Hacker News Comments on
Sinclair Broadcast Group: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
LastWeekTonight
·
Youtube
·
25
HN comments
- This course is unranked · view top recommended courses
Hacker News Stories and Comments
All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this video.These are the only examples I could find on a search:
John Oliver has done several hilarious and informative segments on them,
Surprised there is no mention of Sinclair broadcast group. Many broadcast stations have to read from the same script provided by Sinclair. Sinclair has been criticized for their affiliation with and support of the Republican party.
⬐ jimmygrapesThe "watchdog group" the article refers to, Media Matters, is not particularly unbiased themselves.⬐ CameronNemoAre the facts reported in the article disputed?
All these stations are owned by the Sinclair Group, a right-wing broadcasting corporation that is eroding the editorial independence of local stations in order to run segments like these or the "terrorism alert desk" [1]. John Oliver had a great video on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogcAlso, the following quote is just utter BS, trying to draw a distinction where there is none:
> Reminder: "While it is extremely dangerous to our democracy..." the US is actually a Constitutional Republic.
is this related to the sinclair broadcast group[1,2] or something else?1:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#2018_...
⬐ tboyd47Thanks for the context!⬐ res0nat0rYep, here's another a 90 second clip demonstrating how Sinclair is a rightwing media news org, also using the same forced talking points across the board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo⬐ toxik⬐ rejectedandsadThat’s the exact same video as OP, buddy.⬐ res0nat0rGuess I should feel bad about this, but I don't. Pretty sure this was a multiple minute much longer link when I first commented, thus wanted to share the quick Daily Show link which made the rounds the other year.⬐ res0nat0rdownvote away then. lets get it to -30 for my unforgivable sin.⬐ slgAlthough this one is the original source. It is only dated later because the video didn't originate on Youtube.This is Sinclair, and I find it extremely funny that the right has taken this video to smear the rest of the MSM.⬐ voldacarWoah, it's almost as if the right isn't monolithic⬐ MattGaiser⬐ fallingknifeNo, just monolithically clueless.⬐ tolbishI think the point being made is that the smearing is not done in earnest and is a deflection tactic.Hypocritical, but not wrong.⬐ NoneNone⬐ kiawe_fireI don’t understand this argument that I keep seeing.The circles I’ve seen this clip discussed in have generally had an anti-corporate media slant, regardless of political affiliation, and offer this clip as evidence of it.
Which seems quite accurate.
It seems to me that many people do not want a corporate-controlled media narrative regardless of which sleazy political party it’s currying favor for.
It seems to me that if you perceive the political party to which the station owners show favor, is the same political party most discussing the clip, that this is a strong point of commonality, and that clinging instead to a divisive partisan lens that would just brush this off as hypocrisy is only furthering the divide on a subject both sides apparently agree upon.
The linked source is a Sinclair News outlet. They are probably the worst media conglomerate in America honestly. Their news is constant fear and I view anything by them as poisonous information because it is just as likely meant to mislead as it is to inform. Sure, KOMO publishes some real news. They also publish lies and wildly misleading stuff.
⬐ anigbrowlDid not realize that it's a Sinclair affiliate, worth bearing in mind.
John Oliver did a good bit on them on Last Week Tonight, including dozens of supposedly local news stations repeating the exact same Sinclair script verbatim. Highly recommend.
⬐ jakeoghMedia coordination is only slightly more advanced when we go "up" one level. Same talking points; they just bother to reword them or use more effective (and hence deceptive) psychological techniques. Mr. Oliver knows this, he is an integrated part of pretending his friends are being honest with their viewers. Consider watching CNN a year in the past, or any major 'news' source. Most of what they say is false, or worse.⬐ ShamelessCI disagree but I doubt debate over it would be very interesting on HN.
For anyone interested in hearing more about this, John Oliver ran a segment on this -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
A video about Sinclair from Last Week Tonight With John Oliver[0]
If anyone wants more info, there's a John Oliver segment on how Sinclair does this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
They require local stations to play pre-recorded, "must run" commentary, as well as requiring their anchors to recite a script accusing other news outlets of running "fake news". https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local...
⬐ leereevesJohn Oliver isn't any better.In his segment on Libya, for example, he didn't mention that Obama and Hillary (or even the US) were responsible for the mess there.
