take the stereotypical slightly out of mainstream normie right-winger. blue collar, voted trump, fox news with a side of talk radio, etc
-
-
Show this thread
-
there is a widespread perception among this set (not only this set, but they are numerically most numerous) that liberal media establishments are lying about everything
Show this thread -
misrepresenting facts/events, reporting on some types of things but not others, and so forth in service to an agenda
Show this thread -
I wouldn't characterize it as pushing an agenda (implying willfulness, knowing deceit) but rather embodying a worldview. like the scorpion following his nature
Show this thread -
but the results are similar and I don't think the characterization of the results is too inaccurate. but that's not the point
Show this thread -
the reason the silly conspiracizing, zany alarmism, incredible attention deficiency etc that defines fox/breitbart/etc is so popular is because it fills a void
Show this thread -
libs are right that those outlets are *less true* than their own. the appeal of them is that they *feel* right
Show this thread -
the sense that "the liberal media is constantly lying to push an agenda" (let's call this msmism because it's shorter and looks funny) is more commonly sensed than known
Show this thread -
it's felt as a dissonance between information versus common sense, intuition, lived experience etc. this is probably a common feeling anywhere re: all but the most skillful propaganda
Show this thread -
what outlets like fox/breitbart/infowars and the whole constellation of media/internet personalities in that vein do to varying degrees is *resolve dissonance*
Show this thread -
it just so happens that they resolve it mostly with bullshit, but that's incidental rather than essential. the effect could be achieved by other means
Show this thread -
(mostly it's done this way because it's easy, and most "right" outlets are more mercenary business than their lib counterparts. fox can't be said to have an "ethos" like nyt/wapo do
Show this thread -
breitbart sorta does but it's incoherent, and as an outlet it's more akin to like vox or alternet than the grey lady--it's not an institution)
Show this thread -
I vaguely remember media people smugposting on election night because the trump hq had I think the nyt live update map up on the big screen instead of fox or whatever
Show this thread -
along the lines of "oh yea when you actually need news to be reliable you know our outlets are better than yours"
Show this thread -
but that's the sort of thing I *would* expect an organization like nyt to be highly (relative to competitors) reliable on, and a completely separate concern from agenda/worldview issue
Show this thread -
imo it would be entirely possible to build a right-wing media institution/ecosystem that is comparably reliable to nyt on things nyt is reliable on, but which resolves msmism dissonance
Show this thread -
the important thing is to have a coherent ethos that inspires participants in the endeavor, one that incentivizes reliability/integrity and also fulfillment of purpose
Show this thread -
ethos becomes the basis from which one constructs a counternarrative which resolves dissonance without sacrificing grounding in reality
Show this thread -
it's easy for libs to dismiss fox et al on factual grounds because fox is stupid. you know you succeeded when you replicate msmism in them
Show this thread -
where all the factual ducks seem to be in order but the conclusions inspire an intangible sense of dread and wrongness, like their media does to the other half
Show this thread -
for obvious reasons (the entire ecosystem is unwinding lol) I can't say I would recommend founding a media institution in the current year but
Show this thread -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.