Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy?

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

New book. Here’s an interview:

Google Podcasts

With Google Podcasts, you can find and listen to the world's podcasts for free.

podcasts.google.com

And here’s a summary of the author’s argument:

Something is wrong with American journalism. Long before “fake news” became the calling card of the Right, Americans had lost faith in their news media. But lately, the feeling that something is off has become impossible to ignore. That’s because the majority of our mainstream news is no longer just liberal; it’s woke. Today’s newsrooms are propagating radical ideas that were fringe as recently as a decade ago, including “antiracism,” intersectionality, open borders, and critical race theory. How did this come to be? It all has to do with who our news media is written by — and who it is written for.

Batya Ungar-Sargon explains how American journalism underwent a status revolution over the twentieth century — from a blue-collar trade to an elite profession. As a result, journalists shifted their focus away from the working class and toward the concerns of their affluent, highly educated peers.

Ungar-Sargon avers that, in abandoning the working class by creating a culture war around identity, our national media is undermining American democracy

 

[mcmurtry66]

New book. Here’s an interview:

Google Podcasts

With Google Podcasts, you can find and listen to the world's podcasts for free.

podcasts.google.com

And here’s a summary of the author’s argument:

Something is wrong with American journalism. Long before “fake news” became the calling card of the Right, Americans had lost faith in their news media. But lately, the feeling that something is off has become impossible to ignore. That’s because the majority of our mainstream news is no longer just liberal; it’s woke. Today’s newsrooms are propagating radical ideas that were fringe as recently as a decade ago, including “antiracism,” intersectionality, open borders, and critical race theory. How did this come to be? It all has to do with who our news media is written by — and who it is written for.

Batya Ungar-Sargon explains how American journalism underwent a status revolution over the twentieth century — from a blue-collar trade to an elite profession. As a result, journalists shifted their focus away from the working class and toward the concerns of their affluent, highly educated peers.

Ungar-Sargon avers that, in abandoning the working class by creating a culture war around identity, our national media is undermining American democracy

I read a while back that something like 7% of journalists identify as Republicans. The bent of the media I trust has only grown more extreme. What exacerbates it is the bias of shows that aren't even news media but garner attention from the late night talk shows to Saturday Night Live. I also recall reading that journalists rely on social media far more than one would expect. That too I can only imagine has grown worse. As I've said ad nauseam unless the link link link is a primary source or citing quotes from a primary source the vast majority of links are agenda driven political drivel

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

All media has a political bias just like most people have a political bias.

Any article that acts like it is just an issue on one side of the coin is going into the bull shit bin.

Fox News, News Max, OANN, Conservative Radio etc....they are just bad as anything seen on the liberal side of the media.

If you can watch people like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham and think "man, this is good media" then you are hardly an impartial viewer and have no room to stand on when it comes to giving an opinion on fake news.

It is too bad that news media isn't held to a higher standard when it comes to being factual but it is ALL media, not just liberal, that has an issue.

 

[mcmurtry66]

All media has a political bias just like most people have a political bias.

Any article that acts like it is just an issue on one side of the coin is going into the bull shit bin.

Fox News, News Max, OANN, Conservative Radio etc....they are just bad as anything seen on the liberal side of the media.

If you can watch people like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham and think "man, this is good media" then you are hardly an impartial viewer and have no room to stand on when it comes to giving an opinion on fake news.

It is too bad that news media isn't held to a higher standard when it comes to being factual but it is ALL media, not just liberal, that has an issue.

No. Again you are missing the point and don't understand the issue. Journalism requires impartiality. Presenting a narrow range of views and voices colors and shapes opinions on matters important to all of us and undermines the very role of journalism. If 7 percent of journalists identify as Republican and a major network like CBS admits that it needs to hire more Republicans there's an issue in equity and impartiality in reporting. It's not much of an inference to presume one's political predilections will influence what and how stories are covered. "All media" isn't accurate. You are wrong - per usual. It's a matter of quality and quantity

 

[mushroomgod_1]

New book. Here’s an interview:

Google Podcasts

With Google Podcasts, you can find and listen to the world's podcasts for free.

podcasts.google.com

And here’s a summary of the author’s argument:

Something is wrong with American journalism. Long before “fake news” became the calling card of the Right, Americans had lost faith in their news media. But lately, the feeling that something is off has become impossible to ignore. That’s because the majority of our mainstream news is no longer just liberal; it’s woke. Today’s newsrooms are propagating radical ideas that were fringe as recently as a decade ago, including “antiracism,” intersectionality, open borders, and critical race theory. How did this come to be? It all has to do with who our news media is written by — and who it is written for.