In his special on mandatory minimums, he ignored the Clinton Crime Bill, while showing footage of the first Bush.
News sources slanting their coverage for political reasons isn't limited to Fox and Sinclair.
⬐ ceejayozI can't find any indication Oliver did a Libya special?Do you have a link? There's a short discussion of John Bolton's Libya model, where it relates to North Korea, but that's all I can find.
⬐ leereeves⬐ colpabarI can't find the full episode either now, but here's an excerpt that suddenly cuts out after 90 seconds. I hazily remember it being longer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2VKMQmAOY
> It's been three years since Qadaffi fell.
> The nation of Libya seems to be descending into chaos at the hands of Islamist militias.
Plenty of opportunity there to say "since Obama overthrew Qadaffi and left the nation in chaos".
It seems I shouldn't have called it a special, it was just a segment, but I'm still wondering why it isn't in the list of episodes on Wikipedia (which includes each segment).
But drumpf!⬐ leereeves⬐ pteredactylThanks for the information.100% agreed. How he is not questioned for foreign influence on our election is beyond me. I'm somewhat saying this tongue-and-cheek but for the amount of 'Russian Collusion' that warranted the last 3 years of hysteria, he should've been questioned.
Sinclair media owns most local TV stations in the US and uses them to shape public discourse in less-than-ethical ways. I think when local news has gotten as consolidated as it is, it ought to have some kind of obligation to the public, and shouldn't be able to hide behind "it's a private company" to justify bad behavior.John Oliver did an informative bit on Sinclair: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
⬐ deogeoYes - that is why I ended my post with /censorship_apologist - to indicate it was meant to mock common arguments for censorship.Arguments that are only invoked when the speech being censored is unpopular.
⬐ ilakshAnother candidate for antitrust action?⬐ ncmncmYes, this weather-report manipulation is the tip of the iceberg.The station managers get frequent directives from corporate management to hype more-or-less fake stories, and suppress other (real) stories, largely for political purposes.
Before the FCC rescinded its balanced-reporting rules this sort of foolishness was contained, at the cost of sometimes requiring airing fringe lunacy. Now fringe lunacy is often the whole story.
Last Week Tonight (John Oliver) dove into this last year. It's really frustrating that they can leverage so much political sway under the cover of "news reporting". Then forcing news stations to broadcast this garbage.
⬐ rlindgren"👎" to the John Oliver reference. His "reporting" is as biased as it gets. His show is written in a style that convinces the subconscious to accept presented arguments without engaging any serious logical scrutiny. Just try to remember if at any point during any of his broadcasts you actually analyzed the subject of his monologues, rather than simply furthering the thought-process that he was laying out for you. Chances are that you never have because it's written to be persuasive (obviously) and only incidentally informative. Sadly, I know this is precisely what many people now believe "journalism" to be...⬐ somebehemoth⬐ ModernMechJohn Oliver hosts a late night talk show and he is primarily a comedian. He is not a journalist so your commentary on journalism seems misplaced on this point.⬐ akoncius⬐ root_axiswhat are you trying to say? That given he is comedian, his reporting is less credible or audience should receive his stories less seriously or what? Given that he throws a joke from time to time, does it mean that it's less reporting and more comedy?⬐ ModernMech> That given he is comedian, his reporting is less credible or audience should receive his stories less seriously or what?As he is primarily known as a comedian, there is no way to confuse him as a journalist doing "news reporting". This calibrates the critical thinking dial in my brain.
> Given that he throws a joke from time to time, does it mean that it's less reporting and more comedy?
Have you watched the show? The joke to content ratio is very high.
