The Media and how it shapes world views and election outcomes

[rosarugosa]

I thought this was an interesting read: https://newrepublic.com/post/188197/trump-media-information-landscape-fox
On the one hand, it made me feel a little bit better about the motives of my fellow Americans, and it helps explain how someone could vote for Trump without being racist, misogynistic and homophobic. On the other hand, it made me feel despondent because I don't see a path forward for this problem to be solved. I would like to hear your thoughts.

[Tradd]

You know how people vote for Trump without being racist, etc.? “It’s the economy, stupid.” Said by James Carville during Clinton’s 1992 campaign.

Many people who are struggling don’t give a hoot about the left’s pet stuff.

[catherine]

The pen is mightier than the sword, and always has been. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on. And that mighty pen can spoonfeed a whole lot of people whatever they want them to believe if they have the power to consolidate and disseminate. It's ironic that my right-wing friends complain about the "liberal left-wing media" and left complains about the right.

I believe there is a lot of truth behind the idea that the Right is using major media outlets as their own mouthpiece these days. Look at some of the big players that own it! And the right-wing media's ability to craft their story, and then put Trump, the charasmatic showman/provocateur, in there as the star... it's a match made in heaven.

That is not to discount the bona fide issues that the maority of people who voted for Trump have with the things that are important to many--as Tradd said, the economy. We lefties can say, but.... unemployment is way down! Inflastion has stabilized! The GDP has grown! The stock market is up! But I think we all know that a pound of meat that was $4/lb a few years ago is $6/lb today. We can all agree that if you were lucky enough to sell your house lately you made a fortune it, but many first-time homeowners who would have been able to buy it a few years ago are shut out today.

Other issues that mattered, like immigration, abortion, LGBTQ rights are going to be polarizing no matter what. Not sure what the media could have stirred up to change anyone's mind on those issues. So I think that part is giving the media too much power, although Fox et al have certainly fanned those flames.

So, I guess my bottom line is, the article is certainly a warning.

Just this week, an indie movie theatre in Waitsfield VT closed its doors. I was sad because my family and I had gone there in the mid-2000s where we saw an awesome documentary on the media, and how the numbers of independent outlets had dramatically shrunk because of conglomeration. And now it seems those media power brokers are collaborating with the political power brokers. Media literacy is something that should be taught in schools. It's more important now than ever.

Interesting article!

[iris lilies]

I think this article is good in offering a premise and supporting it.

Indeed it may be true that old lady “liberal mainstream media,” the bugaboo of conservatives, is actually in severe decline.

There are several silly micro-ideas expressed here, tho, but in the main, it might be ok and is something I could entertain as truth. Or truthiness. :~)

[LDAHL]

I question the premise that these new media platforms are driving events by creating opinion in ways the author disapproves of. Who is the tail and who is the dog here? I think it more likely that these new outlets are growing by responding to a demand for an expanded viewpoint perspective.

It works both ways. When the WaPo declined to endorse for president, a quarter million readers cancelled their subscription. What does that say about the power relationship between consumer and producer?

[Rogar]

I heard a bit of an interview with Yuval Harari who wrote a favorite book of mine, 'Sapiens". He said, there are no bad people, only bad news. I could see some sense to it and just got his newest book, Nexus, which is supposed to be a history of information networks. I'll have to report back and may be enlightened.

[catherine]

Wow. I couldn't remember the name of that movie I saw about the media... but my son was over tonight and I asked him. He immediately said it was "Outfoxed"

Here's the whole thing on YouTube if anyone is interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74oHhU5MDk

[pony mom]

I voted for Trump and I'm neither racist, mysogynistic nor homophobic. Simply, he was a man with a plan. She was just a bunch of words that made no sense. We the people did not choose her to run for President. She didn't do a great job in the #2 job--why would we choose her for the #1 position? I'd vote for any woman in a heartbeat (Tulsi Gabbard, for example) who shows intelligence and common sense. The media can only influence people so much; we're not so stupid that we have to be told who to vote for. We can make up our own minds, see how Harris flip-flopped on numerous issues, the mental decline of Biden, which was denied. We can also see how mainstream media twisted and edited Trump's words to mean something totally different than intended. The Democratic rallies, which started with so much joy, ended up being hateful. Instead of accusing, come up with a plan that makes sense, that has a chance of working to help the majority of Americans' biggest issues.

I've never been interested in politics in my almost 60 years of life. Never really cared much, since things never became much better or much worse with someone new in office. However, life hasn't been great lately. The news media on both sides can't argue with that. Why do the same thing for another four years if it hasn't worked the last four years?

Ok, I'm off my soapbox. I'm still talking to friends who voted the other way. I don't mention the election and make no comments if they do. The public has chosen their President, despite the news channels' influence.

