This links below should not be very surprising since:
PEW Partisan Divide Grows
CNN New Poll
If anything scares me with regard to Our Nation is Dying, it is what the modern technologies have done to enable citizens to stay in and reinforce their personal perspectives. The folks on the Far Left keep drinking their kool aid and those on the Far Right keep drinking theirs, and the situation just keeps getting more volatile.
- the Liberals focus on Liberal news sources and communicate more regularly with Liberal friends
- the Conservatives focus on Conservative news sources and communicate more regularly with Conservative Friends
PEW Partisan Divide Grows
CNN New Poll
If anything scares me with regard to Our Nation is Dying, it is what the modern technologies have done to enable citizens to stay in and reinforce their personal perspectives. The folks on the Far Left keep drinking their kool aid and those on the Far Right keep drinking theirs, and the situation just keeps getting more volatile.
56 comments:
Everybody has their perspective. I am certainly willing work with those who see things differently. The fact is Obamacare was very far from what people like me wanted, but we worked with people representing different interests and things got done.
Trump recently felt in the mood to get along with his political adversaries and a deal with regard to DACA and the debt ceiling limit followed in short order.
Our political system, for better or worse, was designed to work on the basis of consensus. It's how it differs the British Parliamentary system which the founders knew, were influenced by, and which they rejected. But the flaw of a consensus based system is that a minority, incapable of producing a policy of it's own, has the ability to prevent the formulation of policy by others. And it's that weakness that is prevailing today. It's why Clarence Thomas was able to be confirmed by a senate, the majority of which objected to his views, a couple of decades ago, where Merrick Garland was unable to secure even a hearing.
Our system is both brittle and weak. If it's exposed to the slightest degree of pressure, it will collapse. It's tempting to blame Trump and his election, but he is just the result of a process that's been going on for a long time.
--Hiram
I could find a link that shows many / most liberals rely on sources like wapo and regional newspapers while conservatives are getting their news from Breitbart. In fact I think I have posted that link so I am not going to bother. My point is the left and the right are not equivalent in terms of information / misinformation they get from the news sources they use.
You may not agree with my values and conclusions / preferences about policy but I think I get very reliable info from Wapo and NYT
WAPO and NYT are not bad, but they are still left of center... Which explains why you trust them so much.
All Sides Bias Ratings
Same as why my Parents love Fox News.
Hiram,
You must be kidding...
"Our system is both brittle and weak. If it's exposed to the slightest degree of pressure, it will collapse."
This is the same system that survived a civil war, prohibition, civil rights conflict and multiple wars. I think it has proven itself resilient, flexible and changes slowly with the populations views.
I am tired and cannot fight the urge to type the thought that you are an idiot to say fox news and wapo / nyt have equivalent biases and reliability as news sources. People who read the NYT are way more accurately informed then your parents watching fox and friends. I really don't know why I bother.
This is the same system that survived a civil war, prohibition,
Well, no it didn't. There was a Civil War after which the nation was reconstructed. The job they did was barely adequate and the country has mostly stumbled along since then. And now the deals, the understandings that were entered into back then are in an advanced process of unraveling.
--Hiram
Laurie,
WAPO and NYT earned one L and
Fox News earned 2 R's
so yes Fox is more biased than the other 2.
And often it is not accuracy that is the problem with any of them. It is the continual focus on the side of the story that attracts their viewers / readers.
Usually when I watch Fox with Ma & Pa, the content is accurate. The problem is that they just keep focusing on stories from a perspective that resonates with their readers / viewers.
They pretty much avoid covering the stories from multiple perspectives because to do so would alienate their desired demographic.
And we know what happens when I expose you to different perspectives... There is a desire to just change channels until you find something that does not violate your sense of reality. This is the human tendency that concerns me.
Hiram,
Reconstruction is an excellent example of how are system is resilient, flexible and changes slowly with the populations views.
Laurie,
As a test of the tendency. What is your first thought / response / emotion to the following exchange?
"Students at my school will be bringing home backpacks full of food tomorrow. I think it would be great if their parents could earn more $." Laurie
"I agree that it is terrible that these families and children are struggling financially. It would be great if their Parents would have only the number of children they can afford to feed and care for well." G2A
Reconstruction doomed African-Americans to another century of less-than-full participation in this country's promise. I'm not sure how it can be pointed to as this glowing example of American exceptionalism. At best, it can only be considered a partial success.
