Journalism faces a right that has lost its bearings
A right that’s lost its bearings should have to face journalism.
But instead journalism turned around and called them daddy for the views.
Thank you for reading this concise history.
Article says
Clearly, you need to have conservative writers. But what kind?
Counterargument: No you don’t. Conservative ideas are bankrupt, cruel, and/or foolish. We do not need to give them a platform.
Conservatives used to be halfway reasonable, or at least their talking points were. Now too many have gone unapologetically extreme.
Counterargument: No they weren’t. Many people were just more successful at ignoring it. Because it didn’t really impact them personally.
It wasn’t unapologetically extreme when they got caught planning a fascist coup to overthrow and kill FDR? It wasn’t unapologetically extreme when they persecuted People for the last 70 years, ending careers and lives over people being socialist. (Insert black, non hero normative, or any other observed type of minority population)
Conservative eyes are too close together like MTG, too stupid like Comer or too far apart like Candace. Do they got somebody with normal eyes who isn’t a sex trafficker like Matt Gaetz?
Bill of Rights says otherwise. We could just do what PLENTY of other democratic societies do and ban hate speech but then you get those slippery slope arguments. Somehow we can make inciting a riot or inducing panic illegal but not the Great Replacement Theory.
Bill of Rights says otherwise
Nope. The right to free speech doesn’t include the right to a platform to spew disinformation on.
ban hate speech but then you get those slippery slope arguments
Which are invalid, hence the Slippery slope fallacy . Hate speech is easy to identify and legislate against without banning legitimate speech. The people claiming otherwise tend to be people who routinely engage in hate speech and overly cautious neoliberals afraid of ever doing anything that could possibly be argued against in bad faith.
Nope. The right to free speech doesn’t include the right to a platform to spew disinformation on
The government can’t remove you from a platform unless you’ve broken a law. That’s what I meant. Private companies on the other hand, that’s different.
As for everything else I completely agree
The government can’t remove you from a platform unless you’ve broken a law
True, but nobody was suggesting that.
Now that you mention it, though, repeatedly breaking laws against inciting violence DOES make that a legitimate course of action. As would banning hate speech and rigorously enforcing that ban.
Exactly, so they aren’t entitled by the Bill of Rights to a platform at all.
MAGA didn’t break the media
Media allowed themselves to be broken by MAGA
Absolutely! The media could have stopped the whole thing in its tracks by treating it with as much respect as it warrants, but instead they legitimatized a fascist movement by pretending that it had legitimate points argued in good faith.
The billionaire-owned media bears just as much of the responsibility as the GOP sycophants for enabling the madness of a malignant narcissist to become de facto mainstream even though their fascist ideology consists of nothing but ultra-authoritarian nationalism, scapegoating minorities and lies, lies lies! 🤬
Media chased money and maga led them in the right direction. Nothing was broken, it’s going exactly how media wanted.
First of all, vox, a “radical conservative” is an oxymoron.
You are looking for “reactionary conservative”.
Second, the assertion that
Clearly, you need to have conservative writers. But what kind?
Is just plain wrong. Factual, objective reporting is nonpartisan. If you asked me who a prime time news anchor in 1980 would vote for, I would have no idea.
If you asked me who a prime time news anchor on 1980 would vote for, I would have no idea.
We are probably from different countries but I agree and interesting point.
deleted by creator
I miss Peter Jennings.
by virtue of the fact that they choose which stories to cover, they are slanting the conversation.
Definitely. But the effort toward appearing objective was made, which in my experience is superior to Fox News, who makes all the editorial filters THEN projects a narrative until the ones it covers.
the most charitable thing i can say is that it’s possible that the anchors in the 80s didn’t understand their own biases. but i think they knew. we’ve all seen Network.
I would say both-sides-ism is the problem. It allows MAGA people to have a voice in the name of “fairness” and it was a problem before MAGA happened. It’s been a problem for a very long time and has only gotten worse.
It isn’t unfair to allow one “side” to speak lies while someone else is speaking the truth. In fact, it’s the opposite of fair.
Wait, are you actually making the argument that only your side should be represented because it’s the only side that doesn’t lie? I mean, that is the very definition of blind partisanship.
There is no “both sides” about true things.
There is no “both sides” about climate change. The Earth is warming and humans are the cause.
There’s no “both sides” about vaccination. Vaccines help the immune system either prevent or reduce the severity of viral infections.
There’s no “both sides” about the 2020 election. Joe Biden won the election.
And yet the media pretends all of those things have two sides.
There’s almost always a both sides, or even infinite positions on complex topics. With the election it’s pretty straightforward, either you believe in the system or you don’t, but the other examples you mentioned have tons of nuance to discuss when it comes to policy. What exactly do you do about climate change? And what about vaccines? Should you take all of them? Should everybody be forced to take all of them? What happens to you if you refuse? How about people with negative reactions to some vaccines? What about when certain vaccines were found to have severe side effects and were later removed? There’s risk/benefit to be discussed and the question isn’t nearly as simple as right and wrong. This is true for most topics, and assuming that one political party embodies the truth on every topic, that’s it’s the best approach for every person, is naive at best. There must be discussion, at least a progressive voice and a conservative one in order to avoid stagnation in the latter and over reaction in the former.
Nah, one side demonstrated over and over that they’re not interested in a good faith discussion and won’t compromise. After the x-th debate with climate change deniers the media should stop giving them attention.
When you say “one side” what exactly are you referring to? Maybe that will help.
All of your questions about vaccines have nothing to do with the both-sides-ism in the media where they bring someone on who says vaccines work and another person on who says it doesn’t.
Why are you not aware of this? You’re on c/news so you must be a news consumer…
There is truth and there is fiction. Being a conservative or a progressive has no reflection on what is true and what is not, no matter how much the media (and you apparently) want to think otherwise.
Progressive and conservative are two different approaches for policy. If the truth is known then there is no point discussing it. If the truth is unclear or the implications of that truth are unclear, then there needs to be discussion.
Your example about both sidesism, bringing on an anti vaxxer, is either a deliberate straw man or a minor example that isn’t a good representative of the media trying to discuss both sides.
But your last point I agree with completely. Neither progressives nor conservatives have the complete truth.
Your example about both sidesism, bringing on an anti vaxxer, is either a deliberate straw man or a minor example that isn’t a good representative of the media trying to discuss both sides.
It happened constantly during COVID. Where were you?
And now we have two antivaxxers running for president. One with a good chance of winning. And they get to talk about their “side” in the news too. Often unchallenged.
I don’t know how you can not be aware of this.
But your last point I agree with completely. Neither progressives nor conservatives have the complete truth.
That’s not what I said. It’s also wrong.
It is completely true that global warming is happening and humans are the cause no matter how much conservatives want to deny it.
we have two antivaxxers running for president.
we do? i don’t think so… who?
Ok, so everything conservatives stand for is wrong? And everything progressives stand for is objective truth? Or are you only referring to climate change?
Also Trump is not an anti vaxxer. Don’t you remember “Operation warp speed”? Maybe you should find more variety in your news sources.
Also, discussions during COVID regarding school closures and vaccine mandates are not the same as denying vaccine efficacy. I hope you aren’t confusing those issues. Yes I’m sure there were anti vaxxers on the news from time to time, but you seem to think it was super common. That’s not what I remember at all.
No
deleted by creator
Her eyes look like her parents shared parents.