⬐ akonciusyou are confusing jokes with fiction. It is possible to tell true story with additional jokes there and there without fiction. And I think here is confusion - for me Last Week Tonight seems like serious show which tries to do a lot of research to present some facts to audience in entertaining way.Can you give me an example of unbiased reporting on television?⬐ curun1r⬐ rfwPBS is pretty good, despite attempts by the right to brand them as liberal. Watching the PBS News Hour, you can almost see the anchors gritting their teeth as they give equal respect to guests spouting right-wing fabrications, but they still do it to remain as neutral as possible.⬐ rlindgrenProbably not a universally unbiased source, but I think that many sources occasionally engage in objective reporting. I also think that number is probably decreasing in these times...⬐ rlindgrenI would say that hacker news is actually a fairly objective aggregator. It's also participatory, which hopefully checks bias at some level. But, as this isn't television... it's not a valid example, in response to your question. Also, hacker news isn't ad-supported, which is nice.⬐ ModernMechBut there is still bias here. Bias in the stories submitted, in that they're skewed toward the I interests of white male 20-30 somethings. Not a lot of diversity of opinion and point of view here, which is another way of saying prevailing bias.⬐ NoneNoneCan you refute the claims in the video posted? The style is unrelated to the validity of the claims.⬐ rlindgrenValidity of claims is one thing. Validity doesn't equal truth or objectivity. "Fake news" includes cases where the presented claims may be technically valid, but the "lie" exists in the omission of inconvenient claims which would invalidate the intended message of the story. The use of certain agreeable facts to drive a greater agenda rather than inform the viewer. Style is related, as it is the method through which a presenter can evoke a particular response in the viewing subject and entice the mind to follow along and be guided. This sort of psychological manipulation is common in people, beginning from childhood. In advanced forms, you have the con man or other such subversive entity, who has mastered the art of manipulation.⬐ reefoctopusWhat is being omitted in this case that invalidates the story?He did a follow up last night with this new development.
As background: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc (Last Week Tonight)
A major beneficiary of the deregulatory moves, analysts say, is Sinclair, a conservative broadcasting company that is seeking to buy up Tribune Media for $3.9 billion.Sinclair requires its TV stations to air segments with a conservative bent: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-b...
Edit: Check out John Oliver's segment on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
⬐ interstitialJohn Oliver gets his paycheck from Time Warner.⬐ bduerstThe best part of that is when Sinclair's Terrorism Alert Desk ran a piece about burkinis. They require all their stations to broadcast it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc&feature=youtu.be...
John Oliver covered that and more about Sinclair Broadcast Group in a segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
⬐ dogruckAh, a good source for unbiased, serious news -- the self-titled "comedian" John Oliver. Shall we find a rebuttal by Alex Jones?⬐ linkregisterA better comparison to John Oliver might be Sean Hannity or another relatively reality-bound pundit.⬐ tacomonstrous⬐ realityIsHardSean Hannity is your example of a reality-bound pundit? Your standards must not be very high.Ah, a good source for snake oil and bullshit — the self-tilted...Fuck it. You’re an idiot.
You can not like JO. Fine. But YOU are more like Fucktard Jones than JO. Because you just make shit up; at least JO does 30s worth of research before saying something.
Clearly, you don’t.
Off you fuck.
⬐ untogWhat is incorrect in the video? Oliver has been doing "jouro-comedy" segments in his show from the start, and they're usually very well researched.Alex Jones claims that Obama and Hillary smell like sulfur because they are possessed by demons. Needless to say, I don't think your comparison is accurate.
⬐ mejinI don't know enough about this subject to say if anything is wrong, but on every politicial subject that I knew about he was extremely misleading.See: Gell-Mann Amnesia effect
⬐ smnrchrds⬐ NoneCould you please give some examples where he was misleading and how?⬐ mejinI don't remember any off hand but later I will rewatch an episode and list the problems. In the meantime you could search YouTube for "John Oliver rebuttal"⬐ coolgeekWe'll be here waiting⬐ mejinI've been a bit busy but here it is. (BTW: is there a way to get HN to notify you when someone comments?) I will be talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8pjd1QEA0c Student Debt.1:11 Student debt is bad because they will sue you in court. : Well of course they will. Its not like they can take away your car if you stop paying your debt.
3:30 Why did student loans increase so much? States slashed funding for higher institutions causing colleges to increase tuition. : Or maybe because more people are eligible for student loans. Having the government back student loans is linked to the increase in tuition according to this: https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...
5:16 Students at for profit schools account for 31% of student loans having just 13% of the students. : Does anyone expect a private company meant for people with few options to be cheeper than ivy league schools that offer on average $40,000 of aid per student? I don't have sources but I would imagine that the 13% most expensive car sales would account for around 31% of car sales.
