If these stories were about Obama, there’d be a lot more howling, but given it’s Trump, the attitude is that any story that confirms anyone’s bias is fine, regardless of truth. It’s disgusting and has made journalism into a tribal farce.
It has nothing to do with tribalism or left/right politics. And everything to do with defending journalism in all its forms.
How's that working out for you?
Not unabated, but at an accelerated pace. Social media has now been weaponized and we are approaching civil war levels of hostility.
I think it's not an even split. The right is being conditioned to hate the left to a degree that is terrifying. Check out the propaganda that the NRA puts out. It is "Divide and Conquer 101"
The majority of the liberal commentary I register is more puzzlement, sadness, and fear (guns, guns, guns, baby!).
I would love to have dialog across the aisle but it seems impossible now. I can acknowledge plenty of "liberal failures" but that is a one way street.
For any of that commentary that is actually genuine, I'd be curious about the context. Intolerance of intolerance is different than intolerance itself. And aggression in what form?
The "far left" is a distinct minority, and tends to be focused on corruption and inequality, not about killing Christians or how white people are ruining this country (save for the topic of the genocide used to clear the way).
This divisiveness is intentionally cultivated both domestically and abroad -- it's been reported that Russia created opposing protests to encourage direct conflict: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-pag...
And before Trump, leftists already had a pretty intense hatred of Republicans/conservatives, and libertarians to the extent they know about them. America is extremely partisan, and the two major camps tend to strongly dislike each other, sometimes popping out as real hatred. Research shows that conservatives tend to know more about leftist positions than leftists know about conservative positions, so that suggests that leftists may be operating with more emotion and less information.
(And when I use the word "hate", I mean hate as defined in common dictionaries. The left has infamously co-opted the word to refer to any negative appraisal or feeling about a person or group of persons experienced or expressed by a non-lefist. I'm sticking to hate as extreme animus.)
I can point out my perceived flaws in Obama and Clinton without pause. Do you have any issues with the current President or his policies or administration?
Do you want to talk to this liberal and see if you can "reach across the aisle"?
What I've listed is the tip of the iceberg. There are attempts to extinguish any discussion of transgender issues, because a discussion necessarily implies "denial of a trans persons right to exist," a textbook example of catastrophizing. There is an increasing attempt to prevent people to speak on issues related to any gender or race that they themselves don't belong to, due to the lack of "lived experience" (something we used to call subjective, anecdotal, n=1 data). There is increasing social pressure on corporations that the proper response to someone like James Damore making academically backed claims when invited to give feedback is to terminate employment immediately.
You're right about a one way street, but you have the wrong direction. And please don't call the modern left liberals, they are absolutely not liberals in any sense of the word.
Alex Jones engaged in stochastic terrorism. The lawsuit against him will likely confirm that. Unless perhaps you agree with him that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation and those parents were crisis actors?
Jordan Peterson is a quack but I believe in the right of people to have stupid opinions and express them.
Sorry but I'm going to ignore the "liberals" on campus because I think that is a unique situations and kids are obnoxious on both sides of the aisle. I will agree that they have gone way too far in censoring dialog but I also think that one could make a cogent argument that there is such a thing as "hate speech" that at a certain degree does not deserve a platform (the problem is qualifying what that degree is).
I was referring to adults when I made my statement. Although now I'll concede that most people have difficulty hearing the other side; I've certainly seen a lot of that on HN when it comes to social issues.
I'm an old school liberal raised to be anti-war, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-corporate-statehoodism, question authority, blah, blah, blah. I can still point out "gotchas" within all of those that most liberals can be blind to. Because no system is perfect.
I would love to have a civil dialog with you to see if you can see and admit that conservatism has flaws too.
You gave one example that we could debate:
> because a discussion necessarily implies "denial of a trans persons right to exist,"
Would you care to engage?
And pretty sure journalism started to become a tribal force about 20 years ago when Fox News launched. It is the same approach Murdoch took with papers in the UK and here in Australia.
BuzzFeed is? I only ever see them publish silly top-ten lists and click-bait articles.
"Buzzfeed News adds a Pulitzer winner and top Pentagon correspondent to its staff": http://www.niemanlab.org/reading/buzzfeed-news-adds-a-pulitz...
I keep seeing people say this but all I've seen is Peter Carr say the Buzzfeed story was "inaccurate". Do you have a source or citation for Mueller saying it was false? Thanks!
edit: (assuming we're talking about the Cohen Congress story)
Cognitive mistakes like this are a form of confirmation bias, sometimes called wishful thinking. You want this to be true, right?
It may well do but we don't know that at the moment. Trump may not have explicitly told Cohen to lie to Congress, for example, but the intent and meaning were clear from his words. Saying "he told him to lie" is then inaccurate but not false. There's a hundred other scenarios where they come out and say "inaccurate" without meaning "false". We won't know until the full report is out.
And Murdoch have been quite upfront in interviews over the last 2 decades that this is what they intended. They firmly established themselves as a right-wing station and pushed everyone else to the left.
Yes, they are. Unnamed sources have brought down institutions ranging from the Nixon administration to the Boston archdiocese.
And in any case, it's an unfinished story. BuzzFeed stand by their reporting and have asked the special counsel to clarify exactly what parts they are disputing (they did not say the entire story was false). So a little early to say it's a "false story".
There's always a risk for stories from indirect sources. If they publish something that's incorrect from these sources, they risk losing some credibility. This is how it should be and always has been with news organizations. I'm not sure what a sane alternative is here.