What’s missing from your history is the creation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Americans understood the necessity of objectivity and the danger of partisanship and we mandated that TV news give equal time to opposing views.
Reagan was able to dismantle the Fairness Doctrine in 1982 and that gave rise to Fox News and our current era of massive disinformation.
Perfect objectively is probably impossible, but it can be an ideal that we work toward through licensing and legislation. Corporate capture of civic ideals is what stands in our way.
The Fairness Doctrine would be an improvement, but it still has problems. But under this current dynamic, would giving equal time to opposing views would involve giving airtime to the fascistic elements of the MAGA movement? The NYT prides themselves as giving a diverse range of voices in their op-ed section, but in practice, this ranges from center-left to center-right. Are their no qualified writers to give a socialist, or even social democratic, perspective on a consistent, full-time basis? Is the center-right really the mainstream, dominant voice of the GOP, or would giving a voice to the base of the party involve platforming QAnon believers or members of the alt-right? As we saw with CNN's decision to interview Donald Trump for a town hall earlier this year, at some point, these news organizations will have to make a value judgement on who or what to broadcast. In a market system, this value judgement is influenced by whatever gives them the highest ratings, most eyeballs, most clicks, most money.
Ultimately, even with a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine, whatever news organizations, reporters, editors, etc. deem to be "objective" is still subjective. Of course, this does not mean news organizations should accept smarm, lies, or PR spin as truth, but we would still be relying on subjective editorial decision to receive our information. News organizations would likely be better off in regaining trust by admitting their own biases and striving for fairness and even-handedness and substantive engagement with sources and opposing views.
These are all excellent points and good questions. I think that no news organizations who admit their bias and try to present diverse views will be able to compete in a world where diversity of views isn't mandated and regulated through licencing the way it was.
Because of the confirmation bias that you referenced, people will simply migrate to the news that makes them feel good. I think we also got to where we are due to commercial pressures. Media corporations discovered that it's much cheaper to replace actual reporting with commentary. Talking heads replaced reportage. We're in a very complicated situation as regards the truth and our relationship to it.
I should’ve stayed in my previous comment that I do agree that we should bring back the Fairness Doctrine; I would certainly take the problems with it than the problems we have with deregulated, corporate consolidated news now.
You’re spot on though with the issue of this dynamic. This also points to why social media is an awful avenue to pursue truth. Even if you want to be principled, there will always be someone else who will fill the market void and pander to an audience by telling them what they want to hear. It’s all a tragedy of the commons contest to prove you’re the one worth paying attention to, the ultimate source of truth.
"It’s all a tragedy of the commons contest to prove you’re the one worth paying attention to, the ultimate source of truth." Perfectly stated. Thanks for a thought-provoking post!
Gosh, what country are you living in? Oh, America, of course. 😂
The Biden inauguration was a subdued event, nothing cloying about it. I read a lot of American MSM. No cloy was seen. Not only were thousands of your country fellows still dying daily, your country was roiling from the freshly delivered violent attempt to overthrow democracy, which had itself resulted in multiple deaths. No one was gushing. No one was whooping it up. There was, however, a cloak of utter relief flung across the rest of the world.
I was going to try to count the number of times you wrote 'new deal ', but gave up. No one else sees Biden that way. If there's anything new, or any deals, or bolstering of local industry, it's not a 'new deal ' response. Every country in the world is recalibrating for the same reasons: the pandemic! Supply chain failures. At least there was one lesson learned.
I was watching CNN's and MSNBC's coverage of it, and it was definitely sycophantic. Same with the NYT and WaPo coverage. I would never argue that Biden is as bad as Trump (I voted for him), but aspiring to be not-fascist or settling for the ineffectual corporate-centric liberalism that brought us Trump in the first place is hardly a sign that American democracy is doing well. Biden's whole speech was about "coming together" and "finding compromise," which is essentially the same spiel and approach that was the signature failure of the Obama years with a relatively less insane GOP as the opposition. All of it was indicative that no real meaningful lesson was learned by the Dems in 2016.
