seeing CNN and "progressive" in the same context befuddles me - these guys are center-right in almost every sense. I guess that's just where the Overton window is nowadays
AllSides Bias Rating puts them on the left, https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
Pew Research shows a significant slant toward the left in terms of CNN's audience, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/interactives/media-po...
Searching CNN in this bias chart shows center-left, https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
From 2014 but still showing CNN toward the left, https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444
Everything else they report comes from PR NewsWire, and to me that union of corporate power and media also seems very right wing
For those that downvoted him, many of the CNN "war contributors" have ties with the defense industry that are not disclosed, and those are all pro-war/intervention.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-networks...
https://jacobin.com/2022/04/defense-industry-ex-military-off...
This has been going on for decades.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
EDIT: I just noticed but I think it's funny that the WaPo has an article showing that the defense industry has infiltrated our news organizations in the lifestyle section. It's almost as if the editors are trying to hide the fact. I would think it would be a front page thing. Pretty significant assault on the democratic process, particularly on a subject as immense as war.
They put CNN, and Democracy Now! , in the *same bucket*. that is insane. NYT opinion also has Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Bret Stephens for chrissakes, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, I dont know how they can put NYT opinion in "left" without putting it in "right" as well.
As far as CNN's audience, certainly they would be slightly left because right leaning viewers are sucked into the FOX news vortex.
is any of this "far left"? absolutely not. if you dont see "abolish the police and all prisons" and "forgive all student debt", you aren't looking at far left content.
I never took the "defund the police" movement as "abolish the police." I thought equating it to "abolish the police" was just a right wing hit-job.
No, not really. Some on the left actually took it that far.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
> Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police
> By Mariame Kaba (Ms. Kaba is an organizer against criminalization.)
> ...I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.
> ...People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all? This change in society wouldn’t happen immediately, but the protests show that many people are ready to embrace a different vision of safety and justice.
That was published a couple weeks after George Floyd's death.
I mean, "reform" is right there...
EDIT: Wow, I didn't think a rational person would think defund meant completely getting rid of police. There are plenty of examples of where defund doesn't mean 100%. During the Reagan administration, the federal government greatly defunded state colleges and universities. Politicians talk about defunding medicare. People talk about defunding the military. To get states to adopt the minimum drinking age of 21, they threatened to defund highway federal highway funding. None of these are 100% removal of funding.
"prevent from continuing to receive funds."
"to stop providing money for something"
"To stop the flow of funds to"
"to withdraw financial support from"
"to deplete the financial resources of"
But Cambridge at least gives you your 2nd meaning as an alternate:
"to stop providing money or as much money to pay for something"
EDIT: Oof, and the Cambridge definition was changed sometime after Dec 2020 to give it that more broad definition:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201207142418/https://dictionar...
Ultimately, 'defund' - to most people - doesn't mean reform. Insisting that the vernacular is incorrect is just fighting an uphill battle.
Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and David Brooks are the NYT's token "palatable to liberals" conservatives, meant to keep their opinion pages from being a complete echo chamber. They are in no way a justification for placing the NYT opinion section on the "right," just like Alan Colmes didn't put Fox News on the left.
What is that based on? Can you provide evidence? The evidence so far says otherwise; dismissing it with a characterization doesn't change the facts.
IMHO, it covers a wide range, from Douthat (certainly not palatable to liberals) to Brooks, more centrist. Bret Stephens was the WSJ editorial page editor before coming to the NYT, and you will see almost zero non-right opinion on the WSJ (seriously, find one opinion piece that supports Democrats and post it here).
The contention was that they make the NYT editorial page somehow "right wing," which is obviously false to anyone who actually reads it. It's clearly left wing, and if it feels to you like it isn't, you might be one of those people who is so far to the left that everything else is to your right.
IIRC, all three that I listed are Never Trumpers. Douthat is probably the least palatable to liberals, but he's often pretty indirect and soft in his columns (compare to the more liberal columnists, who can regularly put out red meat for liberals). The impression I get is he's also probably the least capitalist of the bunch. IIRC, Stephens openly voted for Biden and is strongly for gun control. Like you mentioned, Brooks is quite centrist, probably to the point of being a moderate Democrat. I'd be extremely surprised if he hadn't voted for Biden. For conservatives, they're all fairly moderate with at least some prominent heterodoxy, and I don't think anyone right-of-center would get hired as an NYT columnist without those qualities.
IMHO, the tension created by their positions makes them far more interesting than most opinion columnists. Columnists that are on friendly ground (e.g. conservatives on WSJ opinion pages, liberals at the NYT) are usually just boring and predicable (especially the WSJ).
I don't recall that contention, but certainly the NYT opinion pages aren't right wing. However, you dismissing anyone who disagrees without as having a distorted, extreme perspective isn't evidence - other than evidence of your perspective.