Batya Ungar-Sargon explains how American journalism underwent a status revolution over the twentieth century — from a blue-collar trade to an elite profession. As a result, journalists shifted their focus away from the working class and toward the concerns of their affluent, highly educated peers.

Ungar-Sargon avers that, in abandoning the working class by creating a culture war around identity, our national media is undermining American democracy

So obviously true..............a substantial % of MSM are just like Hickory.

 

[IUclover]

What about the woke right-leaning media? Seems to be a cultural war brewing there too.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

What about the woke right-leaning media? Seems to be a cultural war brewing there too.

Right leaning media is just telling the truth. lol (sarcasm)

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

So obviously true..............a substantial % of conservative media are nutbags just like mushroom.

fify.

Anyone who thinks the issue is just with one side of the media definitely qualifies as a nutbag

 

[mcmurtry66]

What about the woke right-leaning media? Seems to be a cultural war brewing there too.

I think so too. It's just smaller and more insulated than the breadth of left media

 

[larsIU]

When I think of a TV "journalist" I'm not thinking of Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, or Sean Hannity.

I'm thinking of Christiane Amanpour, Fareed Zakaria, Chris Wallace, etc. While they may certainly be biased, they keep it under control.

Print journalism is dead. It's transitioning to online and even more into podcasting. The quality of either of those is suspect at best. Very hit or miss. We no longer have a news source that ALL can depend on as being impartial. That's a problem. Absent a return of the fairness doctrine I don't see how this ever gets any better.

 

[cosmickid]

New book. Here’s an interview:

Google Podcasts

With Google Podcasts, you can find and listen to the world's podcasts for free.

podcasts.google.com

And here’s a summary of the author’s argument:

Something is wrong with American journalism. Long before “fake news” became the calling card of the Right, Americans had lost faith in their news media. But lately, the feeling that something is off has become impossible to ignore. That’s because the majority of our mainstream news is no longer just liberal; it’s woke. Today’s newsrooms are propagating radical ideas that were fringe as recently as a decade ago, including “antiracism,” intersectionality, open borders, and critical race theory. How did this come to be? It all has to do with who our news media is written by — and who it is written for.

Batya Ungar-Sargon explains how American journalism underwent a status revolution over the twentieth century — from a blue-collar trade to an elite profession. As a result, journalists shifted their focus away from the working class and toward the concerns of their affluent, highly educated peers.

Ungar-Sargon avers that, in abandoning the working class by creating a culture war around identity, our national media is undermining American democracy

Coincidentally enough I just read yesterday about an interesting new study that was just published on Sunday. It dealt with a group of regular FOX viewers, and a subgroup that was split from the main group and whose members were paid to watch CNN for 7 hrs/week during Sept 2020. Afterwards the groups were surveyed and some interesting differences surfaced...

"At the end of the testing period, the groups took three rounds of news surveys. Two significant findings emerged from the results: Fox and CNN covered different topics during the survey period, and the Fox-to-CNN group changed their attitudes about several issues.

For instance, those in the switcher group emerged 5 percent more likely to believe in the existence of long COVID. They were also 6 percentage points more likely to think that other countries handled the virus better than the U.S. did.

There was also evidence of change regarding attitudes about the 2020 election, as participants were 7 points more likely to support voting by mail."

"The most notable differences revolved around race and President Biden. Participants were 10 points less likely to think that supporters of Biden were glad when police officers got shot, and 13 points less likely to think the number of police who get shot by Black Lives Matter protesters would increase if he were to be elected. They were also 11 points less inclined to say Biden should focus on controlling violent protesters than COVID."

Researchers Paid Fox News Viewers to Watch CNN – and Many Changed Their Minds on COVID, Mail-in Ballots and More

A new study reveals the extent to which partisan media impacts political beliefs

www.yahoo.com

Link to actual survey

https://osf.io/jrw26/

 

[mcmurtry66]

When I think of a TV "journalist" I'm not thinking of Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, or Sean Hannity.

