Any analysis of media based on symmetrical terms like partisanship (and even populism) is bound to fail. The question isn't one of left or right "bias". The divide is between truth and lies. Republicans want to hear lies and not to have their noses rubbed in the truth, on elections, climate change, vaccination and just about any issue you care to name.
The attempts by media organizations to retain a Republican audience mean that they can never report the truth without wrapping it in euphemisms and obfuscation. The only outlet that made a serious attempt to present centre-right views on policy issues while telling the truth about Trump was the Weekly Standard, and look what happened to them,
Interesting discussion. After listening to this I was reading some of the coverage surrounding the NPR senior editor's criticism of NPR. It is more or less the same story we have heard across a lot of newsrooms post 2020. I think a lot of Berlingers criticism are valid. NPR does suffer from a lack view point diversity and as result its coverage is a bit too lop sided. So much of this though I think is the result right news becoming so unhinged from reality. Trying create balanced coverage while also striving for accuracy inevitably come in conflict. And it is incredibly frustrating that right media is all but immune from such internal critiques (i think shikha made that point in this conversation).
I am starting to think more and more that there is honestly little reporters themselves can do to combat this institutional distrust. I think a lot of the responsibility falls on the news consumers. The best thing reporters can do is to stay honest in their reporting and not fall into the trap of just saying what their audience want to hear. Eventually those who spouting lies will lose public trust because you can fall on your face so many times. I think media literacy is becoming more of responsibility for everyone.
Hah. This just caught my eye because I never closed the page on my iPad ….so I should like an answer. What kind of man talks smack to and about another man’s comments, then tries to block the person who Harley “Griff” just attacked. Again, respectfully, what kinda man are you are you…speaking of the death of adversarial comments, not that you get the irony, because one does not agree with you Harley “Griff” Lofton.
No Populism, to Witt, what The Unpopulist podcast would have been more honest and right in referring to Trumpism, is not going to be the end of an adversarial media, and more then The Don, if, God help U.S. is reelected will lead to the fourth Reich…as this broadcast, trigger warning, exemplifies Matt’s being what he says he is “slow, boring”, and could not be more demonstrative that one that proudly calls himself “liberal”, open minded is tolerant of other people’s views so long his adversary agrees…with him. Matt is as partisan a hack as any I have ever opened and perked up my big ears too…from that frrrr Carlson, to the profoundly disappointing Bret Weinstein…
It should be noted that when Matt rightly mocks The Don for being the lockdown, turned anti lockdown President [by popular ice road trucker demands caravan’s protests😇🤪]…the partisan hack has absolutely, positively no lament about how insane, destructive and downright BIG LIE of the efficacy of the vaccine, school closures, six feet under, I mean distancing, fresh air, I mean fing masks…but one does not want to go on and on about what Bret Weinstein got RIGHT, but what Yglesias, if he were not a died in the wool leftists partisan hack…he would have ranted and rolled for the entire hour not on the nonsense of the coming death of adversarial media (ever hear of the Internets Shaka…Berny🥶)…Matt would have lamented about our doddering dolts criminally stupid, draconian measures he inherited and doubled down on for two fing years…not to mention the crazy lady one heartbeat from the presidency who makes Veep look like it is based on a true story. The Death of Truth, or more accurately, left of center, factually inaccurate, pseudo intellectual, rigorously partisan hacks like slow boring mainstream media is will beget another Trump presidency. Gotta run on Thanks for taking my rant The UnPopulist, for now. Peace through superior mental firepower
An interesting discussion, but I was a little surprised at one omission. It talks constantly about the polarization in the media, and the bad effect on media on both sides: Matt says "there has not been a market niche for, I would say, ideologically rigorous, factual, right-of-center media content". But it does not mention the one successful newspaper on the conservative side which does fill that niche, namely The Wall Street Journal.
The WSJ is obviously more business-oriented than the average newspaper (and Matt does refer to specialist business papers like Bloomberg as occupying a sober niche in the market), but, unlike Bloomberg (or Barrons or Market Watch or whatever) it has extensive general news coverage which goes way beyond business interests - and, at least on my reading, it presents that news without any obvious ideological slant, even when it cuts against the paper's editorial line. The editorial line is hard-right, but in an old-fashioned pre-Trump manner, and it is certainly prepared to challenge the populist right when it wants to. Among its regular columnists are some Trumpians, like Holman Jenkins and Kimberley Strassel, but also old-style conservatives who regularly criticize Trump and his supporters, like Peggy Noonan and Karl Rove, and also even a handful of more liberal writers, like William Galston.
And the most important thing is that it's a successful model - it is, as I understand it, one of the few newspapers still surviving which turns a solid and consistent profit rather than needing subsidy.
I would have been interested to hear whether Matt and Shikha and Berny share this perception - and if so, to understand from them how they think that the WSJ has managed to maintain this approach in so politically polarized an environment, and whether that is replicable elsewhere in the media (could one, for example, imagine a newspaper with disproportionate sports or arts coverage but which still has a strong news division which takes a factual non-polarized line?). As it is, failing to mention it seems an obvious gap in the argument.
I buy what you are selling, I.e., of course the WSJ, not to mention Commentary, National Review and my newly beloved, devoutly anti Trumpism spin off The Dispatch are one of many intellectually rigorous, factual…right of center publications….but, to Witt, the reason none even get tacit acknowledgment by Yglesias is because….not to go on a rant here, for comment whose sentiments I mostly share and deserve no disrespect …Matt’s die hard, so called “liberal” (I would black label him a leftist, or more cynically, a “prooogressive”) worldview is deeply disingenuous to his very deeply smug, self righteous core…or to put it another way, the aforementioned, unmentioned publications get not even honorable mention because anyone that does not agree with his “vox” pop pew lie, I mean voice, are, by definition, far from “factual”. Sorry for the rant, I just prefer clarity to agreement…gotta run on ✌️be with you
"I just prefer clarity..." says a commenter writing some of the most obtuse prose on the "internets."
"Being hard to understand is not the same as being intellectually advanced, despite the (understandable) proclivity to conflate them. The opposite, on many occasions, is actually true: obfuscation does not reveal a higher level of skill and intelligence but a higher level of rhetoric. Explaining the complex as clearly and concisely as possible in writing is (or should be) what is impressive. Being able to explain an idea in several ways for several audiences evinces a better understanding of that idea than writing that appeals to the smallest audience, namely, writing that seeks to impress through its inaccessibility, ambiguity, and shiny jargon. Good ideas should sit in as many minds as possible, not in ivory towers. As the French philosopher Henri Bergson stated, “There is no philosophical idea, however deep or subtle, that cannot and should not be expressed in everyone’s language.'" Hipster Intellectualism: When the Obscure Feeds the Ego, Sam Woolfe
To Witt, obfuscation, like b.s., is a definite form of lying. Unlike the current doddering dolt P.O.T.U.S., or his “predecessor” (the air quote's are for you Griff), I do not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those that do. Please make a note of it for you would never get away with speaking to me in such a manner in my physical presence….just as I can take what I dish, whether you get my sense of humor…or not. Love how you feel the need to mention “French”, as if that is relevant to your broadside boasts. Like your fellow Angelino likes to say, first tell the truth, then give your opinion. Gotta run on…I be lie ve (stole that from ZOO TV) my ego bubble has burst, humble man that you are…or are not. Next time just try to respond to something I actually said that was not so clear to you as to Witt. 🍺✌️
High Harley (I kid….I KIDD!). Thanks for your comment on my admittedly ramblin man comments (To Wiit, I would be the first to admit, I need an editor….but not to obscure with my pop subculture references “Me, Myself and I” “ Don’t got time for that”). Leave aside even you got everything I was sayin to David 44( I presume his is outing himself, I mean it is his age🤪). I welcome any and all pushback, and when having enough time…will respond to each and every point by a detractor, let alone hopefully, an honest interlocutor (which, Yglesias, being the reason for being of this subterranean dialogue on the “Internets”…for f sake did you NOT get that play on words to Shaka Khan, I mean Shikha Dalmia, as I so disagree with the hysteria moon bat lunacy revolving around planet Trumpism in the podcast interview in the first place). Just to be clear, I would advise that this episode is not even worth listening on double time, as it merely broached the subject as it provided no evidence of its dark foreboding subject (I was really hoping you, Griff, would have actually had something substanitive to say about my beliefs, but if you just want to impress yourself on his witty you can make fun of me, have at it, I know a guy that pleads guilty to that…but I do it while responding to actual things you said…as I digress further into what I call stream of unconsciousness, as I can relate to a certain character in the sound and the fury (van damn, do I need to capitalize the books name for you).
Oh, wait, this here admitted ramblin man is doing just what I call me….(hence the periods, not an editor, as I ain’t got time for that)
Having read Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals” many moons ago, I already no…I mean KNOW ( I can be hard to understand) as I am literally writing off the top of my head while responding in type to things I just listened to….in this particular case….a definite NOT WORTH YOUR TIME (hat tip Sarah Isgur) episode of The UnPopulist ( boy do I know da feelin). So, let me be clear, as it is a matter of fact…when one self proclaims to be “logical”, it does not make you so Harley (Can I call your Griff….wait, wait…don’t tell me, I forgot the “apostrophe's”). Don’t mean to spit on you from this here ivory tower, as I would happily do so in Yglesias face, proverbial speaking, as I would happily verbally rape him, for Matt’s being nothing but a two bit partisan hack and liar by commission and omission…like when, being one of only two times in the entire episode he made my Obama like big ears perk up like Spock’s…Yglesias railed against Trump but he did not derail, I mean lament, about one certain doddering old dolt doubling down on the exactly same as it was very destructive domestic policy. Trumpism begot Biden ( but that’s a whole other big subject as I …)….Gotta run on. (Get the self deprecating humor Griff…I know you are a lot older than me…so your lament about growing up in fear of a potential nuclear winter was brought to you by the same type of hysterics that committed to the lockdowns and now preach we the people of the United States are on the verge of losing our Democracy if a certain GOP Crasher, formerly the world’s biggest Twitter troll and Americas Now Biggest Sore Loser gets reelected)…van dammit….didn’t I just say I gotta run on
To Witt, I endeavor to make you think a second time, and even better, make you laugh. And to Witt, sometimes I can not help but think (🤪) if I fail at both, it is on my detractor. Peace through superior mental firepower
You have now written several hundred words in the comments of this post alone, and hardly a single sentence is coherent. Please stop spamming this section with these absurd ramblings.
I am merely responding to Griff. I don’t like spam either. But if you want to her some absurd rambling’s… just listen to an UnPopulist podcast with Matt Yglesias….and the even more absurd topic, to Witt, you and he had hardly anything substantial, or true, to say. Sorry you get my responses in the first place Berny…But one would hope you value adversarial comments on your cite, much as you cannot comprehend one's posts. Gotta run Thanks for taking my rant. You asked for it. ✌️🍺
Any analysis of media based on symmetrical terms like partisanship (and even populism) is bound to fail. The question isn't one of left or right "bias". The divide is between truth and lies. Republicans want to hear lies and not to have their noses rubbed in the truth, on elections, climate change, vaccination and just about any issue you care to name.
The attempts by media organizations to retain a Republican audience mean that they can never report the truth without wrapping it in euphemisms and obfuscation. The only outlet that made a serious attempt to present centre-right views on policy issues while telling the truth about Trump was the Weekly Standard, and look what happened to them,
Interesting discussion. After listening to this I was reading some of the coverage surrounding the NPR senior editor's criticism of NPR. It is more or less the same story we have heard across a lot of newsrooms post 2020. I think a lot of Berlingers criticism are valid. NPR does suffer from a lack view point diversity and as result its coverage is a bit too lop sided. So much of this though I think is the result right news becoming so unhinged from reality. Trying create balanced coverage while also striving for accuracy inevitably come in conflict. And it is incredibly frustrating that right media is all but immune from such internal critiques (i think shikha made that point in this conversation).
I am starting to think more and more that there is honestly little reporters themselves can do to combat this institutional distrust. I think a lot of the responsibility falls on the news consumers. The best thing reporters can do is to stay honest in their reporting and not fall into the trap of just saying what their audience want to hear. Eventually those who spouting lies will lose public trust because you can fall on your face so many times. I think media literacy is becoming more of responsibility for everyone.
Just wondering why my muting/blocking function doesn't seem to work.
Hah. This just caught my eye because I never closed the page on my iPad ….so I should like an answer. What kind of man talks smack to and about another man’s comments, then tries to block the person who Harley “Griff” just attacked. Again, respectfully, what kinda man are you are you…speaking of the death of adversarial comments, not that you get the irony, because one does not agree with you Harley “Griff” Lofton.
Gotta run on.
