Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
So the liberal bias in the media is acceptable because they are right?
|
No, there is no “political” bias in the media except that created by the likes of Fox News. Any bias which exists is evident because of the ontology of journalism itself. Journalistic practice was to ask questions and explore both sides of an issue. That is classic liberalism in action. This developed through organic means. That belief still exists in many of the traditional media outlets, as it is cultural, and cultural changes take time to change. Only the new media is free of these constraints.
Prior to 1987 there was legal requirements for mass media to present both sides of a story, and to go as so far as to provide equal time to explore both sides of an issue. The Republicans killed the Fairness Doctrine which afforded that very protection. If there truly was political bias in the media, why would those suffering from it the most kill that protection? Doesn’t make sense. Unless you had an ulterior motive for killing the Fairness Doctrine and removing the balance requirement.
The RW media was borne out of the killing of the Fairness Doctrine. Joseph Coors attempted to start a RW News station in the 1970’s, using satellite TV, but the balance requirements established in the Fairness Doctrine prevented him from doing just that. Ironically, he tapped Roger Ailes to start that project up as well. So fast forward through the initial conservative news startup (CNN) who had a business focus, and then to the birth of Fox News and their intentional focus on only the conservative perspective. None of this was organic. It was built from the ground up with ideological goals, not with the intent of properly informing the general public of the facts.
Quote:
|
That's a very circular argument.
|
Not to anyone who actually understands complexity and nuance.
Quote:
|
If you watch MSNBC/Maddow, The Young Turks, the CBC, etc and can't see the outrageous agenda at play, then your echo chamber is very strong.
|
You don’t have a clue about the echo chamber effect. Just because multiple media sources discusses an issue the same way does not make it an echo. The echo chamber effect is a result of a single story or opinion being repeated multiple times, or referenced by another party. The classic example of this was when Judith Miller got jailed for protecting her source in the leak of WMD in Iraq story. It turns out that the whole WMD story was a leak from Dick Cheney, which was picked up and repeated ad nasueum to the point where Cheney used it himself in one of his own speeches! That is the ultimate circular reference by the way! It is even worse when a personality has the ability to access multiple media sources and repeat their own opinion multiple times, giving the appearance of multiple voices sharing information when it is actually just one. This happens extensively in the RW media because all of the big personalities have access to Fox News, Hate Radio, a strong think tank organization, and a very large conservative blogosphere. That same infrastructure does not exist on the left.
Quote:
|
And the current iteration of the Left, and its current obsession with Thought Crime and "social justice" might be the very opposite of Classical Liberal thinking.
|
Social justice is the basis of classical liberal thinking. Good lord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster
Nonsense.
Dichotomies can be useful, as policy decisions can regularly be reduced to dichotomies: do we raise taxes or lower taxes, do we make the government bigger or smaller.
|
Dichotomies are seldom useful when it comes to political issues, because those issues are complex and nuanced. Dichotomies cannot deal with these complexities and are actually the enemy of thoughtful discussion on finding solutions to big problems. I mean, you’d have to be an idiot not to agree with that? Right?