I'm thinking of Christiane Amanpour, Fareed Zakaria, Chris Wallace, etc. While they may certainly be biased, they keep it under control.

Print journalism is dead. It's transitioning to online and even more into podcasting. The quality of either of those is suspect at best. Very hit or miss. We no longer have a news source that ALL can depend on as being impartial. That's a problem. Absent a return of the fairness doctrine I don't see how this ever gets any better.

It's a problem for busy people who rely on headlines for news and don't have the time or desire to dig deeper. Never before have we had so much access to info. So if the headline reads LOCAL HOSPITAL OVERWHELMED BY COVID or UNARMED BLACKS TARGETED BY COPS you can find the actual data for those, and most issues, but people don't take the time or don't have the time/interest. So these "sort of right but lack context" stories can easily create a narrative and push an agenda

 

[mcmurtry66]

fify.

Anyone who thinks the issue is just with one side of the media definitely qualifies as a nutbag

Again you don't understand. Good grief.

 

[larsIU]

It's a problem for busy people who rely on headlines for news and don't have the time or desire to dig deeper. Never before have we had so much access to info. So if the headline reads LOCAL HOSPITAL OVERWHELMED BY COVID or UNARMED BLACKS TARGETED BY COPS you can find the actual data for those, and most issues, but people don't take the time or don't have the time/interest. So these "sort of right but lack context" stories can easily create a narrative and push an agenda

Oh, agree 100%.

Journalism should provide a balanced view of a topic IF there is a balanced view to provide. Sometimes there isn't and they should note that as well. But, you can't do that if everything is presented as a binary proposition. We're right. They're wrong.

And people are lazy. Being fed is much easier than actually looking for food. If they are being fed bullshit by the "news" media, then.....

Again, absent a full throated return of the fairness doctrine this current situation will just continue. There's little money in being honest and telling an unpopular truth. Whatever truth means anymore.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Again you don't understand. Good grief.

Apparently you don't understand if you think this issue is just with liberal media.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Oh, agree 100%.

Journalism should provide a balanced view of a topic IF there is a balanced view to provide. Sometimes there isn't and they should note that as well. But, you can't do that if everything is presented as a binary proposition. We're right. They're wrong.

And people are lazy. Being fed is much easier than actually looking for food. If they are being fed bullshit by the "news" media, then.....

Again, absent a full throated return of the fairness doctrine this current situation will just continue. There's little money in being honest and telling an unpopular truth. Whatever truth means anymore.

Totally agree. But I also think it's a human resource issue. I think certain types of people go into journalism. Just like certain types go into Finance or pursue an MSW. In Journalism it's people that are 4x as likely to identify as a Dem. It's only natural for that to shape what they cover and how they cover it. How you balance that I don't know

 

[mcmurtry66]

Apparently you don't understand if you think this issue is just with liberal media.

It's just another issue 30,000 miles over your head. It's okay.

 

[larsIU]

Totally agree. But I also think it's a human resource issue. I think certain types of people go into journalism. Just like certain types go into Finance. In Journalism it's people that are 4x as likely to identify as a Dem. It's only natural for that to shape what they cover and how they cover it

Probably but if it's a professional pursuit they should understand their responsibility to the truth and fairness. If they cannot do it, then don't. Many CEO's have psychopathic traits but have to combat their instincts quite often when making decisions.

I agree with you that more working class folks in journalism would be a boon. Problem is, print media doesn't pay shit and the internet only pays for clicks. So here we are.

Which gets me thinking. Is the dissemination of news a public good? If so, should it be subsidized by the government in order to foster a more well informed populace? I'm not saying we need state media but should private companies be subsidized to provide news coverage? I know the public airwaves are "free" to an extent but should media companies be allowed to subsidize the news divisions so they do not have to worry about making a profit?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Probably but if it's a professional pursuit they should understand their responsibility to the truth and fairness. If they cannot do it, then don't. Many CEO's have psychopathic traits but have to combat their instincts quite often when making decisions.

I agree with you that more working class folks in journalism would be a boon. Problem is, print media doesn't pay shit and the internet only pays for clicks. So here we are.

Which gets me thinking. Is the dissemination of news a public good? If so, should it be subsidized by the government in order to foster a more well informed populace? I'm not saying we need state media but should private companies be subsidized to provide news coverage? I know the public airwaves are "free" to an extent but should media companies be allowed to subsidize the news divisions so they do not have to worry about making a profit?

