I predict the actual crowd being appealed to here are right-wing liberals. It seems to exist in the same place as the Lincoln Project: it appeals to liberals who think that modern conservatism is...
I predict the actual crowd being appealed to here are right-wing liberals. It seems to exist in the same place as the Lincoln Project: it appeals to liberals who think that modern conservatism is uniquely unhinged and that Trump is the one who did it, who unironically believe we need a "strong" republican party. These are the folks that treat George Bush like a hero, a man who represented "decency" to them.
This is nonsense; "unhinged" conspiratorial thinking has been a staple of reactionary politics globally, and for far longer than the current moment. Secret communists in Hollywood during McCarthyism, secret Satanists eating babies in the 90s (and, well, today), President Obama's membership in the Muslim Brotherhood (and his influences from his birthplace of Kenya,) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the "globalists'" (read: Jews) New World Order, and the list can go on.
This seems to be more a timeless method of martialing the forces of reaction, rather than specific party politics, but 2016 wasn't unique. It's happened before and will almost certainly happen again. There's no sense in pretending that everyone at the table should be trusted to be "the adults in the room," that isn't how politics worked in the past and, when the moment is opportune, reactionary opportunistic politicians will utilize these methods yet again.
I thought this was an Onion article at first, but sure enough... I can't see it taking off though - as soon as a righty realizes Rightly is owned by Al Jazeera, their hate of brown people will...
I thought this was an Onion article at first, but sure enough... I can't see it taking off though - as soon as a righty realizes Rightly is owned by Al Jazeera, their hate of brown people will make them change the channel.
Or it will give conservatives the false sense that they aren't bigoted because they are getting their news from a foreign source. It's like the news equivalent of a proud boy marrying a minority.
Or it will give conservatives the false sense that they aren't bigoted because they are getting their news from a foreign source. It's like the news equivalent of a proud boy marrying a minority.
Here's a question: Are more progressive, or even just liberal, outlets founded as that, or do they develop into that? I've noticed there's a tendency to create right-wing news outlets to appeal to...
Here's a question: Are more progressive, or even just liberal, outlets founded as that, or do they develop into that?
I've noticed there's a tendency to create right-wing news outlets to appeal to the self-proclaimed "marginalized" conservatives, even at at time when they were the ones still largely running the show (Fox News, in 1996, and even arguably today). Al Jazeera is doing this because they see a market to fill, but how did Al Jazeera America come to be what it is? Planned marketing, or an evolution of information and journalists who potentially added a bias?
I don't see this going well, as it is solely a money move, and will likely perpetuate America's issue with right-wing news agencies spreading false information. If this agency reports things accurately it'll likely never gain traction, and if it acts solely to gain traction, it'll likely have to do a lot of selective reporting. It's interesting that they want to play both sides, but they'll be playing against themselves, as well.
I think there are liberal outlets founded this way as well, they are just much more on the fringe, lack funding, and are often dismissed as extremist. Jacobin or Current Affairs are good examples....
I think there are liberal outlets founded this way as well, they are just much more on the fringe, lack funding, and are often dismissed as extremist. Jacobin or Current Affairs are good examples.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Al Jazeera to really jump into the other points. From a quick skim through their wiki, it looks like they have never had good penetration into the US market, despite repeatedly trying. This looks like a pivot into a more "lucrative" market which isn't surprising considering the amount of funding available to those willing to tow whatever the current corporate line is.
They sort of came to be at a bad time for them to enter the American market, in the early 00s. They were the "Terrorist Mouthpiece" because of their willingness to run Al Quaeda's tapes, and it...
They sort of came to be at a bad time for them to enter the American market, in the early 00s. They were the "Terrorist Mouthpiece" because of their willingness to run Al Quaeda's tapes, and it was a reputation they had to fight to overcome, but some still cling to.
Isn't Jacobin a transparently editorial magazine more than anything? And Current Affairs doesn't do enough clickbait to grab readers, so they're both, understandably, going to be fringe. I was more referring to the major, established players that started as news and now are arguably more slanted to the American left and their pre-positioned established counterparts.
That's a fair assessment. Do you have an example of what you would call a mainstream news outlet targeting the American left? I can think of plenty that find the center but can't think of one that...
That's a fair assessment. Do you have an example of what you would call a mainstream news outlet targeting the American left? I can think of plenty that find the center but can't think of one that I would call "left leaning".
