Mad about the Media: The Media and Media Criticism Megathread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Mad about the Media: The Media and Media Criticism Megathread

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Is anyone able to give a fair synopsis of NY Times criticism?

I remember back around �08 when I�d say so many blogs even Daily Kos continually harp on the paper. Yes, some of it was minor but after seeing so many mistakes and even corrections I was incredibly surprised.

Fast forward to today, if we looking at polling those liberal-leaning have their confidence in the press sky rocket.

Granted, I�d say much if this is Trump�s doing but I�m curious in real critique of the times beyond slightly biased or incomplete headlines.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2018 07:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 21:37

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

selec posted:

Let me answer a question with a question: if Trump has 90% approval ratings within his party, why is every conservative columnist for the NYT a Never Trumper? Why do they give that much real estate to people who represent such a small, incoherent and insignificant minority?

And why do we get Bari Weiss, Bret Stephens, David Brooks AND Ross Douthat, but not even one mild socially democratic voice, much less a full-throated socialist?

The problem with having Republicans on media is that they well not only agree but are much more outspoken now that Trump is in office with things like women's rights, the metoo movement and occasionally having slight alt-right tendencies which is freaking disturbing.

That doesn't sell but a Republican who doesn't is a unicorn and worth a ton.

As for left-leaning commentators. Does Paul Krugman not count? He might not be a socialist but he sure as hell leans left.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2018 16:43

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

awesmoe posted:

their news coverage is... they have some amazing stories. They have some of the best reporting in the business. they pretty regularly break national and international news on deeply reported stories that the public would never know about if they didn't do the legwork. They are one of the most trusted sources of news in the business. They also make some deeply loving questionable editorial calls, at times (iraq war, the amount of coverage given to clinton's emails, 'no fbi probe', etc etc etc). The first point makes the impact of the second point that much worse.

Thanks for the effort post. This provides a ton of context although I have to admit there mistakes aren't that at all unique but rather common in US Media. Overall, I think we are better with the NY Times than without it.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2018 16:46

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Halloween Jack posted:

The default stance of the Republican Party is to express dismay at Trump's personality but say that his critics are a bunch of hysterical, triggered libs. The Never Trumper "Unicorns" agree with Trump's policies like 90% of the time.

I agree, whats your point exactly?

Halloween Jack posted:

Krugman is a self-identified liberal Keynesian economist whose default stance is being appalled at whatever the Republican Party is doing. He's a raging leftist relative to the likes of Brooks and Friedman, but that's not saying much.

So,

He's a self-identified liberal Keynesian Economist which in itself is clearly left-leaning and he openly argues that private health insurance isn't feasible. If that's not left enough, what is?

# ¿ Dec 18, 2018 18:25

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Halloween Jack posted:

That there's no reason for Never Trump Conservatism to carry any special intellectual currency entitling it to a great deal of representation in a major newspaper.

It's not about "Never Trumpers" it's about respect and dignity. People don't want to read column how yet another Republican thinks that #metoo is a false flag or other garbage nor does the NY Times want give them a platform.

How is this so hard to understand?

Halloween Jack posted:

Nah.

"Left-leaning" does a whole lot of work covering everyone and everything that isn't free-market absolutism and paranoid conservatism.

Is there a way to describe the phenomenon where people believe something sucks, can't prove it but aren't able to offer any alternatives or solutions?

# ¿ Dec 18, 2018 19:44

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Halloween Jack posted:

I'm not the one who has issues with understanding. I'm arguing that it's a bad thing that NYT and similar op-ed consists of right-wing viewpoints coated in a veneer of urbane sophistication. It's intellectually bankrupt and reinforces the vanities of an increasingly deluded petit-bourgeois audience.

Helsing posted:

The issue is that the Never Trump Republicans are by and large a bunch of prominent architects of neoconservative foreign policy who have been revealed to speak for a constituency of approximately twelve rich people in a country club somewhere. Their ideas did incredible damage and many of them are actual war criminals who in a just world should be serving life long prison sentences for their actions. They used their power and influence to advocate for some of the worst things the US government has done in the last few decades and never paid a price for it - in fact they were generously rewarded.

