On The Media: The Hate Engine (1 Viewer)

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
10,204
Reaction score
9,056
Offline
There is probably nothing that I have come across in the days after El Paso and Dayton that distills and contextualizes this political moment the way this did.

It lays bare better than any commentary I have seen in understanding the mainstream hate machines that in part fuels this white nationalism. Using their own words and language, it is truly scathing and impossible to deny the way the president and right wing media have fueled this stuff and contributed to the bloodshed.

But equally important it touches on the way more MSM has failed to properly contextualize these issues for reasons like a fear of being accused of bias or advocacy. How it abandons core journalistic principles often and regularly and instead soft peddles this obviously hateful rhetoric with bland euphemistic language or disingenuously carries the water for obvious lies for far too long in service of avoiding those accusations.

Which further gets laundered down through commentators and the pundit class. Resulting in a political zeitgeist that increasingly frames pandering to xenophobia and tolerating racism as a sign of laudable righteous political pragmatism. Where the NYTimes editorial section leads with a Bret Stephens article evoking as legitimate, just in more eloquent language, the same replacement theory the mass murderer used to justify his heinous acts, and how the left are the radicals for not capitulating to those sentiments. A process by which results in essentially setting those xenophobic sentiments as the default. To the point CNN is out there in a Democratic debate baking into questions the presumption that southern border immigration is an invasion that must be deterred.



The story itself only takes up the first 15 minutes, but they do go into some even deeper structural and historical stuff about presidential white supremacy in the next segment.
 
Last edited:

MLU

Please respect my decision!
Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
53,446
Reaction score
18,156
Location
Mesa, AZ
Offline
There is probably nothing that I have come across in the days after El Paso and Dayton that distills and contextualizes this political moment the way this did.

It lays bare better than any commentary I have seen in understanding the mainstream hate machines that in part fuels this white nationalism. Using their own words and language, it is truly scathing and impossible to deny the way the president and right wing media have fueled this stuff and contributed to the bloodshed.

But equally important it touches on the way more MSM has failed to properly contextualize these issues for reasons like a fear of being accused of bias or advocacy. How it abandons core journalistic principles often and regularly and instead soft peddles this obviously hateful rhetoric with bland euphemistic language or disingenuously carries the water for obvious lies for far too long in service of avoiding those accusations.

Which further gets laundered down through commentators and the pundit class. Resulting in a political zeitgeist that increasingly frames pandering to xenophobia and tolerating racism as a sign of laudable righteous political pragmatism. Where the NYTimes editorial section leads with a Bret Stephens article evoking as legitimate, just in more eloquent language, the same replacement theory the mass murderer used to justify his heinous acts, and how the left are the radicals for not capitulating to those sentiments. A process by which results in essentially setting those xenophobic sentiments as the default. To the point CNN is out there in a Democratic debate baking into questions the presumption that southern border immigration is an invasion that must be deterred.



The story itself only takes up the first 15 minutes, but they do go into some even deeper structural and historical stuff about presidential white supremacy in the next segment.
Solidad O'Brien is a great Twitter follow and she enjoys a healthy dislike of journalists who fail to call it out for what it is. She doesn't make their mistakes and quite often publicly call them out for it. Maggie Oberman is a frequent target.

Anyway, I audibly laugh when people from the right criticize the MSM. They benefit more than anyone from the MSM and their lax and disjointed reporting. It stops just short of promoting right-wing ideals, but they want the kinds of ratings that Fox News enjoys so badly they say and do anything to get it.

Turn off the TV folks. If you want actual journalism that informs you're going to have to read it.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,167
Reaction score
17,822
Offline
This piece is startling. I think I saw it linked somewhere else, but it seems to fit here too and I cannot remember where I saw it.


“First came a now-infamous comment by President Trump, suggesting that Sweden’s history of welcoming refugees was at the root of a violent attack in Rinkeby the previous evening, even though nothing had actually happened.

[Trump had seen a Fox News segment on Sweden that was believed to be the source of his statement]

“You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden! Who would believe this? Sweden!” Mr. Trump told supporters at a rally on Feb. 18, 2017. “They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

But two days later, as Swedish officials were heaping bemused derision on Mr. Trump, something did in fact happen in Rinkeby: Several dozen masked men attacked police officers making a drug arrest, throwing rocks and setting cars ablaze.

And it was right around that time, according to Mr. Castillo and four other witnesses, that Russian television crews showed up, offering to pay immigrant youths “to make trouble” in front of the cameras.

“They wanted to show that President Trump is right about Sweden,” Mr. Castillo said, “that people coming to Europe are terrorists and want to disturb society.” “
 

Stealth Matrix

King of Wingdings
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
2,769
Reaction score
2,067
Age
35
Location
The Here and Now
Offline
Turn off the TV folks. If you want actual journalism that informs you're going to have to read it.
This one sentence is 1000% the truth. No matter if it's CNN or Fox or anything in between... It's all trash designed to waste your time and radicalize you into one of two completely polarized and toxic factions.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
22,324
Reaction score
36,286
Location
Toronto
Offline
This one sentence is 1000% the truth. No matter if it's CNN or Fox or anything in between... It's all trash designed to waste your time and radicalize you into one of two completely polarized and toxic factions.
I would say this is generally true - it's my preferred approach. I often prefer to read speeches than listen to them, too. But we are being increasingly manipulated in print and need to be aware of the things done to us by writers when we are reading their work.

There are all sorts of rhetorical devices that are used (and not really new, of course, but can be dressed up more effectively and deceptively than before) to dupe us and sway us.