[Alan]

https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/ha/images/2024/315/3e19b0d8-1a75-4518-a22d-dca7d8b71a70-650x0.jpeg?fbclid=IwY2xjawGfft5leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHX 4sXWm8kL0_cAG5rrR23Cz4Ol_R18Idlm173os6QYLodpPatOLF aLAeIw_aem_7Ots51kTtATtYpu0ShhCOg

[frugal-one]

I voted for Trump and I'm neither racist, mysogynistic nor homophobic. Simply, he was a man with a plan. She was just a bunch of words that made no sense. We the people did not choose her to run for President. She didn't do a great job in the #2 job--why would we choose her for the #1 position? I'd vote for any woman in a heartbeat (Tulsi Gabbard, for example) who shows intelligence and common sense. The media can only influence people so much; we're not so stupid that we have to be told who to vote for. We can make up our own minds, see how Harris flip-flopped on numerous issues, the mental decline of Biden, which was denied. We can also see how mainstream media twisted and edited Trump's words to mean something totally different than intended. The Democratic rallies, which started with so much joy, ended up being hateful. Instead of accusing, come up with a plan that makes sense, that has a chance of working to help the majority of Americans' biggest issues.

I've never been interested in politics in my almost 60 years of life. Never really cared much, since things never became much better or much worse with someone new in office. However, life hasn't been great lately. The news media on both sides can't argue with that. Why do the same thing for another four years if it hasn't worked the last four years?

Ok, I'm off my soapbox. I'm still talking to friends who voted the other way. I don't mention the election and make no comments if they do. The public has chosen their President, despite the news channels' influence.

When asked his plan for healthcare he say he had none but a concept. The guy he has put in charge of immigration when asked says he has no plan. He is putting people in place that have no experience … how could they possibly have a plan? You, obviously, were not listening.

[Tybee]

I voted for Trump and I'm neither racist, mysogynistic nor homophobic. Simply, he was a man with a plan. She was just a bunch of words that made no sense. We the people did not choose her to run for President. She didn't do a great job in the #2 job--why would we choose her for the #1 position? I'd vote for any woman in a heartbeat (Tulsi Gabbard, for example) who shows intelligence and common sense. The media can only influence people so much; we're not so stupid that we have to be told who to vote for. We can make up our own minds, see how Harris flip-flopped on numerous issues, the mental decline of Biden, which was denied. We can also see how mainstream media twisted and edited Trump's words to mean something totally different than intended. The Democratic rallies, which started with so much joy, ended up being hateful. Instead of accusing, come up with a plan that makes sense, that has a chance of working to help the majority of Americans' biggest issues.

.

Thanks, this is very interesting to me, as so few people here seem to want to say they wanted Trump, yet they were so focused on tearing Harris down, and then blaming people who voted for Harris for Trump winning, which makes no sense to me. It's good to hear someone explain why they would vote for him.

Are you at all troubled by the kind of people he is appointing, people like Kristi Noem, for example? The kind of power is giving to Elon Musk?

I think this is where I disagree with you but I appreciate you explaining it, " We can also see how mainstream media twisted and edited Trump's words to mean something totally different than intended."

I think he does mean what he says, and he says things like he wants to televise executions by firing squads.

Do things like that he says, that he uses violent imagery to discuss his political opponents--do those things bother you at all? Do you think the media is inventing the quotes?

[LDAHL]

Me, I voted for Chase Oliver. I considered the choice between chaos and catastrophe, and chose a different option.

I’ve seen dozens of theories for the Harris defeat, ranging from faulty messaging to the fundamentally hateful and bigoted nature of American Society. My theory was that she was rejected by a slim margin of the electorate because they felt they were being played. After struggling mightily to conceal Biden’s decline, her candidacy arose from a back room deal. An obsequious media did all they could to burnish her image and distract from her past record and policy stances. Friendly journalists limited themselves to pre-approved softball questions. She had a billion dollars and truckloads of celebrity endorsements. She had late night shows, news anchors and web influencers fawning over her. But it wasn’t enough.

Why? I think it was because so many people felt that they were being sold a product rather than hearing an argument in favor of a candidate. For all his crass vulgarity, Trump came across as more genuine(God help us).

Proof to me that the media’s ability to shape opinion is limited.

[Tybee]

My theory was that she was rejected by a slim margin of the electorate because they felt they were being played. After struggling mightily to conceal Biden’s decline, her candidacy arose from a back room deal.

Why? I think it was because so many people felt that they were being sold a product rather than hearing an argument in favor of a candidate. For all his crass vulgarity, Trump came across as more genuine(God help us).

Proof to me that the media’s ability to shape opinion is limited.

So do you think those people who were offended did as you did, and voted for a third party candidate, or do you think they voted for Trump?

[iris lilies]

So do you think those people who were offended did as you did, and voted for a third party candidate, or do you think they voted for Trump?
Both. There is more than one path.

And then there is Jill Stein who got quite a bump up this year due to her support of Palestine. She even got arrested in St. Louis during a campus rally. To her voters Gaza was THE issue.

But everyone relax, in four years the voters will have tired of the crap in the White House and will be ready to throw the bums out.

In the meantime, it would be good for the mental health of everyone to take on Bill Maher’s newly declared approach to Trump V 2.0: he will look at only the factual issues of import coming out of the White House and will NOT be chasing every headline action of The Donald as represented by legacy media.

[LDAHL]

So do you think those people who were offended did as you did, and voted for a third party candidate, or do you think they voted for Trump?

Probably a mixed bag. Some who had little use for either candidate could vote third party or write in someone they really liked ( Jonah Goldberg wrote in Paul Ryan, which I wish I had thought of ). I’m sure many others held their nose and chose the lesser evil. Still others probably just didn’t bother voting at all.