9:00 Looks at one specific program at itt and says that it has an 8% employment rate and 25% didn't graduate: There is / was (I don't know if it is over yet) a lawsuit against itt and the plaintiff claims that the employment rate was around 50% http://www.ajc.com/news/education/lawsuit-claims-itt-tech-ex... . Also, what do you expect from a college that excepts anyone who can pay? If they graduated everyone than their credibility would be worse than it already is. Any place that accepts anyone will have a low success rate (eg. Hollywood and start ups)
And the most annoying point about his videos is that he doesn't propose a solution. It feels like making a video about how chemo is so bad and painful but then doesn't mention any alternative. In this analogy John Oliver would like to ban or severely limit chemo.
⬐ coolgeek⬐ NoneYour job was to provide examples of "extremely misleading" statements by Oliver. You didn't actually disprove any of the four examples that you cited. You merely posited alternate theories or additional causes.As such, I'm not going to bother replying to them.
But I suggest that you do some more careful research before using ITT Technical Institute to make a political or economic arrgument:
NoneNone
It is not a proposal to kill entertainment media, it is a proposal to make it easier to make informative journalism. The theory being that a plurality of information sources leads to a better informed population and that if newspapers have less to worry about satisfying shareholders or advertisers, they will do a better job.I think that the most important point for the US situation is the non-concentration condition, preventing one person or company from owning several information media posing as different entities, masking the lack of plurality. It would prevent this kind of things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
Arguably this is more a solution to the situation we have in France. In the US it looks like you have people like the Koch brothers who would not mind running newspapers at a cost to promote propaganda. It would still make it more expensive as it would have to compete against people who would have little costs and privileged access to primary sources.
It does not solve all the problems of society and information though. IMO, the fact that so many Americans confuse information and entertainment is an education problem, not a media one.
⬐ TeMPOraL> IMO, the fact that so many Americans confuse information and entertainment is an education problem, not a media one.Then there's the Tesla vs. Top Gear case. Top Gear spewed bullshit about Tesla's car, got sued, and won, with the court saying that Top Gear is an entertainment show and has no obligation to be factually accurate. And yet, it's widely known that people treat this show as an information source, not a comedy.
And then there's British Tabloids vs. EU case. A British tabloid will write some utter and complete bullshit about some EU regulation, and then it gets picked up by countries on the continent and reprinted in the quality news sources as facts. So what's understood as entertainment by the Brits gets presented as facts elsewhere.
I think this is not an American problem, and not people problem. It's a media problem too.
⬐ IvThe UK judges ruled that people are not supposed to base opinions on an entertainment shows.> it's widely known that people treat this show as an information source, not a comedy.
It would have helped Tesla to be able to point out that Top Gear is not real journalism but entertainment and point at the actual reviews made by actual journalists.
> And then there's British Tabloids vs. EU case
I don't know how it happens in other countries but most of the time when a French news quote a UK tabloid it is mostly to point fingers at them and laugh.
> I think this is not an American problem, and not people problem.
Sure, it is a people problem. That US has and makes less efforts than other countries at solving. I mean, EU is not perfect, but there are not many countries where the biggest political party downright opposes teaching critical thinking skills in schools:
page 20 (12) of this document: http://archive.is/QbV60
From the article:> "The moves, which include easing a cap on how many stations a broadcaster can own, have opened up lucrative opportunities for Mr. Smith, among them a $3.9 billion bid to buy Tribune Media, another large owner of stations."
> "Associates say both men believe that local television stations, which fall under the commission’s rules because they broadcast over federally owned airwaves, are at a disadvantage when competing against cable companies and online streaming services like Comcast and Netflix."
> "Loosened regulatory requirements, Sinclair executives said, will help even the playing field and benefit millions of Americans who rely on broadcast stations for news and entertainment by allowing the companies to invest in new equipment and technology."
I don't watch (local) TV, but the Jon Oliver piece [1] on Sinclair was eye-opening. I understand how larger companies can invest in new technology. However, cable and broadcasting companies have historically not done this [2] because they are near monopolies (or duopolies). These deregulations make things less competitive, not more. I don't understand how conservative voters who support these moves and the magic of the free market at the same time do not see this.
There's no leveling the playing field here, unless it's in the sense of bulldozing all the players out to make room for a few giants who are cooperating on some occasions to avoid competing.
> “I’ve been listening carefully to what you have to say,” Mr. Pai told broadcast executives in late 2012. “Unfortunately, it seems there’s a widespread perception that today’s F.C.C. is largely indifferent to the fate of your business.”