I agree that Biden is not a "New Deal" president, I never made the case that he was. I was commenting on the narrative that the center-left press was pushing at the onset of his presidency. "The most progressive president since FDR" was the line as the Build Back Better bill was introduced and negotiated. I found this framing odd, as infrastructure investments and stimulus checks were pretty much the standard response of every other developed country in response to the pandemic.
They're both very elderly white guys, one is a great deal more odious than the other. I couldn't figure out which way you were swinging, given your loathing if Biden.
It's unfortunate that Biden decided to run again. As far as I can tell, it's too late for the Dems to change course.
Kalma hasn't made any mark as a VP. Should have replaced her as well.
To clarify any confusion, here are the official positions of "This is a Newsletter!" in regards to the state of American politics:
- The Republican Party is toxic garbage heap of white power and white grievance in service of oligarchy. The Democratic Party is an ineffectual corporate-friendly party that overhypes social justice virtue signalling to mask the fact that they are beholden to many of the same big business interests that also fund the GOP. Given the choice between a corporate-backed fascist party and a corporate-backed center-right party, I choose the Democrats. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 Dem primaries, and voted for Hillary and Biden in the last two general elections. Any Bernie voter who voted for Trump is a verifiable idiot who substitutes progressive values for vague anti-establishment posturing.
- The positions of "Joe Biden and the Democrats are ideologically incoherent and procedurally feckless, and will never meaningfully change anything because they are unwilling or unable to confront the systemic rot of neoliberal capitalism" and "Joe Biden/Democrats are preferable to Trump/Republicans" are not mutually exclusive. The fact that any criticism of Democrats and/or the state of mainstream left-liberalism is often interpreted as support for Trump prevents any meaningful introspection on liberalism's shortcomings and how to improve them.
- Anyone who says "both sides are equally bad" is trying to pass of lazy false equivalencies as enlightenment. Very unimpressive.
- American mainstream media (particularly cable news) is funded by many of the same corporate interests that donate to the Democrats and Republicans, and therefore, will never substantively cover the biggest economic, environmental, sociopolitical issues that affect Americans because it would implicate these same corporation's roles in creating and sustaining these crises. Right-wing media is by the mouthbreather and for the mouthbreather. Anyone who consumes it on a consistent basis may as well pour bleach on their frontal lobes.
- The average Republican may not be proactively hateful toward marginalized groups, but they are willfully ignorant about how the pernicious effects of systemic racism and more subtle forms of racism affect American life, and this willful ignorance absolutely perpetuates racism. Many liberals are in denial of the following: their own susceptibility to groupthink and propaganda, the Democratic Party's complicity and proactive participation in America's decades-long rightward shift, corporate liberal media's inability to counter the rise of fascism, and the limits of centrist incrementalism and prioritizing process over values. I would never argue that the cult-of-personality around Obama and Hillary is as bad as it is around Trump, but it is closer than most liberals would ever admit to themselves.
Gosh, interesting comment about the cult of personality at the end. Comparing a pimple on the chin with an infected cyst on the anus, I think. I don't doubt it 'feels' different in America, but from my distance, at the bottom of the earth, they're not even close to fungible. (And what was the deal with Sanders, a bland individual, so cultishly loved by the left that they preferred cutting off their noses than supporting the unlovable Hillary. Go figure.)
Whenever I think our politicians are a mediocre shit show, all I have to do is think of America, and I feel instantly relaxed.
What’s missing from your history is the creation of the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Americans understood the necessity of objectivity and the danger of partisanship and we mandated that TV news give equal time to opposing views.
Reagan was able to dismantle the Fairness Doctrine in 1982 and that gave rise to Fox News and our current era of massive disinformation.
Perfect objectively is probably impossible, but it can be an ideal that we work toward through licensing and legislation. Corporate capture of civic ideals is what stands in our way.
