attacked based on skin color harden their hearts against condemning something we should be able to condemn universally.
What's going to destroy the country is respectable news outlets running headlines like "The Unbearable Whiteness of Storming the Capitol." It's language that's designed to make college-educated elite feel like they're in the in-group, while enraging normal people who don't see the term any differently than if you had inserted any other race in there.
I have tried to explain these academic terms to my dad. He eventually got it, but says "well if it stays in academia it's fine." My mom doesn't get it at all. She's got a graduate degree, but has a language gap. My in laws in exurban and rural America mostly think it's a racial attack on them. If they're somewhat right-leaning to begin with, to them it's as if respectable media has normalized overt racism against white people.
Normalizing this will provoke something very ugly for no reason. There are shared premises that exist when you use terminology like that among educated people. In particular, most people have internalized the idea that "you can't be racist against white people" and things like that (or at least won't complain about it too loudly). Those shared assumptions do not exist when you're talking to the public at large, in a context that's already adversarial and charged.
The problem I keep having with these arguments is that it's easy for me to accept that Kendi and DiAngelo are grifters, but the people pointing that out also want me to swallow a bunch of other less tenable stuff.
This happened with the vaccine prioritization at the CDC. I understand the arguments for it. Most Americans do not believe that life saving vaccines should be allocated based on peoples’ skin color. They would call that unambiguously racist. Thankfully for the CDC, the media barely covered it. Imagine what would have happened if the CDC had prioritized vaccines to white people? All of these people are operating with assumptions that are not universally shared by the public.
Ditto the riots this summer. Most people in the media have internalized this notion that whether violent rioting is okay depends on context. Most Americans do not see it that way. That distorted their coverage of what happened this summer, and burned credibility when it came time to cover the Capitol Hill riot.
I think Biden handled it okay, though I don’t think this was the time to inject the issue. But what if we’d had a President Elizabeth Warren? I shudder to think. Folks like her have really internalized this “they need to hear it for their own good” approach and are apt to use language that ordinary people aren’t familiar with. My in laws in Oregon don’t understand what any of this stuff means, and scolding them won’t help. They don’t feel “privileged” and you’ll only make them feel attacked. Which is fine if your intent is to bring about some sort of reckoning where the bad people are vanquished and the good prevail, but I don’t think that’s a great way to run a country.
The stuff she complained about really highlighted for me how the media isn't speaking language she understands anymore. For example:
> Universities that advocate equality, discriminate against Asian-Americans in favor of African-Americans.
> Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right now.
> $5 billion for border security is too expensive, but $1.5 trillion for “free” health care is not.
> If you cheat to get into college you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into the country you go to college for free.
> killing murderers is wrong, but killing innocent babies is right.
These complaints all rest on completely conventional beliefs and assumptions. Increasingly, folks in news media and liberal policy circles not only don't hold any of these beliefs, but can't even talk to someone who does. For them, these things are axiomatic, and they can't explain their beliefs by reference to universal principles my wife's grandma shares. And when she reads a steady stream of their tweets, its alarming for her. When people don't share a basic framework of how to see the world, they can't trust each other or have meaningful policy discussions.
I'm also not sure what several of them have to do with anti-whiteness.
> > Universities that advocate equality, discriminate against Asian-Americans in favor of African-Americans.
There is a pretty fundamental divergence between most people and the left about how to define "discrimination" (a critical thing in a multi-ethnic society). To most people, the absence of "discrimination" means race-neutrality. Most people on the left have embraced the idea that discrimination between groups can be justified to achieve more equal outcomes.
> Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right now.
This is how my wife's grandmother perceives a lot of the discussion of "white privilege" and "whiteness."
> $5 billion for border security is too expensive, but $1.5 trillion for “free” health care is not.
I think there is an increasing number of people on the left don't care about defending the border. They may not be fully "open borders" but within their intellectual framework, they really can't articulate what the legitimate purpose of controlling the border would be and thus aren't willing to spend money on it.
> If you cheat to get into college you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into the country you go to college for free.
