::: Trump v. Harris Debate Thread, Tue. at 9pm on ABC

I think you’d be surprised by how much I think about the purported liberal bias of the media. In addition to me being obsessed with the larger question of truth and bias, two of my friends are rather obsessed with the particular question of the liberal bias of media, so I end up thinking about it all time. In fact, we are discussing Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent on Sunday, as a model for understanding the liberal media!

Now I think the issue is more complex than many on the right see. It appears that the basic model is that 1) mainstream journalists are indoctrinated with liberal culture, therefore 2) their narratives are necessarily infused with liberal thinking, and therefore 3) we regular citizens are brainwashed with liberal perspective. All of this is certainly possible. The first point is supported by empirical data, but latter two are much trickier to demonstrate because bias can only be detected in comparison with objective truth, which is not all that easy to come by.

Eg: I’ve asked you this before, but if the liberal media’s brainwashing is so powerful, how did you come to resist it? Similarly, the right wing media seems similarly convinced of this liberal bias in media, so if media can have this potent effect, is it not possible that you are simply being brainwashed by a different media ecosystem to even believe in this bias? An interesting thing about employing Chomsky’s propaganda model to defend the right wing accusation of media bias, is that Chomsky was using his model to prove that the media had a conservative bias. It should at least give us a little pause when the same model can be used as evidence for opposite conclusions.

I think we all should try to question our own thinking, and I have put a lot of effort toward doing this. Of course, I am sure that I have not met my goal objectivity, but why should I assume that others have met it? If we can’t trust the NYT, does that automatically mean that we can Brietbart? These are not easy questions. I’ll leave you with an overly long but thought provoking post that a friend sent yesterday on evaluating the media. If you find yourself with time, I think it can offer some real food for thought. (And it’s authored by someone viewed as right leaning):

Why the Media is Honest and Good

 

They're pretty upfront about this. They see our openness as a weakness they plan to exploit.

 

Oh I believe it. I just think we must assume that many other entities are attempting the same mental takeover without being so upfront about their efforts.

 

The key is knowing who they are and where they're coming from and, in a lot of cases, what they're selling. That's one of the first tenants of studying History, and it applies in real life as well. Especially now, with everything siloed to profit from a specific fan base.

 

And FB, X, etc welcome and encourage it for no other reason than it puts $$$ in their pockets. They'd sell the whole country to the CCP for the right price and guarantees.

 

Wow! You are more intellectual than I am. This Sunday, my friends and I will be discussing football or fishing.

 

Ohio’s governor has been doing charity work in Haiti for some time. He and his family started and funded a school there in honor of their daughter who died in a car crash. Sadly, the school had to cease operations because of Port Au Prince being run by gangs.

That could explain why they ended up in Ohio. Why they specifically picked Springfield, I don’t know.

 

Sorry, I wasn’t clear enough. I wasn’t saying they came to Ohio because of DeWine’s charity. I merely meant that his familiarity with and affinity for Haiti might have led to why they came here.

 

Fair. But I was responding to the capital gains thing. I don't expect a president Kamala to raise taxes on low to middle income. Everything she has said has been the opposite.

 

Germany getting in on the fact checking of DumpyDork.

 

Have now seen a few clips of this interview and I now know why she doesn’t take questions regularly.

 

They’re eating the spaetzle, they’re eating the schnitzel…

 

Another gem:

 

I realize you were addressing a different issue, but I saw it as my opportunity to at least tie in the two main concerns I have.

Typically, when a politician says they won’t raise taxes on a group, they mean they will not raise the marginal rate. However, my concerns are not tied to marginal rate. If you do away with qualified income deduction and cut the standard deduction in half, it will raise the taxable income of low and middle income people, who mostly rely on the std deduction, and also the self employed.

So even if the tax rate stays the same, the amount of income tax they pay will go up because their taxable income has increased.

I hope you are right that in all aspects she will not raise taxes on low and middle income people.