Why should the FCC care about business fates beyond their mission of providing fair service to consumers?
John Oliver did a great piece on this as well:
John Oliver had an interesting show on this a few weeks ago:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
TL;DR version would be: the Sinclair group is collecting local TV news channels, and their editorial line isn't exactly neutral.
“Our democracy has been hacked.” is something that resonates with me very well. A select group of people have mastered media manipulation and are now acting as puppeteers while we are all in a state of confusion, no longer able to discern truth from disinformation. It is not classic censorship that worries me anymore. It is this constant bombardment with questionable data that we need to figure out how to battle, as it is our biggest enemy now. We need some way to get out of the disinformation bubble and be able to see the real picture.BTW this article reminded me of a great show[1] that Last Week Tonight did, about how local news outlets in US are used to manipulate the masses.
⬐ benevol> We need some way to get out of the disinformation bubbleThere is even something that came a long time before IT and the resulting disinformation bubble:
Very unhealthy and materialistic values, deeply embedded in our current culture. I.e., we are constantly being told that being rich, being popular and to dominate others is a very desirable target.
⬐ api⬐ im3w1lLooking at human history I do not this this is new.⬐ viraptorIs it really because we're told that? I mean, in very practical terms, being rich and popular (within reason) will give you better life in almost every way. Mainly because it allows you to choose what kind of life you want to lead. Also in case of any life accidents, having contacts and money, you can make lots of them easier to deal with. Dominating others is the only one I'm not sure of.On a global scale, I think that's a bad situation. On a family scale, being rich is close to the healthiest thing you can do.
⬐ ZenoArrow> "On a family scale, being rich is close to the healthiest thing you can do."I would say being self-reliant is the 'healthiest' thing you can do.
Being rich is a type of self-reliance, but it comes with its downsides. The biggest one is probably isolation. A disconnection from the world around you. Perhaps the world around you is 'unhealthy' so it makes some sense to be disconnected from it, but generally it's a downside.
⬐ viraptorThat's a deeper / secondary result. I was thinking in terms of basic needs. Self-reliance is good, but if you live in a good area, close to a good hospital where you don't wait and don't need to worry that calling an ambulance is a debt risk, your survival chance is much higher. You can't realistically provide this yourself / in small community.Even basic human events like a childbirth: if everything goes well - great, if you get PPH - you've potentially got minutes before bleeding out.
⬐ ZenoArrowThat's why you should support public health services. That way everyone in your community can benefit from the services that you can't provide for yourself. Self-reliance is an ideal rather than the be-all end-all.It's about to get a lot worse. Realistic chat bots are only now coming into play. Soon there will be 10 bots per legitimate user in every online community that discusses politics.⬐ illegal_in_ca⬐ nemo1618I can't help but think the obvious solution here is the correct one: start talking politics with people IN PERSON.The signal to noise ratio around my kitchen table is a lot higher than on reddit (or even HN), and there are a lot fewer trolls.
We used to say "Never trust anyone you can't punch in the face."
⬐ apiA prediction of mine for the past year: in 2020 mass social media dies.2016 was the first Internet election and showed the power of "fake news" (disinformation flooding) and data driven micro-targeting in an election. Trump won partly because he ran an Internet election while Clinton ran a TV era election. (Obama had a good net game too, but 2008 and 2012 were still dominated by old media.)
The Democrats will close this gap, as will a trillion varied think tanks and pressure groups not to mention a dozen foreign governments. Combine this with the advent of AI chat bots and you have a recipe for social media apocalypse.
My specific prediction is that in 2020 mass social media will be flooded and basically DOS'd to death by automated propaganda bots and algorithmically generated fake news. Sites like Reddit will be nothing but donkeybots arguing with elephantbots. Less than half of online news will be even remotely true, especially on social media. Most will be algorithmically targeted and written propaganda.
It will be like the advent of mechanized warfare in WWI, but with bullshit. Mechanized bullshit warfare. Feel free to visualize.
Social platforms will implement censorship and other measures to attempt to fight this DOS attack but these will ruin them for humans and drive people away.
Basically mass social will die the way Usenet died, but with AI and driven by big big money propaganda efforts.
Internet discussion will retreat to private enclaves. We may see a second BBS era.
>BTW this article reminded me of a great show that Last Week Tonight did...Last Week Tonight is one of the most blatant examples of media-driven manipulation on the air today.