[Rogar]

I frequently disagree with him, but find his podcast thought provoking. On thing Sam Harris said in the latest podcasts is that this is the end of identity politics, which contributed to the Biden Harris decline. No one wants it, not ever the blacks and Latinos. As an example he said Biden signed documents protecting trans or gay people on his first day, but waited two and a half years to do anything about the border. His take was that maybe a third of the Trump ads had something about trans issues, which no doubt were exaggerated. I have always considered that political ads were all bogus to some degree or another and are to be ignored for both parties, but they seem to find a gullible audience. There is something to the effect that if you hear somethings repeatedly, there is a tendency to believe it. Fortunately Harris spent no small amount of time bemoaning Trump, too.

"The Reckoning" 35 minutes or so. Towards the end he gets more into media influences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjr4IdCao8

[iris lilies]

I frequently disagree with him, but find his podcast thought provoking. On thing Sam Harris said in the latest podcasts is that this is the end of identity politics, which contributed to the Biden Harris decline. No one wants it, not ever the blacks and Latinos. As an example he said Biden signed documents protecting trans or gay people on his first day, but waited two and a half years to do anything about the border. His take was that maybe a third of the Trump ads had something about trans issues, which no doubt were exaggerated. I have always considered that political ads were all bogus to some degree or another and are to be ignored for both parties, but they seem to find a gullible audience. There is something to the effect that if you hear somethings repeatedly, there is a tendency to believe it. Fortunately Harris spent no small amount of time bemoaning Trump, too.

"The Reckoning" 35 minutes or so. Towards the end he gets more into media influences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjr4IdCao8

The “ trans issue” is important because it symbolizes key issues within it—-lying by government agencies, censorship, fundamental science being denied, non-believers being called “gullible” among other pejoratives. Sam Harris is right, Biden’s missteps and leadership on this one was one nail in Kamala’s coffin.

oh if ONLY identify politics are dead. They are not, we won’t be that lucky. But I do think they’re pendulum will swing at some point because Gen Zand those coming after well rebel – somewhat. they will address the identity, politics thing, and keep some of it and reject some of it, they will make it their own.

[Rogar]

The “ trans issue” is important because it symbolizes key issues within it—-lying by government agencies, censorship, fundamental science being denied, non-believers being called “gullible” among other pejoratives.

As Sam said near the end, you can easily find a few lies in the NYT, but the "X" lies by the Trump group were a virtual firehose of disinformation. Government agencies can lie, but Trump is the Grand Poobah on the same issues. (Speaking of media influence on the election).

So yes, now Trump's the government and you are correct.

[iris lilies]

As Sam said near the end, you can easily find a few lies in the NYT, but the "X" lies by the Trump group were a virtual firehose of disinformation. Government agencies can lie, but Trump is the Grand Poobah on the same issues. (Speaking of media influence on the election).

So yes, now Trump's the government and you are correct.


yes big lies coming our way in the next four years, bigger and we’re open. Kinda like the carnival barker lying we know he’s lying. The other kind of lies are more insidious.

[littlebittybobby]

okay---I wanna see if the Big Liar(and I mean BIG) is actually gonna make ss tax exempt? I have my doubts, but we'll see. Can he even do that? O'course--Ol' Joe lied, too. He lied a LOT. Ha.

[pony mom]

Thanks for not attacking me. I'm in the minority here.

Trump speaks without a filter, and is not a politician. So he does say some things that many don't agree with. The Liz Cheney guns in her face comment didn't exactly mean what was reported. Elon Musk is very smart and is a businessman; he may be the right person to streamline government spending. Noem......she isn't my kind of person. But as in his last term, he may be firing people left and right during the four years.

I just feel the media couldn't really make Harris a great and competent candidate, so it went after Trump instead. He's far from perfect, but really wants our country to improve. To me, the Democratic party just wants to control too many things: what we drive, how we cook, how we should think, what our children are taught, etc.

[ToomuchStuff]

Something that hit my brain today, is this the first time in our countries history, a former president, that lost an election, became president again?

[Tradd]

Happened once before. Late 19th century. Can’t remember who at this point.

[Alan]

Something that hit my brain today, is this the first time in our countries history, a former president, that lost an election, became president again?
Nope, second time. Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th President.

[bae]

Something that hit my brain today, is this the first time in our countries history, a former president, that lost an election, became president again?

I think it's the first time we've elected a felon. Definitely not the first time we've elected a rapist.

[Alan]

I think it's the first time we've elected a felon.
The system really had to work to manufacture those felonies and it seems lots of people are really upset they didn't accomplish the intended goal. I'm guessing they'll disappear soon.

[rosarugosa]

Thanks for not attacking me. I'm in the minority here.

Trump speaks without a filter, and is not a politician. So he does say some things that many don't agree with. The Liz Cheney guns in her face comment didn't exactly mean what was reported. Elon Musk is very smart and is a businessman; he may be the right person to streamline government spending. Noem......she isn't my kind of person. But as in his last term, he may be firing people left and right during the four years.

I just feel the media couldn't really make Harris a great and competent candidate, so it went after Trump instead. He's far from perfect, but really wants our country to improve. To me, the Democratic party just wants to control too many things: what we drive, how we cook, how we should think, what our children are taught, etc.

I'm not interested in attacking anyone. I want to understand perspectives that differ from my own. I should have mentioned that a lot of people I know and love voted for Trump, and I know they aren't bad people. I also live in a red town in a very blue state, so I'm not living in an echo chamber. It just seems like we have a fundamentally different view of reality, and I'm trying to understand why that is. It kind of reminds me of the religious divide.

