Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country

[FlyerInHi]

ZK, here’s the answer:

You are the typical bleeding heart liberal. Too kind, too soft.

You’re blaming the right wing media for ruining the country. Why not blame the people who consume the media. Don’t they bear responsibility? After all, they themselves would agree that the individuals are to blame for their behavior.

As we have seen at the G20, American leadeship is already declining.

Yeah, prosperity will continue for smart people, not so much for dumb people. Dumb people need government intervention the most and that certainly is not forthcoming.

No need to waste energy on irredeemables anymore. Let the chips fall where they may.

At this point, I believe that the nation state is a 20th century anachronism. We don’t need to feel affinity to Americans citizens who don’t want to educate themselves. We should look worldwide to help people rise from poverty, people who then dedicate themselves to educating their kids. That’s the future.

ZK, I agree with you, American leadership and prosperity will continue in some context. We just need to welcome new Americans who share our values. But America being number 1 at everything, for everyone is a myth of the past that Trump voters are still desperately hanging on to while they simultaneously ruin it.

[svelte]

[quote=FlyerInHi]ZK, here’s the answer:

You are the typical bleeding heart liberal. Too kind, too soft.

You’re blaming the right wing media for ruining the country. Why not blame the people who consume the media. Don’t they bear responsibility? After all, they themselves would agree that the individuals are to blame for their behavior.
[/quote]

From the Pew studies I’ve seen, the percentage of the population that is liberal and the percentage of the population that is conservative has remained relatively stable over the past few decades. What has changed is the number of people belonging to the two major parties which has dropped significantly.

I’m still trying to figure out what is going on here, but I think it is major. The conservatives are fed up with the Republican party and jumped at the first alternative that came along – Trump. This was driven, I suspect, by the changing economy. Charts show that jobs requiring a HS education are dwindling because of technology. The folks in rural areas that are HS educated really don’t want to hear that – they attribute the job loss to immigrants, to jobs going overseas, etc. And Trump played right into that. The rural HS educated folks aren’t about to move to the city to train for a new career. They want their old jobs back. And neither Trump nor anyone else can make that happen.

But the Dems are not much behind the Reps in terms of disarray. Look at the sad set of potential candidates on the Dem side. And the message is so muddy as to be nonexistent. Yes, I dare say you might see a revolt akin to what we are seeing from Republicans on the Dem side too. Who know what nutcase the Dems will run next time…I shudder to think.

It would all be fun to watch if it weren’t so damn important.

[FlyerInHi]

Liz is not a nutcase.

White working class folks need government intervention. Admitting that need is the first step.

Aside the nutcase that Trump is, the policies he espouses are the opposite of what rural Whites need. They don’t seem to realize it. So they bear the blame for their own misfortune.

I don’t care if Democrats don’t win national elections anymore. Let’s go it alone state by state. California can prove that Democratic values work and immigrants are welcome here, be they from abroad or other US states. The high cost of housing doesn’t seem to deter foreign immigrants.

[FlyerInHi]

I had brunch with a friend we talked about the right wing media. Are they to blame?

I think only partly. The right media is making shitloads of money catering to and validating people’s xenophobic tendencies and fears. It’s a money making business for Fox and friends.

The liberal argument is that people are influenced by and are a product of their environments. In many ways, they are innocent victims.

The conservative argument is that people are responsible for the products and services they consume. They have a choice and when they choose badly, they must bear responsibility.

Rural whites, egged on right wing media, have hitched their future on climate change denial, coal revival, drill baby drill, repeal of Obamacare and a border wall. They’re not going to take solar jobs, or drive electric cars. Ok, fine, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and wish them the best. They are free to teach those beliefs to their kids. But they are responsible for their choices.

If one believes that the right wing media is ruining the country, one must look at the people who made them successful. The only way things will change is when the consumers experience a “what the fuck moment” and reject the drug pushers. If they keep on using the drugs, they will eventually die of overdoses. Real and SAD but such is life.

[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

You’re blaming the right wing media for ruining the country. Why not blame the people who consume the media. Don’t they bear responsibility? [/quote]

Everyone bears some responsibility for their choices. But I don’t think the choices that Rufus makes are informed in the way that you think they are. Which causes you to think that he’s making such stupid choices that he should be cast off and left to fend for himself.

You and I seem to disagree whether it’s ok or fair or moral to take somebody who makes stupid choices (that don’t intentionally hurt someone else) and leave them for dead/sick/poor . Not sure we’ll ever agree on that.

So let’s focus on why Rufus is making the choices he makes. Do you agree that, if we could get Rufus to make better choices and become a more productive member of society, we’d all be better off? If so, why wouldn’t we try to do that?

