Media Bias

[Rum]

The way Americans fuck up the term liberal. Liberal is not left wing but dont tell them that. Libral in Europe is conservative. Just look at the fractions in the EU parliament. Socialist is such a no go word in America. Pathetic.

Only in the sense they believe in less government and as few restraints on individual liberty as possible. Here at any rate they stand for more ‘fairness’ and have been up front about higher taxation for the rich for example in order to improve the lot of poorer people.

[Alan B]

The way Americans fuck up the term liberal. Liberal is not left wing but dont tell them that. Libral in Europe is conservative. Just look at the fractions in the EU parliament. Socialist is such a no go word in America. Pathetic.

In the UK the Liberal Party is usually thought as sort of 'centrist' - with the approach of choosing the 'best bits' from the two extremes of Labour and Tory (well, sort of...). Didn't work like that last time they held the reins of power...
The Americans seem to treat 'Socialist' as a sort of swear-word linking it (via media bias) to communism which is a hang-over from the McCarthy era.

[Scot Dutchy]

Here in the EU the Liberal, Conservatives and Centrists form the biggest fraction.
They are definitely not left wing. So why in the fuck do we have to adopt American terms. America just cant live with the term socialist which here is the next largest fraction in the EU parliament.

[Brian Peacock]

Anyone arguing for a more equitable distribution of power seems to get branded a dangerous leftist extremest these days. It's interesting to see people like AOC in the US trying to depower (is that a word?) that characterisation by adopting the term Socialist for their outlook - thus sidestepping the argument about whether they are a Socialist or not - even if they're really just advocating for well-regulated markets, a bit of tax reform, and some increases in public service budgets. I guess calling yourself a social democrat, or a socially-minded classical liberal doesn't really hold much water in the US - might as well just reclaim the 'Socialist' brand and run with it..

[Svartalf]

Here in the EU the Liberal, Conservatives and Centrists form the biggest fraction.
They are definitely not left wing. So why in the fuck do we have to adopt American terms. America just cant live with the term socialist which here is the next largest fraction in the EU parliament.

We don't have decent socialists in france, the Socialist party has been infiltrated by right wing elements since 1971. Those elements eventually broke away to serve the capitalist lackey macron, and now the gutted remains of the moderate left are struggling for existence, and in danger of being absorbed by the far left wing.

[Scot Dutchy]

When politics has moved so far right that even Hitler is looking good there is nothing more to claim. Trump will win in 2020 as will every extreme right wing candidate will beyond that. The 1% is in power. Simple and the game is lost. The Election College will always protect the 1% candidates. Welcome world to total corruption.

[Scot Dutchy]

Here in the EU the Liberal, Conservatives and Centrists form the biggest fraction.
They are definitely not left wing. So why in the fuck do we have to adopt American terms. America just cant live with the term socialist which here is the next largest fraction in the EU parliament.

We don't have decent socialists in france, the Socialist party has been infiltrated by right wing elements since 1971. Those elements eventually broke away to serve the capitalist lackey macron, and now the gutted remains of the moderate left are struggling for existence, and in danger of being absorbed by the far left wing.

That was the right wing plan. Left was always to honest and never corrupt enough. It was always open.

[Rum]

The term ‘cultural hegemony’ as described by Gramski is what we are talking about here I think, especially applied to America. To quote Wiki it is:

‘...the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society—the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that their imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm; the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.[1]’.

One should add ‘language’ To the list.

If you add the power of corporations, which limit real choice where it matters, leaving to choose what kind of pickle you want on your sandwich, rather than how the restaurant should be run, it’s sewn up.

As an ex far lefty and in my sixties i’ll admit readily to being less radical by a long way than I was years ago, but even I have been surprised at the apparent lack of indications that the ‘poor’ (to avoid Marxist terminology) are going to rebel any time soon.

The implication of some of Brian’s recent posts r.e. the impact on climate of course that our present system inevitably has may force the issue. Maybe.

[Scot Dutchy]

What does the term liberal mean to you?

[Rum]

What does the term liberal mean to you?

My post above was about the hijacking of language and culture by ‘capital’, but I tend to read or use the word in two ways depending on the context. One way is basically the definition of our Liberal party - I.e. less regulation, less government, more individual liberty, but with a sense of social fairness. The other is a looser meaning to do with being tolerant, open to new ideas, being non-judgemental, allowing people to do as the please as long as nobody else is harmed in the process. They overlap of course.

[Scot Dutchy]

Well the liberal party here is the VVD which is principally the Conservatives. Our PM is from that party but while it promotes liberal freedoms and individualism it does it from the collective. All parties (including Wilders PVV) accept the collective the only difference being their position on the collective. I belong to the centre which even for UK politics would be left of centre very left of centre. My party is D'66 which split off from the PvdA in you will have guessed it in 1966. It is not so radical and supports capitalism with a small "c".

[JimC]

It also shows that centrist sources are the least biased...

Being in the middle between two extremes does not denote a lack of bias. Centrists are opposed to both the left and right. That's their bias.

The graph itself shows what I meant. At both extremes of conservative and liberal, the news outlets that consistently followed that party line were judged to be the least objective and truthful. The best levels of journalistic integrity were to be found in the centre...

[Hermit]

It also shows that centrist sources are the least biased...

Being in the middle between two extremes does not denote a lack of bias. Centrists are opposed to both the left and right. That's their bias.

The graph itself shows what I meant. At both extremes of conservative and liberal, the news outlets that consistently followed that party line were judged to be the least objective and truthful. The best levels of journalistic integrity were to be found in the centre...

You're still not getting the meaning of the word "neutral", which the chart mistakenly describes as "Minimal party bias OR Balance of Biases" and about which you say "centrist sources are the least biased". Centrist sources promote a centrist party bias, and far from being neutral, they oppose both what the chart labels "extreme liberalism" and "extreme conservatism" ends of the political spectrum. "centrist" does not mean "unbiased". Centrist simply means "sandwiched between two ends. MSNBC in particular is as explicitly and unabashedly partisan as FOX news, though obviously not regarding the same party.

As to being objective and truthful, it appears to me as though whoever devised that chart has made up their mind about which publication is in their opinion objective and truthful and concluded that they are therefore more or less centrist. For instance, I cannot for the life of me see Mother Jones or The Economist as even marginally fitting in the centrist mould.

[JimC]

News outlets which hold a strong ideological position, conservative or liberal, will inevitably push articles which follow that line, or at least they will be very selective about choosing information which fits their position.

News outlets without a commitment to such strong ideological positions have at least a reasonable chance of presenting a wider variety of information, at least from moderate liberal to moderate conservative, whether or not we use the label "centrist". I know that you will contend that this is, in a strict definition, still an ideological position. Even if that is technically true, news outlets which make a serious attempt to cover a range of positions, and whose analysis can have examples of both political trends are going to be, on average, a better source of information and discussion than highly partisan sources.

[Hermit]

...news outlets which make a serious attempt to cover a range of positions, and whose analysis can have examples of both political trends are going to be, on average, a better source of information and discussion than highly partisan sources.

Yes indeed. I remain of the opinion, though, that being in the middle between two extremes does not denote a lack of bias. Centrist publications are not neutral. They toe a centrist party line, condemning the ideologies of anything outside that centre on either side. Unfortunately they tend to be more muted when it comes to criticising anything to their right. I have what used to be the Fairfax media empire, chiefly "The Sydney Morning Herald" and "The Age", in mind. Their advocacy of centrist, small-l liberalism made them vigorously partisan even while they made serious attempts at covering a range of positions.