Asymmetrical Polarization

Mon Dec 18 13:21:05 CST 2017

More like No Personal Responsibil—haha just kidding, relax. Let go of the pearls.

> On Dec 18, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> 
> Whose fault is that?   I think a publicly funded news program has plenty of basis for in depth reporting and should err on the side of risky truth-telling rather than trying to please an audience that just wants soothing junk.   
>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Robert Mahnke <rpmahnke at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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-polarization-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
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l