⬐ hiram112⬐ sn9This is so true.The right has always had its own junk - things like Fox News, various 'Think Tanks' and academic institutions who are quite blatant in their bias.
But in the last few years, at least, I've been amazed at just how obvious it is when the left pushes a narrative, regardless of whether it's a hit piece against Trump or any of a dozen other themes: immigration is needed, climate change will destroy us all, women are bullied in tech, etc.
The same exact story, from out of nowhere, is suddenly blaring at me via CNN at the airport and McDonalds, headlining a dozen different magazines at the grocery store checkout, editorials in all the major papers, jokes from three different late night comedians, surprisingly highly-voted articles on Reddit, hashtags on Twitter, a placement in a popular sitcom or movie...
Lawrence Lessig's Republic, Lost directly addresses this.His 2011 Google Tech Talk provides a condensed version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc
⬐ YokohiiiManipulation is on both sides of the spectrum, so I wouldn't unconditionally trust Al Gore or The Guardian either. (Not necessarily denying the topic).The media is simply by definition vulnerable to manipulation. At some point you have to trust someone who tells you the truth. There are many ways to bend the truth.
What we need is strong ethics and a strong backing of them.
⬐ bluejekyll⬐ cmahler7You're argument is basically, we can't trust either, so we should just throw our hands up and ignore them all?The entire point of the scientific method is to come to some common understanding of fact. What we need to demand is that articles are backed by properly run studies so that we can come to a common understanding based on good methods.
Yes, Al Gore believes that the current warming trend and climate change is man-made, so he will point to those things that support his theories and possibly downplay things that do not. This does not make him wrong.
⬐ Yokohiii> You're argument is basically, we can't trust either, so we should just throw our hands up and ignore them all?No. I didn't even suggest some immediate action for the current situation. There is probably no way to fix it.
The scientific method cannot solve everything. Maybe it can prove global warming. But the human factor can still corrupt any facts established. That is why I said we need strong ethics. We need to accept the truth, even if it is inconvenient.
Here's a couple good articles by Scott Adams on things that would convince him on climate change. He mainly focuses on his experience with being able to manipulate models to show whatever you want them to show and what proportion is man-made vs natural.http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158159613566/how-to-convince-sk...
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-b...
⬐ polotics⬐ simonhWow, so here is my otherwise -3 rated first post, it was posted to answer just what you & Scott wrote:Just in case a preemptive post for all shills and otherwise identity-impaired deniers. Please watch this presentation from Sheffield University: https ://youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ Thank you
⬐ ZenoArrowI'll watch the video, but whilst I do I'll put a question to you... Do you think the natural habitat of other animals on our planet should be protected?That's the bigger question for me. I don't care if the planet is getting hotter or colder if biodiversity is being protected. Perhaps we should agree to stop driving species to extinction and let any decisions on climate be driven by that goal. Would you say that's a reasonable approach?
EDIT: Have watched the video. I can see you don't need convincing. Thanks for sharing it.
Here's the fixed video link, I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it:
I don't buy the evil secret conspiracy theory. I mean there are evil secret conspiracies, but they're much more narrow, factional and ineffective than advertised.Let's take Fake News. This is entirely a grass roots phenomenon. Sure there are individuals and groups behind a lot of it, but those individuals and groups are not heavily funded black ops teams of a billionaire conspiracy. They're sad white supremacist Reddit trolls. The fact that Trump blundered on to a wave of it and rode it to power is an accident, not the culmination of a choreographed master plan.
⬐ kevinSuttle⬐ mathgeniusAll news is "fake news".http://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2013/12/heres-how-conan-obrie...
⬐ NoneNone> questionable data that we need to figure out how to battleThe reality of the situation seems obvious to me, even if the edges are not clearly defined. I don't think it's very difficult to work out what is going on (with climate change etc.)
To me this is not about people getting access to good data, or being otherwise properly educated. It's about people identifying with "their group", and attacking the "others". And such battle lines are fought around various issues and language, and labels. But it's not actually about those issues or language or labels. It's about self and other. My people, and those other people. So this is what needs to be healed, this separative egoness.
⬐ nwatsonAnd in the mean time, other parties will step into our USA internecine war with their own agendas and prey off our pride and ignorance, e.g.: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china-ra....[Written from an obvious US viewpoint.]
