The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

The left overwhelmingly owns the media

What does this mean, exactly? I'm curious. Does it mean that media outlets are overwhelmingly owned by liberals? And if so, how do you know? Have you looked into it? Or is it something you hear right-wing media outlets repeat over and over again...?

I'm not saying that certain sites like HuffPost or NPR aren't geared toward a particular audience. I also wouldn't say that The Atlantic doesn't post liberal-minded pieces most of the time.

But do these things mean that liberals own the media? Have you "followed the money"?

 

[CiG]

I don't mean own literally. I don't care so much about where the money comes from, I only need to watch and read the output to see the overwhelming bias.

If you don't see it, you don't see it. I definitely do. The fact that if you're openly right/conservative in Hollywood you probably won't find work and if you're established and then come out you probably will lose work is a great example.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I do see it - and my question was directed specifically at the meaning of "own." I definitely agree that the media exhibits a lot of liberal bias. But then, I also happen to think it exhibits a lot of right-wing bias too... it just appears in different forms (e.g. talk radio).

Media is subject to the market, and liberal media are liberal because that's what makes money. Their goal isn't to convert anybody, or to spread misinformation. Their goal is to satisfy liberal consumers.

 

[CiG]

I don't think it's as simple as that, I think the left-media bias is also a result of people wanting to use their positions to spread their worldview. But it's quite obviously all held together by money.

This goes for right-wing media also of course. In fact I have no issue with media biases in general, except when they manifest themselves as brutal monopolies like we see in most western nations with the left dominating pretty much everything. Sure, there's some radio programs and one or two major television networks, but it's pissant stuff compared to what the left wields.

But yeah my bad for being vague I guess with using the word "own."

Though I wouldn't be surprised if most of the media was owned by left-leaners.

 

[Dak]

This is fucking hilarious.

"I know these sound like silly questions" bahahaha

Edit: @Einherjar86 Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't mean they can't espouse a "US liberal" ideology. In fact, it's quite easy when you have the money to insulate yourself from the ramifications.

 

[rms]

Media is subject to the market, and liberal media are liberal because that's what makes money. Their goal isn't to convert anybody, or to spread misinformation. Their goal is to satisfy liberal consumers.

What has led you to believe that the business caters to the market and not the market to the business?

 

[Einherjar86]

What has led you to believe that the business caters to the market and not the market to the business?

Econ 101.

@Einherjar86 Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't mean they can't espouse a "US liberal" ideology. In fact, it's quite easy when you have the money to insulate yourself from the ramifications.

I never said it wasn't. I'm well aware that rich people can be liberal.

EDIT: The point is that plenty of liberals are still capitalists. This is part of the blindsight on the part of right-wingers. "Liberal" automatically means "Marxist." That's simply not true.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

I'm not saying that certain sites like HuffPost or NPR aren't geared toward a particular audience. I also wouldn't say that The Atlantic doesn't post liberal-minded pieces most of the time.

You're forgetting The Guardian as well.

 

[Einherjar86]

The Guardian and The Atlantic actually do feature a variety in perspectives at least, if only in opinion pieces. You don't really see much variety on HuffPost or NPR.

 

[Talos of Atmora]

Yeah, but some of the opinion pieces on The Guardian have been awful as of late.

 

[Dak]

I'd say the Huffpost is fullbown retarded (I would say the mirror of Breitbart but HP is definitely worse on the same metrics), while the Atlantic and Guardian leeeeaaaannnn heavily left.

 

[CiG]

If it were more about capitalism to them like Ein suggests, places like google, youtube, twitter and facebook wouldn't go to such drastic lengths to suppress right/conservative content. If they acted like classical liberals and created a free-for-all forum of ideas and ideologies, they'd probably make much more money.

 

[Einherjar86]

Why is it that people get up in arms about content being blocked on the internet, but when it comes to a conservative cake company denying service to a gay couple, everyone screams that it's their right to refuse business to whomever they choose?

Capitalism is not coterminous with free access and/or exchange of ideas. Sometimes censorship is the best market move. Online forums home to mostly liberal or conservative visitors might indeed generate less traffic if they didn't censor oppositional posts or pieces. This doesn't mean that the stories themselves are any less valuable or substantive, but it does say something about how the media targets its audience.

 

[CiG]

Why is it that people get up in arms about content being blocked on the internet, but when it comes to a conservative cake company denying service to a gay couple, everyone screams that it's their right to refuse business to whomever they choose?

Weird comparison.