I never said America was flawless... I said... "how our system is resilient, flexible and changes slowly with the populations views."
Now isn't that what a democracy is supposed to do?
The reality is that many Americans were not ready to treat Black citizens as equals, which is unfortunate but that is where the social norms of our society were at that time.
This compared to Hiram's much more cynical view. "Our system is both brittle and weak. If it's exposed to the slightest degree of pressure, it will collapse. It's tempting to blame Trump and his election, but he is just the result of a process that's been going on for a long time."
Or do you think that America will only be Exceptional when all of it's policies and laws are aligned with specifically what you believe is correct?
"The reality is that many Americans were not ready to treat Black citizens as equals, which is unfortunate but that is where the social norms of our society were at that time."
It's a hell of a lot more than "unfortunate".
Reconstruction is an excellent example of how are system is resilient, flexible and changes slowly with the populations views.
Civil War is an excellent example of a system in collapse.
Essentially after the Civil War, the constitution had to be rewritten and the country had to start over. The birth of freedom was new.
--Hiram
Sean,
You can wish that citizens were more enlightened back at some point in time, but they were not. Therefore our Democracy was doing just what it was supposed to do.
"democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."
Thankfully our government and Constitution has allowed for our country to improve as time passed and our society shifted and matured.
Hiram,
We will need to agree to disagree. From my perspective, the constitution was just improved through the additions of amendments. No re-writing required.
Another piece of evidence that the government is failing is that the president is trying to sabotage your health care. After he failed to repeal Obamacare, he is acting in various ways to destabilize the system which will drive up the cost of insurance premiums. That the president is acting ways contrary to the interests of Americans is evidence that the system is failing.
--Hiram
I would agree with Hiram's above point -- Trump is actively taking steps that harm people instead of administering the law in the best way possible while trying to change it. The fact that his party is going along with that scheme is an indication that those in the Legislative and Executive Branches have lost sight of their primary responsibilities.
The problem with this logic...
"is acting in ways contrary to the interests of Americans"
is that many Americans think and/or thought that ACA "was acting in ways contrary to the interests of Americans"
And yet you were both big fans of its passage. Was that proof that the Legislative and Executive Branches had lost sight of their primary responsibilities. I mean many self employed families have paid dearly because of ACA.
Along those lines of good or bad being relative.
Another question... If someone stops marketing and propping a questionable system with a LOT of tax payer money. Is that an attempt to destabilize or just letting natural consequences occur?
Obama and crew had no problem using executive orders to prop up and enforce ACA.
f someone stops marketing and propping a questionable system with a LOT of tax payer money. Is that an attempt to destabilize or just letting natural consequences occur?
It's an attempt to stabilize. The natural consequence is to follow the law, particularly on such an important matter on which people rely. Trump's behavior is quite inexplicable but it is evidence of how our country is failing.
--Hiram
The law seemingly has quite a bit of wiggle room since both Obama and Trump have made adjustment regarding its implementation.
And Donald is quite the wriggler.
But the fact is, he is acting in a way that will raise your insurance premiums.
--Hiram
I am not sure about that... Please remember that the vast majority of Americans are covered by Company programs (many self funded), Government programs, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
Now I know that ACA drove additional costs into my program and tax bill. (ie more coverage requirements, less FSA, medical tax, etc)
I am not sure how the disturbance of ACA will ripple for us company drones.
It seems pretty likely that under Trump insurance costs will increase for women, including your daughters. Also as more unplanned children are born the govt costs should go up for things like medicaid. Or maybe you prefer these unplanned children born to young women who can't afford them don't get access to health care.
"Obama and crew had no problem using executive orders to prop up and enforce ACA."
President Obama signed only one EO related to ACA implementation, and all it did was restate the Hyde Amendment.
"Now I know that ACA drove additional costs into my program and tax bill."
Employer-market premiums have been slow growing since ACA implementation.
Factcheck: Employer Premiums and the ACA
So I just spent 5 minutes finding and rereading an article about the study I referenced earlier. People on the right consume much more polarized, misleading news such as Breitbart than people on the left, who rely more on mainstream news sources such as wapo and NYT. Notice the big Breitbart cirlce in the graphic.
A Major New Study Shows That Political Polarization Is Mainly A Right-Wing Phenomenon
The reason I took this time is related to a WAPO opinion piece I read mocking what these Brietbart readers have been learning.
