Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

WaPo tilting further Right

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by tampagtr, Jun 3, 2024.

  1. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,636
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bringing new management team from right of center media. Not clear exactly why this is happening but we can speculate.

    First is that they are making a business decision to try to draw in more readers from the right who don't trust so-called mainstream media. If that is the motivation, it is a fool's errand. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post already try to cater to them and it is never enough. Those that don't trust the mainstream media don't accept reality. They won't ever trust any reporting that accurately reflects externally verifiable reality.

    It may also be a business decision from Jeff Bezos, worried about future regulatory oversight. So far there's no evidence he has ever interfered in the Post reporting, and it's helpful to have a billionaire subsidizing otherwise unprofitable reporting in a time of difficult media economics. So on the whole it is likely positive that he owns the Post. But you do worry about conflicts due to understandable concern about unscrupulous regulatory threats to shape reporting.


     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2024
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    12,186
    2,649
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    I respect the move of Bezos (who I loathe for what he has done to small business) to protect the free press with his purchase of the WaPo. My guess is this is looking to do what Tampa said, a fool’s errand to drive some of the half of the country that wont read real news by packaging it more conservative. WSJ is a right wing opinion arm but they really do report the news and they really dont report non-facts even though they sensationalize a bit to the right. WaPo can carve out something like that in the non-financial news, maybe?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,636
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Solid distinction on WSJ reporting vs. Opinion. Lets hope they follow that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  4. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    This will probably bite them in the ass. Unless the WaPo goes full wingnut right, it won't be enough to lure the right-wingers. And if they just move a little right of center, at best they will gain some conservative readers but lose liberal readers. When you read the comments on a conservative opinion piece, you invariably see angry liberal subscribers threatening to cancel their subscriptions.
     
  5. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    You guys really think we dont get slanted reporting from a media that is like 90% Democrat?

    I know it gets exaggerated, but lets not act like the only motivation is pure facts.

    How about just move to accuracy with no bias and stop trying to move left or right?
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 1
  6. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    12,186
    2,649
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    I am not sure you’re picking a fight with the right people. Almost everyone above said a right wing lean to factual reporting is fine but probably not marketable because right wingers like fake news. There was no intent to challenge the legitimacy of right leaning institutions that report facts which is basically just the WSJ unless i am leaving someone out. The Washington Examiner is a joke as is the New York Post.
     
  7. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,636
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    There goes the thread...at least for substance
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  8. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    Fair enough. Maybe a bit knee-jerk on my part.
     
  9. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    Why?

    1.Because I dared to point out that media should not be trying to cater to EITHER side?

    2. I pointed out the gross disproportion in political leanings in our media?
     
  10. mikemcd810

    mikemcd810 Premium Member

    1,957
    436
    348
    Apr 3, 2007
    When I hear "move further to the right" these days I just interpret that as "be more willing to lend credence to popular conspiracy theories." I don't see WaPo going completely off the deep end though and I'm willing to see how it plays out. If the end result is more conservatives trusting WaPo for news then it may end up being a good thing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  11. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    32,754
    12,217
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    It would be nice if we, as a country, could agree to incorporate a media bias chart for those interested in rational discussion.

    Pick a source in the middle three columns and discard the rest. Slant is one thing. Lies and intentionally editing out relevant information goes beyond slant into propaganda.

    Media Bias | AllSides

    allsides_fact_check_bias_chart_version_30.jpg allsides_media_bias_chart_version_92.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Trickster

    Trickster VIP Member

    10,172
    2,482
    3,233
    Sep 20, 2014
    I've seen those extremist comments, too, proving that the left can be as intractable as the right. An old saying normally associated with sex might be of use: "Variety is the spice of life."
     
  13. swampbabe

    swampbabe GC Hall of Fame

    3,725
    934
    2,643
    Apr 8, 2007
    Viera, FL
    The issue with AllSides is that it is dependent on public perception/input. The true crux of the issue is there is no consensus on what constitutes left v. right.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,375
    1,919
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    Every time I see one of these charts I think the people putting them together are pretty stupid and have no idea what words mean. Like the NYT opinion page which features Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens and multiple conservatives (and almost no one that could be called a 'leftist' other than Bouie) is in the same category as a long-form socialist magazine like Jacobin. Its just moronic. Anyways I'm not sure why people are so concerned about viewpoint bias instead of actual quality.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2024
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. gatorjo

    gatorjo GC Hall of Fame

    1,700
    315
    213
    Feb 24, 2024
    I get tired of this being accepted as true.

    What's the basis? Ad revenue generating sources? Clicks? Views? We all know the scope of Fox "News", for just one example.

    Also, the sites that get labelled as "Left" or Democrat" may or may not have such a bias - think CNN- but they are most certainly NOT outright purveyors of actual lies and falsehoods, as are nearly all "right-wing" media sources.


    IMO this false narrative has gone on for so long that we (as a nation) are now willing to tolerate outright lying and propaganda apparatuses from the right because.....other media has a leftward bias?





    Edit : And I haven't even addressed the fact that the lying felon in charge of the Trumppublican Party will go so far as to actually castigate right-wing news for its coverage not being supportive enough......and threaten them.

    It's downright preposterous that that would be accepted by any grown adult. But....the biggest media problem to so many is something specious, or cut from whole cloth, like "90% of media is leftward."
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  16. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    8,757
    1,650
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    And I’m sure it means just that at times, but I do also think there is potential for the second type of meaning, where conservative viewpoints are given a more equal place at the table. It has to be true that one’s perspective tints their views of the world, and if so, the only way I can see to achieve objectivity is to include a diversity of viewpoints.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  17. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 26, 2007
    Agree. The NYT opinion page should be 'left' (the 2nd column of the chart), not far left (the first col). I wonder if these ratings are bending over backwards to try to seem impartial.
     
  18. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,636
    2,881
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    But how tethered to reality does a viewpoint have to be to earn deference in the discussion?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,375
    1,919
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    What does that even mean in practice though? Most media is already driven by conservative viewpoints in what it chooses to cover.
     
  20. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,375
    1,919
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    I'm also wondering why you'd even bother putting opinion sections in a bias chart to begin with.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1