Post AlS1LtQPiWo4uUeBLU by interfluidity@zirk.us
(DIR) More posts by interfluidity@zirk.us
(DIR) Post #AlS1LtQPiWo4uUeBLU by interfluidity@zirk.us
2024-08-29T06:38:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
journalistic organization are vulnerable, risk-averse, profit-seeking corporations.as long as there’s a roughly 50% chance a Trump Administration controls the regulators, controls DOJ, has a sympathetic Court, there will be a lot of coverage that in retrospect could demonstrate “fairness” where fairness means nothing more or less than sympathetic coverage of Donald Trump.media orgs are “triangulating”.coverage will become less sympathetic and more accurate only if/when he’s clearly losing.
(DIR) Post #AlS2Me7qBaujhesn6O by laprice@beige.party
2024-08-29T06:49:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity it's somewhat disturbing that our fourth estate is so craven.
(DIR) Post #AlS5xf2y1TmF8bwdfs by _dm@infosec.exchange
2024-08-29T07:30:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity Is that really what you think is going on?I think a simpler explanation--one that presumes that newsroom independence is a real thing--is simply that serious journalists have a bias toward performative "fairness", which itself entails giving lunatic statements the most favorable possible interpretation.
(DIR) Post #AlSV72JTO28el0ETaa by interfluidity@zirk.us
2024-08-29T12:12:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm I really do think so. If the polling breaks hard towards Kamala, we’ll have something of a test to distinguish the hypotheses.
(DIR) Post #AlSXXxYDOshFiM5s92 by _dm@infosec.exchange
2024-08-29T12:39:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity Yep, agreed.I do think your hypothesis assumes newsrooms are mostly not independent, though, right? If you buy that, then shouldn't we expect that, say, NPR's coverage of their sponsors is overly favorable? Like, there are a lot more direct examples of subjects-of-stories-who-could-influence-the-business than this most-visible one, and I'd expect the bias to play out more in those cases outside of the spotlight.
(DIR) Post #AlSZPT8IoFVIxz3J5c by interfluidity@zirk.us
2024-08-29T13:00:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm I don’t think it’s so binary, independent vs not. I think newsrooms do strive for independence, but imperfectly. sponsorship does color a general procorporate slant, I think. They are better about guarding against bias towards particular advertisers, because frankly they have a diversity of potential advertisers, so they can afford it. They can’t diversify across political regime though, re both risk of harrassment and to access, so that does color coverage.
(DIR) Post #AlSZxI12eIhGKimcPQ by _dm@infosec.exchange
2024-08-29T13:06:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I agree with you there, but then it feels like we are converging in our arguments. It's not necessarily "be friendly to Trump in case he wins", but, "we have to conspicuously appear to be 'independent'", which in practice means laundering extreme views as being within the mainstream.
(DIR) Post #AlSacMAI7wst4ggxIe by interfluidity@zirk.us
2024-08-29T13:13:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm I guess where appearing to be independent requires defying standards of accuracy and clarity that a news organization should and otherwise would sustain, I think “be friendly”, is a fairer description. It’s not just pushing the edge of an Overton Window, choosing to take seriously ideological perspectives that might previously have been out of bounds. I think if you look at, say, the New York Times, you’ll find they are really stretching standards in the name of “fairness”.
(DIR) Post #AlSb36ZoC0RyXxNkGG by _dm@infosec.exchange
2024-08-29T13:18:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I'm nor sure I understand the distinction. To me, the clearest description of what I subjectively perceive is your phrasing around the Overton Window: the publishers most committed to appearing unbiased assiduously try to interpret seriously statements that might otherwise be considered absurd or obviously offensive.I agree that this does audiences a disservice. But I don't think it's motivated by a desire to stay on Trump's good side in case he wins; that was the implication I was taking issue with. I think it is more to maintain the appearance of fairness and nonpartisanship.
(DIR) Post #AlSbYITdzqfUQtN89w by interfluidity@zirk.us
2024-08-29T13:24:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm Again, I think we’ll have something of a test if Trump craters in the polls. If it’s about an appearance of independence, their weird stretches towards legitimating Trumpish ideas and not holding him to ordinary standards of scrutiny will continue. If it’s about hedging their bets against a possible new political environment, and then likelihood of that environment collapses, we should see them suddenly raise their standards and call out the nonsequiturs, lies, and cruelty.
(DIR) Post #AlSbny9NL6061VMfVw by _dm@infosec.exchange
2024-08-29T13:27:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity Yes, agreed. And my bet is that they continue to treat him seriously even if his poll numbers plummet. Let's hope we have the chance to evaluate this natural experiment!
(DIR) Post #AlScckLGRBzrxz8c64 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2024-08-29T13:36:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_dm right back atcha, agreed!
(DIR) Post #AlSg2paTrE4fcuNvqy by phillmv@hachyderm.io
2024-08-29T14:14:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @_dm i think Steve’s point IS the simpler explanation. leading up to biden’s abdication we saw this triangulation all over the place - companies turning against “DEI” comes to mind