There is a major push to offer tuition-discounted or tuition-free community college to undocumented immigrants, including in Oregon. A number of states that offer tuition-free community college are extending those programs to undocumented immigrants.
Traditionally, the view was that welfare benefits should be for those here legally. There is a great discomfort about the idea of extending those benefits to people here illegally. On the left, and in much of the liberal media circle, the prevailing view is opposed to distinguishing between Americans and non-Americans in provision of welfare benefits.
> killing murderers is wrong, but killing innocent babies is right.
There is again been a real shift in how abortion is conceptualized. Roe was justified on universal principles of bodily autonomy. Today, the right to an abortion is treated as axiomatic. And increasingly, there is a push to conceptualize it as "healthcare."
My point is that we're seeing quite a major divergence in basic assumptions about society, which has become particularly acute because most in the media have embraced these new axioms while most of the rest of the country have not. Whatever logical framework causes some people to view the term "unbearable whiteness" as not a racist term is just one example of that divergence.
Moreover, because, for the left these things are increasingly axiomatic, there is no way for them to talk to my wife's grandma about these issues. If you view abortion as a balance between bodily autonomy and the developmental advancement of a fetus, you can have a discussion between someone who supports abortion and someone who doesn't. If you view abortion as "healthcare" you can't have that conversation.
Or, if you have a diluted concept of "citizenship," you can't formulate a response to why anyone would oppose free college tuition for undocumented immigrants other than "bigotry."
Last thing first: Abortions are at their lowest rates since Roe. Abortions are health care. Frankly, the idea that people should be alarmed by a supposed reframing of abortions as health care is incoherent. People who oppose abortion should be happy that's how it's seen. I come from a very large, very Catholic family, I went to 12 years of Catholic school, my godmother aunt who has made multiple pilgrimages to Međugorje and pickets hospitals still gives me presents every year, and I will relate to you the previous conception pro-life culture had of abortion: a cosmetic convenience.
If our outlook on abortion has changed, it has empirically gotten more conservative. I agree that conservative white people are alarmed by change no matter what form it takes. But we can't reasonably discuss that here while suggesting that destabilizing conservative shifts are somehow attributable to elite left discourse.
(Also, next time you think about how people casually look at abortion as "health care", I'd ask you also to consider that Catholic organizations control huge chunks of the health care infrastructure in this country, and they deny routine medically necessary procedures and medications to women because the church has deemed them abortifacient. I'm a parent and a Catholic and I've seen this firsthand; it's a real problem in Chicago. There is more going on with the "reproductive health care" thing than you're acknowledging here.)
Moving along:
The tuition programs you're talking about build on the DACA framework. They don't reward adults who cross the border with free tuition. Instead, they seek to acknowledge that people brought here as children, a huge portion of whom have known no other life but that of an American, are for all intents and purposes American. This notion is wildly popular in the US; it gets something like 3/4 in favor in surveys. (Would it be more popular if it hadn't been set in motion by executive order? Sure. But that supports my point, which is that the concern you have about destabilization has more to do with partisan politics than it does with ideas).
One of the problems with our discourse on immigration --- surprised if you disagree --- is that we used to be proud of our inclusiveness. People don't pay enough attention to how strict European countries are about immigration. We have birthright citizenship! The left spends too much time rhetorically tearing down American institutions, and the right spends too much time tacitly conceding and expanding on the left's criticisms. That's a shift rightward.
I just don't see what health care costs have to do with border security costs. The problem with $5B for border security is that it's a joke; you can't physically secure the border with that much money. It's a grift, a jobs program for cronies and a monument for Trump. If immigration hawks were serious, their next move would have been nationwide mandatory E-Verify. But more to the point: I have trouble believing that your grandmother-in-law is really tallying up the Trump Wall against health care in the first place.
Nobody is being held responsible for things that happened before they were born. When your grandmother-in-law says that, do you ask her what, specifically, she means?
Maybe it's OK if that term gradually goes away?