The Fairness Doctrine would be an improvement, but it still has problems. But under this current dynamic, would giving equal time to opposing views would involve giving airtime to the fascistic elements of the MAGA movement? The NYT prides themselves as giving a diverse range of voices in their op-ed section, but in practice, this ranges from center-left to center-right. Are their no qualified writers to give a socialist, or even social democratic, perspective on a consistent, full-time basis? Is the center-right really the mainstream, dominant voice of the GOP, or would giving a voice to the base of the party involve platforming QAnon believers or members of the alt-right? As we saw with CNN's decision to interview Donald Trump for a town hall earlier this year, at some point, these news organizations will have to make a value judgement on who or what to broadcast. In a market system, this value judgement is influenced by whatever gives them the highest ratings, most eyeballs, most clicks, most money.
Ultimately, even with a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine, whatever news organizations, reporters, editors, etc. deem to be "objective" is still subjective. Of course, this does not mean news organizations should accept smarm, lies, or PR spin as truth, but we would still be relying on subjective editorial decision to receive our information. News organizations would likely be better off in regaining trust by admitting their own biases and striving for fairness and even-handedness and substantive engagement with sources and opposing views.
These are all excellent points and good questions. I think that no news organizations who admit their bias and try to present diverse views will be able to compete in a world where diversity of views isn't mandated and regulated through licencing the way it was.
Because of the confirmation bias that you referenced, people will simply migrate to the news that makes them feel good. I think we also got to where we are due to commercial pressures. Media corporations discovered that it's much cheaper to replace actual reporting with commentary. Talking heads replaced reportage. We're in a very complicated situation as regards the truth and our relationship to it.
I should’ve stayed in my previous comment that I do agree that we should bring back the Fairness Doctrine; I would certainly take the problems with it than the problems we have with deregulated, corporate consolidated news now.
You’re spot on though with the issue of this dynamic. This also points to why social media is an awful avenue to pursue truth. Even if you want to be principled, there will always be someone else who will fill the market void and pander to an audience by telling them what they want to hear. It’s all a tragedy of the commons contest to prove you’re the one worth paying attention to, the ultimate source of truth.
"It’s all a tragedy of the commons contest to prove you’re the one worth paying attention to, the ultimate source of truth." Perfectly stated. Thanks for a thought-provoking post!
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
bro’s got our ouroboros up in this mileau! 🐍
It was between that or human centipede. Either way, a lot of ATM.
Gosh, what country are you living in? Oh, America, of course. 😂
The Biden inauguration was a subdued event, nothing cloying about it. I read a lot of American MSM. No cloy was seen. Not only were thousands of your country fellows still dying daily, your country was roiling from the freshly delivered violent attempt to overthrow democracy, which had itself resulted in multiple deaths. No one was gushing. No one was whooping it up. There was, however, a cloak of utter relief flung across the rest of the world.
I was going to try to count the number of times you wrote 'new deal ', but gave up. No one else sees Biden that way. If there's anything new, or any deals, or bolstering of local industry, it's not a 'new deal ' response. Every country in the world is recalibrating for the same reasons: the pandemic! Supply chain failures. At least there was one lesson learned.
I was watching CNN's and MSNBC's coverage of it, and it was definitely sycophantic. Same with the NYT and WaPo coverage. I would never argue that Biden is as bad as Trump (I voted for him), but aspiring to be not-fascist or settling for the ineffectual corporate-centric liberalism that brought us Trump in the first place is hardly a sign that American democracy is doing well. Biden's whole speech was about "coming together" and "finding compromise," which is essentially the same spiel and approach that was the signature failure of the Obama years with a relatively less insane GOP as the opposition. All of it was indicative that no real meaningful lesson was learned by the Dems in 2016.
I agree that Biden is not a "New Deal" president, I never made the case that he was. I was commenting on the narrative that the center-left press was pushing at the onset of his presidency. "The most progressive president since FDR" was the line as the Build Back Better bill was introduced and negotiated. I found this framing odd, as infrastructure investments and stimulus checks were pretty much the standard response of every other developed country in response to the pandemic.