No, and that's not the point I'm making. I specifically chose the language "progressive, or even just liberal" outlets because my point is the mainstream. Anything targeting leftists will either...
Do you have an example of what you would call a mainstream news outlet targeting the American left?
No, and that's not the point I'm making. I specifically chose the language "progressive, or even just liberal" outlets because my point is the mainstream. Anything targeting leftists will either have to be a major online publication with a large, but still sort of fringe (Vice, Buzzfeed News), audience, or as a smaller independent media outlet (Democracy Now!). I feel the need to mention this isn't a valuation of the mentioned organizations.
What you think of as "centrist" organizations are organizations that aren't far enough left for you to consider them progressive. Totally fine, but I'd call it a misrepresentation. They lean farther left than even the American mainstream, even if they throw the occasional softball centrist or conservative opinion to say they don't have any bias. My question was more interested in how this bias emerges: Chasing views (and the revenue they bring), being founded with that bent, or attracting journalists with that bent by accident?
Not to the same extremes, but that makes sense based on the demographics. The majority of people watching public & cable television are older. Newer media companies based around the internet do...
Not to the same extremes, but that makes sense based on the demographics. The majority of people watching public & cable television are older.
Newer media companies based around the internet do exist that serve an audience further to the left. Vox, for instance.
I've been uzing Al Jazeera as my main source of news lately and while this probably won't mark any meaningful changes for Al Jazeera English, this is probably a good opportunity to look around for...
I've been uzing Al Jazeera as my main source of news lately and while this probably won't mark any meaningful changes for Al Jazeera English, this is probably a good opportunity to look around for alternative text-based (sorry Democracy Now) sources for global news. Seems like every publication I used to look to has been bogged down in transphobic bullshit or some other garbage...any recs?
You could try the Associated Press, but it does still skew somewhat towards the West in its "World News" topic. I think USA-based publications are probably the least likely to be casually transphobic.
You could try the Associated Press, but it does still skew somewhat towards the West in its "World News" topic.
I think USA-based publications are probably the least likely to be casually transphobic.
I use AJ English, France24, DW.com quite a bit. I've gone very off BBC News over the last five or six years for various reasons. The Guardian gives good coverage on what it chooses to report....
I use AJ English, France24, DW.com quite a bit. I've gone very off BBC News over the last five or six years for various reasons. The Guardian gives good coverage on what it chooses to report. There is a gaping hole in it's South American coverage, for example. And the transphobia is real on both. I also mostly avoid NYT and WaPo because I've seen them get a lot of stuff very wrong when writing about places outside the USA.
I also read El Pais English, Straits Times, Japan Times and Reuters/Thompson Reuters amongst others.
I think trying to read as wide a range as possible is the best option, rather than looking for one "main source"
The Independent is a UK news paper that isn't transphobic. They sometimes run articles written by trans people, and they normally don't centre stories on hate groups. Here's their world news page:...
The Independent is a UK news paper that isn't transphobic. They sometimes run articles written by trans people, and they normally don't centre stories on hate groups. Here's their world news page: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world
You can see they're struggling a bit, hence a billions ads.
I predict the actual crowd being appealed to here are right-wing liberals. It seems to exist in the same place as the Lincoln Project: it appeals to liberals who think that modern conservatism is uniquely unhinged and that Trump is the one who did it, who unironically believe we need a "strong" republican party. These are the folks that treat George Bush like a hero, a man who represented "decency" to them.
This is nonsense; "unhinged" conspiratorial thinking has been a staple of reactionary politics globally, and for far longer than the current moment. Secret communists in Hollywood during McCarthyism, secret Satanists eating babies in the 90s (and, well, today), President Obama's membership in the Muslim Brotherhood (and his influences from his birthplace of Kenya,) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the "globalists'" (read: Jews) New World Order, and the list can go on.
This seems to be more a timeless method of martialing the forces of reaction, rather than specific party politics, but 2016 wasn't unique. It's happened before and will almost certainly happen again. There's no sense in pretending that everyone at the table should be trusted to be "the adults in the room," that isn't how politics worked in the past and, when the moment is opportune, reactionary opportunistic politicians will utilize these methods yet again.
I thought this was an Onion article at first, but sure enough... I can't see it taking off though - as soon as a righty realizes Rightly is owned by Al Jazeera, their hate of brown people will make them change the channel.