Can you imagine Trump controlled news!! But I hear ya. The bent is so subtle too. It doesn't have to be a lie. For instance Anderson Cooper did a piece on facial recognition and false arrests. It's technically accurate but by choosing to make that a story it continues an agenda attacking police - but it's subtle

 

[hoot1]

It's a problem for busy people who rely on headlines for news and don't have the time or desire to dig deeper. Never before have we had so much access to info. So if the headline reads LOCAL HOSPITAL OVERWHELMED BY COVID or UNARMED BLACKS TARGETED BY COPS you can find the actual data for those, and most issues, but people don't take the time or don't have the time/interest. So these "sort of right but lack context" stories can easily create a narrative and push an agenda

Newspaper people tell me the headlines are often written by different folks than those who wrote the article.

 

[larsIU]

Can you imagine Trump controlled news!! But I hear ya. The bent is so subtle too. It doesn't have to be a lie. For instance Anderson Cooper did a piece on facial recognition and false arrests. It's technically accurate but by choosing to make that a story it continues an agenda attacking police - but it's subtle

I really believe Anderson Cooper and whoever his equivalent is on the right believe they are doing something noble but focusing on the stories they focus on. They believe they are fighting the other side and presenting the truth.

But, it's the truth as they see it and fighting the other side isn't journalism. It's opinion.

The coverage of the Mueller investigation pissed me off not because it was a hoax (people don't get indicted nor go to jail for hoaxes). It pissed me off b/c the liberal side of the media overplayed their hand like a kid crying wolf. Credibility was destroyed and faith lost in the institution. But, instead of realizing the error, they just keep going and not acknowledging the changes they need to make.

As for conservative media...at least as it's spun on Fox/OAN/Newsmax, it's a dumpster fire meant to do one thing, destroy Democrats. The liberal media has really just responded to Fox, et al. If you don't think that's true then tell me when the liberal media went to shit. Over the last 20 years? Bingo.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Can you imagine Trump controlled news!! But I hear ya. The bent is so subtle too. It doesn't have to be a lie. For instance Anderson Cooper did a piece on facial recognition and false arrests. It's technically accurate but by choosing to make that a story it continues an agenda attacking police - but it's subtle

I think a lot of how we react to the news is also colored by our existing biases towards the sources. You probably see the facial recognition piece as a continuation of an anti-police agenda because Cooper did it. If Carlson did the exact same piece, you'd see it as a continuation of the anti-big government agenda.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think a lot of how we react to the news is also colored by our existing biases towards the sources. You probably see the facial recognition piece as a continuation of an anti-police agenda because Cooper did it. If Carlson did the exact same piece, you'd see it as a continuation of the anti-big government agenda.

There's absolutely an element of that; but it doesn't speak to the occurrences and the reality of what's transpiring. CNN is obsessed with Jan 6 etc. and Fox culture shit. The reality of what "news" and media is doing is a reality that exists independent of our biases as well. There's a reason CBS wants to beef up it's Republican hires - that's a direct recognition of the issue

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

For those dismissing the book, the interview, or the ideas because they don't like them and so think the author must be a right-wing nut job because she used the word "woke"---uh, no:

Batya Ungar-Sargon is the deputy opinion editor of Newsweek. Before that, she was the opinion editor of the Forward, the largest Jewish media outlet in America. She has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Newsweek, the New York Review of Books Daily, and other publications. She has appeared numerous times on MSNBC, NBC, the Brian Lehrer Show, NPR, and at other media outlets. She holds a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley.

She's a serious person, writing about serious ideas. I thought maybe we could discuss those?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I really believe Anderson Cooper and whoever his equivalent is on the right believe they are doing something noble but focusing on the stories they focus on. They believe they are fighting the other side and presenting the truth.

But, it's the truth as they see it and fighting the other side isn't journalism. It's opinion.

The coverage of the Mueller investigation pissed me off not because it was a hoax (people don't get indicted nor go to jail for hoaxes). It pissed me off b/c the liberal side of the media overplayed their hand like a kid crying wolf. Credibility was destroyed and faith lost in the institution. But, instead of realizing the error, they just keep going and not acknowledging the changes they need to make.

