How False Equivalence Is Distorting the 2016 Election Coverage -- The Nation

[ancianita]

I don't care for the right swing of The Nation over the years, but they are an intelligent bunch.

This article is, to me, the final word on understanding media's practices and practical limitations.

What I got from reading it is this:

Most voters can sense these media issues even if they don't articulate them.

With journalists "coverage" of "both sides," i.e., "opinions" from both sides, a reader is left with no grounding in fact, at which point s/he can easily 'fall for' the stance that objectivity is defined by knowing both sides' "subjectivities," and so well or little that they parrot false equivalency thinking. And they give in to that temptation, like as not.

But true reader objectivity has a) big frames of concept/vision to guide human attention, and b) salient facts to ground the relative truthfulness of 'binaried' information. It's probably too much to ask that journalism help a disadvantaged public with both of these issues, since their distraction too often comes down to getting out content and inches every day. For profit.

So this article leaves one to realize that what's left to the voter/reader is to put in place for him/herself, larger frames of reference (history, science, psychology, numerical literacy, the arts) that demand both macro understanding and micro standards of fact usability to guide their reading and thinking of the media's "coverage."

So democratic elections in this capitalist country are more dreamable than doable.

UNLESS the public makes more effort to learn how to read/think/sort/prioritize our country's events, political goals and national vision.



http://www.thenation.com/article/how-false-equivalence-is-distorting-the-2016-election-coverage/

[underpants]

1. Marking for later read

Thanks

[Lodestar]

2. BRANDED

I had some similar thoughts around this issue, but feel like we also have to break free
of the market/brand-based mindset at the root of our current value system. We are.
immersed in it and until emerging new values invalidate this language, we will continue
to think and respond and exist within the reality the media is creating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016157543

[hedda_foil]

4. I just read your post at the link, Lodestar, and it's incredibly valuable.

[ish of the hammer]

3. how does The Nation article support the first sentence

in your post?
"I don't care for the right swing of The Nation over the years, but they are an intelligent bunch."
"right wing swing"? not arguing, just asking

[ancianita]

5. My bias. Then again, I'm probably thinking of the New Republic. I'm needing more breaks from my

partisan bubble to see how others see the big election picture. So the title grabbed my eye and off I went. It chips away at media owners who presume to foreground and amplify their candidate preferences -- to play "king maker."

When I try to out-argue the "both sides do it" popular view that boils voting down to identity and personality, I get weary, feeling a little hopeless. I was probably looking for ideas. Better ways to read.

[ish of the hammer]

6. The Nation is not part of Main Stream Media, so I really didn't get where you were coming from,

unless you were referencing the recent article by Joan Walsh. But then, she is part of the MSM and therefore suspect by definition.

[ancianita]

7. You're right, it's not. And I do like reading it. I think I had it mixed up with the New Republic.

I actually had a subscription to it in the 80's, early 90's, when paper monthlies were common.