This sounds awfully socialist!

[Tyy7777]

In all honesty, I was referencing both comments. For conversation sake, nothing more.

Seriously, I don’t “WE” as the collective “We the People” really care anymore what other people think about each other's opinions or views.

Our give a sh!T is broken!

There lies the issue.

[lurker]

How do we fix it?

[Tyy7777]

How do we fix it?

Well to begin with our media landscape is cooked. Start there.

[Morgs153]

Our media landscape does not play to truth and facts, it plays to its audience. That is a big factor and that is what the Internet has brought us in regards to media.

Print media was one of the first to suffer. There used to be lots of local papers and those local papers had local reporters covering the local beat and local stories, often being a watchdog on city councils and county boards and local government agencies. There used to be a vibrant editorial board and letter writers with their finger on the pulse of their communities. In some cases that moved on to little niche markets. In my area almost every single paper of substance got gobbled up by Gannett. When Gannett came in all the newspapers turned into McPaper. Same look, same recycled stories, same editorials, same everything with the exception of local obituaries. Even if physical paper is dead and dying, the online version still just - sucks.

Some of it may have been driven by cost cutting for sure. Keeping a newspaper operating in all the small towns and cities got expensive. Paper, printing, delivery systems, having all those employees and just trying to stay alive selling ads became very problematic. Especially when competing with the instant world of the net. I can tell you I find shoppers guides that have a few stories which are more substantial that any Gannett paper that is offered.

Even local TV stations are getting bit hard by this. In my area a local affiliate in Wausau (a decent size town in northern Wisconsin) pretty much cleaned house. You turn on that station and it is all Madison centric news with the exception of local weather and local prep sports. Nobody is watching it anymore. I see stories on their websites which look like they just re-ran press releases, with no questions asked. Other stories are simply AI writes. It's really pretty lame.

So the delivery system of "news" be it on the net or through a TV medium knows very quickly where they get their clicks and where they get their audience. The data mining shows them who is reading and consuming their stuff. They morphed away from being a delivery source for facts and truth quite a long time ago and became a delivery source for clicks. Some of them recently figured out they went too far (Washington Post, CNN) and others simply doubled down. Fox figured out long ago that conservative or right leaning views were not well served and they skewed that way. But Fox even soured their base giving rise to NewsMax and OAN. The left, and left of center has always had the big three networks plus CNN, MSNBC, and others and they all simply look at the clicks and play to their audiences. They are more opinion than they are news.

News delivery sources used to have an ombudsman. Like an in-house referee to help editors and help their companies stay within the lines of truth and fairness. That is long gone.

By and large a certain type of person, a certain type of "student" gravitates toward what they think is "journalism". It is no surprise that over 90% of the reporters, broadcasters and employees of prominent media sources tilt a certain way. When you live and operate in your own echo chambers it is hard to engage self awareness. That blessed speak truth to power bunch, as long as it doesn't speak truth to the power they align with.

The good thing is that there are some reporters and sources who still abide by old principles. I have one burgeoning local online paper in my area. I personally know the operator/editor and I know she probably tilts left. But I've found she does a really hard working and respectable job with her product. For more world view stuff I find myself going to Racket or Substack to find independent voices and writers who have more old school principles. These days almost anyone with a smart phone or a tablet is a "journalist". You don't need credentials or degrees to report on something. You don't need to walk into a crowd with a vest that declares you as "press". This leads to an example of the failures or mainstream versus independent. During those summer of love riots the mainstream press would stand in front of burning buildings and riots and call it - firey but mostly peaceful. Andy Ngo actually infiltrated and went behind the lines and darn near lost his life because of it, in search of the truth.

And the mainstream media wonders why they lost so much trust.

[Tyy7777]

Here's my two cents and I really could go on all day about this but I'll keep it somewhat short.

The advent of 24hr news is where it really started to go downhill. News companies were faced with two problems. What do we talk about? How do we keep people engaged? Negative news instilling fear is the answer. I don't watch any news for this reason. It's all negative because that's how they keep you engaged. How much of the news do you really need to watch. It's mostly surface level dribble. If I'm interested in what's going on in the world of politics, I'll find out what the current admin is doing and then I'll do some research to see if what they are doing is good or bad.

This negativity creates the idea that the world is burning down before us. The world is actually in a decent place for the most part and it's getting better mostly. Not only does that create a more anxious and scared world, it leads to political polarization. All of a sudden people are either flocking to the ends of the spectrum - far to the left or far to the right.

On a somewhat separate note, another issue is that people are living different realities. Now you aren't going to like what I say but the reality is programs like Fox News have people living in a different world. I don't want to get political here, but if a MAGA says something is happening and it needs to be fixed, I can say that just isn't happening and I'll probably be right. This also happens in the left once you start to get towards to the socialists and populists (think of Cenk).

The media also suppresses any nuance. People don't argue with nuance and balance anymore. It's either 100% this or that.

I give up with a lot of the media and I tend to give up caring.

[Morgs153]

Not exactly like it is really a new phenomenon. The New York Times has a real history in this regard going back to the days of Walter Duranty. During the 30s it was the time of the Great Depression and there was a great embrace of socialism and communism in the academic and intelligensia classes. Duranty carried the propaganda for Stalin and communism in the pages of the Times and greatly covered up for the Holomodor and the mass starvation of Ukrainian people that probably killed as many as 7 million. But Duranty got a Pulitizer for his efforts and the Times is still held in such high regard. Where was truth and balance back then?

The point is, you'd think people would learn.

I get what you're saying about people being pushed to the edges of the continuum with little middle ground left in between. Clickbait journalism on either side doesn't serve the middle very well. For all the rants against what you call MAGA the left rants about facism or Nazism, or the next existential threat to, fill in the blank.

[Tyy7777]

Not exactly like it is really a new phenomenon. The New York Times has a real history in this regard going back to the days of Walter Duranty. During the 30s it was the time of the Great Depression and there was a great embrace of socialism and communism in the academic and intelligensia classes. Duranty carried the propaganda for Stalin and communism in the pages of the Times and greatly covered up for the Holomodor and the mass starvation of Ukrainian people that probably killed as many as 7 million. But Duranty got a Pulitizer for his efforts and the Times is still held in such high regard. Where was truth and balance back then?

The point is, you'd think people would learn.

I get what you're saying about people being pushed to the edges of the continuum with little middle ground left in between. Clickbait journalism on either side doesn't serve the middle very well. For all the rants against what you call MAGA the left rants about facism or Nazism, or the next existential threat to, fill in the blank.

I don't disagree (it's known fact) but the same thing has happened on the other side. The US as a whole has covered up and downplayed many different things. Most recently, look at Iraq. Funnily enough it was the NYT who played a big part in that. The My Lai massacre is another one that springs to mind.

Now on the last point.

Reports of Nazism are definitely overblown but the reports of Fascism (and I know you won't like this) are quite substantiated. Trump ticks many (but not all) of the boxes. It's not clickbait.

[lurker]

—-- it leads to political polarization. All of a sudden people are either flocking to the ends of the spectrum - far to the left or far to the right.

I would agree, and furthered —

Politically, values, moral wise and so forth, all run together I think. “Polarization” <the main problem IMHO> broke years ago, and it’s only gotten worse. Politically wise, Trump is very polarizing and some people don’t care for that. The same goes for Obama.

[Tyy7777]

I would agree, and furthered —

Politically, values, moral wise and so forth, all run together I think. “Polarization” <the main problem IMHO> broke years ago, and it’s only gotten worse. Politically wise, Trump is very polarizing and some people don’t care for that. The same goes for Obama.

If Obama is polarizing, Trump is Hyper-Hyper-Polarizing!

[lurker]

------ but the reports of Fascism (and I know you won't like this) are quite substantiated. Trump ticks many (but not all) of the boxes. It's not clickbait.

I want to make sure that I specifically understand what you are saying.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

often Fascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of theFascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralizedautocratic government headed by adictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

From your viewpoint —--- What do Trump or Trump supporters do that you think qualifies as “Fascism”????

[Tyy7777]

I want to make sure that I specifically understand what you are saying.




From your viewpoint —--- What do Trump or Trump supporters do that you think qualifies as “Fascism”????

The key word in that definition is "associated".