[LDAHL]

The system really had to work to manufacture those felonies and it seems lots of people are really upset they didn't accomplish the intended goal. I'm guessing they'll disappear soon.

I understood the New York case to be the weakest of the four, but that Trump couldn’t appeal until after he was sentenced. So no way to overturn the conviction until after the political benefit of calling him a felon expired. Timing is everything.

[pinkytoe]

It just seems like we have a fundamentally different view of reality, and I'm trying to understand why that is.
I think the media has definitely influenced political outcomes. We are addicted to all of it apparently. I also wonder how people don't question their beliefs - either way. Perhaps there are different kinds of brains - the curious and the non-curious:)

[frugal-one]

The system really had to work to manufacture those felonies and it seems lots of people are really upset they didn't accomplish the intended goal. I'm guessing they'll disappear soon.

He was found guilty by people his lawyers approved of… a jury of his peers, as they say. You like to think manufactured? What other president had 34 indictments (Nixon resigned when found guilty of his transgressions)? After listening to the hearings, it was/is evident that he is a “bad actor”. I really enjoyed the past 4 years without having to hear about him constantly…. his moronic chatter and lies. Already sick of his blathering and he is not even president yet…

[frugal-one]

I understood the New York case to be the weakest of the four, but that Trump couldn’t appeal until after he was sentenced. So no way to overturn the conviction until after the political benefit of calling him a felon expired. Timing is everything.

disgusting

[Alan]

After listening to the hearings, it was/is evident that he is a “bad actor”.
I'm glad to know you listened to the hearings, I didn't and as a result I've been unable to find out what crime was used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, 34 times. Could you help me out?

[frugal-one]

I'm glad to know you listened to the hearings, I didn't and as a result I've been unable to find out what crime was used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, 34 times. Could you help me out?

You should have watched. Obviously you did not want to hear what was found. It went on for days. You are capable of delving into all the evidence.

[Alan]

You should have watched. Obviously you did not want to hear what was found. It went on for days. You are capable of delving into all the evidence.
So, you don't know the answer either?

[frugal-one]

So, you don't know the answer either?

See #33. If you had watched,you would have had your answer. And now you are still too lazy to do your own research OR most likely, don’t really want answers.

[Alan]

See #33. If you had watched,you would have had your answer. And now you are still too lazy to do your own research OR most likely, don’t really want answers.
LOL, I've always known the answer, it is NO ONE KNOWS. That's an important point because in order to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony the misdemeanor charge must have been committed with the intent to commit or conceal another crime. The prosecution and judge allowed the jurors, on an individual basis, to link the misdemeanor to one of three POSSIBLE crimes, none of which Trump had ever been convicted or even charged with. The jurors were also advised that they would not need to reveal which POSSIBLE crime they individually or collectively chose during their deliberations.

I've never heard of such a thing and the general consensus among legal scholars is that the conviction will not survive an appeal due to this as well as a few other procedural issues. That's why I used the "manufactured" label, which you objected to, as it appears to me that the true purpose of the trial was to label an undesirable political candidate with the "felon" label in hopes of destroying a political career. Of course, the fact that so many people saw through this sham conviction did exactly the opposite and resulted in every person involved with, or who cheered along this travesty, being at least in-directly responsible for Trump's party nomination and ultimate electoral victory, and the funny part is, you don't even realize it.

[frugal-one]

LOL, I've always known the answer, it is NO ONE KNOWS. That's an important point because in order to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony the misdemeanor charge must have been committed with the intent to commit or conceal another crime. The prosecution and judge allowed the jurors, on an individual basis, to link the misdemeanor to one of three POSSIBLE crimes, none of which Trump had ever been convicted or even charged with. The jurors were also advised that they would not need to reveal which POSSIBLE crime they individually or collectively chose during their deliberations.

I've never heard of such a thing and the general consensus among legal scholars is that the conviction will not survive an appeal due to this as well as a few other procedural issues. That's why I used the "manufactured" label, which you objected to, as it appears to me that the true purpose of the trial was to label an undesirable political candidate with the "felon" label in hopes of destroying a political career. Of course, the fact that so many people saw through this sham conviction did exactly the opposite and resulted in every person involved with, or who cheered along this travesty, being at least in-directly responsible for Trump's party nomination and ultimate electoral victory, and the funny part is, you don't even realize it.

I rest my case. You are talking in generalities because you did not do the “due diligence” to make your own thought out opinion.

[Alan]

I rest my case. You are talking in generalities because you did not do the “due diligence” to make your own thought out opinion.
OK, thanks for playing, it's been fun. :+1:

[happystuff]

May I suggest this thread be moved to Politics?

[ToomuchStuff]

May I suggest this thread be moved to Politics?


Unfortunately this whole site is politics now days. Way different then what it started as and very disappointing.

[pinkytoe]

Unfortunately this whole site is politics now days.
Yes and it is getting old.

[Alan]

May I suggest this thread be moved to Politics?
Done!

I left a re-direct in the Consumerism & Media forum which will be active for the next 30 days.

[happystuff]

Done!

I left a re-direct in the Consumerism & Media forum which will be active for the next 30 days.


