(Question for Republicans only) Do you really think the "MSM" is as bias as Fox?

[The_Doctor]

The bubble in information on the Right in the United States is one of our (their?) biggest problems. It's so much easier to ignore issues like climate change, globalization, immigration, if your information comes from curated information that is specifically modified to cater to your tastes.

The Left has this problem but they're kind of more "fact - based" in the sense that they don't tend to go for the wild conspiracy theory stuff as easily as many on the Right do. Especially with the ethnic nationalism pervading the Right, the tendency to cave into conspiracies, fear based rumors, and wildly incorrect information is a threat to the survival of the right.

When Reagan and Thatcher were in charge, we had no media to curate information like that. The National Review specifically kicked out Birchers and argued with the Left on almost equal terrain. All of this made the Right a much more effective powerhouse and in fact, I would argue the global right from 1980 to 2008 led a change in our world that was largely for the better. Thatcher, Reagan, and the pro-free market right had a much more credible set of facts than the socialistic / anti-free market Left of the times. It's why globalization took off and the Left had to retool in the 1990s.

The loss of that ability to grapple with facts and the descent into nationalism has crippled the intellectual right.

[The_Doctor]

Actually the loss of intellectualism on the Right is why Bannon, Trump, Farage, and LePen are somehow now credible people on the "Right" who traffic in fear and insane nationalism based on feelings instead of a coherent intellectual framework that halfway makes sense. Go listen to any of these conservatives and it's all about ethnic nationalism instead of something credible like "we can't accept refugees because they might not assimilate" (not true in most cases, Reagan accepted refugees who would assimilate quite well, for example).

[TJ in Oregon]

The media's bias is not so much in favor of the Democrats as it is toward a sort of milquetoast cosmopolitan social liberalism in line with the delicate sensibilities of their idealized moderate upscale suburban swing voter. They would gladly be fair to the Republicans if the Republicans were all running as Bill Weld. This is, in part, why Republicans outside of the acela-inspired corridor despise them. In the media's mind they are being perfectly fair, as they are unable to recognize their own philosophical assumptions. It is not so much an issue of reporting untrue facts but of reporting certain facts at the expense of others and reporting more narrative than fact.

[ApatheticAustrian]

The media's bias is not so much in favor of the Democrats as it is toward a sort of milquetoast cosmopolitan social liberalism in line with the delicate sensibilities of their idealized moderate upscale suburban swing voter. They would gladly be fair to the Republicans if the Republicans were all running as Bill Weld. This is, in part, why Republicans outside of the acela-inspired corridor despise them. In the media's mind they are being perfectly fair, as they are unable to recognize their own philosophical assumptions. It is not so much an issue of reporting untrue facts but of reporting certain facts at the expense of others and reporting more narrative than fact.

this sounds like a good start for a real debate.....less "they are mean", more "there are reasons for XYZ".

once again:

CNN has tried to tackel that prop through radical switching of classical conservative george-will-types with neo-trumpian radicals.

[TJ in Oregon]

Actually the loss of intellectualism on the Right is why Bannon, Trump, Farage, and LePen are somehow now credible people on the "Right" who traffic in fear and insane nationalism based on feelings instead of a coherent intellectual framework that halfway makes sense. Go listen to any of these conservatives and it's all about ethnic nationalism instead of something credible like "we can't accept refugees because they might not assimilate" (not true in most cases, Reagan accepted refugees who would assimilate quite well, for example).

The loss of intellectualism in the American right has several origins.

First, the old intellectualism of the American right was already incoherent. It was driven more by an emotional reaction against Communism than an introspective philosophy seeking fundamental truths.  It is hard to say what fundamental guiding principles underlay it because it was a liberal party trying to take conservative views. Every position was couched in a sort of freedom no one bothered defining. It was for small government until it wasn't. It was for family values until it wasn't. It was for states' rights until it wasn't. It was for tax cuts until it wasn't. The list can go on and on. It appeared consistent to Americans because Americans derive their outlook first from politics and then use philosophy/religion as a crutch to hold up their previous conclusions.

Second, the old intellectualism failed spectacularly at evangelizing the populace to itself. Look at every cultural discussion the US has had in the last seventy years and notice the old intellectualism lost practically every battle. It did not convince youth of its tenets; it repulsed them. It did not reward its voters through dissemination of government largess; it rewarded its opponents. It did not go out and speak to academia; it pushed academia further away.

Third, the old intellectualism held to that old American social norm that fastest way to make yourself hated is to publicly believe in something (whether it be libertarianism, Christianity, atheism, socialism, etc.). Being an avowed proponent of just about any position or belief system in polite company is considered uncouth. Respect for the views of others has meant we cannot talk about our own views, only tolerance, which we've bastardized into meaning nihilism. Since no other position is socially acceptable to express, it should be no surprise that nihilism won on the right just as much as it won on the left. Much has been said of the decline in American religion, but it often fails to notice that most people will always have a religion, whether it is an organized one or not. People yearn to believe in something. Trump has just succeeded in making it the flag rather than the cross. Why? It's simple, one can publicly discuss the flag; one cannot publicly discuss the cross.