It's not just content being blocked, for example Steven Crowder's youtube channel was changed to only available in unrestricted mode, meaning schools, libraries and public hotspots can't access his channel, even though his channel follows FCC restrictions so it shouldn't be restricted like that, yes The Young Turks swear in almost every video they do and they're not restricted. His channel makes hundreds of thousands of dollars for youtube, so if they cared about money > politics, why would they fuck themselves over like that?

Also, how does an American not understand how freedom of association works? It's not a matter of refusing business based on the orientation of the customer, but rather the nature of the desired service. The straight wedding planner for a gay wedding could be refused service if they're wanting their gay wedding catered, it has zero to do with the customer requesting the service.

 

[Einherjar86]

Weird comparison.

It's not a weird comparison. I'll try my best to explain based on your previous comments.

It's not just content being blocked, for example Steven Crowder's youtube channel was changed to only available in unrestricted mode, meaning schools, libraries and public hotspots can't access his channel, even though his channel follows FCC restrictions so it shouldn't be restricted like that, yes The Young Turks swear in almost every video they do and they're not restricted. His channel makes hundreds of thousands of dollars for youtube, so if they cared about money > politics, why would they fuck themselves over like that?

So, what you're describing isn't Crowder's website itself making this decision. The schools are, and that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about what kind of content websites choose to permit on their sites.

It makes perfect sense for YouTube to do this if, by not doing it, they risk the whole entire YouTube site being blocked from students during school hours.

Also, how does an American not understand how freedom of association works? It's not a matter of refusing business based on the orientation of the customer, but rather the nature of the desired service. The straight wedding planner for a gay wedding could be refused service if they're wanting their gay wedding catered, it has zero to do with the customer requesting the service.

If the bakers really were "good capitalists," according to you, then they should provide service to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. But of course they don't, and this is for good economic reasoning: they fear losing a broader customer base by associating themselves with gay or queer couples.

Likewise, it could be said that websites with primarily liberal or conservative traffic stand to lose money by entertaining a limited number of oppositional perspectives, which might cause their more regular traffic to dwindle.

So you see, I do understand freedom of association. The internet is still a marketplace.

EDIT: just to be clear, the religious cake company denying service to a gay couple is an actual example, I didn't make it up. As I re-read your comment, I'm not sure we're on the same page.

 

[Dak]

Youtube blocking conservative media because government schools would block access is not the same thing as private business refusing service that supports something the proprieters don't condone. If that is indeed the reason for YouTube's censorship, it's another point for the indoctrination claim about government education.

 

[Einherjar86]

They said they don't condone it, and I believe them. But they could also be afraid of losing their religious clientele, and that's the unspoken truth here - because it doesn't sound as altruistic and righteous as "It violates my personal belief system."

And the argument here isn't about educational indoctrination, which I don't disagree with; it's about the market demands of modern media. I'm not denying that sites like HuffPost, The Guardian, The Atlantic, or even Facebook and YouTube tend to favor liberal/progressive content. I am saying that money still favors inevitably into this decision.

A site like HuffPost generates traffic from primarily liberal users. I'll be the first to admit that people like to read pieces that confirm their previously held beliefs. If liberal users start to notice more conservative pieces popping up on HuffPost, it's very likely they'll stop visiting the site. So it makes perfect sense that HuffPost refuses to publish those kinds of pieces. Likewise, if sites like YouTube face total restriction from major public institutions unless they restrict specific content, then it makes economic sense to do so.

I'm not saying I agree with any of this. I'm simply explaining that there is a market logic to it.

 

[Dak]

I'm not saying I agree with any of this. I'm simply explaining that there is a market logic to it.

Well I agree that HP etc are providing a consumable service that is obviously making money. However, social media/user content based platforms are widely used enough that this can't be a default response to any censorship. Silicon Valley is heavily Democratic.

 

[Einherjar86]

I sometimes think it's funny how eager many of you are to disagree with me when you think I'm being a stubborn progressive. I agree that censorship and informational control can be personally (or locally) manipulated, but that doesn't preclude larger structural (read: economic) benefits to regulating access to, or visibility of, information. The discussion here always tends toward "It's the liberal media manufacturing consent again, telling us what to think, etc. etc." And maybe that's part of it; but David Foster Wallace has the right idea too when he emphasizes that media is business. It has to make money, and in order to do that it has to target an audience.

What I find really amusing is the belief that censorship is anathema to capitalism.

 

[Dak]

What I find really amusing is the belief that censorship is anathema to capitalism.

Well I wouldn't say it is anathema to capitalism, but D&G might . Censorship is a form of boundary setting.