Saw it was moved, so just popped in to say Thanks!

[Alan]

Unfortunately this whole site is politics now days. Way different then what it started as and very disappointing.


Yes and it is getting old.

Interestingly enough, site analytics show that the Public Policy forum is the site leader in responses to threads within the forum. It is also 2nd in threads created, running slightly behind the Open forum. Those two forums also routinely lead in daily non-user visits (which number in the thousands each day) to the site on any given day, as well as among user visits, which is admittedly a much smaller daily number.

[Alan]

In a slight twist to the "How media shapes views and election outcomes" I've noticed recently that election outcomes seem to have had a significant effect on media. MSNBC's ratings have dropped by roughly 50% since Nov 5th and Comcast is reportedly trying to sell it to anyone with a plan to make it profitable. CNN's ratings have dropped by roughly 30%, and they weren't very strong in the first place, which is reportedly causing hundreds of layoffs among staff and personalities.

While those two networks don't seem to have any public plans to right their respective ships, other media seems to be making ideological changes in order to regain trust. The New York Times seems to be dealing with internal struggles as staff resists the possibility of becoming a more moderate publication. The LA Times has resolved to shake up its editorial board in hopes of removing the paper from the ideological bubble it has been stuck in for decades. ABC has expressed an interest in shaking up the cast of The View (which somehow falls under its News Division rather than Entertainment) now that they've realized the show, which is marketed to women, alienates nearly 50% of their target audience. And Scientific American, which in recent years has abandoned its focus on hard science in favor of party approved social science, has given the publications editor in chief the opportunity to resign as they are undoubtedly searching for ways to bring respect back to their brand.

All that has come to light in just the past week or so, there's no telling just how wide reaching these adjustments will be going forward.

[iris lilies]

In a slight twist to the "How media shapes views and election outcomes" I've noticed recently that election outcomes seem to have had a significant effect on media. MSNBC's ratings have dropped by roughly 50% since Nov 5th and Comcast is reportedly trying to sell it to anyone with a plan to make it profitable. CNN's ratings have dropped by roughly 30%, and they weren't very strong in the first place, which is reportedly causing hundreds of layoffs among staff and personalities.

While those two networks don't seem to have any public plans to right their respective ships, other media seems to be making ideological changes in order to regain trust. The New York Times seems to be dealing with internal struggles as staff resists the possibility of becoming a more moderate publication. The LA Times has resolved to shake up its editorial board in hopes of removing the paper from the ideological bubble it has been stuck in for decades. ABC has expressed an interest in shaking up the cast of The View (which somehow falls under its News Division rather than Entertainment) now that they've realized the show, which is marketed to women, alienates nearly 50% of their target audience. And Scientific American, which in recent years has abandoned its focus on hard science in favor of party approved social science, has given the publications editor in chief the opportunity to resign as they are undoubtedly searching for ways to bring respect back to their brand.

All that has come to light in just the past week or so, there's no telling just how wide reaching these adjustments will be going forward.

Ah, old lady Legacy Media is attempting a makeover. Good luck with that! NPR needs to join them.

[iris lilies]

It’s fine with me if they all change except for The View. The View must stay the way it is because who else will provide such easily accessible snark material in the mainstream? There are plenty of podcasters and influencers to snark on, but mainstream stark material is harder to find.

[LDAHL]

In a slight twist to the "How media shapes views and election outcomes" I've noticed recently that election outcomes seem to have had a significant effect on media. MSNBC's ratings have dropped by roughly 50% since Nov 5th and Comcast is reportedly trying to sell it to anyone with a plan to make it profitable. CNN's ratings have dropped by roughly 30%, and they weren't very strong in the first place, which is reportedly causing hundreds of layoffs among staff and personalities.

While those two networks don't seem to have any public plans to right their respective ships, other media seems to be making ideological changes in order to regain trust. The New York Times seems to be dealing with internal struggles as staff resists the possibility of becoming a more moderate publication. The LA Times has resolved to shake up its editorial board in hopes of removing the paper from the ideological bubble it has been stuck in for decades. ABC has expressed an interest in shaking up the cast of The View (which somehow falls under its News Division rather than Entertainment) now that they've realized the show, which is marketed to women, alienates nearly 50% of their target audience. And Scientific American, which in recent years has abandoned its focus on hard science in favor of party approved social science, has given the publications editor in chief the opportunity to resign as they are undoubtedly searching for ways to bring respect back to their brand.

All that has come to light in just the past week or so, there's no telling just how wide reaching these adjustments will be going forward.

It’s interesting to see how media people are talking about their failure to transmit elite opinion to the masses. Asking “where is the progressive Joe Rogan” reminds me of the same question being asked about Rush Limbaugh. Public or foundation funding of news sources gets proposed, but NPR/PBS or ProPublica already exist without moving the needle much to the left. Efforts to regulate “truth” at the federal level haven’t got much traction. The commercial failure of left wing ideology influencers may simply indicate the growing divide between elites and the common ruck who ultimately pay the bills. I don’t know how you fix that.

[Alan]

The commercial failure of left wing ideology influencers may simply indicate the growing divide between elites and the common ruck who ultimately pay the bills. I don’t know how you fix that.
Jen Psaki wants the government to impose harsher, more restrictive, anti-free speech regulations on alternative media in hopes of bringing people back to legacy media. She doesn't mention legacy media being required to be trustworthy.