So while reading over watching is a good first step, imo, there's still more vigilance that is needed. And tools that should be at a reader's disposal to deconstruct what's being read
 
OP
OP

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
10,204
Reaction score
9,056
Offline
This one sentence is 1000% the truth. No matter if it's CNN or Fox or anything in between... It's all trash designed to waste your time and radicalize you into one of two completely polarized and toxic factions.
Just to jump back into this, I don't think that framing is wholly accurate, but additionally, a part of the critique that is leveled in this piece is at print journalism as well.

Specifically, the beltway press. This is not a critique isolated to just TV journalism. One of the anchors of the critique starts with an NYTimes headline and connects those dots to the print and editorial relationships in political news coverage in the larger beltway press.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
22,324
Reaction score
36,286
Location
Toronto
Offline
Just to jump back into this, I don't think that framing is wholly accurate, but additionally, a part of the critique that is leveled in this piece is at print journalism as well.
I should also add that there are a lot of pieces that will use the fact that they are 'print' (to be read) to lend credibility to their piece, just by virtue of it being written/typed in order to be read rather than watched. We have a tendency to put more faith in something that is written and, thus, plausibly more objective/informed and people - with the intent to mislead - will use that default tendency to manipulate.
 

Stealth Matrix

King of Wingdings
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
2,769
Reaction score
2,067
Age
35
Location
The Here and Now
Offline
I would say this is generally true - it's my preferred approach. I often prefer to read speeches than listen to them, too. But we are being increasingly manipulated in print and need to be aware of the things done to us by writers when we are reading their work.

There are all sorts of rhetorical devices that are used (and not really new, of course, but can be dressed up more effectively and deceptively than before) to dupe us and sway us.

So while reading over watching is a good first step, imo, there's still more vigilance that is needed. And tools that should be at a reader's disposal to deconstruct what's being read
Are we not increasingly manipulated by television? I would argue we are more so. In print, you have to visualize what you are reading...whereas on a television they can tell you one thing, splice in the picture of a crying child and perhaps some kind of music that envokes a sense of dread or doom. Suddenly thanks to the presence of the crying child and the doom gloom tune you are much more in favor of bombing civilians somewhere in the middle east because your emotions tell you that the person/people getting bombed must be evil for inflicting pain on that one innocent child. Or you're in favor of an open border. Or in favor of election fraud. Or in favor of police brutality. Or confiscating property. Or separating that child from their mother. Blatant racism. Wearing clown shoes. Americanism. Anti-Americanism. Roger Goodell. Or in favor any number of issues because of the vision of pain and suffering is coupled automatically in your subconscious mind to tell you that "stated police by trustworthy man on television bad." ..... Reading about something makes you use your critical thinking, as your mind requires you to picture the scene of the story for yourself.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
22,324
Reaction score
36,286
Location
Toronto
Offline
Are we not increasingly manipulated by television?...

Reading about something makes you use your critical thinking, as your mind requires you to picture the scene of the story for yourself.
nowhere did I say this wasn't the case, though
 
OP
OP

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
10,204
Reaction score
9,056
Offline
Yeah, it is hard not to look at the list of top 20 news outlets conservatives trust or the proliferation of fake news and not conclude that print is susceptible to misinformation and disinformation. Arguably to a far greater degree than regulated TV. Because you can essentially cocoon yourself in infinite amounts of misinformation and disinformation with your own cognitive biases driving you ever further down the rabbit holes.

But as someone that gets 80% of his news from print and written stuff online and 15% from radio/podcasts, I certainly sign onto the notion than when done right print is the superior delivery mechanism(at least for my type of learning).

The point I would make is that in this instance, on this topic, the mainstream press is not blameless here. They are often the intellectual frontline sanitizing and whitewashing this modern iteration of nativism and xenophobia and treating with legitimacy obvious lies so as not to appear biased. They will bend over backward to prop up empty intellectuals like Bret Stephens as he launders and legitimizes Replacement Theory nonsense or hire on a climate change denier to give obvious lies a seat at the table to avoid accusations of bias.

More than anything the critique this piece makes is summed up as: do your jobs! Which they often neglect to do on these issues.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
22,324
Reaction score
36,286
Location
Toronto
Offline

It is the latest step in a long-running effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting. Four people familiar with the operation described how it works, asserting that it has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at some of the country’s most prominent news organizations.

The group has already released information about journalists at CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times — three outlets that have aggressively investigated Mr. Trump — in response to reporting or commentary that the White House’s allies consider unfair to Mr. Trump and his team or harmful to his re-election prospects.
The information unearthed by the operation has been commented on and spread by officials inside the Trump administration and re-election campaign, as well as conservative activists and right-wing news outlets such as Breitbart News. In the case of the Times editor, the news was first published by Breitbart, immediately amplified on Twitter by Donald Trump Jr. and, among others, Katrina Pierson, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, and quickly became the subject of a Breitbart interview with Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary and communications director.

The White House press office said that neither the president nor anyone in the White House was involved in or aware of the operation, and that neither the White House nor the Republican National Committee was involved in funding it.

The Trump campaign said it was unaware of, and not involved in, the effort, but suggested that it served a worthy purpose. “We know nothing about this, but it’s clear that the media has a lot of work to do to clean up its own house,” said Tim Murtaugh, the campaign’s communications director.
It is explicitly retaliatory, as a way to balance - in their minds - the media's narrative

Mr. Nunberg and others who are familiar with the campaign described it as meant to expose what they see as the hypocrisy of mainstream news outlets that have reported on the president’s inflammatory language regarding race.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,167
Reaction score
17,822
Offline
How is it any different than the mob coming into your store and saying, this is a nice store, it’d be a shame if something happened to it?
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
51,991
Reaction score
79,477
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom