Why are Americans are so Dumb?

[FordGT90]

Think back to the 1960s-1980s...media bias didn't really exist. Journalists were journalists and everyone wanted the news as it was, not opinion. The concern was more whether or not media was government propaganda over journalistic credibility. That was mostly because of the Vietnam War and the public losing favor of it though.


What changed? Satellite/cable booming in the 1990s. "News" became an entertainment product. Radio followed suite because there was big money in political opinion syndication. This is what started the trickle of money away from professional journalist towards opinion and focused reporting. Higher ranks meant more advertising dollars and entertainment is all about the money.

Then 2000s, the internet became mainstream. Professional journalists now had to compete with amateur bloggers. A battle they could not win.

Then 2010s, the straw that broke the camels back: smart phones and social media--everyone is an amateur journalists. There's no longer money available to do much if any investigative journalism. The professional journalists are always the last on the scene. And advertisers want opinion over hard news.

Money fundamentally caused the collapse of professional journalism...it left the industry. Even historic greats like Washington Post which was responsible for exposing Wategate are chaffing funds today.


In my estimation, the media losing professional journalism came first and the advertisers drove them to bias. The bias created echo chambers that draw people and the echo chambers themselves caused the divisive political climate.

The journalists themselves are living in the echo chamber so they're incapable of being unbiased. There was an editor that quit New York Times recently that said as much.


The "beginning" was somewhere in the early-mid 1990s.


Leftist: a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views. aka left-wing politics

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Think back to the 1960s-1980s...media bias didn't really exist. Journalists were journalists and everyone wanted the news as it was, not opinion. The concern was more whether or not media was government propaganda over journalistic credibility. That was mostly because of the Vietnam War and the public losing favor of it though.


What changed? Satellite/cable booming in the 1990s. "News" became an entertainment product. Radio followed suite because there was big money in political opinion syndication. This is what started the trickle of money away from professional journalist towards opinion and focused reporting. Higher ranks meant more advertising dollars and entertainment is all about the money.

Then 2000s, the internet became mainstream. Professional journalists now had to compete with amateur bloggers. A battle they could not win.

Then 2010s, the straw that broke the camels back: smart phones and social media--everyone is an amateur journalists. There's no longer money available to do much if any investigative journalism. The professional journalists are always the last on the scene. And advertisers want opinion over hard news.

Money fundamentally caused the collapse of professional journalism...it left the industry. Even historic greats like Washington Post which was responsible for exposing Wategate are chaffing funds today.


In my estimation, the media losing professional journalism came first and the advertisers drove them to bias. The bias created echo chambers that draw people and the echo chambers themselves caused the divisive political climate.

The journalists themselves are living in the echo chamber so they're incapable of being unbiased. There was an editor that quit New York Times recently that said as much.


The "beginning" was somewhere in the early-mid 1990s.


Leftist: a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views. aka left-wing politics

Thanks that sheds light on it. Thanks for staying away from the blaming "who started it first" talk.

Now on the other Q, it to me seems the far-right tacked "-ist" onto "left" to demonise it in association with Commun-ist and Social-ist. Like liberal(s) and Democrat(s) have become in the minds of many Republicans as evil demonic things. It didn't get that way on it's own, it's been directed by the top.

[FordGT90]

Leftist includes communist, so************************t, progressivist, liberalist, and generally Democrat. Ehm, leftist is an entire wing of idealogy where "Democrat" (registered member), "Progressive" (social justice, big government, repairations, etc.) etc. are very specific.

Rightist is also appropriate for describing all of those with right ideology. For example, anti-abortion is quite rightist because the vast majority agree on that principle. It can also be subdivided into groups like Republican, fascist, alt-right, evangelical, etc.

There's no emotion attributed to either term, at least for me.


Thing is, see that chart above: the extreme left vastly outnumber the extreme right. "Rightist" isn't generally used because they're all generally Republican.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

I completely disagree with that site.

Your opinion, as much as you love to spout it, really doesn't matter. You are clearly a nazi know-nothing. The site, and others such as the Columbia University Journalism School, do matter, as they are actual subject matter experts, and they completely disagree with your idiotic, uninformed opinions.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Leftist includes communist, so************************t, progressivist, liberalist, and generally Democrat. Ehm, leftist is an entire wing of ideology where "Democrat" (registered member), "Progressive" (social justice, big government, reparations, etc.) etc. are very specific.

Names, labels that the right uses to lump everything together that they wish to demonize to their followers. Why deal with everything on the separate issues that they are. Just lump them all together and label them as negative so your followers don't have to think for themselves. Only believe what we tell you. Don't listen to them, they're not us. That's the Reich way.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Your opinion, as much as you love to spout it, really doesn't matter. You are clearly a nazi know-nothing. The site, and others such as the Columbia University Journalism School, do matter, as they are actual subject matter experts, and they completely disagree with your idiotic, uninformed opinions.

Actually, he knows some things, which is not necessairily a help. Depends on whether he's a perosn of integrity and good will, more than anything.

[Mark B]

Given the foaming at the mouth invective that right wingers spew about media such as CNN & MSNBC it's ironic that those same right wingers don't recognize the extreme bias of right wing media.

[donquixote99]

It is first of nesceesary to remember that many of these mouth-foamers are programmed bots, or paid-for, or otherwise insincere and tactical about the bias they will say they see here and there. The others are idiots.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Names, labels that the right uses to lump everything together that they wish to demonize to their followers. Why deal with everything on the separate issues that they are. Just lump them all together and label them as negative so your followers don't have to think for themselves. Only believe what we tell you. Don't listen to them, they're not us. That's the Reich way.

Except...

Originally Posted by Mark B

Given the foaming at the mouth invective that right wingers spew about media such as CNN & MSNBC it's ironic that those same right wingers don't recognize the extreme bias of right wing media.

Emphasis is my own. Mark B could have used "rightist" here instead of "right wing" and it would mean the exact same thing.

I listen quite well, sadly mostly what I'm reading since my last post is meritless attacks.


Attacking someone for differing beliefs is fundamentally wrong. Having a discussion to understand why people believe what they do is much more productive. That requires engagement, not derision.

[Waggs098]

Originally Posted by Chicks

It's really quite simple. Anything within the green box here, at least on the news side.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

For the best opinions, the (honest) right-leaning pundits are generally better than left-leaning. George F Will (who left Faux "News" in disgust), Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot at WaPo, David Brooks at the NYT. The Atlantic Magazine is run by a former GW Bush speechwriter, IIRC. All good, honest pundits. WSJ's opinion side is a mess, and has been repeatedly called out by its very accurate news side, but still a cesspool, sadly. It IS owned by the same despot family that owns Faux "News", after all.

Slightly to the left, historian Heather Cox Richardson is one of the best informed, best written pundits around. She does what she does without compensation, for the love of democracy.

You won't find ANY honest opinion at Faux, Breitbart, etc, and YooToob is a cesspool of mostly nonsense trolling for hit$.

Why do you believe that the "adfontesmedia" site is the go to for reliable news outlets?