[frugal-one]

You can be assured that those that were/are not trump backers will be silenced. trump’s campaign was based on targeting the “enemy within”…. meaning anyone who disagrees with him. Authoritarian rule here we come!

[iris lilies]

You can be assured that those that were/are not trump backers will be silenced. trump’s campaign was based on targeting the “enemy within”…. meaning anyone who disagrees with him. Authoritarian rule here we come!
Be specific. How will they be silenced? Give me three specific examples of who will be silenced and how.

look, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some movement in that area, just like the Biden government made efforts to silence points of view being expressed on social media. Society seems to be less and less tolerant of free speech. We are still better than all of our Western compatriot countries tho and for that I am grateful.

Trump is no conservative who respects the first amendment. I’m not sure what part of the constitution he does respect.

[bae]

Be specific. How will they be silenced? Give me three specific examples of who will be silenced and how.


My local community organizes much of its social activity through a handful of Facebook groups, for whatever reason. It is kind of handy when your community is made up of actual islands, and you have to plan carefully wind/tide/weather to arrange face-to-face events.

Anyways, several local organizations the past week or so started to arrange some in-person events. These organizations were not of the sort the local MAGA community approves of. Their attempts to discuss and organize were buried under MAGA shitposts, to the point where those organizations and related ones are simply withdrawing from open public discussion.

This is a pretty progressive place, Harris got > 80% of the vote or so. Of the remaining 20%, most of the Republicans aren't especially MAGA. But there is a loud core. And they seem keen on silencing through intimidation and disruption.

[iris lilies]

My local community organizes much of its social activity through a handful of Facebook groups, for whatever reason. It is kind of handy when your community is made up of actual islands, and you have to plan carefully wind/tide/weather to arrange face-to-face events.

Anyways, several local organizations the past week or so started to arrange some in-person events. These organizations were not of the sort the local MAGA community approves of. Their attempts to discuss and organize were buried under MAGA shitposts, to the point where those organizations and related ones are simply withdrawing from open public discussion.

This is a pretty progressive place, Harris got > 80% of the vote or so. Of the remaining 20%, most of the Republicans aren't especially MAGA. But there is a loud core. And they seem keen on silencing through intimidation and disruption.
If you are saying that MAGA types have been embolded by this election, that is too bad.


I frequent many forums where in are several of them I don’t express any kind of opinion about things as I do here because I would be shouted down. That’s fine, I accept it that the majority rules on certain forums. I haven’t seen any forums where small percentage of MAGA posters are all of a sudden taking over.

[Rogar]

A report I saw said Fox news viewership is up considerably since the election and MSNBC is down. Two news sources I never watch. I've not seen any change to the NYT articles, but I sort of expect the focus on identity politics to diminish. Of all the slicing and dicing of elections outcomes, among the handful of Trump voters I talked with personally it pretty much came down to the price of eggs and gas. I'm not sure what the definition of elite is when referencing Harris and election failures. A big division of votes the analysts have noted was education rather than elite? So educated people voted for Harris and people with little college voted for Trump? There are implications here beyond elitism.

It's interesting how quickly the media can shift. Politico had a headline article, Republicans now think the economy is great and the election wasn't rigged.

[catherine]

I'm not surprised the MAGA crowd has been emboldened. There may be many like my DH. The only other Republican in our family is my DIL, who gifted DH with a MAGA hat during the 2020 election cycle. DH would not wear it, because he felt he had to hide his support for Trump. But, hey, Trump won decisively, and the liberals are being lambasted in the press, so it may be safe to come out of hiding. (But, still, I know DH will never wear that hat. He might be more vocal with me about his political views, though--which has started already).

[Tybee]

In the case of your husband, Catherine, what makes him support Trump? Genuinely curious, as I know my son's in-laws support Trump because they are fundamentalist Christians and wanted to end access to abortion.

[iris lilies]

In the case of your husband, Catherine, what makes him support Trump? Genuinely curious, as I know my son's in-laws support Trump because they are fundamentalist Christians and wanted to end access to abortion.
Trump won’t end access to abortion, although I suppose if Congress put some sort of bill in front of him, he would sign it. He is no constitutionalist. But he has said repeatedly abortion is a topic from which Republicans should back away.

He has said the issue is now in front of the states where it belongs.

He said about the Florida abortion ban limit to six weeks gestation “We need more time” since six weeks isn't long enough. But he did change his tune when challenged on that during this campaign.

I consider Trump squishy on abortion..

edited for accuracy

[Tybee]

Iris, he already has by putting Kavanaugh and Barrett on the Supreme Court.

Do you support Trump now? What makes you want to support him?

[iris lilies]

Iris, he already has by putting Kavanaugh and Barrett on the Supreme Court.

Do you support Trump now? What makes you want to support him?

The argument “Trump purposely made Roe vs Wade go down” is silly if that is your argument.

Trump chose Supreme Court candidates who tend to be more strict in interpretation of the Constitution than some other justices. Trump DID NOT choose these candidates to take down abortion. Is that what you think? Geez.

The Supreme Court deals with MANY issues of importance and this was one of many. The 1972 Roe decision was bad court decision and even Ruth B Ginsberg knew that.

