Hacker News Reader

Comment by api | Hacker News Reader

I understand the economics of course but it seems obvious to me that if real newspapers charge then propaganda and anger porn will rule discourse.

If you want some more on the list for balance there are plenty of left wing Breitbarts you could add. Those are free too.

BTW I think fear porn / anger porn is an appropriate term. It releases brain chemicals that can be addictive just like sex porn. This explains some of its virality.

View on HN

There are left wing Breitbarts just like there's MSNBC for TV. The issue then becomes why these are far less popular.

Its not because of a FB algorithm - that's for certain.

I can ask everyone in my family if they've heard of Breitbart and 99% will say yes. If I ask if they've heard of Rachael Maddow.. maybe 40%? This is despite both of them engaging heavily in anger porn

That's not really a valid comparison. Rachel Maddow is an anchor on MSNBC, which my guess is everyone has heard of. I know what Breitbart is but I don't know any of their writers by name.

Also, Rachel Maddow is probably the best example on air of non-fear-based programming. She usually spends the first 10 or so minutes of her show putting the forthcoming topic in historical context, and then proceeds with a rational, calm, and thoughtful examination of the topic. This oftentimes involves verbatim reading of court transcripts for 20 minutes. The majority of her show is a fixed camera on her with a static background graphic behind her. The rest of her show proceeds with interviews of a single guest with relevant topical experience (prosecutors, congresspeople, attorneys etc.) It's what you'd expect from a Rhodes Scholar and Oxford Ph.D. I never leave her program feeling angry, only ever informed.

Contrast this with Fox News, where the last time I tuned in to that channel 3 angry people were screaming across a table at each other about how liberals are going to outlaw hamburgers. The camera is flying around like a sportscast, and there's graphics and animations blaring in the background. The people in the room seem to have no relevant credentials as to the topic at hand. Are there any environmental experts at the table? Food science experts? No, there's just "political analysts" and "strategists".

I don't watch her, but I'm told she pushes a lot of Russian conspiracy theories.

Not sure why you’re being downvoted.

Have a gander at comedian Jimmy Dore's take on Rachel Maddow:

https://www.youtube.com/user/TYTComedy/search?query=Rachel+M...

Jimmy is a Bernie guy by the way, not a Trump guy. I recommend any Democrat who is confident in their beliefs to spend some time watching him to see if your information feed might be overlooking some information or perspectives.

EDIT: it's interesting, although not surprising, that simply offering an alternative perspective results in downvotes.

This is an environment filled with people who believe adding a prefix or suffix to Capitalism somehow makes a good Capitalism. Thinking outside of boxes only happens offline, contrary to everything the cult believes.

i definitely agree you should not be downvoted for offering an alternative perspective

If you don't read the second paragraph, it seems 100% obviously a case of sarcasm. For some reason, sarcasm goes over badly on HackerNews. Given the second paragraph though, and prior post history... I think it was serious. OMG.

Do you actually have anything to add to the diacussion though? I contrasted Rachel Maddow and Fox News with examples. You just want to shake your head and downvote, fine, but don't add a comment like this with absolutely no substance.

Not sure why you need to be downvoted.

I think the commonality is that Rachel Maddow and the talking heads at Fox News aren't journalists. They spend their time telling their audiences how to think. They just do it differently.

If you want the news rather than someone telling you how to think you don't need either.

Btw Glenn Greenwald has reported about the biases of Rachel Maddow quite a number of times.

Greenwald has also been complicit with Assange and Wikileaks. He shouldn’t be the torchbearer around reporting biases.

The only reason I don't watch her show anymore is the endless drug company ads.

The las time I watched Maddow was when there was some news coming out about Trump's possible hotel deal in Moscow, and how it ostensibly was canned in Aug 2017 and not April.

She was spinning a huge web of conspiratorial possibilities.

She's a brilliant advocate, well informed, and never 'crosses the line' - but she's definitely an advocate.

I'd listen to her more if she moved over to NPR or something along those lines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com