Saturday, January 23, 2021

Reading the Milwaukee Rag

Saw this, thought immediately of the Milwaukee Rag.  It was always a Lefty outfit, always hated the Catholic church, and killed off its Right-ish competitor the minute it got the chance.

But it's gone from Lefty to Hard-Left/Sociopath--so what's below doesn't surprise me at all.

  • 56% of Americans agree with the statement that "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."
  • 58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public."
  • When Edelman re-polled Americans after the election, the figures had deteriorated even further, with 57% of Democrats trusting the media and only 18% of Republicans.


Anonymous said...

News today is driven by a desired narrative, more so than in decades past. You have the left and the right who craft a story based on facts, with each side serving as a political evangelical to promote their interpretation. There are truths found here.

Unfortunately, segments of our society has been conditioned by social media “sensations”, reality television “stars”, the Alt Right media, and ratings driven media conglomerates to reject evidence that challenges their beliefs. They do it instinctively when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. When someone attempts to inform them of their misconceptions (like yourself, Dad29), rather than take it under advisement, it “backfires”, which in effect makes them less skeptical of what they believe in, since obviously the other side is rife with their own false impressions. Thus, one continues to see their own position as “true and proper”. Of course, the argument stems from what is and what is not a misconception, whether it be “race realism” or “white privilege”, which ends up being a feedback loop.

For example, consider this exchange on 60 Minutes.

Cernovich--"How do you know Hillary had pneumonia?"
Pelley--"The campaign said so."
Cernovich--”Why do you believe in the campaign?”

On one hand, it is absolutely legitimate for Cernovich to question Pelley on why he is certain about Hillary’s medical problem. Pelley is taking her word at face value. On the other hand, Cernovich is ASSUMING he knows for sure her health issues, and that any answer to the contrary automatically leads to his desired conclusion--the media is covering something up.

Imagine if Pelley responded “Two independent doctors confirmed she has pneumonia”. Cervonich could have replied, and it is within the realm of possibility given his personality, “Well, they are in her hip pocket. She paid for their diagnosis. See, I do not have to prove that she suffers from seizures, you have to show she does not suffer from seizures”. Wayne Gale, the reporter in Natural Born Killers (1994) played by Robert Downey, Jr. demonstrates how modern journalism has evolved. The playbook implemented by Cernovich (and Keith Olbermann) pay homage to his tactics.

It is virtually impossible to argue with those people who cling on this “Fake News” or “media lies” meme. Any fact you bring as an argument, they immediately attack the SOURCE, rather than the substance. Thus, it is easy to deny there is ANY evidence at all. This phenomenon has been brewing for a long time, and it has reached a critical mass at our point in world history. Unfortunately, this leads more people to become ignorant by facilitating echo chambers and confirmation bias.

Dad29 said...

Nothing like a little ad hominem to make your argument stronger. Keep it up. Wins friends really, really, fast!!

You tossed a few hundred words in salad form to say exactly what I did in about 1/5th the time and space: the media is lying, whether by using half the facts, none, or by presenting opinion ("racist!!", "homophobe!!") as "fact," or by naming America First theory/positions as "evil in se."

Thanks for playing.

Dad29 said...

During the 2016 presidential campaign, the Times stumbled onto a possible answer. It entailed a wrenching pivot from a journalism of fact to a “post-journalism” of opinion—a term coined, in his book of that title, by media scholar Andrey Mir. Rather than news, the paper began to sell what was, in effect, a creed, an agenda, to a congregation of like-minded souls. Post-journalism “mixes open ideological intentions with a hidden business necessity required for the media to survive,” Mir observes. The new business model required a new style of reporting. Its language aimed to commodify polarization and threat: journalists had to “scare the audience to make it donate.” At stake was survival in the digital storm.--City Journal

Almost forgot......the media lies by omission, too. What's the name of the man who murdered Ashli? What's the social media of the girl who stole Pelosi's laptop?

You can spend all day pasting more text here about 'counter-narrative' without ONCE mentioning that there is absolute truth, which is exactly what "da nooz" wants you to do.

Try again sometime.