The fact that big parts of the liberal establishment keep trying to prop these figures up even after it's become clear that 1) these people are monsters and 2) they're not even representative of the type of monstrous Republican ideology we need to reckon with, it sort of raises the question why does the liberal establishment keep propping them up and giving them a platform like this?

If the issue isn't the "Never Trump Republicans" but they've been essentially a booster seat in "media" but they don't really deserve it?

That's a fair argument.

I just don't see the alternatives of bringing folks like Jordan Peterson or otherwise a good thing. They could just decline to interview such folks but I that's terrible journalism.

On the flip side, neo-conservatives are as you said useful for a handful of wealthly folks in a Country Club yet they've had an enormous impact on the world.

Halloween Jack posted:

I already did. NYT op-ed would be more intellectually vivacious if it was written by the people who call in to the Wrestling Observer Newsletter radio show.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2018 03:10

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Halloween Jack posted:

Well that's it, then. We can either give a columnist position to someone like David Frum or someone like Alex Jones; there are no other conceivable alternatives on this plane of existence.

Or I don't know Republicans that don't spew blatant conspiracies, outright lies or at least try to participate in discussions? Oh wait, we tried that.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2018 17:25

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Halloween Jack posted:

You've lost the plot, mate. Never Trump Republicans are vastly overrepresented in mainstream media precisely because those outlets want civil, "honorable" Republicans. Turns out there's remarkably little daylight between "intellectual" conservatism and the Ku Klux Klan, and what passes for Mainstream Respectable Intellectual Conservatism is a pack of propagandists for forever war.

I have no idea what you want or why you're so angry.

I�d like your solution that it asked for more than once.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2018 02:58

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Halloween Jack posted:

No, you didn't ask me for anything. You're too preoccupied with being appropriately self-righteous and smug to actually ask a direct question. What's the problem you want solved?

Halloween Jack posted:

The goal for a sane media should be to push these people out of the Overton Window, preferably onto a pile of dung.

Essentially mob rule with pitchforks and torches?

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Dec 20, 2018

# ¿ Dec 20, 2018 16:04

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

selec posted:

What if they exercised some modicum of editorial oversight rather than letting Brett Stephens write op eds that are clearly factually contradicted by the NYTs own reporting?

It would be a method that would either require fact checking his columns before publication (which would salvage his and their reputation) or running same day fact checks next to it (which would savage his and maybe help their reputation).

Let the people try and lie then. But that they are unwilling to do either indicates that it�s more important to them for their pundits to be able to lie and promote ideology than to have meaningful interpretations of reality and narrative explanations or insights into current events.

It�s just top to bottom indefensible and they should either put honest representations of actual constituencies on the page with vigorous oversight or just shitcan the whole thing. Worrying that the �wrong� people might get a platform is just the cowed victim response that refuses to place the majority of the blame where it belongs, in the leadership�s lap.

That makes much more sense and I wonder why they won't or haven't done such a thing. I could see how it's somewhat difficult to put "Fact-Check Article" next to "Fallacious Op-Ed" but I'd imagine you'd be able to get close the overwhelming majority of the time.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2018 16:25

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

GoluboiOgon posted:

heaven forbid that the people whose lies killed half a million people lose their jobs. these people defended and even advocated for the extra-legal torture of the prisoners of an illegal war, and basically created the modern form of islamophobia in the us, but somehow calling for their firing is mob rule.

why should anyone have confidence in the us media when the same people who lied so blatantly in 2003 are still around? if there is 0 accountability for such obvious mistakes, what's to stop them from doing it again?

Don't get me wrong. I agree. I'm not religious but I sure as hope there's hell because there's a few folks who should visit eternally.

That said, I don't agree with any sort of vigilante justice because it isn't. Selec's earlier solution is much more rational although I am incredibly curious why it hasn't been done.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2018 16:40

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

axeil posted:

Good thread idea. Due to Tucker Carlson's whole...being Tucker Carlson thing I ended up re-watching Jon Stewert's takedown of him on Crossfire from back in 2004.