As for conservative media...at least as it's spun on Fox/OAN/Newsmax, it's a dumpster fire meant to do one thing, destroy Democrats. The liberal media has really just responded to Fox, et al. If you don't think that's true then tell me when the liberal media went to shit. Over the last 20 years? Bingo.

Agreed

 

[hoosboot]

Newspaper people tell me the headlines are often written by different folks than those who wrote the article.

They are. Different people with different objectives.

 

[hoosboot]

For those dismissing the book, the interview, or the ideas because they don't like them and so think the author must be a right-wing nut job because she used the word "woke"---uh, no:

Batya Ungar-Sargon is the deputy opinion editor of Newsweek. Before that, she was the opinion editor of the Forward, the largest Jewish media outlet in America. She has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Newsweek, the New York Review of Books Daily, and other publications. She has appeared numerous times on MSNBC, NBC, the Brian Lehrer Show, NPR, and at other media outlets. She holds a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley.

She's a serious person, writing about serious ideas. I thought maybe we could discuss those?

My gosh, she almost sounds...elite.

 

[IUCrazy2]

My gosh, she almost sounds...elite.

I think it is kind of amusing when points like this try and get made with little to no understanding of where the poster is coming from. Brad is a liberal. He has posted in support of liberal positions several times. He has a problem with the Democrat's lurch to the far left in this one specific area and is interested in exorcising that from liberal orthodoxy (or at least diminishing it). So that makes him a righty I guess...and probably a Trumper to boot. So of course he would have an issue with "elites".

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Coincidentally enough I just read yesterday about an interesting new study that was just published on Sunday. It dealt with a group of regular FOX viewers, and a subgroup that was split from the main group and whose members were paid to watch CNN for 7 hrs/week during Sept 2020. Afterwards the groups were surveyed and some interesting differences surfaced...

"At the end of the testing period, the groups took three rounds of news surveys. Two significant findings emerged from the results: Fox and CNN covered different topics during the survey period, and the Fox-to-CNN group changed their attitudes about several issues.

For instance, those in the switcher group emerged 5 percent more likely to believe in the existence of long COVID. They were also 6 percentage points more likely to think that other countries handled the virus better than the U.S. did.

There was also evidence of change regarding attitudes about the 2020 election, as participants were 7 points more likely to support voting by mail."

"The most notable differences revolved around race and President Biden. Participants were 10 points less likely to think that supporters of Biden were glad when police officers got shot, and 13 points less likely to think the number of police who get shot by Black Lives Matter protesters would increase if he were to be elected. They were also 11 points less inclined to say Biden should focus on controlling violent protesters than COVID."

Researchers Paid Fox News Viewers to Watch CNN – and Many Changed Their Minds on COVID, Mail-in Ballots and More

A new study reveals the extent to which partisan media impacts political beliefs

www.yahoo.com

Link to actual survey

https://osf.io/jrw26/

A transgender peddling prof from UCB touting CNN in his own study?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

If so, should it be subsidized by the government in order to foster a more well informed populace? I'm not saying we need state media but should private companies be subsidized to provide news coverage?

These are fair questions, but given dangerousness of state-run media (see China, Russia, etc.), I'd rather have to deal with what we have.

More importantly, if you look at how far NPR and state radio (MPR for me) has fallen in recent years, it's an obvious reminder of governmental failure. Every other story on these shit stations is transgender this or microaggressions against minorities that. The coverage of the Ukrainian conflict was putrid compared to what you can get from CNN, who still seems to do some of the best international reporting on conflicts.

 

[larsIU]

These are fair questions, but given dangerousness of state-run media (see China, Russia, etc.), I'd rather have to deal with what we have.

More importantly, if you look at how far NPR and state radio (MPR for me) has fallen in recent years, it's an obvious reminder of governmental failure. Every other story on these shit stations is transgender this or microaggressions against minorities that. The coverage of the Ukrainian conflict was putrid compared to what you can get from CNN, who still seems to do some of the best international reporting on conflicts.

NPR/PBS is still pretty solid here in good ol central Indiana. At least what I listen to in the car or garage.

They can't cover Ukraine like CNN or FOX, just don't have the budget.

News and, especially, opinion is just a mirror of the society. Would they do it if it didn't sell? B/c that's what news has to do these days....sell. I mean it was always, if it bleeds it leads, and that's still true. But why do people tune into CNN or FOX or MSNBC every night. It's b/c that's what they want to hear. If "Ouch, my balls!" sold as well it would be on three different channels.