Fascism itself is really based on a set of principles. Do I think Trump is a fascist? Well maybe not yet. He does tick a lot of boxes though.

What boxes does he tick?

- Powerful populist nationalism centered on cult of a redemptive, “infallible” leader who never admits mistakes. (Nothing is ever his fault)
- Political power derived from questioning reality, endorsing myth and rage, and promoting lies. (The party of conspiracies and misinformation)
- Fixation with perceived national decline, humiliation, or victimhood (This is really in the name MAGA)
- Identification of “enemies”/scapegoats as a unifying cause. (Those evil Dems!)
- Obsession with national security, crime and punishment, and fostering a sense of the nation under attack (Abuse of the National Guard etc.)
- Religion and government are intertwined (Self-explanatory)
- Disdain for intellectuals and the arts not aligned with the fascist narrative (A core foundation of MAGA is anti-intellectualism)
- Rampant cronyism and corruption. Loyalty to the leader is paramount and often more important than competence (I mean this is pretty clear)

What boxes does he partially tick?

- Rampant sexism (I could argue he actually fully ticks this box given he's a rapist and he did hold a women's health meeting with only men BUT I wouldn't say sexism has showed rampantly in his politics)
- Control of mass media and undermining “truth” (Not so much control of media, although banning certain press is a start, but more so the undermining of truth)
- Disdain for human rights while seeking purity and cleansing for those they define as part of the nation (Some of the ICE raids are pretty disgusting and inhumane)
- Corporate power is protected and labor power is suppressed (I'm really being generous here)
- Fraudulent elections (Jan 6 leaves a lot to be desired)

What boxes does he not tick?
- White Replacement “Theory” used to show that democratic ideals of freedom and equality are a threat. Oppose any initiatives or institutions that are racially, ethnically, or religiously harmonious (Although an argument could be made)
- Supremacy of the military and embrace of paramilitarism in an uneasy, but effective collaboration with traditional elites
- Imprison and/or murder opposition and minority group leaders
- Often seeking to expand territory through armed conflict
- Creation of a one-party state

[lurker]

The key word in that definition is "associated".

So it’s guilt by association Fascism. Like Obama's association with anti-American Jeremiah Wright and association with radical terrorist Bill Ayers who called Obama an, "Imperial Leader” <in contest> which is calling him a <authoritarian> Fascist Dictator, which falls under Fascism by pure definition.

[Tyy7777]

So it’s guilt by association Fascism. Like Obama's association with anti-American Jeremiah Wright and association with radical terrorist Bill Ayers who called Obama an, "Imperial Leader” <in contest> which is calling him a <authoritarian> Fascist Dictator, which falls under Fascism by pure definition.

No. Read the definition. That is not what I'm saying at all.

Speaking of terrorists, what happened on January 6?

[lurker]

That is not what I'm saying at all.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying.

[Morgs153]

Those boxes that have been ticked have been ticked on the other side as well.

- Fixation on humiliation and victimhood like painting everyone into groups of oppressors and oppressed.
- Identification of enemies as a unifying cause (aka "othering"). MAGA, overuse of Nazi, anti-science, anti-vax, religious right, etc.
- Shunning of religion and religious values for the sake of godverment.
- Disdain for the rights of individuals. You don't hear conservatives saying we need a new constitution.
- You don't think Obama tried out his cult of personality? Or his inability to admit mistakes? Or the last administration for that matter?
- Rampant cronyism. C'mon man. They got in bed with Twitter, Facebook, Google and infiltrated and censored on social media platforms. It was proven in the coverup of the Hunter Biden laptop story. It was proven in how the media continued to double down on the fake Russiagate story. That wasn't facist!?
- Rampant lawfare. The process is the punishment. Abuse of impeachment process (most definitely the second one).

There are counter examples to every example. I wouldn't say that Trump controls mass media by any means. He has a favorable platform at Fox and in the talk radio and podcast realm, but the majority of mainstream media still goes against him. But he doesn't shy from it, he actually speaks to them, he holds press conferences. Contrast that with the last admin. Trump had Bill Maher to the White House for dinner. Would Biden ever have a conservative podcaster/pundit over during his tenure?

Both sides do it. Neither is marinated in virtue. When they are in power they get to pick their pals, their messages, their winners and losers.