Democratic Party direction post-Harris

[Hygro]

The media is leftwing insofar as it advocates for its gay men anchors. As its entire leftwing credibility.

The media is leftwing insofar as it takes coherent things Trump says and then targets actual left wing spaces with “Trump shows signs of dementia babbling about sharks, Hannibal lector” giving him a complete free pass and reinforcing Trumps claim the media lies against him. These clickbait headlines bury real news.

The media is leftwing insofar as it presents Trump as equally dignified and in the most charitable light and Harris in the most critical, to keep the race actually competitive, but then say Harris is the inevitable winner.

The media is leftwing insofar as left leaning reporters answer to editorial boards who answer to new era oligarchs.

The media is leftwing insofar as Trump makes them money especially when like a porn star they take faux offense to his every vibe (not actual moves) and then completely get it on with him propelling him forward as a meme. They love the guy.

The media is leftwing in so far as their top personalities declared themselves democrats but have class interests with the republicans and it shows.

And the media never showed itself to be so obviously and fully bought when the country was equally divided between Luigi good, Luigi bad, with the middle being Luigi good but wrong method. And yet every source treats that middle position as the rare fringe position and the popular wing as horrific and detached. See above paragraph.

 

[Akka]

So did you. One publication's opinion on the media landscape is effectively that.

Yeah, no, that's not what an anecdote is.
Note that you can perfectly disagree with the analysis, be it its methodology, its sources or its conclusion. But claiming that a study over the whole main medias is the same kind of info as a "one guy told us his story" is just 100 % bad faith BS, regardless of which one is right and which one is wrong.

That's a lot of faith in a publication you know nothing about.

Nothing about faith, as I've explicitely said it's at least a work made by people who dug into it. It's no worse than a bunch of nobodies on a forum who put their claim about media just as authoritative - but somehow I'm supposed to believe the latter rather than the former. Another thing I've explicitely said is that if you have some reliable study, you're welcome to give it. So far I'm still waiting.

No you just misread your own source

He, you're right, that one is on me. I was paying attention to the origins of the studies and missed that they updated it. Sadly can't really get a good opinion on if it's you or them who's right on this Jimmy Dore guy, as I don't know him and as such can't have a definite answer if he's switched side or if he just went full far-left conspiracist. So it's basically your word against their.
BTW, as said above, you're welcome to provide alternative analysis if you feel these ones are lacking.

Like I said, you can Dunning-Kruger it up all you want, but I can't in good conscience let you present that chart as authoritative fact without challenge. Indeed, quite aside from problems with the chart itself, you invoked the chart in a context to which it didn't really apply, which was a point about the political slant of local news.

Also, just FYI, "professional media political bias classifier" is not a thing

Just so you know, your obsession with trying to Dunning-Kruger people while casting yourself as an expert isn't the gotcha you think it is. As for the "not applicable to the context", yeah BS, there was a claim about the whole media being against the Democrats, not just the local ones. Also about the top-down influence on public opinion (which kinda sound more "big media" and "big celebrities" than "local news").

 

[Sarin]

I'm having deja-vu, I could swear this conversation has been going on in at least one another thread.

On topic, I just have to quote myself, again.

Of course, it might be affected by your perception. If you're on the far left end, every dissenting opinion looks right wing to you.

 

[Broken_Erika]

On topic, I just have to quote myself, again.

Keep in Mind that Left-Right measures differently depending on country.

 

[Lexicus]

Just so you know, your obsession with trying to Dunning-Kruger people while casting yourself as an expert isn't the gotcha you think it is.

I have never once "cast myself as an expert", that is nonsense. What I have "cast myself as" is a guy with a clue. As to Dunning-Kruger, let me just say that if the situation were reversed, I would not believe I had "proved" anything about French media, which I know virtually nothing about, by simply copy-pasting some chart I found on Google.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

So how will the Democratic Party fix the media so people will *vote for them? Or are we off course here?

btw there used to be like 3 tv channels and 2 newspapers of any weight in America so anyone whining about bias these days out to be more grateful that people wanted more variety out of their news, not that there needed to be more elites to brainwash them about ideas they already believed anyway.

*edit

 

[Sarin]

Keep in Mind that Left-Right measures differently depending on country.

This topic is about the US though, where due to the two-parry system, the left-right axis is quite clear and basically agreed-upon standard in political discourse. Of course, in other countries it is different and sometimes I wouldn't use the left-right axis at all, but in this topic, it's a good measure.