Personally, as an advocate of wide open abortion I am content with each state regulating it. Our abortion law passed in Missouri pretty much mirroring Roe v. Wade with abortion allowed up to fetal viability with provisions for mental and physical health of the mother beyond that. Frankly, that is more liberal than what I thought would pass in Missouri. But it passed.

I do not “support Trump” whatever you mean by that. My hot buttons are not your hot buttons, my values are not yours.

I hope Trump makes another Supreme Court appointment of a Justice that is reasonable and on the conservative side of interpretation of the constitution. There’s always a possibility he makes a dumb choice because someone is loyal to him or some other dumb reason. He makes dumb decisions and creates chaos, his decisions are not centered in conservatism. For that reason, I do not “support” Trump, he is not a personality fit to be President of the United States.

bottom line: I do not have to hate and disparage every action of his, every decision he makes in order to be anti-Trump.

[LDAHL]

I'm not surprised the MAGA crowd has been emboldened. There may be many like my DH. The only other Republican in our family is my DIL, who gifted DH with a MAGA hat during the 2020 election cycle. DH would not wear it, because he felt he had to hide his support for Trump. But, hey, Trump won decisively, and the liberals are being lambasted in the press, so it may be safe to come out of hiding. (But, still, I know DH will never wear that hat. He might be more vocal with me about his political views, though--which has started already).

I haven’t seen much “lambasting” of liberals in the press. I do notice a lot of videos in my YouTube feed of cringy meltdowns of people who were disappointed with the results, but that’s not really mainstream.

[ToomuchStuff]

I haven’t seen much “lambasting” of liberals in the press. I do notice a lot of videos in my YouTube feed of cringy meltdowns of people who were disappointed with the results, but that’s not really mainstream.

Seen plenty of criticism, things about left media, moderating, fact checking one side, etc. etc.

[catherine]

In the case of your husband, Catherine, what makes him support Trump? Genuinely curious, as I know my son's in-laws support Trump because they are fundamentalist Christians and wanted to end access to abortion.

I think one thing is the immigration thing. Another thing is the perception that because he's a businessman he's better for the economy than government bureaucrats. And frankly, even though DH has said several times that "Trump is an a$$hole" there is something about his personality that he likes. I've even heard pundits say that people find Trump's unscripted banter to be refreshing as opposed to what many people feel is the more calculated style of most politicians. Such a paradox, that a man can be an obvious lying fool, but people find him more believable than the ones purported to be telling them the truth. I think it's because all of his cards are on the table. You can take them or leave them.Maybe that falls under "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know".

Just sayin'

[Tybee]

I think one thing is the immigration thing. Another thing is the perception that because he's a businessman he's better for the economy than government bureaucrats. And frankly, even though DH has said several times that "Trump is an a$$hole" there is something about his personality that he likes. I've even heard pundits say that people find Trump's unscripted banter to be refreshing as opposed to what many people feel is the more calculated style of most politicians. Such a paradox, that a man can be an obvious lying fool, but people find him more believable than the ones purported to be telling them the truth. I think it's because all of his cards are on the table. You can take them or leave them.Maybe that falls under "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know".

Just sayin'

That's interesting, three different things:
immigration
perception that as a businessman better for the economy than government insiders
the idea that he is open, unscripted, and says what he thinks

[catherine]

That's interesting, three different things:
immigration
perception that as a businessman better for the economy than government insiders
the idea that he is open, unscripted, and says what he thinks

That sums it up.

[iris lilies]

A report I saw said Fox news viewership is up considerably since the election and MSNBC is down. Two news sources I never watch. I've not seen any change to the NYT articles, but I sort of expect the focus on identity politics to diminish. Of all the slicing and dicing of elections outcomes, among the handful of Trump voters I talked with personally it pretty much came down to the price of eggs and gas. I'm not sure what the definition of elite is when referencing Harris and election failures. A big division of votes the analysts have noted was education rather than elite? So educated people voted for Harris and people with little college voted for Trump? There are implications here beyond elitism.

It's interesting how quickly the media can shift. Politico had a headline article, Republicans now think the economy is great and the election wasn't rigged.

it’s funny that in my red state, all the MAGA voters I know have at least a four year degree, and most have advanced degrees. That speaks more to the people I hang out with rather than The demographics of my state I suppose, but I’m just saying.

[Rogar]

The news is calling it the diplomat divide, although there probably are confounding statistics. It makes better sense to than the elitism of Harris. Probably my short coming, but I wonder how Harris is more elite than a property and golf course magnate who seems to revel in entertaining rich people and diplomats.

[iris lilies]

The news is calling it the diplomat divide, although there probably are confounding statistics. It makes better sense to than the elitism of Harris. Probably my short coming, but I wonder how Harris is more elite than a property and golf course magnate who seems to revel in entertaining rich people and diplomats.
it is the “luxury beliefs “of the Democratic Party. It’s not necessarily their luxurious lifestyle. College professor making $35,000 a year engage in promoting those luxury beliefs.

[frugal-one]

Be specific. How will they be silenced? Give me three specific examples of who will be silenced and how.

look, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some movement in that area, just like the Biden government made efforts to silence points of view being expressed on social media. Society seems to be less and less tolerant of free speech. We are still better than all of our Western compatriot countries tho and for that I am grateful.

Trump is no conservative who respects the first amendment. I’m not sure what part of the constitution he does respect.

