|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 9, 2021 12:49:33 GMT
Apr. 5, 2021, at 6:00 AM Why Being ‘Anti-Media’ Is Now Part Of The GOP IdentityBy Meredith Conroy Filed under Republican Identity ANTI-MEDIA-4×3 There’s little question that the media is one of the least trusted institutions in Republican circles. In the past two decades, trust in traditional media has plummeted — especially among Republicans. According to polling from Gallup, since at least the late 1990s, Republicans have been less likely than Democrats (and independents) to say they trust the media. But starting in 2015, trust among Republicans took a nosedive, falling from 32 percent to 10 percent in 2020. (Meanwhile, among Democrats, trust in the media has actually climbed back up, and by quite a bit.) Recent Stories from FiveThirtyEight Is Soccer Wrong About Long Shots? Part of this is because Republicans are often more vocal in their criticism of the media and have long perceived it as having a liberal bias. But now they are also more likely to say that being “anti-media” is part of their political identity, and this is likely driving the staggering gap in media trust that we are seeing. An illustration with a collection of fake political buttons and poster that reads “Culture War” and “Socialism Sucks” related: How ‘Cancel Culture’ Became An Issue For Young Republicans Read more. » Let’s start with Republicans’ media habits. In our fractured media ecosystem, it’s not uncommon for both Republicans and Democrats to seek out news sources that reinforce their political beliefs. And as a new study finds, exposure to media that is partisan — whether liberal or conservative — reduces people’s overall trust in the mainstream press regardless of political party. But what sets Republicans apart at this point is their steady reliance on just one source for all their news: Fox News. In its study of the media landscape in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election cycle, the Pew Research Center found that of the 30 news sources it asked about, only Fox News was trusted by a majority of Republicans. (Republicans’ second-most-trusted source, ABC News,1 wasn’t even a close second: 33 percent said they trusted ABC News for political and election news compared with 65 percent who trusted Fox News.) This finding stands in stark contrast with the views of Democrats, who said they trusted a variety of news sources, and it marks a further decline in Republicans’ trust of other news sources since Pew last conducted a similar survey in 2014. This is in part because animosity toward the other party is at an all-time high and Republicans increasingly associate the news media with the Democratic Party. That means they are more likely to dismiss a source that isn’t Fox News (or One America News Network or Newsmax) as politically biased. For example, in a January YouGov/American Enterprise Institute poll among people who said they voted for then-President Trump in 2020, a staggering 92 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that “the mainstream media today is just a part of the Democratic Party.” This distrust, and Republicans’ growing animosity toward the media, is significant because they’re already isolated news consumers. And studies have shown that when news consumers exist in a media bubble, they can be hostile toward news that doesn’t match their political beliefs. (It also means they can be too trusting of their preferred news outlets.) Plus, as Jonathan Ladd, a Georgetown University public policy and government professor and the author of “Why Americans Hate the Media and How It Matters,” points out, Republicans are getting the message from Fox News (and the broader conservative media ecosystem) that the mainstream media can’t be trusted. “This isn’t new,” Ladd said, but he added that the conservative media’s continued criticism of the press has been “kicked into high gear” by the modern Republican Party. Take what happened in the Trump era. During both his campaign for the presidency and his four years in office, Trump openly attacked the media, calling journalists or news organizations critical of him or his administration “fake news.” Consequently, his supporters’ existing perceptions of media bias and distrust of news organizations intensified — this was especially true among his white supporters, who are more likely to consume exclusively conservative media. For instance, at many of Trump’s campaign events, his supporters would disparage, attack and threaten the press. And now, when Trump’s supporters disagree with a fact, they can decry it as “fake news” — whether it be crowd size or election results. Trump standing on stage in front of a CPAC logo at a podium with his hands out. Above him you can see the lights of the stage, and a sign that says “America Uncancelled” related: Why Attacking ‘Cancel Culture’ And ‘Woke’ People Is Becoming The GOP’s New Political Strategy Read more. » Hostility and