Most of us depend on the media in some way. Virtually anybody who wants to stay informed and make informed decisions relies on the media. Finding out for yourself what’s happening in the world is next to impossible. What if it turned out that the NYT and WAPO have been lying to us this whole time? What if they were nothing more than propagandists who want us to vote for unions and big government? Now, Brian, you and I might have a couple of advantages that allow us to see that fox is propaganda and NYT is not. We’re intelligent and, probably due largely to the environment in which we were raised, we’re educated and we pay attention. We didn’t earn our brains or our environment. Those aren’t choices we made. We had them when we were born. Another reason that we believe the NYT and not fox is that we aren’t surrounded by people who believe fox and think NYT is fake news. Which, at this point in our lives, might be a choice. But how we grew up mostly wasn’t.

So, you add up what we were given, and chances were always that we were going to lean towards the NYT and disbelieve fox. Key word being “given.” If you were given less brains, a family that didn’t emphasize education, a culture that told you guns were great, liberals are pansies, NYT is fake news, and fox is the only station to watch, how do you think you’d have turned out? Heck, even if you were smart, there’s less chance of you coming out of that environment educated and somewhat aware of what’s really happening.

To expect people like that to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and escape their poverty without any help or education is to be every bit as mean and selfish as republicans. The only difference is which disadvantaged group you want to remain disenfranchised.

And one of the chief disadvantages that faces Rufus’s demographic is the fact that they’re being disinformed by right-wing media.

We’ve had this argument before. This exact same one. Which is why I kinda rushed through writing this post. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[zk]

A fine article from the new York times on the alternate universe that viewers of right – wing media inhabit.

How can you have an effective democracy if the truth doesn’t matter? You can’t. Right wing media have made truth not matter.

Honestly, I think I’m ahead of the curve on this one. I don’t see a lot of agreement with my sentiment that right-wing media are destroying our country. I see significant agreement that they’re full of shit. But not much agreement that they’re destroying our country. I think that at some point, possibly before long, there will be more agreement on that.

Unfortunately, I think that agreement will only be among those who haven’t fallen for it, and that that won’t help much.

[Anonymous]

Nobody is “destroying” our country any more than it needs to be made “great again.”

It is a dangerous trend. The right-wing media machine has learned how to weaponize ignorance, and they’ve engineered it into a very powerful machine. It hurts our economy and it causes unnecessary hardship for many, mostly the poor.

But our country has seen plenty of large-scale stupid in its history, from slavery to the civil war, prohibition, McCarthyism, the Vietnam war…we survived it all.

We’ll get through this.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=harvey]Nobody is “destroying” our country any more than it needs to be made “great again.”

It is a dangerous trend. The right-wing media machine has learned how to weaponize ignorance, and they’ve engineered it into a very powerful machine. It hurts our economy and it causes unnecessary hardship for many, mostly the poor.

But our country has seen plenty of large-scale stupid in its history, from slavery to the civil war, prohibition, McCarthyism, the Vietnam war…we survived it all.

We’ll get through this.[/quote]

I have no doubt we’ll get through it. But we do have worthy competitors in the world. We just need to learn some humility, not expect to be number 1, at everything and be happy with it.

Trump and his voters want you be number 1. They talk badass but they won’t put in the effort to sustain number 1 status.

In school, you have to study hard to be valedictorian. You can’t slack off and blame immigrants for your own shortcomings.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=zk]

And one of the chief disadvantages that faces Rufus’s demographic is the fact that they’re being disinformed by right-wing media.

We’ve had this argument before. This exact same one. Which is why I kinda rushed through writing this post. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.[/quote]

Philosophically, I agree with you, Zk. You’re a better man than me and your family should be proud to count you as a compassionate dad.

But in paractice, economists tell us that in thr agregate, out choices are rational. We seek our opportunities. Rufus has the choice to move to large metros for better jobs. He has the choice to educate his kids. But he chooses climate change denial, big SUVs and intelligent design.

Rufus is not ignorant for lack to access to education like a person in a small village in the developing world. His kind of ignorance is not changeable. We just need to lead by example, in the progressive metropolitan areas of the country. That is continue to innovate, prosper and be connected to the world. And maybe Rufus’ kids will realize how stagnant they are and come join us.

For example, if Rufus is in deep Red Texas, his kids may see a better future in Austin, Dallas or Houston.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]A fine article from the new York times on the alternate universe that viewers of right – wing media inhabit.

How can you have an effective democracy if the truth doesn’t matter? You can’t. Right wing media have made truth not matter.

Honestly, I think I’m ahead of the curve on this one. I don’t see a lot of agreement with my sentiment that right-wing media are destroying our country. I see significant agreement that they’re full of shit. But not much agreement that they’re destroying our country. I think that at some point, possibly before long, there will be more agreement on that.

Unfortunately, I think that agreement will only be among those who haven’t fallen for it, and that that won’t help much.

If you look at the ratings for the various news programs in prime time the numbers are just too low to have that much influence. Fox news has the best ratings but that translates to an average of about 4 million viewers in prime time. That’s like 1% of the population. I don’t spend much time watching news anymore. I find out information from various sources on the internet and will occasionally end up at a major news outlet article via a link but I’m not bookmarking Huff Post or New York times or fox news as my go to source for information.