"I would never argue that Biden is as bad as Trump," Are you sure? You were giving it a good shot. Albeit, arguing that Trump was better. 🤣
Maybe one person's relief that a grown up was back in charge is another person's cloying.
Right now, it looks like you Americans want and will get another Trump term. 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
America sniffles and the rest of the world catches a cold.
The horror, the horror, the horror.
If your takeaway from this was “I wish Trump was in charge instead of Biden” then I don’t know what to tell you.
They're both very elderly white guys, one is a great deal more odious than the other. I couldn't figure out which way you were swinging, given your loathing if Biden.
It's unfortunate that Biden decided to run again. As far as I can tell, it's too late for the Dems to change course.
Kalma hasn't made any mark as a VP. Should have replaced her as well.
How did it get to this?!
To clarify any confusion, here are the official positions of "This is a Newsletter!" in regards to the state of American politics:
- The Republican Party is toxic garbage heap of white power and white grievance in service of oligarchy. The Democratic Party is an ineffectual corporate-friendly party that overhypes social justice virtue signalling to mask the fact that they are beholden to many of the same big business interests that also fund the GOP. Given the choice between a corporate-backed fascist party and a corporate-backed center-right party, I choose the Democrats. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 and 2020 Dem primaries, and voted for Hillary and Biden in the last two general elections. Any Bernie voter who voted for Trump is a verifiable idiot who substitutes progressive values for vague anti-establishment posturing.
- The positions of "Joe Biden and the Democrats are ideologically incoherent and procedurally feckless, and will never meaningfully change anything because they are unwilling or unable to confront the systemic rot of neoliberal capitalism" and "Joe Biden/Democrats are preferable to Trump/Republicans" are not mutually exclusive. The fact that any criticism of Democrats and/or the state of mainstream left-liberalism is often interpreted as support for Trump prevents any meaningful introspection on liberalism's shortcomings and how to improve them.
- Anyone who says "both sides are equally bad" is trying to pass of lazy false equivalencies as enlightenment. Very unimpressive.
- American mainstream media (particularly cable news) is funded by many of the same corporate interests that donate to the Democrats and Republicans, and therefore, will never substantively cover the biggest economic, environmental, sociopolitical issues that affect Americans because it would implicate these same corporation's roles in creating and sustaining these crises. Right-wing media is by the mouthbreather and for the mouthbreather. Anyone who consumes it on a consistent basis may as well pour bleach on their frontal lobes.
- The average Republican may not be proactively hateful toward marginalized groups, but they are willfully ignorant about how the pernicious effects of systemic racism and more subtle forms of racism affect American life, and this willful ignorance absolutely perpetuates racism. Many liberals are in denial of the following: their own susceptibility to groupthink and propaganda, the Democratic Party's complicity and proactive participation in America's decades-long rightward shift, corporate liberal media's inability to counter the rise of fascism, and the limits of centrist incrementalism and prioritizing process over values. I would never argue that the cult-of-personality around Obama and Hillary is as bad as it is around Trump, but it is closer than most liberals would ever admit to themselves.
Btw - your MSM and our MSM have failed to rise to any occasion for so long that I feel like a fool for hoping.
I agree that the media has let us all down. It's daily, even reflexive. 'Sink to the occasion' is their collective motto.
Gosh, interesting comment about the cult of personality at the end. Comparing a pimple on the chin with an infected cyst on the anus, I think. I don't doubt it 'feels' different in America, but from my distance, at the bottom of the earth, they're not even close to fungible. (And what was the deal with Sanders, a bland individual, so cultishly loved by the left that they preferred cutting off their noses than supporting the unlovable Hillary. Go figure.)
Whenever I think our politicians are a mediocre shit show, all I have to do is think of America, and I feel instantly relaxed.
You are my only source of news. And its great because you just keep proving my right about never tuning into any of it. :)