distrust of the news media, in other words, has become a point of political identity among Republicans. We see this especially in how people talk about politics online. Take, for instance, a recent study of tweets mentioning “fake news.” Over the course of 15 months, study authors Jianing Li and Min-Hsin Su of the University of Wisconsin-Madison found an uptick in the number of tweets that used the words “we” or “our” and “they” or “their” in conjunction with the phrase “fake news.” Essentially, the researchers concluded that online discussions about “fake news” were a way for conservatives to create a sense of group belonging (“This is the worst kind of fake news possible. We have to stop this sort of thing”) while also establishing a shared enemy (“Fake News Media is a Hate Group. They hate President Trump”). The use of pronouns that signify group belonging (like “we”) and group opposition (like “they”) are useful on social media platforms, like Twitter, where users interact with strangers. Even though users might not know one another personally, they are still attempting to cultivate a community, which is certainly true of users who tweet about politics. Another study that looked at trust in news media, by University of California, Berkeley, political scientists Taeku Lee and Christian Hosam, found that this attitude, independent of partisanship, helped predict a number of political opinions, such as support for a pathway to citizenship and affirmative action. But arguably, what was more consequential is that over time (from 2016 to 2019), the role of media distrust in opinion formation shifted such that individuals who distrust the media more consistently consolidated around Trump. Essentially, that media distrust now operates “as a basis for Americans to sort themselves into political tribes,” according to Lee. And as their study suggests, “fake news” functions as a “shibboleth,” or a way for Trump supporters to distinguish themselves, ideologically, even from other Republicans. It is possible that “a new form of conservatism is likely brewing with media distrust being one of its biggest factors,” Hosam told me. So, why is being anti-media so central to the Republican identity? It’s not a coincidence that, against a backdrop of growing partisan animosity, Republicans’ distrust of the media is increasing as they grow more suspect that it leans Democratic. But it’s more than that, too. As Hosam explains, “what Trump does is connect that type of opposition to the media into a form of conservatism that just wasn’t around before.” And one byproduct of that is that media distrust is more central to conservatives’ group identity than it was before Trump. Or, as Lee put it, signaling media distrust is “much the same as wearing a red MAGA cap.” As a researcher, Hosam admits that this can make studying distrust of the media a complicated topic, since distrust has shifted from an attitude about the institution itself to a credential of conservatism. “Now it’s even more difficult to know what people are really getting at when they talk about the media … what media diets and trust in the media are truly telling us.” And for many Republicans, that might mean distrust of the media is better thought of as a way to understand the centrality of their partisanship to their identity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 9, 2021 13:19:59 GMT
It's easy to hate anything or anybody that can prove you wrong. Why stand shaken by the revelation that your core beliefs are based on half-truths and utter lies when you can double-down and blame "that socialist common core bullshit" for being shown the proof that 2+2=4. Conversely, you all know in your heart of hearts that if Trump had said, "2+2=4," theoretical physicists would have been paraded in front of the cameras to write an indecipherable equation on a white board that "proves" 2+2=3.99999999999999999999999... or just stated, "Even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while." ![[giveup]](//storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif) |
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 9, 2021 15:30:20 GMT
The Orange and his right-wing media worshipers are the best thing to happen to the MSM. Since so many allegedly independent media sources flock around the right-wing nutjobs with a few far left exceptions, sane people stick with the MSM and cast a wary eye upon indie news sources. Truly independent and unbiased media doesn't have much hope in this current era.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 10, 2021 0:07:47 GMT
The Orange and his right-wing media worshipers are the best thing to happen to the MSM. Since so many allegedly independent media sources flock around the right-wing nutjobs with a few far left exceptions, sane people stick with the MSM and cast a wary eye upon indie news sources. Truly independent and unbiased media doesn't have much hope in this current era. HuffPo and Salon spring to mind.