No Populism, to Witt, what The Unpopulist podcast would have been more honest and right in referring to Trumpism, is not going to be the end of an adversarial media, and more then The Don, if, God help U.S. is reelected will lead to the fourth Reich…as this broadcast, trigger warning, exemplifies Matt’s being what he says he is “slow, boring”, and could not be more demonstrative that one that proudly calls himself “liberal”, open minded is tolerant of other people’s views so long his adversary agrees…with him. Matt is as partisan a hack as any I have ever opened and perked up my big ears too…from that frrrr Carlson, to the profoundly disappointing Bret Weinstein…
It should be noted that when Matt rightly mocks The Don for being the lockdown, turned anti lockdown President [by popular ice road trucker demands caravan’s protests😇🤪]…the partisan hack has absolutely, positively no lament about how insane, destructive and downright BIG LIE of the efficacy of the vaccine, school closures, six feet under, I mean distancing, fresh air, I mean fing masks…but one does not want to go on and on about what Bret Weinstein got RIGHT, but what Yglesias, if he were not a died in the wool leftists partisan hack…he would have ranted and rolled for the entire hour not on the nonsense of the coming death of adversarial media (ever hear of the Internets Shaka…Berny🥶)…Matt would have lamented about our doddering dolts criminally stupid, draconian measures he inherited and doubled down on for two fing years…not to mention the crazy lady one heartbeat from the presidency who makes Veep look like it is based on a true story. The Death of Truth, or more accurately, left of center, factually inaccurate, pseudo intellectual, rigorously partisan hacks like slow boring mainstream media is will beget another Trump presidency. Gotta run on Thanks for taking my rant The UnPopulist, for now. Peace through superior mental firepower
Yes. Yes it does. Check all other "populist" regimes.
An interesting discussion, but I was a little surprised at one omission. It talks constantly about the polarization in the media, and the bad effect on media on both sides: Matt says "there has not been a market niche for, I would say, ideologically rigorous, factual, right-of-center media content". But it does not mention the one successful newspaper on the conservative side which does fill that niche, namely The Wall Street Journal.
The WSJ is obviously more business-oriented than the average newspaper (and Matt does refer to specialist business papers like Bloomberg as occupying a sober niche in the market), but, unlike Bloomberg (or Barrons or Market Watch or whatever) it has extensive general news coverage which goes way beyond business interests - and, at least on my reading, it presents that news without any obvious ideological slant, even when it cuts against the paper's editorial line. The editorial line is hard-right, but in an old-fashioned pre-Trump manner, and it is certainly prepared to challenge the populist right when it wants to. Among its regular columnists are some Trumpians, like Holman Jenkins and Kimberley Strassel, but also old-style conservatives who regularly criticize Trump and his supporters, like Peggy Noonan and Karl Rove, and also even a handful of more liberal writers, like William Galston.
And the most important thing is that it's a successful model - it is, as I understand it, one of the few newspapers still surviving which turns a solid and consistent profit rather than needing subsidy.
I would have been interested to hear whether Matt and Shikha and Berny share this perception - and if so, to understand from them how they think that the WSJ has managed to maintain this approach in so politically polarized an environment, and whether that is replicable elsewhere in the media (could one, for example, imagine a newspaper with disproportionate sports or arts coverage but which still has a strong news division which takes a factual non-polarized line?). As it is, failing to mention it seems an obvious gap in the argument.
I buy what you are selling, I.e., of course the WSJ, not to mention Commentary, National Review and my newly beloved, devoutly anti Trumpism spin off The Dispatch are one of many intellectually rigorous, factual…right of center publications….but, to Witt, the reason none even get tacit acknowledgment by Yglesias is because….not to go on a rant here, for comment whose sentiments I mostly share and deserve no disrespect …Matt’s die hard, so called “liberal” (I would black label him a leftist, or more cynically, a “prooogressive”) worldview is deeply disingenuous to his very deeply smug, self righteous core…or to put it another way, the aforementioned, unmentioned publications get not even honorable mention because anyone that does not agree with his “vox” pop pew lie, I mean voice, are, by definition, far from “factual”. Sorry for the rant, I just prefer clarity to agreement…gotta run on ✌️be with you
"I just prefer clarity..." says a commenter writing some of the most obtuse prose on the "internets."
