advertisement


Post-Trump: III (decline, further tantrums, legal proceedings, book deals etc)

Any objective observer can see that MSNBC is as partisan as Fox.
You really haven't understood what I said. The logic requires the fact cited to be a fact: I said, 'as long as the fact cited is unarguable'.

If fact A is true, then the statement 'any objective observer would note' is, by virtue of the truth of fact A, justifiable. If fact A is not true, then it isn't.
 
Also, I will note that I had not seen the phrase "black-pilled incels" until now.
I hadn't either. Seems our exposures to right-wing culture are similarly uneven. Anyway, here's the short course, courtesy of the ADL:
In the incel movement, the black pill is far more pernicious. The term was popularized on the men’s rights blog Omega Virgin Revolt, where it was first used by commenter Paragon in 2011. Like their extreme right counterparts, incels believe that taking the black pill means realizing that their situation is hopeless. Where redpilled incels are not happy about their place in society, they believe there are ways out of inceldom, including working out, plastic surgery and a host of dubious self-improvement strategies; blackpilled incels believe that their situation is permanent and inescapable. In a blackpilled world the sexual marketplace is governed exclusively by genetics. A man is either attractive to the opposite sex or he is not, and no amount of self-improvement can change this.

This is where the incel movement takes on characteristics of a death cult. Taking the black pill leaves a person with relatively few options: Giving up, or in incel parlance “LDAR” (Lie Down and Rot), suicide (incel forums are filled with suicidal fantasies and threats, as well as encouraging comments to those considering suicide) and “going ER.” The latter is a reference to Elliot Rodger, who killed six people near campus at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in 2014. In incel forums members, “Saint Elliot” or “The Supreme Gentleman” as they call him (and he called himself), is hailed as a hero.
 
You would have to point out where I made assertions pertaining to Fox's quality.

I specifically said you were not making an error of bias, partisanship or quality but rather a category error. All the other entities are news outlets of varying quality and biases which, as I acknowledged, we can to some extent overcome by consuming a wide variety. But Fox is not news because it gave up on the pretence that it's opinions were grounded in journalism and facts.

You used to be able to (just about) make a case that Fox's day time news was news and its evening output was opinion as entertainment (the Tucker Carlson defence) but not now we know they decided to present as news substantive things they knew to be factually false. And not just one reporter on one story but a literally years long sustained output across all reporters on the two biggest stories of a generation (COVID and the 2016 and 2020 elections).

To be fair I don't think Fox's conduct is because it will do absolutely anything to further the political views of its ownership but rather because it feared losing viewership and money to rival stations. I think they would have had no problem saying Trump lost and there was no fraud or that vaccines work except their viewership and profits would have cratered.

To some extent then the problem here is not Fox itself but rather the extreme nature of their audience -- hence all the evidence coming out that reporters, producers and ownership knew this was all nonsense but their audience would never stand for it. But the point remains lying like this for a news organisation is disqualifying and "the commercial reality of our audience demographics made us do it" is the worse defence ever.

If you wanted to make a case that MSNBC is just like Fox you would have to show sustained distortion of the facts on major issues across all reporting. Note how this is very different from the reasonable statement that "MSNBC is just as partisan as the Daily Telegraph or the Washington Times".
 
If you wanted to make a case that MSNBC is just like Fox you would have to show sustained distortion of the facts on major issues across all reporting. Note how this is very different from the reasonable statement that "MSNBC is just as partisan as the Daily Telegraph or the Washington Times".

MSNBC is as partisan as Fox. Some people here are conflating partisanship with other things. It's good to know who those people are.
 
MSNBC is as partisan as Fox. Some people here are conflating partisanship with other things. It's good to know who those people are.

But again my point is not about partisanship but about their reliability as a news source. The charge is systemic lying on substantive issues across all reporting for a sustained period of time. If you can find a couple of examples of that then I will concede the point that MSNBC is as bad as Fox and never watch it again (in as much as I do).
 
So there's an incel "movement". Hmm, OK.

The vast majority of US school shooters seem to come from this demographic, hence my mentioning it. I’m not sure radicalisation is the right word, it is different somehow, but there is a huge cultural thing going on out of sight of the mainstream that many of our generation are blissfully unaware of. It is one of many things that are essential if one wants to grasp how modern politics has got to where it is today. ‘Gamergate’ is another, along with 4Chan, 8Chan etc etc. This is all basic 21st century history, stuff folk really should be aware of. The likes of QAnon didn’t arrive from nowhere, yet now it is firmly rooted in mainstream politics via Trump, MTG, Boebart etc.
 
