Asymmetrical Polarization

Mon Dec 18 11:58:23 CST 2017

And on the subject of NPR:

https://www.vogue.com/article/npr-mary-louise-kelly-will-succeed-robert-seigel-all-things-considered

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:

> Modern journalists did not invent our tendency to paint multifaceted
> issues as having two sides. Perhaps that framing is dishonest, but it seems
> to me that it has more to do with understandably human efforts to reduce
> the awesome complexity of things around us into simpler stories. Yes, All
> Things Considered reduces complex political stories to simple, two-sided
> exchanges, and omits pertinent facts and perspectives that would add
> much-needed context. That is what happens when you take complicated things
> and try to explain them to a mass audience in three or four minutes. If you
> think that is mediocre or meaningless, I guess the question is compared to
> what? Relative to a dissertation defense or a book, most certainly, but
> those are things that you can't consume in the car or on the train on your
> way to or from work, which is what much of All Things Considered's audience
> is doing when it airs. As it happens, there has been a debate within NPR
> about the format of the show, with its short segments, with plenty of
> people at NPR favoring longer formats that would allow greater depth and
> complexity, but then necessarily less breadth in what is covered. NPR
> journalists are behind many podcasts playing with the longer form. The fact
> that these have not usurped All Things Considered could reflect that
> journalism is dishonest and mediocre, or it could be that many people are
> happy to get a relatively superficial and simple understanding of
> incredibly complex phenomena, and don't feel they need the actual facts or
> challenging questions that you think they need to hear. Whose fault is that?
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree that mainstream american journalism is complicit in much more
>> mass murder than any good they may have done.
>> There has also  always been good journalism. And sometimes it gets
>> printed in the NY Times.
>>
>> Going back to the question of both-siderism I do think both David and
>> Robert are saying valid things. But for me the entire debate is suspect for
>> the simple fact that it is mostly limited to 2 sides, where the real issues
>> are multifaceted, and possble approaches to problems range much further
>> than “liberal” vs. “conservative”. This framing is itself dishonest.
>>   A program I find particularly vapid because of this meaningless framing
>> is All Things Considered. On any issue they tend to report a mediocre
>> politicized evaluation from a dem politician and rep politician  or a
>> liberal and conservative think tank. They do not try to compare this with
>> their investigation of actual facts or ask challenging questions, nor do
>> they bring in strong non partisan voices. In the end a congressmen who
>> knows very little or a general with financial interests will get more time
>> than someone who has written  a book on the subject.This does more to make
>> people feel informed  than to actually inform them and probably mostly
>> leaves listeners with whatever partisan leanings they began with.
>> > On Dec 15, 2017, at 8:54 AM, Atticus Pinecone <
>> atticuspinecone at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm dead serious.
>> >
>> > The bad far outweighs the good. You all—I hope—recall which wars and
>> military actions began with lies. Lies in the exact media I "must not be
>> following". And I know you have a vague, if not good, idea of the civilian
>> death counts—so I'm really asking, what's one example of journalism that
>> offsets one million dead civilians?
>> >
>> > 100,000? One thousand? 43?
>> >
>> > I sense that people don't like having their heads yanked out of the
>> sand.
>> >
>> > And I'm not saying there aren't any—but I sense the books don't come
>> close to balancing.
>> >
>> > So with that framing, I hope you don't still think my question is a
>> waste.
>> >
>> > On Dec 15, 2017, at 5:31 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You know the problems with answering your question Atticus? Some on
>> this list will start denying any real examples by org associationism--
>> >> the new Left McCarthyites.
>> >>
>> >>  If you don't already know SOME answers, then you
>> >> must not be following anywhere where one can get such examples.
>> >>
>> >> So, although there is a suspicion re your pseudonym and a suggestion
>> >> that you are more shit-stirrer--I used to know the Yiddish---than
>> interested, if you genuinely want some answers, write me offlist. Morris
>> >> and lots of others who know answers don't need to waste their time.
>> Nor I mine, unless.....
>> >>
>> >> If you don't already know some investigative reporting that
>> >> has brought down generals, won a Senate race, revealed the Stuxnet
>> attack, reported on intelligence secrecies and actions
>> >> up until one court decision away from a long prison sentence, brought
>> us Romney's 47% tape and, of course, all the being-proven truths about
>> >> the Russian attacks on the US election, then ....
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Atticus Pinecone <
>> atticuspinecone at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I don't doubt it. Just asking for examples...
>> >>
>> >> On Dec 14, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> That's nonsense. There's a lot of good journalism out there.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Atticus Pinecone <
>> atticuspinecone at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> America & American journalism have relatively short & interwoven
>> histories... What are the positive journalism examples? We can all name
>> absolutely catastrophic negative ones...
>> >>>
>> >>> Almost seems like the way NYC & Boston are built on landfill...
>> America is built on lies & slander...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Dec 14, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> The centrism of Bothsiderism ultimately comes not from an interest
>> in truth, or any other ideology, but in a desire to not offend people so as
>> to keep selling ads. If right-wingers move right, so does the center. It's
>> relative positioning. But a lot of journalists see it as a profound
>> philosophical commitment essential to journalism.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:53 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> I mostly agree with you take.  But the "centrist voices" of
>> Bothsiderism has nothing to do with actual centrism (like truthiness has no
>> relation to truth).  There are such things as facts.  As the Right becomes
>> ever more extreme, the "center" is no longer near any rational center
>> (asymmetry).  Norms of discourse and behavior are obliterated by the Right
>> as they embrace all manner of evil.  This has been our ever-increasing
>> political reality for decades.  Trump has pushed it so far that it can no
>> longer be ignored, and that's a good thing, I think...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> David Morris
>> >>>>
>> >>>>    Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> Bothsiderism is a result of previous media environments where the
>> fixed costs of running a local newspaper or TV station are high and there
>> are network effects (e.g., people want to advertise where the viewers are),
>> so for business reasons it made sense for outlets to adopt centrist voices
>> that don't offend anyone, letting them sell more advertisements. You can
>> call this whoredom if you want, but it's the function of letting the market
>> function. It makes less sense now because the internet makes it so much
>> cheaper to publish, and that has led to a proliferation of outlets
>> (although not as much in local news, which still has substantial fixed
>> costs of newsgathering that deters entry). FOX News has made a lot of money
>> by focusing on right-wing viewers, and leaving everyone else to other
>> outlets. Google and Facebook have made far more money by giving people a
>> way to find what they want to hear, unfortunately in news as well as a lot
>> of other things. If only someone could figure out a way to make money in
>> the pursuit of truth.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:26 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-pol
>> arization-is-asymmetric-and-conservatives-are-worse/373044/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1.  Bothsiderism is a result of media whoredom.  Ratings over truth
>> (and morality).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2.  Republicans are the real problem, on many levels.  Trump has
>> pushed this reality to the forefront of everyone's consciousness, except
>> for the Walking Dead.  We should thank him for that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> David Morris
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20171218/115ad8eb/attachment.html>