Unfortunately, too many of the MSM scribes simply rehash those same articles and barely try to tone down the rhetoric.
It's always about language choices.
A number of years back - on v1 - I posted a simple fact that should bother people: articles about climate change generally use 33% more "scary words" (death, kill, destruction, catastrophe, etc.) than articles about actual natural disasters and that just about all natural disaster articles will mention climate change... usually with a link to articles with more scary words. It's been a while. I might have to do that one again.
No matter how you feel about climate change, you just might have to admit that your perceptions are being - at least partly - guided by the media, for good or for ill. And the notion that perceptions are be guided rather than simple facts reported is exactly the reason why trust in the MSM has declined.
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 10, 2021 0:40:06 GMT
HuffPo and Salon spring to mind.
Unfortunately, too many of the MSM scribes simply rehash those same articles and barely try to tone down the rhetoric.
It's always about language choices.
A number of years back - on v1 - I posted a simple fact that should bother people: articles about climate change generally use 33% more "scary words" (death, kill, destruction, catastrophe, etc.) than articles about actual natural disasters and that just about all natural disaster articles will mention climate change... usually with a link to articles with more scary words. It's been a while. I might have to do that one again.
No matter how you feel about climate change, you just might have to admit that your perceptions are being - at least partly - guided by the media, for good or for ill. And the notion that perceptions are be guided rather than simple facts reported is exactly the reason why trust in the MSM has declined.
That's it exactly. Many of the threads I've started over the years were much more about the word choices, the agenda being pushed and what I consider to be the obvious bias.
And yet, rather than discuss that it was usually "Shoot the messenger!"  Maybe I need to work on my social skills? Learn how to lie better?
Climate change is yet another great example. NOBODY disagrees that the climate changes.........how or why exactly? and more importantly what can or should be done about it? But any skepticism or questioning is met with almost as much ferocity as the talk of covid.
On a funny side note, I never used to really pay much attention to the weather........ I always had to work no matter what. But lately I've noticed the local Weather Channel has 'Records on This Day' posted........ and it's somewhat surprising to me how often the warmest day they have in recorded history is so often in the early 1900s or sometimes even the late 1800s.
I'm olde enough to remember when Time magazine predicted the next Ice Age.......and then later the term was changed to the all encompassing 'climate change'....so no matter what happens, they're never wrong. But if global warming is the majority of the current threat?.......shouldn't I be seeing a lot more Record Days in the last decade or so at the least?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 10, 2021 10:47:29 GMT
HuffPo and Salon spring to mind.
Unfortunately, too many of the MSM scribes simply rehash those same articles and barely try to tone down the rhetoric.
It's always about language choices.
A number of years back - on v1 - I posted a simple fact that should bother people: articles about climate change generally use 33% more "scary words" (death, kill, destruction, catastrophe, etc.) than articles about actual natural disasters and that just about all natural disaster articles will mention climate change... usually with a link to articles with more scary words. It's been a while. I might have to do that one again.
No matter how you feel about climate change, you just might have to admit that your perceptions are being - at least partly - guided by the media, for good or for ill. And the notion that perceptions are be guided rather than simple facts reported is exactly the reason why trust in the MSM has declined.
That's it exactly. Many of the threads I've started over the years were much more about the word choices, the agenda being pushed and what I consider to be the obvious bias.
And yet, rather than discuss that it was usually "Shoot the messenger!" Maybe I need to work on my social skills? Learn how to lie better?
Climate change is yet another great example. NOBODY disagrees that the climate changes.........how or why exactly? and more importantly what can or should be done about it? But any skepticism or questioning is met with almost as much ferocity as the talk of covid.
On a funny side note, I never used to really pay much attention to the weather........ I always had to work no matter what. But lately I've noticed the local Weather Channel has 'Records on This Day' posted........ and it's somewhat surprising to me how often the warmest day they have in recorded history is so often in the early 1900s or sometimes even the late 1800s.