I don't think there is a concentrated, nefarious plot by the left wing media to push wokeness for the sake of wokeness. They are stoking it b/c IT SELLS.

That says more about the general public (or at least those who consume left wing media) than it does the CORPORATIONS (wink IGW) pushing it.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

NPR/PBS is still pretty solid here in good ol central Indiana. At least what I listen to in the car or garage.

They can't cover Ukraine like CNN or FOX, just don't have the budget.

News and, especially, opinion is just a mirror of the society. Would they do it if it didn't sell? B/c that's what news has to do these days....sell. I mean it was always, if it bleeds it leads, and that's still true. But why do people tune into CNN or FOX or MSNBC every night. It's b/c that's what they want to hear. If "Ouch, my balls!" sold as well it would be on three different channels.

I don't think there is a concentrated, nefarious plot by the left wing media to push wokeness for the sake of wokeness. They are stoking it b/c IT SELLS.

That says more about the general public (or at least those who consume left wing media) than it does the CORPORATIONS (wink IGW) pushing it.

PBS seems to be faring better than NPR in recent years and continues to remain more neutral. The ratings on several websites seem to confirm that.

If the wokeness sells so well, why is someone like yourself (moderate) willing to tolerate it even if you disagree with it? And, if you aren't, would that represent the majority (moderate left plus centrists plus right) that don't tolerate it?

 

[hoosboot]

I think it is kind of amusing when points like this try and get made with little to no understanding of where the poster is coming from. Brad is a liberal. He has posted in support of liberal positions several times. He has a problem with the Democrat's lurch to the far left in this one specific area and is interested in exorcising that from liberal orthodoxy (or at least diminishing it). So that makes him a righty I guess...and probably a Trumper to boot. So of course he would have an issue with "elites".

Why do you think Brad is a righty and a Trumer to boot? I don't think that. I'm just noting Ungar-Sargon's description of people like herself.

Batya Ungar-Sargon explains how American journalism underwent a status revolution over the twentieth century — from a blue-collar trade to an elite profession. As a result, journalists shifted their focus away from the working class and toward the concerns of their affluent, highly educated peers.

I understand really well where Brad is coming from. Looks like your post was unintentionally insightful...although maybe you are super meta and realized you were talking about yourself.

I think it is kind of amusing when points like this try and get made with little to no understanding of where the poster is coming from.

 

[mcmurtry66]

NPR/PBS is still pretty solid here in good ol central Indiana. At least what I listen to in the car or garage.

They can't cover Ukraine like CNN or FOX, just don't have the budget.

News and, especially, opinion is just a mirror of the society. Would they do it if it didn't sell? B/c that's what news has to do these days....sell. I mean it was always, if it bleeds it leads, and that's still true. But why do people tune into CNN or FOX or MSNBC every night. It's b/c that's what they want to hear. If "Ouch, my balls!" sold as well it would be on three different channels.

I don't think there is a concentrated, nefarious plot by the left wing media to push wokeness for the sake of wokeness. They are stoking it b/c IT SELLS.

That says more about the general public (or at least those who consume left wing media) than it does the CORPORATIONS (wink IGW) pushing it.

I don't think wokeness does sell. Aren't ratings for those channels far below Fox. I think it's an agenda pushed by certain groups. I don't know though

 

[larsIU]

If the wokeness sells so well, why is someone like yourself (moderate) willing to tolerate it even if you disagree with it? And, if you aren't, would that represent the majority (moderate left plus centrists plus right) that don't tolerate it?

The list of shit I tolerate reads like War and Peace.

As it relates to wokeness - it's the fad du jour of the moment. And I really think it's a pendulum. The left swung it like a hammer thinking it would work politically (and maybe it did at the beginning) but the left also doesn't know when to pull back. So when it became an issue which affected schools the right, effectively, pushed back. Now, the pendulum will swing back to the middle.

Meanwhile, we still don't discuss the underlying issues surrounding WHY wokeness even became an issue in the first place - the massive wealth inequality between whites and nearly everyone else. And hell, that in itself is simplistic enough to ignore the even more massive wealth and opportunity gaps between rural and urban areas.

Why do black people have more interactions per capita with police should really be a question of why poor people have more interactions with police. Which leads to why a higher % of blacks are in lower socio economic strata. But if we only stop there with WOKENESS as the answer, we've gotten nowhere.