What? You think you are a teacher giving out assignments? Not? Trump has in the recent past met with Orban (at mar a lago) and speaks highly of putin and kim jong-un … all of whom he could ask to join their playlist.

[Alan]

What? You think you are a teacher giving out assignments?
I think she was just asking for evidence of one of the many claims made here, that's what reasonable, discerning people do.

[frugal-one]

I think she was just asking for evidence of one of the many claims made here, that's what reasonable people do.

No. Not by explicitly asking for a number of reasons. That is not what a reasonable person does.

[LDAHL]

The news is calling it the diplomat divide, although there probably are confounding statistics. It makes better sense to than the elitism of Harris. Probably my short coming, but I wonder how Harris is more elite than a property and golf course magnate who seems to revel in entertaining rich people and diplomats.

The people in control of powerful institutions in government, academia, finance, media and politics (i.e. elites) pushed very hard to persuade the masses to vote for a candidate they largely created from whole cloth, and simultaneously convince them the opposing candidate was the second coming of Hitler. They spent a billion dollars over three months, and didn’t (quite) succeed. I think partly because the masses were uncomfortable with the narratives and “luxury beliefs” they were told to accept, and partly resentment of the assumption they were so gullible.

[bae]

What is a "luxury belief"?

[iris lilies]

What is a "luxury belief"?
The Wikki’s definition is as good as any:

A luxury belief is a term used to illustrate an idea or opinion that confers status on members of the upper class at little cost, while inflicting costs on persons in lower classes.[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-Troubled-1) The term is often applied to privileged individuals who are seen as disconnected from the lived experiences of impoverished and marginalized people. Such individuals supposedly hold political and social beliefs that signal their elite status; these beliefs are putatively for the benefit of the marginalized but are alleged to have negative impacts on them.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-original-2)[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-friedersdorf_atlantic-3) Exactly what counts as a luxury belief is not always consistent and may vary from person to person, and the term in general is considered to be controversial.

The term is a neologism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism) coined by social commentator Rob Henderson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_K._Henderson_(author)) in 2019.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-original-2)[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-Lemov-4)[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-Goodwin-5) It describes what some allege is a modern trend among mainly affluent Americans to use their beliefs as a way to display their social status (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status).[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-6)[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-7) However, recognition of the phenomenon in sociology predates the term itself.[8] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-8) In his video opinion piece for the New York Times Rob Henderson defines luxury beliefs as "ideas held by privileged people that make them look good but actually harm the marginalized."[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-9) He compares luxury beliefs with virtue signaling (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signaling) and cites defund the police (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police) as a "classic luxury belief" along with his other examples of decriminalizing drugs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization), getting rid of the SAT, and rejecting marriage (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_marriage).…

[catherine]

The Wikki’s definition is as good as any:

A luxury belief is a term used to illustrate an idea or opinion that confers status on members of the upper class at little cost, while inflicting costs on persons in lower classes.[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-Troubled-1) The term is often applied to privileged individuals who are seen as disconnected from the lived experiences of impoverished and marginalized people. Such individuals supposedly hold political and social beliefs that signal their elite status; these beliefs are putatively for the benefit of the marginalized but are alleged to have negative impacts on them.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-original-2)[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-friedersdorf_atlantic-3) Exactly what counts as a luxury belief is not always consistent and may vary from person to person, and the term in general is considered to be controversial.

The term is a neologism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism) coined by social commentator Rob Henderson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_K._Henderson_(author)) in 2019.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-original-2)[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-Lemov-4)[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-Goodwin-5) It describes what some allege is a modern trend among mainly affluent Americans to use their beliefs as a way to display their social status (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status).[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-6)[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-7) However, recognition of the phenomenon in sociology predates the term itself.[8] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-8) In his video opinion piece for the New York Times Rob Henderson defines luxury beliefs as "ideas held by privileged people that make them look good but actually harm the marginalized."[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief#cite_note-9) He compares luxury beliefs with virtue signaling (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signaling) and cites defund the police (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police) as a "classic luxury belief" along with his other examples of decriminalizing drugs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization), getting rid of the SAT, and rejecting marriage (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_marriage).…

Interesting article about Rob Henderson and how he came to coin the term luxury beliefs: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/rob-henderson-memoir-yale-troubled/677620/

[Tybee]

A "luxury belief" is just another canard peddled by right wing populists, the new cynics, the descendants of Huey Long, the same people that bring you the notion that academic elites are ruling the world.

[iris lilies]

A "luxury belief" is just another canard peddled by right wing populists, the new cynics, the descendants of Huey Long, the same people that bring you the notion that academic elites are ruling the world.
to a great extent yes, but there’s also truth in it. It’s the virtual signaling that bugs me.

[LDAHL]

When I think of luxury beliefs, I think of Cori Bush demanding defunding the police while flanked by private security.

I think of living in a gated community and boasting of sanctuary city status.

I think of land acknowledgment statements from people who wouldn’t think of giving up an inch of their property.

I think of the armchair generals of the social justice warriors.

[catherine]

When I think of luxury beliefs, I think of Cori Bush demanding defunding the police while flanked by private security.

I think of living in a gated community and boasting of sanctuary city status.

I think of land acknowledgment statements from people who wouldn’t think of giving up an inch of their property.

I think of the armchair generals of the social justice warriors.

I think those are great examples.