this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
78 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19091 readers
4109 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
78
CNN’s Ryan Girdusky fiasco is part of a much bigger problem in mainstream media (plus.flux.community)
submitted 2 weeks ago by vovo@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/politics@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 32 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

Here’s an idea: why not just ignore the extremes, and to make a “fair and balanced” panel, put the Democrats in as the moderate conservatives and the socialists, greens AND libertarians in as the balancing agents?

It doesn’t have to be extreme socialists, libertarians and greens either; there’s plenty who lean those directions who are moderate, and that’s a message that’s been totally ignored in the US since the McCarthy era.

Let the viewers see what different but less extreme viewpoints look like.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 15 points 2 weeks ago

Because the Regan-era FCC wreaked havoc on perception vs. reality by giving a megaphone to people who wear tinfoil hats and threaten civilization. Nowadays, if you don't platform the extremists, then you are the extremist and are trying to influence everyone with your bias.

Conservatives "leveled the playing field" decades ago by shortening the other team's half of the pitch and increasing the size of their goal. If you ever point it out, they scream and cry and have their fans rush the field to beat up the players and move their own goal even further back.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Let the viewers see what different but less extreme viewpoints look like.

That goes against the entire point of corporate-owned news outlets. They exist to shape the opinions of their viewers in ways that benefit them, not encourage diversity of thought.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

That would be news. We're talking about CNN here.

But it's a good idea!

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 weeks ago

Because the average person isn't watching the news. They aren't buying newspapers.

And of the two ends of the spectrum? Leftists are very much in the 90s Talk Radio stage of things where "Wow, this person has some great ideas and I am glad I can hear such a left leaning viewpoint. OOH!! This person is best friends with putin and is going to explain to me why the US are really the villains in every war on earth" just with Twitch instead of AM radio.

So if a "mainstream news media" outlet wants to survive? They have to at least avoid alienating those right wing fascists.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Here’s an idea: why not just ignore the extremes, and to make a “fair and balanced” panel, put the Democrats in as the moderate conservatives and the socialists, greens AND libertarians in as the balancing agents?

This is a great idea. Except an unpleasantly large number of angry Republicans would argue that this is treason, and would literally threaten violence.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah, they'll threaten violence anyway. No reason to cater to them.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes, you are right, this is a risk that has to be taken, because it is a risk they will always threaten.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Loved the talk radio take on this: He said I hope your pager doesn't go off. Clearly the opposite of a threat. It's like saying I hope Donald Trump doesn't shit himself to death and his stinky ghost fills the halls of Mar a Lago such that the whole thing has to be condemned and then leveled.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support