Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I think you might be missing the point 😁

He is and he isn't. I have to disagree with the implied 'symmetry' in media habits in your posts here. Studies suggest that while Democrats are likely to consume 'liberal' sources more and Republicans likely to consume 'conservative' sources more, there is no parity in how much trust they place in different sources - Democrats are much more likely to say that a broad suite of media outlets (probably not including Fox News and Breitbart, but including legacy 'conservative' outlets like The Wall Street Journal) can be trusted to tell the truth. There is no equivalence on the Republican side, where trust in non-Fox, non-local outlets is near zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

He is and he isn't. I have to disagree with the implied 'symmetry' in media habits in your posts here. Studies suggest that while Democrats are likely to consume 'liberal' sources more and Republicans likely to consume 'conservative' sources more, there is no parity in how much trust they place in different sources - Democrats are much more likely to say that a broad suite of media outlets (probably not including Fox News and Breitbart, but including legacy 'conservative' outlets like The Wall Street Journal) can be trusted to tell the truth. There is no equivalence on the Republican side, where trust in non-Fox, non-local outlets is near zero.

I think that polarisation of media and the tribalism of its consumers is only trending towards be more and more extreme though. Even on here publications like The Spectator or The Telegraph are ridiculed. Even the BBC gets a hard time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I think that polarisation of media and the tribalism of its consumers is only trending towards be more and more extreme though. Even on here publications like The Spectator or The Telegraph are ridiculed. Even the BBC gets a hard time. 

Think there's a big distinction between the US and the UK on this issue.

EDIT: To expand on this a little, British media consumers are generally quite aware of the very obvious biases of the print media outlets in this country, but broadcast media is under an obligation to be impartial, and consequently most people are willing to trust BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky in roughly similar amounts. This may change, as the forthcoming creation of 'GB News' is clearly intended to allow an openly right-wing broadcast news outlet, and presumably the intention behind putting Paul Dacre in charge of Ofcom is to ensure that they face no regulatory impediments, so that might change the way other stations operate and the levels of trust in broadcast media.

Edited by HanoiVillan
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I think it's telling that a traditionally more right-wing paper is also a target for the Trump loons.

It’s centre right and hence they don’t trust it. I think the Trumpsters call that being a Rino (Republican in name only). 

It’s not all that different to the struggle you see on the left where the ‘centre left’ is rejected as being ‘Tory light’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One feature of American newspapers that is very different to British ones is that they have a clear dividing line between 'news' and 'opinion'. At both the NYT and the WSJ these are so separate as to be almost different organisations. The WSJ opinion section is very right wing, but perhaps has a more 'establishment', Bush-type feel to it rather than a Trumpian one. The news section is excellent, and does as good a job as any newspaper of not showing its bias, which means they are more than willing to print stories that reflect badly on the Trump administration as and when. Obviously partisan Trumpists have no particular use for either 'establishment' Republicans or a non-partisan newsroom, so they treat the WSJ with as much suspicion as the NYT.

(I also think it's perhaps somewhat less determined than this, and that maybe Trumpists just really hate all legacy media outlets that aren't local news stations).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

He is and he isn't. I have to disagree with the implied 'symmetry' in media habits in your posts here. Studies suggest that while Democrats are likely to consume 'liberal' sources more and Republicans likely to consume 'conservative' sources more, there is no parity in how much trust they place in different sources - Democrats are much more likely to say that a broad suite of media outlets (probably not including Fox News and Breitbart, but including legacy 'conservative' outlets like The Wall Street Journal) can be trusted to tell the truth. There is no equivalence on the Republican side, where trust in non-Fox, non-local outlets is near zero.

From my experience those who start out radically as young and move more conservative with age, are far more thinking individuals than those who start off as conservatives as young and never waver from that stance. This also is shown in tolerance of opposing views politically. And the willingness to accept different information sources.

It's a massive generalization, and there are always exceptions. And I also know lots of very bright people who have always been conservative politically, but this is just my impression on society as a whole. 

I think reflected, well read people who are able to look for the middle path in life, more often than not come from having been working class voters. They also are more pragmatical in what they accept to an acceptable policy between what they wish for and what they deem necessary. 

Probably pissed of a bunch of conservatives here now, but like I said there are always execeptions. I'm sure you're all decent people. 

My two cents as an intolerant voting brat. I'll leave you adults to this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Poor form.

Slightly tangential to this conversation, but a shit thing about lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court is that people spend a lot of time hoping that people they disagree with die, rather than retire or leave office, and I don't think that's the healthiest thing really.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

After everything that's happening, or has happened already, that is what you choose to comment on? 

Well I could have commented on the laughable notion about the credibility of the NYT.

Anyone remember their sham reporting during the lead up to the Iraq war?

Anyone remember their burying of the NSA wire-tapping story in the lead up to the 2004 election?

Or maybe let's just go to a few weeks back with the rubbish Afghan bounty "story", that was so bad it even dragged the NSA out of the shadows to refute the validity of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â