On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

[surfndestroy]

It’s red meat:

All I get from the graph is the Democrats are incredibly reactionary, or 'hey, look at that shiny squirrel'.

[Rob]

It’s red meat:

All I get from the graph is the Democrats are incredibly reactionary, or 'hey, look at that shiny squirrel'.

I feel like that graph says more about Republicans than it does Democrats. It was a significant event, rattled people pretty hard at the time, and now they just don’t care.

Edit - the reaction to Jan 6 is what I’m talking about, since it’s highlighted.

[Bi_3]

It’s red meat:

All I get from the graph is the Democrats are incredibly reactionary, or 'hey, look at that shiny squirrel'.

I feel like that graph says more about Republicans than it does Democrats. It was a significant event, rattled people pretty hard at the time, and now they just don’t care.

Edit - the reaction to Jan 6 is what I’m talking about, since it’s highlighted.

I agree with you here, the fact that the red team downplays the 1/6 events is evidence of their delusion. But if you look at the graph, the blue team treats it as more significant than nearly any other event in recent history, suggesting perhaps they are holding that last drag on the TDS pipe a bit too long.


I thought it was relevant to the tweet since that type of partisan divide on a topic is exactly what media like Vox depends on to live.

[BurtReynolds]

I agree with you here, the fact that the red team downplays the 1/6 events is evidence of their delusion.

Lol no it isn't. Anyone who, 8 months later, treats Jan 6th as anything other than an incredibly minor event (or more accurately, a complete joke) is out of their fucking minds.

[McParadigm]

It's hard to draw conclusions from that poll, because it is asking whether these events had an "impact" on your worldview....which is different from asking how you perceive them.

For example, I'd bet almost none of the 60% of Republicans who had their worldview "impacted" by COVID had their worldview impacted directly by COVID. Those worldview changes came in the form of new suspicions about government health programs, or increased distrust of vaccines, or a shift from seeing China as a "someday" problem to seeing them as our mortal enemies. Even though the subject framing is COVID, because that's the umbrella event, what the poll is telling us is that people perceived each other and their public institutions differently as a result of their attitudes towards and responses to the COVID event.

I think it's the same with the capitol riots. It's not a measure of "do you care about event x." It's asking if that event *changed your perceptions* in some way. So why would Republicans say the capitol riot impacted their worldview? More than 7 in 10 think it was some variation of antifa, an FBI sting, a false flag, or a heroic gesture by patriots.

Edit to add that I also think that what surf said is true and relevant: Dem responses to questions like this tend to have a bad case of the vapors....big emotional survey responses that aren't always reflected later in vote turnout.

[McParadigm]

January 6th was an obvious and shitty aggression...an unnecessarily dangerous situation, birthed from a partisan desire to believe things that were patently untrue. It was a group of fools violently reacting to lies that were being sold to them by their media of choice, their social bubbles, and in some cases by major political figures in their party.

Nobody here hasn’t seen one or more of the videos capturing violence that day. And Republican lawmakers hid under their desks with everybody else. They barred doors with whatever they could find. They prayed.

So what produces this urge to dismiss? Or downplay? Why does general disagreement with the media or Democrats have to automatically mean that you can't just say "the capitol riot was a violent mess, and violent messes can produce trauma?" That’s not partisan red meat for anybody. It’s just honesty...and it's independent of whether or not that day was a constitutional crisis. You can say "that sucked and it must have been terrifying," and still believe that talks of danger to the republic are incredibly overblown.

What brings someone to the point where they have to reject the authenticity of an expression of personal experience, because that experience doesn't fit the narrative they prefer? Of course it could be traumatic to be in the center of something like that.

Was Michael Fanone just throwing red meat to Democrats when he said "I experienced the most brutal, savage, hand-to-hand combat of my entire life, let alone my policing career, which spans almost two decades?" What about the officer who wrote "It is inconceivable that some of the Members we protect, would downplay the events of January 6th. Member safety was dependent upon the heroic actions of USCP?”

Or was it maybe just actually a bad situation?

The capitol riot can simultaneously be never a threat to Democracy and also a really awful moment in our nation’s history, which was exceptionally unnecessary and probably traumatic to a lot of people who were there that day. You don't have to reject the latter half of that sentence in order to argue the former.

[Bi_3]

I love that post and I will respond, but not until I can do it properly on my desktop and not my phone

[BurtReynolds]

Yesterday: "The NSA isn't spying on Tucker Carlson"
Today: "If the NSA is spying on him he deserves it"
Tomorrow: "yes the NSA is spying on you. Here's why it's a good thing"

[BurtReynolds]

[Bi_3]

January 6th was an obvious and shitty aggression...an unnecessarily dangerous situation, birthed from a partisan desire to believe things that were patently untrue. It was a group of fools violently reacting to lies that were being sold to them by their media of choice, their social bubbles, and in some cases by major political figures in their party.

Nobody here hasn’t seen one or more of the videos capturing violence that day. And Republican lawmakers hid under their desks with everybody else. They barred doors with whatever they could find. They prayed.