You appear to be uninformed on this widely known, often reported topic.

I don't follow news on incels closely, no. The link you provided does not really add credence to the idea that there is a "movement", but that may just be a definitional difference. If someone wants to read the full twenty-six page report and summarize the evidence for it forming into a movement, with the word movement defined, that would be great.


But again my point is not about partisanship but about their reliability as a news source.

My point is about partisanship.


The vast majority of US school shooters seem to come from this demographic, hence my mentioning it. I’m not sure radicalisation is the right word, it is different somehow, but there is a huge cultural thing going on out of sight of the mainstream that many of our generation are blissfully unaware of. It is one of many things that need looking into if one wants to grasp how modern politics has got to where it is today. ‘Gamergate’ is another, along with 4Chan, 8Chan etc etc. This is all basic 21st century history, stuff folk should be aware of. The likes of QAnon didn’t arrive from nowhere, yet now it is firmly rooted in mainstream politics via Trump, MTG, Boebart etc.

Do you happen to have a link that demonstrates your assertion that the majority of school shooters are incels? The press covers the shootings, and sometimes this is noted, sometimes it is not.

As to the rest of your post, I'm aware of the enumerated items, and I even know what "red-pill" means, but I also differentiate between the degree of emphasis and coverage it receives online versus in other, more traditional sources. There is a reasonable chance that various potential threats are being exaggerated. Some may be underestimated, too.



To tailor responses and, when needed, use the appropriate ideological jargon.
 
My point is about partisanship.
Then what do you mean when you use this term? It implies bias, and a preferred editorial position. To the extent that all news outlets will have some sort of editorial stance, they are all (to that extent) partisan. However, you made an equivalence between Fox News and MSNBC in terms of their 'partisan' nature. It is not possible, in my view. to make an equivalence between a body which delivers the news, having done reasonably diligent fact-checking but then applying an editorial 'colour' to its output, and one which fabricates the news and delivers what it knows to be false. Therefore I think your assertion breaks down on the first analysis; however if you mean something different by 'partisan' and the equivalence has validity in those terms, then I'm still prepared to try to understand what you're claiming.
 
MSNBC is as partisan as Fox.
But it isn't as partisan. I can accept that both are partisan, but for your statement 'MSNBC is as partisan as Fox' to be true what matters is the degree and manner in which they are partisan. Fox is partisan to the extent that it wilfully lies to its viewers (see evidence in the Dominion case). There is no evidence that MSNBC is as partisan.
 
Then what do you mean when you use this term?

That the organization favors a specific political outlook of one political party. MSNBC is highly partisan in favor of the Democratic Party and its positions. This is not hidden. I previously mentioned that I recognize the bias of every news source I rely on. Some are less partisan - eg, PBS, AP.

It is rather strange to see such insistence that MSNBC is not blatantly partisan when even organizations like JSTOR publish academic articles that reference this, viewership polls indicate political party membership of viewers, advertisers place ads based on this data (which is covered in the business press), and so forth.


But it isn't as partisan.

It is.
 
<moderating>

I’m removing mention of banned members in accordance with the AUP. I know my sock-puppets and time-wasters well and there are not any in this discussion at present!
 
Then, assuming you think reliability is a required quality of a news source, you essentially agree with everyone else.

No, I wrote that Fox is more unreliable. MSNBC is also unreliable. I do not find MSNBC credible, as I previously wrote.
 
No, I wrote that Fox is more unreliable. MSNBC is also unreliable. I do not find MSNBC credible, as I previously wrote.

Which brings us back to the question of can you give us an example of MSNBC being unreliable where unreliable means systemically wrong in all reporting for a sustained period on generationally significant news event? Fox's failures here are disqualifying in a way that every other source on your list are not no matter how right wing.

I think your problem here (and it's not an uncommon one) is that the testimony and evidence we are seeing from the Dominion case means that the slight veneer of plausible deniability about the true nature of Fox has collapsed and it's just no longer possible to credibly defend the channel. Everyone can see it for what it is now and to not admit this is to put oneself in the 30% of US population that forms the Trumpian base with all the negative traits that implies.
 


advertisement


Back
Top