The revenue difficulties a lot of news sources are having would seem to suggest I’m not the only one that’s doing this. Therefore how much of the population is really being brainwashed by right wing media. Seems like less than 10% and most of that 10% is really just seeking out confirmation bias. They think liberals are full of it so they seek out people that agree with that belief.

Take something that was big news during the election cycle. The Clinton email scandal and then think about where did you first find out about that scandal. Everybody knew about it but they probably didn’t learn about it because they flipped on Fox news or read the original new York Time piece. They picked up up from social media or a conversation with a friend. What did people primarily take away from that story? That Hilary Clinton was full of shit. Some choose to support her anyway because everybody does it or she’s better than the alternative, but nobody thinks she wasn’t lying. Fox news slanted their coverage one way Huff Post slanted it another way but in the end fox news wasn’t really responsible for formulating peoples opinions about that story. People arrived at their conclusion via other means not because their we’re brainwashed by the media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/the-weird-history-of-how-the-hillary-clinton-email-story-was-broken-and-buried/?utm_term=.211715342285

[Anonymous]

[quote=livinincali]Fox news has the best ratings but that translates to an average of about 4 million viewers in prime time. That’s like 1% of the population.[/quote]

Yes but 100% of the voting population gets their news from somewhere, and the prime-time ratings correlate to the overall reach of these news organizations.

“The media” is mostly conglomerates with different brands under the same corporate umbrella. There are only a handful of news organizations in the US that have any influence at all. Since Fox is the biggest at prime time it’s very likely they are the biggest influence overall. The reach of News Corp is far, far bigger than 1% of the population. They don’t generate $8 billion in revenue from only 4 million viewers.

And do you really think that News Corp doesn’t have a social media strategy?

[quote]That Hilary Clinton was full of shit.[/quote]

Lol, no bias there.

[quote] Fox news slanted their coverage one way Huff Post slanted it another way but in the end fox news wasn’t really responsible for formulating peoples opinions about that story. [/quote]

Fox News has an order of magnitude more influence than Huff Post, but people constantly fall for the false equivalence fallacy.

Like I’ve said many times before: right-wing media is a problem, but the “both sides are the same” propaganda that they so effectively promote is the bigger problem.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=harvey]
Like I’ve said many times before: right-wing media is a problem, but the “both sides are the same” propaganda that they so effectively promote is the bigger problem.[/quote]

So true. The symmetry is only in the eyes of the guilty.
“Both sides are the same” reflects lack of context and intellectual honesty. It’s the kind of arguments employed by Russia and China in international affairs.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali] That Hilary Clinton was full of shit. Some choose to support her anyway because everybody does it or she’s better than the alternative, but nobody thinks she wasn’t lying. [/quote]

I don’t think she was lying. I think the FBI report exonerates her from accusations of lying.

[ucodegen]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=livinincali] That Hilary Clinton was full of shit. Some choose to support her anyway because everybody does it or she’s better than the alternative, but nobody thinks she wasn’t lying. [/quote]

I don’t think she was lying. I think the FBI report exonerates her from accusations of lying.[/quote]
Really? Claimed something like 8 Emails relative to her work at State Department on her server, found several thousand with almost 3000 classified at differing levels and more than 4 at Special Access. That is a pretty big lie in itself.

What you don’t get is that it needs to be ‘actionable’.. she did not lie under oath, she avoided being placed under oath (remember – she understood that distinction from being an attorney). You can’t prosecute someone for lying unless it is under oath. It also looks like you didn’t read the FBI report or pay much attention to it.

Important takeaway – politicians are not required to tell the truth, and they usually don’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=SK in CV][quote=livinincali] That Hilary Clinton was full of shit. Some choose to support her anyway because everybody does it or she’s better than the alternative, but nobody thinks she wasn’t lying. [/quote]

I don’t think she was lying. I think the FBI report exonerates her from accusations of lying.[/quote]
Really? Claimed something like 8 Emails relative to her work at State Department on her server, found several thousand with almost 3000 classified at differing levels and more than 4 at Special Access. That is a pretty big lie in itself.

What you don’t get is that it needs to be ‘actionable’.. she did not lie under oath, she avoided being placed under oath (remember – she understood that distinction from being an attorney). You can’t prosecute someone for lying unless it is under oath. It also looks like you didn’t read the FBI report or pay much attention to it.

Important takeaway – politicians are not required to tell the truth, and they usually don’t.[/quote]

I’m quite sure she never claimed there were only 8 emails on her server related to her work at state. She did tell congress that she didn’t think she had any emails that were marked classified. Comey, in his testimony, supported by the FBI report, confirmed that she had no emails that were properly marked classified when sent to her.

[Author]

Posts