So what produces this urge to dismiss? Or downplay? Why does general disagreement with the media or Democrats have to automatically mean that you can't just say "the capitol riot was a violent mess, and violent messes can produce trauma?" That’s not partisan red meat for anybody. It’s just honesty...and it's independent of whether or not that day was a constitutional crisis. You can say "that sucked and it must have been terrifying," and still believe that talks of danger to the republic are incredibly overblown.

What brings someone to the point where they have to reject the authenticity of an expression of personal experience, because that experience doesn't fit the narrative they prefer? Of course it could be traumatic to be in the center of something like that.

Was Michael Fanone just throwing red meat to Democrats when he said "I experienced the most brutal, savage, hand-to-hand combat of my entire life, let alone my policing career, which spans almost two decades?" What about the officer who wrote "It is inconceivable that some of the Members we protect, would downplay the events of January 6th. Member safety was dependent upon the heroic actions of USCP?”

Or was it maybe just actually a bad situation?

The capitol riot can simultaneously be never a threat to Democracy and also a really awful moment in our nation’s history, which was exceptionally unnecessary and probably traumatic to a lot of people who were there that day. You don't have to reject the latter half of that sentence in order to argue the former.

I don't actually disagree with much of this. My own experiences, thinking 9/11 in particular, I get how transformative these events can be. When I read writing like what is in this specific article, it comes off as something different though. Instead of communicating the message of "this event was bad and it created lasting trauma for those involved", it comes off as "this event was bad because it created lasting trauma for those involved". An exploitative appeal to emotions instead of objective analysis, enforcing a notion that we should be traumatized by this as well. and that is red meat for those looking for validation of a particular perspective on the events of Jan.06. We all seek that out sometimes, nothing fundamentally wrong there, but it's also been the basis for so much of the media over the course of the Trump admin that it feels particularly regressive here. Almost like they want to remind readers of self assurance that comes from being traumatized by Trump. I dunno, maybe it's just me.

[BurtReynolds]

Exactly what the world needed:

[Green Habit]

Sounds like they're trying to create what Yglesias and Ezra Klein first envisioned Vox being before it took a hard turn toward the woke left and effective altruism.

Surprised this is the first place I heard about this, I've been following Yglesias on Twitter for years and haven't heard him say anything about this yet.

[Captain Termite]

So what produces this urge to dismiss? Or downplay? Why does general disagreement with the media or Democrats have to automatically mean that you can't just say "the capitol riot was a violent mess, and violent messes can produce trauma?" That’s not partisan red meat for anybody. It’s just honesty...and it's independent of whether or not that day was a constitutional crisis. You can say "that sucked and it must have been terrifying," and still believe that talks of danger to the republic are incredibly overblown.

What brings someone to the point where they have to reject the authenticity of an expression of personal experience, because that experience doesn't fit the narrative they prefer? Of course it could be traumatic to be in the center of something like that.

For some people, the only thing that matters is the left's reaction to something. An actual event, outcome, election, law, effect etc doesn't matter in comparison to the real issue, which is the left's reaction to it. I think that explains some of what you are noticing.

For other people, they are defending incorrect predictions about what the Trumpers would do; "oh, that doesn't count. that was nothing."

[McParadigm]

From tonight

[Bi_3]

[elliseamos]

The Intercept or Propublica?

[Biff Pocoroba]

Apparently, as part of her renegotiations, Rachel Maddow is moving from a nightly show to a weekly show next year

[Bi_3]

The idea that someone is just coming to this revelation is... maddening. (or maybe I should say maddowing? )



New York Magazine: The Media Manufactured Biden’s Political ‘Fiasco’ in Afghanistan “Straight news” has chosen sanctimony over circumspection.

....

Meanwhile, Richard Engel tweeted Friday, “Biden says U.S. in constant contact with Taliban to get safe passage to airport. So, U.S. asking former enemy, the Taliban, to please allow us to get our people out while they take the country.” There were many ways that NBC News’ chief foreign correspondent could have characterized the news that Biden had secured the cooperation of Afghanistan’s reigning regime in the evacuation of U.S. citizens. He chose to portray it — dubiously — as a display of national self-abasement; in Engel’s account, Biden was “asking” an enemy to “please allow” Americans’ safe passage out of the country, as though the U.S. president were groveling at Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar’s feet, rather than threatening ruinous sanctions should harm come to U.S. nationals. This is the sort of commentary one expects from jingoists on right-wing radio, not high-ranking reporters at major networks.

....

Wait until this dude finds it's possible for a black person to die of natural causes. Or that most people accept trans folx, they just dont want their kids pressured into thinking transitioning is the answer to mental health problems. Or that parents do want their children to learn about the horrors of slavery and the other sins of America's past but not have their children held responsible for it in the classroom. What a world is opening up for this guy!

[Bi_3]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we ... libel-case

While I would be happy to see these hit piece “we never explicitly called him a pedo” stories punished, a retweet should not count as a republication

[BurtReynolds]

I'd say this guy is the Elizabeth Holmes of media, but he sounds a lot more incompetent.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/10415064 ... esignation