I'm olde enough to remember when Time magazine predicted the next Ice Age.......and then later the term was changed to the all encompassing 'climate change'....so no matter what happens, they're never wrong. But if global warming is the majority of the current threat?.......shouldn't I be seeing a lot more Record Days in the last decade or so at the least?
No outliers allowed!
That's what bothers me about most issues: what I'm not hearing about because the prosecutors don't want the specter of reasonable doubt creeping into the courtroom of public opinion.
|
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 10, 2021 10:54:06 GMT
The Orange and his right-wing media worshipers are the best thing to happen to the MSM. Since so many allegedly independent media sources flock around the right-wing nutjobs with a few far left exceptions, sane people stick with the MSM and cast a wary eye upon indie news sources. Truly independent and unbiased media doesn't have much hope in this current era. HuffPo and Salon spring to mind.
Unfortunately, too many of the MSM scribes simply rehash those same articles and barely try to tone down the rhetoric.
It's always about language choices.
A number of years back - on v1 - I posted a simple fact that should bother people: articles about climate change generally use 33% more "scary words" (death, kill, destruction, catastrophe, etc.) than articles about actual natural disasters and that just about all natural disaster articles will mention climate change... usually with a link to articles with more scary words. It's been a while. I might have to do that one again.
No matter how you feel about climate change, you just might have to admit that your perceptions are being - at least partly - guided by the media, for good or for ill. And the notion that perceptions are be guided rather than simple facts reported is exactly the reason why trust in the MSM has declined.
Climate change is a poor example. The MSM notoriously ignores it, only giving it lip service every now and then. Moderates will continue sticking with the MSM unless they have another massive blunder that eclipses the WMDs in Iraq fiasco, something that unlike that, actually effects people's lives. Even then, they will be cautious about choosing indie media because of indie media's extremist reputation. |
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 10, 2021 11:01:40 GMT
HuffPo and Salon spring to mind.
Unfortunately, too many of the MSM scribes simply rehash those same articles and barely try to tone down the rhetoric.
It's always about language choices.
A number of years back - on v1 - I posted a simple fact that should bother people: articles about climate change generally use 33% more "scary words" (death, kill, destruction, catastrophe, etc.) than articles about actual natural disasters and that just about all natural disaster articles will mention climate change... usually with a link to articles with more scary words. It's been a while. I might have to do that one again.
No matter how you feel about climate change, you just might have to admit that your perceptions are being - at least partly - guided by the media, for good or for ill. And the notion that perceptions are be guided rather than simple facts reported is exactly the reason why trust in the MSM has declined.
That's it exactly. Many of the threads I've started over the years were much more about the word choices, the agenda being pushed and what I consider to be the obvious bias.
And yet, rather than discuss that it was usually "Shoot the messenger!" Maybe I need to work on my social skills? Learn how to lie better?
Climate change is yet another great example. NOBODY disagrees that the climate changes.........how or why exactly? and more importantly what can or should be done about it? But any skepticism or questioning is met with almost as much ferocity as the talk of covid.
On a funny side note, I never used to really pay much attention to the weather........ I always had to work no matter what. But lately I've noticed the local Weather Channel has 'Records on This Day' posted........ and it's somewhat surprising to me how often the warmest day they have in recorded history is so often in the early 1900s or sometimes even the late 1800s.
I'm olde enough to remember when Time magazine predicted the next Ice Age.......and then later the term was changed to the all encompassing 'climate change'....so no matter what happens, they're never wrong. But if global warming is the majority of the current threat?.......shouldn't I be seeing a lot more Record Days in the last decade or so at the least?
