Leftist bias of mainstream media and academics

What is the solution? Its definitely not state owned news I don't think ANYONE on either end of the political spectrum wants that.

I don't think this is a problem. You can make an argument that there aren't equivalent conservative communities but that gets picked up by the free market -- although I don't think TruthSocial makes too much money last I checked. Its possible even in that realm Conservative leaning sub communities on places like Reddit (or 4chan? I'm not 100% sure if that's still a thing) are adequate.

Anyhow, traditional news is well represented by left, right, and centrist sources in my opinion.

 

I don't know about Europe, but I feel like US media is very well balanced. So well balanced that people are incredibly polarized and everything in this country is politicized. I feel like if people wanted unbiased news reporting there would be a market for that.

I don't think it's a good faith argument to look at the US media market and claim that its trending towards 100% leftist otherwise we would see consequences of that bleed into how political demographics are represented in our elected bodies.

 

Leftist academic types in Stalin's regime were probably some of the least safe most persecuted people in the USSR.

Because Stalin became a cult of personality. He never was a ideological book reader type. Eventually the actual Marxist academic nerd types in USSR were Stalin's most vocal detractors.

 

Journalists will naturally lean more left. The problem with mainstream media isn't the journalists, it's the shareholders and executives of these mainstream networks. Hence why the ground level reporters and journalists might lean left but it becomes rather irrelevant when the owners of said media are your generic neo liberals or conservatives.


In terms of leftist academia? That is a purely natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with things like state enforcement. All the conservative leaning people in academia are in the business schools of each respective college

Surprise, people more intellectually curious about other social groups, other economic systems etc are going to be more naturally left leaning. It's the intellectual curiosity part that makes academia more naturally left leaning. Nazis had the same issues with academia. This is a very old paradigm.

 

There likely is going to be disagreements on where these media sources land on a chart like that -- I'm not going to study the methodology but nothing looks wildly off. Obviously, that's my opinion against yours.

As far as demonization goes: Its reflective of the viewer demographic.. or maybe its a feedback loop that is self-reinforcing. In any case there are significant chunks of voters on both sides that thing the other side is mentally ill, evil, stupid, etc. Fox News gets demonized? So does MSNBC.

As far as presidential debates: I think Fox News hosted Biden v. Trump in 2020 with Chris Wallace moderating.

This year Harris and the DNC aren't going to entertain a debate there that but I'm fairly sure there is nothing outside of political strategy of the electoral candidates barring Fox News from hosting these.

 

I have no idea of the reasons. It is so hard to say with the extreme polarization and what is reaction to other-side extremism (which probably goes for those on the right as well). I do know some in academia that are annoying (to me) with their extreme dogma to what you would consider "woke". I could go on for hours. But even in my experience those are still a minority, but what I've seen and especially tales I've heard from others are hilarious. Yet, even still, that doesn't mean that people that are professional can't be professional and carry out their jobs despite their political ideology. I'm sure that if you were to consider hiring someone, you wouldn't exclude them because they have different political beliefs and that you could keep things on a professional level. You might not even know their political beliefs.

My whole point is throwing out random factual statistics that don't show any causation whatsoever means nothing. Those kinds of social media posts are purely designed to make folks that won't actually consider it, afraid or victimized and ostracized. It creates division, and that is the purpose. It isn't to sine light on any real issue or problem.

 

While I can agree with the chart, it also depends on how it's done. NPR, or example, might choose to examine an issue that is left of center. But in their coverage they are always very careful to give voice to people on all sides of the issue. They will also tend to focus on one particular aspect of an issue that is more under the surface and not really covered by other media.

They go in-depth on certain minutia of issues, and leave the broader points to the other media outlets. So they are giving a fuller picture of whatever they cover and do try to hold to journalistic standards even if the issues they cover tend to be to the left. I feel the placement on the chart for NPR is correct, but with several of the media outlets mentioned, it is a very surface level analysis.

 

That's the whole point. People from both sides can be professional and do their job well despite whatever political views. Sure there will be the outlier that has their politics bleed over and influence their professional work. That is true from both sides. It doesn't do anyone any good to push those outliers to the front and make them seem representative of any group larger than outliers.

 

Do your employees complain about the lack of work you put in while you spam embedded tweets in a Houston Rockets message board?

Anyone notice this dude has a very specific anecdote related to any topic that is discussed in the D&d.

A discussion about Angela Merkel happens

Atw enters: "ya so that time I was at a party with other fellow corporate executives and met Angela. She seemed fine.".

 

You can test for the sincerity of the concerns of people like ATW by asking them what they think ought to be done with leftist bias in academia.

Why? Because then they'd have to confront the reality that the overwhelming disproportionate bias in left leaning facility especially in social sciences is a product of nature rather some top down leftist government conspiracy.


I mean which ideology makes fun of the entire concept of social sciences? This is a basic chickens coming to roost situation.

There is no "solution" here that wouldn't look like a top down authoritarian control of academia to balance the ideological divides on campuses.

Conservatives and right wingers praised the concept of creating businesses and being the kings of the free market so it makes sense they dominate the respective business schools of each campus. Left leaning people are naturally more curious about social sciences therefore try naturally are going to dominate the social sciences field.


There is no "solution" here outside the American Right not demonizing social sciences and the conservative brain gaining basic intellectual curiosity of other cultures and societies and how people organize. Conservatives aren't naturally curious about these things so it seems like a cultural problem on their end over why their ideological ilk aren't represented well in social sciences academia.

 

Journalists are also managed by editors who are more deeply aware of their owners' and customers' interests.

 

Is this media bias or simply being nonsensical? Or perhaps both?

Context: Harris has released an 82-page economic plan, while Trump has concepts of an economic plan.

NYT 9/25/24 (Harris hasn't provided enough details): "As VP, Harris parses out the details of her agenda, favoring broad strokes over detailed policy papers."

NYT 9/25/24 (Harris has provided too many details): "But many voters find Mr. Trump's punchy promises easy to grasp."​

It’s both. For years, the NYT and mainstream media have applied different standards to Trump compared to other politicians. They don’t even seem mindful enough to recognize their own double standards, resulting in comical writing.

 

End Wokeness is well-known for being misleading, so unless someone reports on that and what it might mean, it's just a bunch of BS.

That said, centralized reporting is a significant issue. Not only has Sinclair accomplished this years ago, but they also push their narrative to the local news stations they own.


Sinclair stations map: Sinclair’s takeover of local news, in one striking map | Vox

Sinclair Broadcasting Group is already one of the most powerful media companies in the country. It owns nearly 200 local television stations in nearly 100 markets — and it’s about to get even more powerful.

The unabashedly pro-Trump media conglomerate received a lot of attention after it forced its local news anchors to read an anti-media promo. These promos were edited together by Deadspin’s Timothy Burke to show a chilling montage of local anchors “concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories plaguing our country.”

So we gave you a tool to see whether Sinclair currently owns any of your local stations. But that doesn’t quite capture the extent of how powerful Sinclair is about to be. Sinclair’s purchase of Tribune Media and its 42 local stations will soon go through if approved by regulators. That would allow the company to reach more than 72 percent of American households.

..

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn’t allow a single company to own stations that reach more than 39 percent of US television homes.

So the question is: How is Sinclair going to be allowed to reach more than 70 percent of households?

There are two main reasons:
...

This isn’t to demean the journalists who work at Sinclair, some of whom have tried to resist. It doesn’t mean everything they report is compromised. But this centralization of local news, especially by a company with a political agenda, is a troubling trend.