There's a difference between acknowledging that the term "white" is bad, and suggesting that Poles need to apologize and live lives of penance for what English slaveholders did in the 1800s.
"Whiteness" is a term I don't use and don't really like, but it just plain was white Republican activists[1] who were rioting to stop the election and intimidate representatives two days ago. The Confederate symbols, presence of neo-Nazis, and the bizarre American Viking guy gave it away.
I live in southern Oregon and was born in Missouri, and I don't really understand what you're point is, below, about these areas culturally. The best parts of the culture in Missouri were sports, music, literature, food, river life, and fireworks. The worse parts included the notorious white racism. The "whiteness" discourse in Missouri was already asinine well before the NYT lost its mind. My grandparents had to elope out of state because their marriage was illegal, and when they came back the scandal of what they had done was featured in about a dozen papers.
And Oregon is an entirely different story. For someone who lived in St. Louis and then the Bay Area most of my life, the uniformity here is astonishing. It was officially a no-blacks state by constitutional amendment. My county today is < 1% black, and just got around to renaming "Negro Ben Mountain" in November.[2] Not having to think of yourself as white here is helped along a lot by the demographic homogeneity.
I think that the blame for your aunt feeling attacked for being white lies more truly on Breitbart. If you show non-liberal whites the NYT tweet/article, and also the Breitbart piece quoting the same NYT language, my bet is that "I feel attacked by the media for being white" is a more common and more intense response among those who read only the latter.
My parents were Democrats, and I am a Democrat, but one of my brothers is a Republican. We're both from the same place, the same upbringing, and are the same race (whatever it is). He watches Fox News personalities religiously, and categorically refuses to click on a link to the NYT. I read a local paper, the NYT, and wherever else the news comes from. I'm annoyed every day at the presentation of facts and looses writing standards, but I make my way through it. But this idea that the whites are under attack really connects with my brother in a way that it doesn't for me -- even though I'm the one supposedly encountering the brunt of the media's attack on white people, since I read main stream news and opinions and he doesn't.
Could he simply identify as more white than I do, and so feel more attacked? It's possible but I doubt it. I think it has more to do with this feeling of insecurity being one that the right wing media is nurturing for him.
[1] I mean "white activists" here not just in the sense that they were white people. [2] Renaming it for the second time. :(
I didn't claim NYT writers are unbiased, I said their reporting isn't "fact-free".
This is just one example.
All of those things were proven in court. Not one of Trump’s barrage of election lawsuits has gained any traction at all. They are very much not the same.
Trump's son, son in law, and campaign manager met with a convicted Russian spy at Trump's house to discuss a trade of damaging information on Hillary Clinton in return to relaxed relations between the two nations in the form of repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Trump lied that this ever happened and tried to create a cover story which was blown apart. Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller Report
Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian intelligence officer and exchanged internal Trump campaign data which is presumed to have been transferred to the FSB. Source: Senate Committee on Intelligence of Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference
Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.” Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks. Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller Report
The Mueller team was unable to establish a before-the-fact criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Mueller report includes a whole second chapter dealing with obstruction from the President and his allies, which included lying (by the President himself), witness tampering, interfering with principle investigators, and destroying evidence.
And what did Democrats do with all of this? Did they storm the capital? Did they even impeach the President for any of this? There was literally no response what. so. ever.
Oh, and during all of this the President promised pardons for those who would obstruct the investigation, such as Paul Manafort, who was literally meeting with a Russian Intel Officer and handing him Trump campaign data. If that is not collusion, what is? And then Trump pardoned him. So more obstruction on top of it all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeach...
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764071379/read-house-intel-re...
But democratic controlled media and companies “fact checked it” so it was censored everywhere until election was over.
Who am I kidding, we all know the answer is that you think by ignoring the facts insulates you from realizing the republican party and their leader colluded with a foreign adversary to influence the election
Over in the editorial section there were people trying to stitch that all into a vast conspiracy that was in the end not proven out. But that's what editorial is about.
You mean the thing that several people were tried and found guilty of?