Conservatives tend to follow symbolism more deeply. Likely why their media and political ads are more sharpened pay attention to gotchas that reinforce those themes. If you repeat a theme often and as a matter of factly, it's possible to commit short term memory into long term principles. That's the bedrock of learning, conditioning, brainwashing uhh...advertising, and marketing. America is pretty good at exporting the last two. Probably a reason why we're a victim to whatever post-truth calamity going on right now.
Thanks I'll check them out. I would add that if people do get information from non-neutral sources, gotta make sure to check out the opposite sources for counter arguments. It's interesting to read the story from all sides and see the little tricks people are doing in their message.
It's also important to note the level of bias a media outlet typically has. While CNN is biased to the left, it's less so than FOX is biased to the right. If you skip opinion pieces (which everyone should in my opinion), politico and the hill are good sources
I'll echo checking multiple sources. I frequently get worried that I'm in a bubble and will want to know what people who disagree with me are listening to and reading. Also approach most things with skepticism and try to avoid jumping to conclusions. We get information coming at us very fast and with things like Twitter and other social media there is a drive to come to a conclusion and have an opinion about something. Things are often not as they seem or more complicated that what they seem. Very important. Use critical thinking to question what you see and read. Especially from politicians. If a politician says my plan will do this ask yourself how does it do that? Are there other things this plan might do? How likely is this plan going to happen? Usually just asking a few simple questions is a good way to cut through propaganda.
I long ago lost count of how many times I've suggested to people here to read multiple sources to get their news. If you read those multiple sources long enough, you'll realize things. For example, that the Wall Street Journal has excellent reporting on a variety of topics and it is often relatively unbiased, "middle of the road" reporting. Their editorial board, however, is strongly "right wing" and very biased in that direction. Totally agree with your comment about Fox News, of course, which I view as more a propaganda arm of the right wing of the Republican party, which now is the Republican Party, with few exceptions, especially since Shepard Smith left. Chris Wallace is good, but often ignored by the Fox "talking heads" that swamp prime time. They are wildly dishonest and might as well have "vote trump" banners behind them when they are on. CNN? I would argue that while they are more to the left of center than they used to be (and I've been watching CNN since they started in June of 1980, the month I moved to Austin and got cable), they have been pushed to the left in response to the constant attacks from the White House, the GOP, and the Republicans in Congress. When you are constantly attacked and called "fake news" by the current person that sometimes sits in the Oval Office and by those surrounding him, it doesn't surprise me that during the last few years they have begun to push back. I think their news coverage is still very good. CNN's talking heads at night, however, with the exception of good newsmen like Jake Tapper (often on early evening), now definitely lean towards the left. Not like MSNBC to the left, and not remotely like Fox News to the right. In my opinion.
Yea totally social media these days would just keep feeding you the same point of view to push people further and further in one direction in order to get more clicks and make more money from you. One has to actively be aware and seek out other points of views, otherwise just gets slowly brainwashed without knowing.
CNN's shift towards more profitable editorializing has been disappointing, yet understandable for their bottom line (deep 3rd in cable news ratings). They call Chris Cillizza pieces as Analysis but are so slanted to the point where it's close to Daily Show opinion with its blatant cheerleading. Their (and other outlets) investment in former spymasters as paid specialist/experts, who made careers out of lying convincingly and extensively, is a clear and present danger towards Americans understanding foreign and domestic policy. Fox News has shown it's much easier to play things fast and loose, maybe because watchers don't demand much in credibility. They cut costs and corners (easier to apologize/retract for negligence than outright lying), underinvest in fact checking and load up commentary hours at the expense of on the ground reporting. Despite all the cuts in quality, they're one of the most viewed and profitable cable networks. If I do watch news, I mostly stick to the Newshour. They post streams on youtube so it's not like I have to watch in their timeslot. They try the most to present views in a reasonable manner. It's not perfect, but still efficient at getting a decent picture of what's happening. I still read a lot of NYT and WaPo but the Clinton debacle and past mistakes also point a glaring flaw in not diversifying one's news sources.