 

[Lexicus]

So how will the Democratic Party fix the media so people will for them? Or are we off course here?

Who cares about the Democratic Party? They're completely worthless if they can't even manage to clear the bar of "not fascist", but Americans do need to figure out how to have a media that doesn't just inch the country toward fascism every single day.

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah, no, that's not what an anecdote is.
Note that you can perfectly disagree with the analysis, be it its methodology, its sources or its conclusion. But claiming that a study over the whole main medias is the same kind of info as a "one guy told us his story" is just 100 % bad faith BS, regardless of which one is right and which one is wrong.

You're getting confused. Let's assume we agree to disagree on an anecdote because I'm assuming at this point you're electing to ignore or otherwise dismiss the article I provided.

You made a claim about Hollywood. My article, the "anecdote" is more than you provided for said completely unevidenced claim.

This is a separate tangent to the political leanings of the media, which I'll talk about below.

Nothing about faith, as I've explicitely said it's at least a work made by people who dug into it. It's no worse than a bunch of nobodies on a forum who put their claim about media just as authoritative - but somehow I'm supposed to believe the latter rather than the former. Another thing I've explicitely said is that if you have some reliable study, you're welcome to give it. So far I'm still waiting.

But it is about faith. Is something accurate just because it's printed somewhere? Do you weight left-leaning outlets as heavily when it comes to their optics of media leanings?

And this is where you'd ask me for a source again. I'm on my phone having just finished a water polo game. It's 11pm. But I'll see what I can do! The problem is if CNN is "left leaning" is the objective standard, then what are actual left-wing outlets like Novara Media here in the UK? That's the problem with the Overton window. But again, I'll see what I can do. I don't have much faith given your refusal to recognise arguments that demonstrate said charts are inaccurate, mind you.

What I can say is you're ignoring multiple points of contention from other CFC users, and calling them all "nobodies" either proves your faith in this chart you found, or, worse, suggests quite negative things about forum posters rather than attacking their arguments (a lot of which you are, once again, ignoring).

I'm having deja-vu, I could swear this conversation has been going on in at least one another thread.

On topic, I just have to quote myself, again.

And if somebody reversed your quote? I don't think your generalisation holds.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Americans do need to figure out how to have a media that doesn't just inch the country toward fascism every single day.

Create an AA program for journalists and organizations staffed by people without college degrees.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

1. Economic self-interest for the working class includes both robust economic growth and a robust social safety net.
2. The government should prioritize maintaining functional public systems and spaces over tolerating anti-social behavior.
3. Climate change — and pollution more broadly — is a reality to manage, not a hard limit to obey.
4. We should, in fact, judge people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin, rejecting discrimination and racial profiling without embracing views that elevate anyone’s identity groups over their individuality.
5. Race is a social construct, but biological sex is not. Policy must acknowledge that reality and uphold people’s basic freedom to live as they choose.
6. Academic and nonprofit work does not occupy a unique position of virtue relative to private business or any other jobs.
7. Politeness is a virtue, but obsessive language policing alienates most people and degrades the quality of thinking.
8. Public services and institutions like schools deserve adequate funding, and they must prioritize the interests of their users, not their workforce or abstract ideological projects.
9. All people have equal moral worth, but democratic self-government requires the American government to prioritize the interests of American citizens.

So from the article. I would summarize all these principles by: think of your proposals as a way which benefits all Americans; they don't want to hear they're part of any problem.
I can only infer what specific policies the author is talking about, but I hardly think that these constitute some form of surrender to Donald Trump.
Like, yeah, it should be obvious your government should be catering to most people and not be writing off like 20-30% of Americans as hopeless apostates for whatever reason. And if there is some irreconcilable difference which creeps up (if I might add to these 9 points), well, that's why we leave it to the states to resolve individually, unless you're willing to demonstrate that some issue is of national importance; that's hardly a cop-out.

 

[Lexicus]

Create an AA program for journalists and organizations staffed by people without college degrees.

So, in this formulation, it is presumably CNN, MSNBC etc inching the country toward fascism by being too damn woke or whatever, which is inevitable because these are organizations staffed by people with college degrees? I just want to make sure I have this right...

 

[Voidwalkin]

So, in this formulation, it is presumably CNN, MSNBC etc inching the country toward fascism by being too damn woke or whatever, which is inevitable because these are organizations staffed by people with college degrees? I just want to make sure I have this right...