I think the NYT's opinion page is diverse, but feel free to support your claim: Count up the columnists and their positions.
> Douthat is probably the least palatable to liberals, but he's often pretty indirect and soft in his columns (compare to the more liberal columnists, who can regularly put out red meat for liberals).
I think this characterization of Douthat is way off. Douthat is direct and puts out absurd BS 'red meat'. I think he puts out more brazen BS than any other columnist I've read there, but I seldom read any opinion pieces. And note I say 'brazen' BS; there's plenty more that is just less brazen. The opinion pages are an embarassment of deceit and manipulation to the NYT and other publications; the deceit, from all parties, is obvious if you are informed. I can predict what many will write based on the political navigation: e.g., for Stephens, 'how do I attack Dems without supporting Trump or sounding irrational?'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllSides
Founded by Republicans and using methodologies developed by conservatives to arrive at the outrageous conclusion that the NYT and CNN are "left of liberal". No bias there of course
Germany allows nudity, sex work, and prostitution; bans Nazi imagery; and has socialized medicine.
The Mississippi law that supposedly violates Roe also allows abortions after 15 weeks in case of danger to the mother’s health and fetal abnormalities. And unlike in Germany, there is no mandatory counseling or waiting period. The Mississippi law is more similar to the German law than different—certainly much closer to each other than to Roe, which requires legalized elective abortions for two months after nearly all other developed countries ban the practice.
I’ll certainly grant you that, when it comes to the government paying for things, CNN is definitely in the center. But that’s just one of many issues.
Edit: clearly the down votes don't seem to see the context wherein OP has described the commenter.
My post is not an opinion, it's the contextual position given by the OP.
But by all means downvote away per your bias.
Thanks Mods
It's rather strange to me that it is so hard for the term "radical left" to be defined in any sort of objective way, often it seems no definition is available at all which makes discussions about the topics hard to have.
What rights do Christians have over others?
No, that is not “radically far left.”
In 2019, according to Pew Research, 44% of “Republicans and Republican leaners” supported same-sex marriage.
As for your question about equal rights for “non-religious / non-Christians”, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Can you elaborate?
> I ask it because the "conservative" party in the US explicitly is against such things in their platform documents.
I assume you’re referring to the Republican Party platform document? It’s quite large; can you identify the portions you’re specifically referring to?
P18 in the PDF (p11 as per the included numbering) condemns and calls for the reversal of both US vs Windsor & Obergefell v Hodges as well as calls for marriage to be between one man and one women only.
P 19/12 calls for special rights to worship "God" which is the Christian god in this context, it doesn't call for the same rights for other religious beliefs. It all calls out for special rights to display the Ten Commandments but not other religious artifacts / documents.
I’d suggest this recent piece as a very cogent breakdown of the lost ascendancy of the religious right in conservative politics:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/opinion/republicans-relig...
Globally, supporting marriage equality puts you in the minority, both in terms of # of countries as well as per capita. [0] Personally I think it's an obvious right, but that doesn't make it popular.
[0] https://www.hrc.org/resources/marriage-equality-around-the-w...
Besides your comment being some broad generalization, it fails to assert the reality of the 'world' and in its place takes a group of progressive first world countries which align with liberal politics.
The world includes such places as India, Pakistan, Africa and China, oh my, where liberal ideology is a far cry from what you are describing
CNN is not to the left of progressive Democrats.
It's not even to the left of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Card-carrying communists sit in the parliaments of some Western democracies. Yet they somehow still get on as democracies, without many of the problems that plague the USA like wars of resource appropriation, rampant racism, and school shootings.
Every country falls somewhere on the political spectrum, implying that they are all insane because the aren't Sweden or something is revealing some heavy bias.
The mainstream rhetoric around North Africans, Africans and Roma people in europe would be totally unacceptable in the US and make the American right look downright tolerant in comparison. Remember, "blood and soil" political parties such as the FN in france that literally advocated for kicking back north Africans and openly calls for discrimination against Muslims can get up to 40% of the vote. Prejudice against the Roma people is so insanely prevalent and violent too that it's just disturbing. So much so that it would be worthy of an entire thread on its own.
The difference is that American issues get worldwide coverage and tons of internal debates. That's not the case in europe, especially on the internet where there's a weird complex of inferiority that pushes people to reflexively downplay or deny local issues whenever they get brought up.
As for resource appropriation, I guess the Libyan war never happened? And maybe you should look up what Francafrique is. Neocolonialism is still a very European hobby.
The only context where GP's sentiment makes sense is a purely economic one. Left economic parties, like social democrats and communists, do a lot worse in the US than in Europe. But this Europe good, US bad meme by folks who identify as progressive is an incredibly shallow reading of politics and history.
From economic side probably yes, but that's not straightforward either. Conservatives in Eastern Europe often hold power by generous social programs and benefits while liberals want to cut it down.