Word choice is not a hangup most people have, hence the ridicule. The records in your area may be from a century ago, but they sure as heck aren't here. Our hottest temps are all from the last few years, plus we went nearly a year without a drop of rain. Other areas are colder and wetter than they are "supposed" to be. And no, the existence of winter does not mean climate change isn't happening. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 10, 2021 22:19:44 GMT
Word choice is not a hangup most people have, hence the ridicule. The records in your area may be from a century ago, but they sure as heck aren't here. Our hottest temps are all from the last few years, plus we went nearly a year without a drop of rain. Other areas are colder and wetter than they are "supposed" to be. And no, the existence of winter does not mean climate change isn't happening.
Those were all valid points.......... til you jumped the shark at the end there
Now ask if I don't believe in roads, too
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 11, 2021 0:46:27 GMT
HuffPo and Salon spring to mind.
Unfortunately, too many of the MSM scribes simply rehash those same articles and barely try to tone down the rhetoric.
It's always about language choices.
A number of years back - on v1 - I posted a simple fact that should bother people: articles about climate change generally use 33% more "scary words" (death, kill, destruction, catastrophe, etc.) than articles about actual natural disasters and that just about all natural disaster articles will mention climate change... usually with a link to articles with more scary words. It's been a while. I might have to do that one again.
No matter how you feel about climate change, you just might have to admit that your perceptions are being - at least partly - guided by the media, for good or for ill. And the notion that perceptions are be guided rather than simple facts reported is exactly the reason why trust in the MSM has declined.
Climate change is a poor example. The MSM notoriously ignores it, only giving it lip service every now and then. Moderates will continue sticking with the MSM unless they have another massive blunder that eclipses the WMDs in Iraq fiasco, something that unlike that, actually effects people's lives. Even then, they will be cautious about choosing indie media because of indie media's extremist reputation. Would you rather discuss the word choices in articles concerning race relations? |
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 11, 2021 17:06:21 GMT
Word choice is not a hangup most people have, hence the ridicule. The records in your area may be from a century ago, but they sure as heck aren't here. Our hottest temps are all from the last few years, plus we went nearly a year without a drop of rain. Other areas are colder and wetter than they are "supposed" to be. And no, the existence of winter does not mean climate change isn't happening.
Those were all valid points.......... til you jumped the shark at the end there
Now ask if I don't believe in roads, too
This smells like a trap. |
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 11, 2021 17:08:09 GMT
Climate change is a poor example. The MSM notoriously ignores it, only giving it lip service every now and then. Moderates will continue sticking with the MSM unless they have another massive blunder that eclipses the WMDs in Iraq fiasco, something that unlike that, actually effects people's lives. Even then, they will be cautious about choosing indie media because of indie media's extremist reputation. Would you rather discuss the word choices in articles concerning race relations? Honestly, the only articles in which I pay attention to the word choice are ones which contain spoilers for movies and stuff I want to see/read. I'd wager most people are similar, paying attention to spoilers and gossip and the like. Only people looking to get angry at the "other side" pay attention to such wordings in political articles. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 12, 2021 2:20:05 GMT
Would you rather discuss the word choices in articles concerning race relations? Honestly, the only articles in which I pay attention to the word choice are ones which contain spoilers for movies and stuff I want to see/read. I'd wager most people are similar, paying attention to spoilers and gossip and the like. Only people looking to get angry at the "other side" pay attention to such wordings in political articles. From the looks of things on social media and the comments sections of news articles, I'd say your "most" would have to include people with no access to the internet to be valid. 
As for the people getting angry, I'd also include those without a "side" as they are the ones watching the denouement of civilization with open eyes.
|
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 12, 2021 3:44:21 GMT
Honestly, the only articles in which I pay attention to the word choice are ones which contain spoilers for movies and stuff I want to see/read. I'd wager most people are similar, paying attention to spoilers and gossip and the like. Only people looking to get angry at the "other side" pay attention to such wordings in political articles. From the looks of things on social media and the comments sections of news articles, I'd say your "most" would have to include people with no access to the internet to be valid.
As for the people getting angry, I'd also include those without a "side" as they are the ones watching the denouement of civilization with open eyes.