[DavidB.]

The answer to this question is yes. However, too often people don't notice it because this type of bias, liberal bias, is the standard, and people confuse that with neutrality and objectivity.

i am pretty sure if you only read/hear about a topic in the WSJ/the WAPO ....OR...only on Fox/BB you are going to be pretty knowledgeable anyway...but.....the number of used angles in the WSJ/WAPO are obviously more numerous and would give you an easy advantage.

even if, as a constructionist i am pretty liberal in that area, even the most neutral and well-meaning person coming from a specific social background is going to report on a topic more from a liberal angle than a conservative angle....you would still learm more from him than from paid pundits who are paid to be pundits.

Well, it is obviously an unfortunate truth that many liberal media are more informative and less clearly biased than many conservative media. Most of the media I read are liberal.

[TJ in Oregon]

The media's bias is not so much in favor of the Democrats as it is toward a sort of milquetoast cosmopolitan social liberalism in line with the delicate sensibilities of their idealized moderate upscale suburban swing voter. They would gladly be fair to the Republicans if the Republicans were all running as Bill Weld. This is, in part, why Republicans outside of the acela-inspired corridor despise them. In the media's mind they are being perfectly fair, as they are unable to recognize their own philosophical assumptions. It is not so much an issue of reporting untrue facts but of reporting certain facts at the expense of others and reporting more narrative than fact.

this sounds like a good start for a real debate.....less "they are mean", more "there are reasons for XYZ".

once again:

CNN has tried to tackel that prop through radical switching of classical conservative george-will-types with neo-trumpian radicals.

I do think CNN is trying, albeit halfheartedly. Heck, even the NYT is trying. But in order for their attempts to be successful, ultimately, they need to do more than quota hiring for the editorial board. Their editors need to take a serious look at the narrative aspects of their factual reporting. Still, even if they are successful, it takes a long time to rebuild public trust in institutions, and frankly they ought to have recognized their own biases long before Trump came around.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The answer to this question is yes. However, too often people don't notice it because this type of bias, liberal bias, is the standard, and people confuse that with neutrality and objectivity.

Perhaps that is because on many subjects (age of the earth, evolution, etc) the liberal bias is the factual truth. Too many conservatives appear to believe that when presented with the question of whether 2+2=2 or 4, the neutral and objective answer should be 3,  instead of, "anyone who does not understand that two plus two equals four is wrong". Even though the latter is the only possible truthful answer.

[ApatheticAustrian]

btw media bias....


Conflict Over Trump Forces Out an Opinion Editor at The Wall Street Journal
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/conflict-over-trump-forces-out-an-opinion-editor-at-the-wall-street-journal/516318/


anti-trump, small-government conservatives forced to leave former safe Murdoch haven...interesting times.


i guess we are all socialists now and you must write TP....trumpically correct.

[JJC]

This is why Trump won: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mr9_lY-RrU

[Meclazine for Israel]

Of course MSNBC is baised towards the Democrats. During the Hillary celebration ceremony, they were playing MSNBC live.

And the top stories today are:

"Rob Reiner calls Trump’s presidency ‘cancerous’"

"Rep. Maxine Waters takes down Sean Spicer and Donald Trump"

"Melania Trump, America’s First Lady in Absentia?"

No wonder Trump has a field day taking these guys down.

[JJC]

Of course MSNBC is baised towards the Democrats. During the Hillary celebration ceremony, they were playing MSNBC live.

And the top stories today are:

"Rob Reiner calls Trump’s presidency ‘cancerous’"

"Rep. Maxine Waters takes down Sean Spicer and Donald Trump"

"Melania Trump, America’s First Lady in Absentia?"

No wonder Trump has a field day taking these guys down.

Chris Matthew called Trump's inauguration speech 'hitlerian'.

Also this;


You think they might be trying to push a narrative here?

This is what the 'MSM' does - create narratives to support their partisan agenda. According to every economic and issue indicator, as well as consumer confidence and 'direction-of-the-country' polling, Obama should have lost. Instead, the media completely ignored the issues and instead focused on Romney's 'gaffes'.

They turned an effort to hire more women into a gaffe (binder full of women) and even used it to push their 'war on women' garbage. Hell, maybe they actually think they're fair, because they're so isolated within their coastal cities. But live outside that bubble and it is so undeniably obvious.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Of course MSNBC is baised towards the Democrats.

more towards liberal policies and nobody doubts that.

[publicunofficial]

Nothing makes me disregard a conservative's opinion quicker then when they call CNN, a network that aired goddamn-near every single Trump rally and speech in full (the kind of coverage politicians would KILL for), a "liberal mouthpiece" or some such.

[Beet]