⬐ colinatorSo much agree. The content of issues is largely irrelevant to most people. If the republican leadership were environmentalists, so would their constituents be.What people really want is for their group to beat other groups. It's always been that way, and always will.
This factionalization can occasionally be overcome by great leaders or external enemies. But now, with this 'party over country' attitude that we have, it'll can't be. Shame on us.
⬐ DougN7I agree completely. People need to be able to come together, with disagreeing being the starting point, and not attack each other's groups and views. That would allow for necessary communication to come to agreement, or at least civilly agree to disagree on that topic. Then the door is at least still open to discuss other topics.⬐ graphitezeppI agree the central issue is the self/other tribalism that's gone out of control. But you shouldn't dismiss the lack of access to good data. It's the manipulation and bombardment of nonesense that is entrenching the divide to what I perceive as unprecedented levels.⬐ DelightOneSo saying (or possibly just feeling) we are all the same makes them try to be different by fighting with each other?Maybe that came to be cause you cant discern anymore your pals on here as on the street where you see who he is by his looks.
⬐ cmahler7Dividing the West and the United States in particular has been planned for a long time. Race, gender, income, politics all of it is being used to keep the plebes at each others throats.⬐ belornThis resonate strongly with me but there doesn't seem to be any political platform that has been promoting this theory in the last 20 years. The left focus has been on promoting the distinction and multitude of groups and the strengthening of self-identity that members has towards such groupings. The right is in return focusing the distinction between self and other, making the combination of left and right a special volatile mix in current political environment.Sadly the group that has changed in this formula is the left. They used to (ie, 30-40 years ago) spend a lot of focusing on eliminating and underplay difference between groups. Today I often see the modern left making fun of those times as naive experiment.
⬐ bluejekyllCan you give some examples of when and how the Left is doing this?From what I can tell, in general the left of the US is constantly making an attempt to be all inclusive. I'd agree that there hasn't been enough work to help people see that they have common cause with people who look different and live in different places. That's really whats needed, but it's never been clear to me how to help someone who is severely bigoted to understand that their views are born of ignorance.
From what I can tell, the Right uses positions to drive wedges between people, such that someone can literally hate something which is clearly benefiting them personally because they have turned the issue into an Us vs Them argument. The only thing I see the Left consistently use as a wedge issue is class and money... Whereas the Right uses every possible thing they can come up with to convince people that follow them that they should all be afraid of what the Left is going to "take" from them.
⬐ jaredklewisI think the left is not inclusive enough. Though perhaps a better way to describe it is that the left is increasingly unwelcoming, remarkably to the people whose votes we need. As an extremely liberal person who also happens to be from the south, I am horrified by my Facebook feed where everyday posts by liberal friends proudly mock conservatives as being stupid or bigoted. Being from the south, I know many conservative people with great hearts. These are the people we are trying to convince to join our side, and we are shitting all over them.In these articles, one can sense a true disdain for many conservative points of view on topics like abortion, the role of religion in our society, and gun control. It is rare to find articles that I would feel comfortable sharing with conservative friends or family, as their tone is so contemptuous of conservatives. If it were not for the acerbic tone, many of these articles might become powerful tools of persuasion. But I guess it is just too much fun to taunt the "basket of deplorables."
To quote an article that nicely summarizes a Lincoln speech:
> When Abraham Lincoln was 33 years old, he gave a speech inside a Presbyterian church to a temperance society. His message: The assembled ought to be nicer to drinkers and sellers of alcohol, rather than shunning them, or denouncing them as moral pestilences. Indeed, they ought to use “kindly persuasion,” even if a man’s drunkenness had caused misery to his wife, or left his children hungry and naked with want.
> For people are never less likely to change, to convert to new ways of thinking or acting, than when it means joining the ranks of their denouncers.
> To expect otherwise, “to have expected them not to meet denunciation with denunciation ... and anathema with anathema, was to expect a reversal of human nature,” Lincoln explained.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/why-can...
⬐ bluejekyll⬐ belorn> one can sense a true disdain for many conservative points of view on topics like abortion, the role of religion in our society, and gun control.Aren't these in fact lightning rod issues between conservatives and liberals in general?