People without internet access, and/or who have internet and no interest in social media or news articles. And I'd bet many of these are the same people commenting all over the place. The people watching the denouement of civilization must be looking far into the future, because civilization ain't going anywhere for a very long time. Maybe too long. |
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 12, 2021 4:06:00 GMT
From the looks of things on social media and the comments sections of news articles, I'd say your "most" would have to include people with no access to the internet to be valid.
As for the people getting angry, I'd also include those without a "side" as they are the ones watching the denouement of civilization with open eyes.
People without internet access, and/or who have internet and no interest in social media or news articles. And I'd bet many of these are the same people commenting all over the place. The people watching the denouement of civilization must be looking far into the future, because civilization ain't going anywhere for a very long time. Maybe too long. I think you and I have very different concepts about what makes "civilization."
But that's OK. One of us will eventually get their comeuppance. I hope it's me, but I fear that it will be you.
|
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 12, 2021 15:14:52 GMT
People without internet access, and/or who have internet and no interest in social media or news articles. And I'd bet many of these are the same people commenting all over the place. The people watching the denouement of civilization must be looking far into the future, because civilization ain't going anywhere for a very long time. Maybe too long. I think you and I have very different concepts about what makes "civilization."
But that's OK. One of us will eventually get their comeuppance. I hope it's me, but I fear that it will be you.
Civilization is just a bunch of people living in somewhat close proximity to one another. At least, that's what I learned. |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 13, 2021 3:17:53 GMT
I think you and I have very different concepts about what makes "civilization."
But that's OK. One of us will eventually get their comeuppance. I hope it's me, but I fear that it will be you.
Civilization is just a bunch of people living in somewhat close proximity to one another. At least, that's what I learned.
When drinking tea.......... do you remember to extend your pinky?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prometheus on Apr 13, 2021 3:32:48 GMT
I think you and I have very different concepts about what makes "civilization."
But that's OK. One of us will eventually get their comeuppance. I hope it's me, but I fear that it will be you.
Civilization is just a bunch of people living in somewhat close proximity to one another. At least, that's what I learned. Public school?
That's just Dictionary.com. While you might be able to offer an argument about "science and industry" reaching a "high level," I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the same argument for "culture"... unless you have a very low bar for what "high" means. As for government... the people get what they are willing to put up with or they change it. You want to count all the revolutions, civil wars, or "internal struggles" around the world from the past 300 years? 200? Last week?
Maybe you'd like to talk chickens and eggs substituting "culture" and "government"?
Just look at "cancel culture." It's little more than intellectual fascism: "Think and act as we do or it's off to the ghetto with you!"
Do you think that is advancing civilization in any way?
|
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 13, 2021 4:09:53 GMT
As for government... the people get what they are willing to put up with or they change it. You want to count all the revolutions, civil wars, or "internal struggles" around the world from the past 300 years? 200? Last week?
Maybe you'd like to talk chickens and eggs substituting "culture" and "government"?
Just look at "cancel culture." It's little more than intellectual fascism: "Think and act as we do or it's off to the ghetto with you!"
Do you think that is advancing civilization in any way?
Just watched a very funny bit by Bill Burr describing religion in his view as a child "Say what we say when we say it......then you can go home and play with your toys."
Sounds awfully and uncomfortably familiar to what's going on today even without the religion. |
|
Nightman
Ardipithecus
Original Eight
Posts: 122
|
Post by Nightman on Apr 13, 2021 9:10:16 GMT
Civilization is just a bunch of people living in somewhat close proximity to one another. At least, that's what I learned.
When drinking tea.......... do you remember to extend your pinky?
Extending the pinky is totes pretentious nouveau riche. |
|
![[giveup]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/FSYefibmKqtatIXMgHZg.gif)
Maybe I need to work on my social skills? Learn how to lie better?
![[cheers]](http://storage.proboards.com/7182076/images/engyBVslEdpmpmdnBwZQ.gif)