There are answers to these questions. Some of those answers smell a lot like systemic racism b/c less than a lifetime ago that was real. Some of the answers are how we responded to that systemic racism (welfare, etc). Some deal with how we dealt with the War on Drugs. And some are rooted in the poorer communities and how they value things like community, home ownership, school, etc.

But man, wokeness is such an easier answer right? As usual Americans neither confront the issues head on nor in good faith.

Story at 11.

 

[larsIU]

I don't think wokeness does sell. Aren't ratings for those channels far below Fox. I think it's an agenda pushed by certain groups. I don't know though

Yeah but there's two very large "liberal" channels and only one FOX. Also, FOX viewers are old people who watch TV more than browse the internet.

 

[T.M.P.]

Fox News, News Max, OANN, Conservative Radio etc....they are just bad as anything seen on the liberal side of the media.

They are far far worse ..

and any article that uses "woke" (tribal dog whistle) ... is nothing but propaganda or a lazy ass writer needing attention and/or clicks from disgruntled old white men...

They fear that word ...

 

[mcmurtry66]

The list of shit I tolerate reads like War and Peace.

As it relates to wokeness - it's the fad du jour of the moment. And I really think it's a pendulum. The left swung it like a hammer thinking it would work politically (and maybe it did at the beginning) but the left also doesn't know when to pull back. So when it became an issue which affected schools the right, effectively, pushed back. Now, the pendulum will swing back to the middle.

Meanwhile, we still don't discuss the underlying issues surrounding WHY wokeness even became an issue in the first place - the massive wealth inequality between whites and nearly everyone else. And hell, that in itself is simplistic enough to ignore the even more massive wealth and opportunity gaps between rural and urban areas.

Why do black people have more interactions per capita with police should really be a question of why poor people have more interactions with police. Which leads to why a higher % of blacks are in lower socio economic strata. But if we only stop there with WOKENESS as the answer, we've gotten nowhere.

There are answers to these questions. Some of those answers smell a lot like systemic racism b/c less than a lifetime ago that was real. Some of the answers are how we responded to that systemic racism (welfare, etc). Some deal with how we dealt with the War on Drugs. And some are rooted in the poorer communities and how they value things like community, home ownership, school, etc.

But man, wokeness is such an easier answer right? As usual Americans neither confront the issues head on nor in good faith.

Story at 11.

Yep agree on all counts

 

[Courtsensetwo]

They are far far worse ..

and any article that uses "woke" (tribal dog whistle) ... is nothing but propaganda or a lazy ass writer needing attention and/or clicks from disgruntled old white men...

They fear that word ...

The term "woke" is hardly monopolized by right wing media.

Journalism and Journalists are not in high demand these days as media companies have turned into entertainment providers catering to a specific audience, particularly at the fringes.

I roll my eyes just the same whether watching FOX or MSNBC, NBC or CNN. I have never seen OAN.

The average MSNBC fan requires that the broadcasts never stray too far from Trump, Jan 6, etc while FOX fans require that the broadcast never strays far from Hunter, Inflation, anti mask/vax or CRT.

I can tell you as an independent moderate, I have to heavily filter all of it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

For those dismissing the book, the interview, or the ideas because they don't like them and so think the author must be a right-wing nut job because she used the word "woke"---uh, no:

Batya Ungar-Sargon is the deputy opinion editor of Newsweek. Before that, she was the opinion editor of the Forward, the largest Jewish media outlet in America. She has written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Newsweek, the New York Review of Books Daily, and other publications. She has appeared numerous times on MSNBC, NBC, the Brian Lehrer Show, NPR, and at other media outlets. She holds a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley.

She's a serious person, writing about serious ideas. I thought maybe we could discuss those?

It seems like no one in this thread got what you were getting at. Everyone wants to make it left vs. right, but that's not what the argument in your OP was about. It's about media shifting their audience from the people at large to elite academics. I think it's an interesting argument, and probably has some merit. It's also only one in a puzzle of shifting pieces that have all acted to undermine democracy. Another is the shift from information to entertainment, or more accurately, spectacle. Another is the dissemination of partisan propaganda.

Another big one that goes back further in time than any of those is the shift from independent media to an army of corporate journalist drones acting on behalf of the economic elite. All these things act to undermine democracy.