The right for women to choose what to do with their bodies is generally a liberal sentiment. The right to be free of religions in every day life, again is a liberal (and constitutional) view. Gun control, is again a liberal desire (though probably not as stalwart as the others).
Why should liberals relax their views on these things? Liberals have relaxed on are some issues: economics, corporate policy, healthcare, etc.
⬐ gremlinsincIt's hard when some conservatives ARE stupid... I was sad at the Death of Chester Bennington...and one of my old friends...and my wife's best friends' husband -- said to me, "You know the Clinton's Killed him, right?"... and I'm like...okay give me concrete evidence, and he's can only give clear conspiracy theory sites, and I'm like... look here's what snopes says..and he's like...telling me Snopes is FAKE News and crap... as opposed to his sources which are all true...I literally bloodied my head face-desking after the exchange...
To take a direct example, in the during 70s-90s some left-leaning families tried to avoid gender specific clothes and toys in order to avoid that the children would fall into typical gender roles. Today the left want gender specific toys, but that toys designed for girls and toys designed for boys should both include professions that are currently popular so that both boys and girls have role models in those. The goal of the first is the remove the group thinking (a very explicit goal, if one read the politics of that time), while the modern left has as a goal that the groups stay distinct and strongly different but that both are included in society in a equal way.An other example would be collage kids. 30-40 years ago we had the political debate around private gender segregated college vs communal gender mixed college. The argument was that by mixing genders people will be more inclusive and less rigid in their group thinking. In modern left politics we instead see a lot of talk about women only school as an effective way to protect women and get more women into professions that is dominated by men. The idea is that they society should include them by giving them an exclusive safe space.
On the topic of religions I can also see a similar change in theme. Old left were more atheism leaning (through possible less so in the US) and regarded what people did in private as private and not part of group identity. Modern left is more focused in giving each religion equal space and promoting the different groups that self-identify as belong to one. It consider it especially important that society give each group the unique consideration that they need/demand.
The general theme here is that the old left either explicit or indirectly downplayed self-identified groups (gender, religions, and sexual orientation) by simply welcoming in everyone to join in the greater common goal (mostly against money/power in some version or other), and the group that did get promoted was the left movement itself. The right during this time acted in direct opposite by highlighted the multiple "others" in order to strengthen the self-group. Both the old and modern left movement focus on inclusion, but its the method used here and the side effects of those that is in stark contrast between new and old.
⬐ candiodariThe "old"/"real" (I'll explain) left is about erasing identities. The only identity any (extreme) leftist philosophy wants you to have is the identity of the state you belong to.If you think about how the economic system works, it will very quickly become obvious why this is the only way a leftist state can ever work : idea is that 2 things motivate people, one is richness and one is ideology. Since richness is taken away (that's the very goal of leftism), ideology is the one remaining. Given that, you cannot give freedom of ideology and expect something like communism to work. Even limited communism.
Assuming the goal of the left is still communism (even the ones of the "eventually" persuasion), I would still agree this is true, and therefore should have the "real" moniker.
In my opinion the "new left" has as a defining characteristic "globalism at any cost". The global free movement of people, and (because it's a necessity of movement of people) capital, and ideology is the central principle. This has somehow become what traditionally leftist parties stand for these days.
This is an extreme subversion of leftist thought, because, firstly, it is an extreme laissez-faire market idea, and should thus be classified as extreme-right. Secondly, it's self-destructive, as it allows the owners of means of production to use that movement of people, and especially to abuse it. Why ? To create ridiculous concentrations of wealth that are the very opposite of what leftism stands for. Needless to say, this abuse of people movement is happening on a large scale as a result. "Strongholds" of leftist thoughts (like the Bay Area and especially San Francisco) have become the main examples of what's wrong with capitalism, as gets frequently complained about on this very forum. And yet, most everyone from there professes to hold socialist ideals.
Even on a larger scale this is true. The republican party is currently about as left/right as the democrats (which is, I think, a large part of the reason for Trump's win), and democrats are moving to the right, republicans to the left. It's baffling to see, but every year requires more of a squint not to see it.
Also relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogcSinclair Broadcast Group is doing basically this already, just in a low tech way and requiring its local TV stations to promoting their political agenda.
Speaking of news oulets. John Oliver had a rather eye opening piece about local news oulets in USA and centralized ownership. (Not that USA is unique in this aspect, but interesting non the less)