"Being hard to understand is not the same as being intellectually advanced, despite the (understandable) proclivity to conflate them. The opposite, on many occasions, is actually true: obfuscation does not reveal a higher level of skill and intelligence but a higher level of rhetoric. Explaining the complex as clearly and concisely as possible in writing is (or should be) what is impressive. Being able to explain an idea in several ways for several audiences evinces a better understanding of that idea than writing that appeals to the smallest audience, namely, writing that seeks to impress through its inaccessibility, ambiguity, and shiny jargon. Good ideas should sit in as many minds as possible, not in ivory towers. As the French philosopher Henri Bergson stated, “There is no philosophical idea, however deep or subtle, that cannot and should not be expressed in everyone’s language.'" Hipster Intellectualism: When the Obscure Feeds the Ego, Sam Woolfe
To Witt, obfuscation, like b.s., is a definite form of lying. Unlike the current doddering dolt P.O.T.U.S., or his “predecessor” (the air quote's are for you Griff), I do not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those that do. Please make a note of it for you would never get away with speaking to me in such a manner in my physical presence….just as I can take what I dish, whether you get my sense of humor…or not. Love how you feel the need to mention “French”, as if that is relevant to your broadside boasts. Like your fellow Angelino likes to say, first tell the truth, then give your opinion. Gotta run on…I be lie ve (stole that from ZOO TV) my ego bubble has burst, humble man that you are…or are not. Next time just try to respond to something I actually said that was not so clear to you as to Witt. 🍺✌️
High Harley (I kid….I KIDD!). Thanks for your comment on my admittedly ramblin man comments (To Wiit, I would be the first to admit, I need an editor….but not to obscure with my pop subculture references “Me, Myself and I” “ Don’t got time for that”). Leave aside even you got everything I was sayin to David 44( I presume his is outing himself, I mean it is his age🤪). I welcome any and all pushback, and when having enough time…will respond to each and every point by a detractor, let alone hopefully, an honest interlocutor (which, Yglesias, being the reason for being of this subterranean dialogue on the “Internets”…for f sake did you NOT get that play on words to Shaka Khan, I mean Shikha Dalmia, as I so disagree with the hysteria moon bat lunacy revolving around planet Trumpism in the podcast interview in the first place). Just to be clear, I would advise that this episode is not even worth listening on double time, as it merely broached the subject as it provided no evidence of its dark foreboding subject (I was really hoping you, Griff, would have actually had something substanitive to say about my beliefs, but if you just want to impress yourself on his witty you can make fun of me, have at it, I know a guy that pleads guilty to that…but I do it while responding to actual things you said…as I digress further into what I call stream of unconsciousness, as I can relate to a certain character in the sound and the fury (van damn, do I need to capitalize the books name for you).
Oh, wait, this here admitted ramblin man is doing just what I call me….(hence the periods, not an editor, as I ain’t got time for that)
Having read Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals” many moons ago, I already no…I mean KNOW ( I can be hard to understand) as I am literally writing off the top of my head while responding in type to things I just listened to….in this particular case….a definite NOT WORTH YOUR TIME (hat tip Sarah Isgur) episode of The UnPopulist ( boy do I know da feelin). So, let me be clear, as it is a matter of fact…when one self proclaims to be “logical”, it does not make you so Harley (Can I call your Griff….wait, wait…don’t tell me, I forgot the “apostrophe's”). Don’t mean to spit on you from this here ivory tower, as I would happily do so in Yglesias face, proverbial speaking, as I would happily verbally rape him, for Matt’s being nothing but a two bit partisan hack and liar by commission and omission…like when, being one of only two times in the entire episode he made my Obama like big ears perk up like Spock’s…Yglesias railed against Trump but he did not derail, I mean lament, about one certain doddering old dolt doubling down on the exactly same as it was very destructive domestic policy. Trumpism begot Biden ( but that’s a whole other big subject as I …)….Gotta run on. (Get the self deprecating humor Griff…I know you are a lot older than me…so your lament about growing up in fear of a potential nuclear winter was brought to you by the same type of hysterics that committed to the lockdowns and now preach we the people of the United States are on the verge of losing our Democracy if a certain GOP Crasher, formerly the world’s biggest Twitter troll and Americas Now Biggest Sore Loser gets reelected)…van dammit….didn’t I just say I gotta run on
To Witt, I endeavor to make you think a second time, and even better, make you laugh. And to Witt, sometimes I can not help but think (🤪) if I fail at both, it is on my detractor. Peace through superior mental firepower
You have now written several hundred words in the comments of this post alone, and hardly a single sentence is coherent. Please stop spamming this section with these absurd ramblings.
I am merely responding to Griff. I don’t like spam either. But if you want to her some absurd rambling’s… just listen to an UnPopulist podcast with Matt Yglesias….and the even more absurd topic, to Witt, you and he had hardly anything substantial, or true, to say. Sorry you get my responses in the first place Berny…But one would hope you value adversarial comments on your cite, much as you cannot comprehend one's posts. Gotta run Thanks for taking my rant. You asked for it. ✌️🍺