As I imagine it, the graduate has little class incentive to favor policies that help poor people. They have the opposite interest.

They do, generally, but yeah, it's not clear how deep this interest actually runs.

If the implicit Republican offer is "we'll protect your values if you let us plunder the economy", and the implicit Democrat promise is "we'll give you moderately better policies, if you accept changes in norms" many will believe both offers are ****. They disengage, become cynical, lose trust in government, various things that are conducive to fascism.

If you promote actual working class voices, presumably, the views on both social and economic would be more compatible and therefore inspire greater trust than either party can manage with the current philosophies. Republicans sorta managed this in their media ecosystem, probably as an advantage of its online-ness. Less formal structure, less credential checks. Not really any reason the strategy could be impossible to replicate. I imagine it'd be easy, if it were a deliberate decision made by leadership.

 

[Gorbles]

As I imagine it, the graduate has little class incentive to favor policies that help poor people. They have the opposite interest.

What interests do "the graduate class" have, specifically?

 

[Lexicus]

As I imagine it, the graduate has little class incentive to favor policies that help poor people. They have the opposite interest.

They do, generally, but yeah, it's not clear how deep this interest actually runs.

If the implicit Republican offer is "we'll protect your values if you let us plunder the economy", and the implicit Democrat promise is "we'll give you moderately better policies, if you accept changes in norms" many will believe both offers are horsehockey. They disengage, become cynical, lose trust in government, various things that are conducive to fascism.

If you promote actual working class voices, presumably, the views on both social and economic would be more compatible and therefore inspire greater trust than either party can manage with the current philosophies. Republicans sorta managed this in their media ecosystem, probably as an advantage of its online-ness. Less formal structure, less credential checks. Not really any reason the strategy could be impossible to replicate. I imagine it'd be easy, if it were a deliberate decision made by leadership.

I really don't even know where to start with this...have you considered the existence of poor college graduates or rich people without college degrees?

 

[KMRblue1027]

Acting like journalism is some super lucrative high paying field is hilarious to me not gonna lie. It's not engineering.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm guessing he's considered it, but as a generalization it holds up better than most things in the messy world.

Journalism itself not withstanding. That field is dead. Nobody pays for news anymore and they get what they pay for.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I really don't even know where to start with this...have you considered the existence of poor college graduates or rich people without college degrees?

Obviously, yes.

You could go with poor graduates. You'll encounter the problem of the values split, though. A blue haired trans barista and a top engineer, if both are graduates, are very likely shaped by academia in a comparable way. These values are less common in the general population. They'll voice their social views, poor will see a red light, probably several red lights. If the purpose is a restoration of faith in government's ability to deliver for them, that's not effective.

You're not gonna go with the scions of country gentry, either, though naturally, if they don't have degrees, some would make it in, provided you don't favor by income.

For my purpose, that's not game-changing. The idea is to give working people more social influence. I'd be especially thrilled if favoritism was shown to those whose parents did not attend college, too. Concrete platform to express views > noted increase in influence > marginal(or better) policy success > less rage at the status quo > less fascism.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm guessing he's considered it, but as a generalization it holds up better than most things in the messy world.

Nah. You agree with it.

This isn't a put-down, there's a lot of opinion here. But A isn't B.

You could go with poor graduates. You'll encounter the problem of the values split, though. A blue haired trans barista and a top engineer, if both are graduates, are very likely shaped by academia in a comparable way.

Also nah.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm guessing he's considered it, but as a generalization it holds up better than most things in the messy world.

You know what holds up even better? Just using "rich people" as an analytic category. Doing anything else is a bit of a giveaway that you are just trying to coopt genuine class appeals into culture war. To put things somewhat more explicitly, any conception of class that puts a precarious hourly-wage service worker in the same class position as someone making half a million a year is going to be worthless mystification at best, and at worst an active attempt to thwart the development of actual class-consciousness. Another thing to mention in this context is that this theory of class evidently allows people like JD Vance, Ron DeSantis, and Donald Trump, all of whom have college degrees (indeed, DeSantis and Vance have postgraduate degrees from Ivy League institutions) to transmute themselves into authentically working-class guys simply by being reactionary *******s.

Obviously, yes.

It is far from obvious to me given that you are using the phrase "graduate class" when "college graduate" is simply not a class position.

are very likely shaped by academia in a comparable way.

Out of curiosity, have you yourself ever attended college? That is to say, when you speak about academia, are you speaking from (albeit limited) personal experience?