Fascistization of Cable News

[tehend]

As for OP itself. Yeah its stupid having talking heads trying to out-virtue signal each other. Also stupid is having only one interpretation of the news based on what you agree with and therefore deem to be the correct POV.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I think this thread would have been better off if homer just stuck to paraphrasing the link. It's so obviously biased and poorly written it just hurts the intent behind the OP.

The OP's intent is obviously biased, too:
"Giving Trump sycophants equal time, and merit, to people who are telling the truth is extremely dangerous to our Democracy." Thats not from the article.

 

[all caps]

JVS who claims that CNN was more favorable to Trump > Clinton during the election .... LOL LOL

If his argument was that cnn pushed more people away from hillary toward trump by their awful, over the top negative coverage, i would have to agree. As a life long cnn viewer, they really opened my eyes to the bias of every cable network. Im embarrassed to say what a lemming ive been my whole life tbh. I'd have probably voted for Hillary had i never watched cnn

 

[tehend]

The OP's intent is obviously biased, too:
"Giving Trump sycophants equal time, and merit, to people who are telling the truth is extremely dangerous to our Democracy." Thats not from the article.

Well it's homer, that's a given.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You don't seem to understand the question. It's just a simple logic question, and it has a logically correct answer that is pretty easy to deduce.

The correct answer is that it is a fallacy. The consideration given to opposing views cannot be logically based on the fact that they are opposed. There are no infinities in the logic. The consideration given to opposing views is based, primarily in this case, on the profit generated.

The profit generated by opposing views is a function of their entertainment value, primarily.

The result of this is that by chasing profit, US media has created the most profitable controversies, rather than the logical or meritorious ones.

This twin practice of identifying opposing points of view and selecting the most profitable ones not only damages journalistic integrity, but benefits the irrationality of the Trump administration because the journalistic process selects for illogical controversies.

I think it's even deeper than searching for profit, though that gets mixed into the stew. The way people in the MSM think about things is that there are always two equal, opposing sides to every issue. They literally cannot process the idea that there can be disputes that have objectively right answers that one side or the other can be right about. So the model isn't that things are true or false, or that projections are well-thought-out and logically and empirically grounded or not; but that claims are just made for partisan benefit and believed or disbelieved on the basis of the partisan alignment of the hearer.

That inevitably benefits ideologues against more pragmatic-minded people. For example, if your goal is to increase access to healthcare, it really matters to you whether your attempts to do that are likely to be successful before the fact and actually working after the fact. If, however, you believe that post-market redistribution is fundamentally wrong, you might say it's not going to work for marketing purposes, but you don't really care if what you're saying is true. And the media standing in the middle insisting that you have the same goals and are making equally valid arguments about how to achieve those goals is misleading people.

Many regular people with no profit motive also view things through that perspective. Look at how many people react to basic analysis of the impact of the tax changes (huge upward redistribution of wealth, no or minimal impact on growth, huge increase in debt). Disbelief. The analysis says it's bad so it must be biased and there must be countering analysis that is equally valid that say it's good.

 

[Ruprecht]

I think it's even deeper than searching for profit, though that gets mixed into the stew. The way people in the MSM think about things is that there are always two equal, opposing sides to every issue. They literally cannot process the idea that there can be disputes that have objectively right answers that one side or the other can be right about. So the model isn't that things are true or false, or that projections are well-thought-out and logically and empirically grounded or not; but that claims are just made for partisan benefit and believed or disbelieved on the basis of the partisan alignment of the hearer.

That inevitably benefits ideologues against more pragmatic-minded people. For example, if your goal is to increase access to healthcare, it really matters to you whether your attempts to do that are likely to be successful before the fact and actually working after the fact. If, however, you believe that post-market redistribution is fundamentally wrong, you might say it's not going to work for marketing purposes, but you don't really care if what you're saying is true. And the media standing in the middle insisting that you have the same goals and are making equally valid arguments about how to achieve those goals is misleading people.

Many regular people with no profit motive also view things through that perspective. Look at how many people react to basic analysis of the impact of the tax changes (huge upward redistribution of wealth, no or minimal impact on growth, huge increase in debt). Disbelief. The analysis says it's bad so it must be biased and there must be countering analysis that is equally valid that say it's good.

That's pretty typical of the MSM here as well. Especially on science issues (ie Climate Change or the dangers of radiation from mobile phones). They'll post an interview with a credible expert, and then give equal time to whichever contrarian whack job is loudest.

 

[Denter]

Good post. Exactly. They need each other. They make the other more relevant. It is like the Tao, when people see things as good, other things become bad. You create the concepts of good and bad just by saying good. Or bad will catch up soon. And that is what they are doing. If CNN was conservative, Fox would have started as liberal. lol. and vice versa. There are room for at least 2 people in the market. Just like politics. 2 parties.

And they are making money on it; that is why they are doing it. It really isn't more sinister than that.

“When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

Some deep Hegelian wisdom here.

 

[Denter]

I think it's even deeper than searching for profit, though that gets mixed into the stew. The way people in the MSM think about things is that there are always two equal, opposing sides to every issue. They literally cannot process the idea that there can be disputes that have objectively right answers that one side or the other can be right about. So the model isn't that things are true or false, or that projections are well-thought-out and logically and empirically grounded or not; but that claims are just made for partisan benefit and believed or disbelieved on the basis of the partisan alignment of the hearer.

That inevitably benefits ideologues against more pragmatic-minded people. For example, if your goal is to increase access to healthcare, it really matters to you whether your attempts to do that are likely to be successful before the fact and actually working after the fact. If, however, you believe that post-market redistribution is fundamentally wrong, you might say it's not going to work for marketing purposes, but you don't really care if what you're saying is true. And the media standing in the middle insisting that you have the same goals and are making equally valid arguments about how to achieve those goals is misleading people.

Many regular people with no profit motive also view things through that perspective. Look at how many people react to basic analysis of the impact of the tax changes (huge upward redistribution of wealth, no or minimal impact on growth, huge increase in debt). Disbelief. The analysis says it's bad so it must be biased and there must be countering analysis that is equally valid that say it's good.

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

-FW Nietzsche