Or it will give conservatives the false sense that they aren't bigoted because they are getting their news from a foreign source. It's like the news equivalent of a proud boy marrying a minority.
Here's a question: Are more progressive, or even just liberal, outlets founded as that, or do they develop into that?
I've noticed there's a tendency to create right-wing news outlets to appeal to the self-proclaimed "marginalized" conservatives, even at at time when they were the ones still largely running the show (Fox News, in 1996, and even arguably today). Al Jazeera is doing this because they see a market to fill, but how did Al Jazeera America come to be what it is? Planned marketing, or an evolution of information and journalists who potentially added a bias?
I don't see this going well, as it is solely a money move, and will likely perpetuate America's issue with right-wing news agencies spreading false information. If this agency reports things accurately it'll likely never gain traction, and if it acts solely to gain traction, it'll likely have to do a lot of selective reporting. It's interesting that they want to play both sides, but they'll be playing against themselves, as well.
I think there are liberal outlets founded this way as well, they are just much more on the fringe, lack funding, and are often dismissed as extremist. Jacobin or Current Affairs are good examples.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Al Jazeera to really jump into the other points. From a quick skim through their wiki, it looks like they have never had good penetration into the US market, despite repeatedly trying. This looks like a pivot into a more "lucrative" market which isn't surprising considering the amount of funding available to those willing to tow whatever the current corporate line is.
They sort of came to be at a bad time for them to enter the American market, in the early 00s. They were the "Terrorist Mouthpiece" because of their willingness to run Al Quaeda's tapes, and it was a reputation they had to fight to overcome, but some still cling to.
Isn't Jacobin a transparently editorial magazine more than anything? And Current Affairs doesn't do enough clickbait to grab readers, so they're both, understandably, going to be fringe. I was more referring to the major, established players that started as news and now are arguably more slanted to the American left and their pre-positioned established counterparts.
That's a fair assessment. Do you have an example of what you would call a mainstream news outlet targeting the American left? I can think of plenty that find the center but can't think of one that I would call "left leaning".
No, and that's not the point I'm making. I specifically chose the language "progressive, or even just liberal" outlets because my point is the mainstream. Anything targeting leftists will either have to be a major online publication with a large, but still sort of fringe (Vice, Buzzfeed News), audience, or as a smaller independent media outlet (Democracy Now!). I feel the need to mention this isn't a valuation of the mentioned organizations.
What you think of as "centrist" organizations are organizations that aren't far enough left for you to consider them progressive. Totally fine, but I'd call it a misrepresentation. They lean farther left than even the American mainstream, even if they throw the occasional softball centrist or conservative opinion to say they don't have any bias. My question was more interested in how this bias emerges: Chasing views (and the revenue they bring), being founded with that bent, or attracting journalists with that bent by accident?
Not to the same extremes, but that makes sense based on the demographics. The majority of people watching public & cable television are older.
Newer media companies based around the internet do exist that serve an audience further to the left. Vox, for instance.
I've been uzing Al Jazeera as my main source of news lately and while this probably won't mark any meaningful changes for Al Jazeera English, this is probably a good opportunity to look around for alternative text-based (sorry Democracy Now) sources for global news. Seems like every publication I used to look to has been bogged down in transphobic bullshit or some other garbage...any recs?
And unfortunately are the main two I meant with the transphobia problem :/ I might go back to the BBC if I have no other options, but I'd rather not.
You could try the Associated Press, but it does still skew somewhat towards the West in its "World News" topic.
I think USA-based publications are probably the least likely to be casually transphobic.
I use AJ English, France24, DW.com quite a bit. I've gone very off BBC News over the last five or six years for various reasons. The Guardian gives good coverage on what it chooses to report. There is a gaping hole in it's South American coverage, for example. And the transphobia is real on both. I also mostly avoid NYT and WaPo because I've seen them get a lot of stuff very wrong when writing about places outside the USA.
I also read El Pais English, Straits Times, Japan Times and Reuters/Thompson Reuters amongst others.
I think trying to read as wide a range as possible is the best option, rather than looking for one "main source"
The Independent is a UK news paper that isn't transphobic. They sometimes run articles written by trans people, and they normally don't centre stories on hate groups. Here's their world news page: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world
You can see they're struggling a bit, hence a billions ads.
Yall'Jazeera