The crazy thing is, Jon doesn't go far enough in his criticism. He's right that it's all theater and that it's killing America but he should've gone much further. Still, I remember at the time being amazed that he was the only one pointing out that the CNNs of the world had no clothes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Sadly, it's probably the last time there was honest, legitimate criticism of the media that got through to people and wasn't intended as a trojan horse for something else.

edit: and it's appalling the lesson CNN learned from this was "give the Glenn Becks of the world a show because debate is pointless theater" instead of "honestly report on things and don't make bad faith arguments and encourage things like THE SPIN ZONE"

It's also still hilarious how angry Carlson gets that Stewert won't be his funny man. Begala at least seems to try and engage honestly-ish with Stewert's criticism (even though he doesn't really understand Stewert's point) while Carlson just acts and expects a comedian to be asking hard-hitting questions and follow-ups.

I miss John.

Too bad his HBO special was cancelled and he's the victim of his own success. My only issue was any criticism directed at the Daily Show was hit back with "Well, it's just a comedy show!".

# ¿ Dec 20, 2018 18:44

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

selec posted:

Decorum and both sidesism give Stewart and Colbert such raging boners that they held an enormous rally to tell us the truth is in the middle.

Stewart regularly had Bill loving O�Reilly, post falafel, on his show for some buddy buddy time.

What the gently caress parallel dimension are you posting from today?

Where was this event?

# ¿ Dec 20, 2018 19:11

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

selec posted:

Look at this;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear?wprov=sfti1

Two years into the Obama presidency, after we knew publicly that the GOP had vowed to make him a one-term president and that they were determined to obstruct the Dems in any way possible, these dipshits think maybe we can heal the nation by saying both sides have their crazies. It was loving idiotic.

"Bill Maher posted:

On Real Time with Bill Maher, Bill Maher criticized the rally, saying that while Stewart and Colbert meant well, the message of the rally promoted a false equivalency between the left and the right, noting, "the big mistake of modern media has been this notion of balance for balance's sake. That the Left is just as violent and cruel as the Right...there's a difference between a mad man and a madman."[61]

Wow. Bill Maher did something right for once.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2018 19:28

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

axeil posted:

the one where people make good posts. it's pretty cool, you should try coming to it some time.

I thought it was informative. I wasn't aware of John's Rally but I don't see the harm in inviting O'Riley on the show. Hell, I'm surprised Bill didn't give himself a heart attack.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2018 21:54

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Ornedan posted:

Giving a person the opportunity to speak in their own voice, even in a comedy show, normalises them as someone whose opinions are at least worth debating. This is dangerous when the opinions are those of a far right demagogue.

I guarantee you, Bill O'Riley was anything but normalized during his time on the Daily Show.

Other folks, maybe. I'm still bitter John didn't ask his interviewees hard hitting questions but according to him it was a comedy show.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2018 02:02

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Speaking of Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald is really digging into his support of him, and dragging the Intercept with him:

https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1075845025466966018

Do I need to listen to the interview? I�m not following...

# ¿ Dec 21, 2018 02:55

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Solkanar512 posted:

It�s just too bad that Stewart couldn�t get Jim Cramer�s show cancelled as well.

Would we still be in the red if we followed Cramer's investing advice?

EDIT : Greenwald's reporting has been going downhill ever since Bush left in '08. His constantly cries of Russiaphobia are complete nonsense.

Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Dec 21, 2018

# ¿ Dec 21, 2018 16:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 21:37

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Lightning Knight posted:

I feel like this isn�t really fair to his entire body of work. Even if you grant that he�s 100% wrong on Russia for example, his reporting on animal abuse and factory farming has been exemplary and he does a good job on Brazil too as far as I can tell as a relatively uninformed outsider.

My current thoughts on him are entirely from his twitter, maybe that's a poor example?

# ¿ Dec 21, 2018 18:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Mad about the Media: The Media and Media Criticism Megathread