A dispatch from Deep State Command
I get 0 % of my news from facebook, have never clicked a new link there in my life, but I did just read an exchange from my cousin, a Trump hater like myself, and her accountant, an avid Trump supporter. She thinks it will be valuable to try to understand a different perspective.
I thought about commenting that based on my experience it will mostly be a waste of time but I didn't, as I have also never posted a facebook comment either (that's a little odd I know) Anyway, maybe an exchange of views has a little bit of value as I have been commenting here for like 5 years and I usually drop my interests much quicker than that.
"is that many Americans think and/or thought that ACA "was acting in ways contrary to the interests of Americans""
Well, then, why is it proving so hard to replace? Why is the ACA more popular than ever? Why are Republican plans consistently polling at around 20% support?
Sean,
From your source.
"Another factor keeping employer premiums low, Claxton said, is that there hasn’t been new medical technology in the past few years that typically spikes spending and premiums. There could be a higher increase for employer plans next year, he says, but “we’ve been predicting it for a little while.”
There’s some truth to Spicer’s statement about employer-based insurance premiums going up because of the ACA. But the impact has been small and related to increased benefit requirements in 2011. Since then, employer plans have been growing at historically low average rates."
So I think my statement is still accurate. "Now I know that ACA drove additional costs into my program and tax bill." Please remember the significant hit my FSA took.
Sean,
ACA is a wealth transfer entitlement with no work requirement.
Of course many people are going to support it after it is in place.
It takes money directly from the learners, worker, savers, investors, etc and gives it to others... (ie food in the trough) A good example of how our country's incentives are not driving the behavior necessary to make our country's citizens smarter and more capable.
A link very related to this topic of polarization and how we see thing very differently:
Shifting attitudes among Democrats have big implications for 2020
While the wapo summary of the survey is well written, here is the actual PEW research which I have not yet looked at:
Partisan divides over political values widen
Laurie,
The CJR Article is Interesting, however I am not sure what to make of it.
They say there is asymmetry, however per their graphics there are still a lot of Liberals going to Mother Jones, VOX, HP, DailyKos, etc for their news.
And how did they account for people like me who disliked Trump but voted for him anyway? And people who disliked Clinton because she was to centrist for their Liberal tastes. I mean Clinton lost because a lot of the far Left voters did not show up.
The PEW graphs sure indicate that the Liberals are becoming far more Liberal. (ie lines sloped strongly downward) And the Conservative's responses seem mixed.
as Balz explains; the data confirms my view that the right has moved more than the left in years past. Now the left is doing the moving as the party sometimes becomes more liberal than me. From my link:
"This poll is the latest in a series of surveys dating back to 1994. Together they provide not just snapshots in time, but also an arc of the changes in public opinion. Republicans moved to the right harder and earlier than Democrats began moving left, and their base remains more uncompromising. But on a number or questions, the biggest recent movement has been among Democrats.
In its new survey, Pew found the widest partisan gap ever on the question of whether government should help those in need — primarily because of recent shifts among Democrats. From 2011 to today, the percentage of Democrats who say government should do more to help those in need has jumped from 54 percent to 71 percent.
Only a minority of Republicans (24 percent) say government should do more for the needy, and that figure has barely moved in the past six years. The Republicans shifted their views from 2007 through 2011, the early years of the Obama presidency, during which their support for a government role dropped by 20 percentage points."
"ACA is a wealth transfer entitlement with no work requirement.
Of course many people are going to support it after it is in place."
What people have learned is that the ACA is a moderate piece of legislation that works to accomplish a goal that many people want. They've learned that the GOP has been selling them a stinky load of B.S. the last seven years. And, in fact, polling shows far more support for *more* government involvement in health care than less.
To me the point of the study on news consumption is that a large number of conservatives get their news from Breitbart, which is not equivalent to MJ or vox. Those liberal news sources do not do bizarre conspiracy stories. Also, more liberals get their news from less biased stories like WAPO and NYT which are mostly strait up news articles. I, however read mostly opinion pieces in these papers, which lean left. I do try to read the conservative ones as well, which there are not as many of.
Laurie,
I think you are exaggerating how many people read Breitbart. Personally I know of none.
Here are some interesting links.
WAPO BN Cleaning House
Bleeding Readers
Here is why I prefer to stick to BBC, NPR, PBS, CNN and the network news.
Sean,
Here is an interesting discussion of your claim.
Reason
Laurie,
Here is another interesting link. Breitbart does not even make the list.
Laurie,
Maybe you are just trying to envision that the Trump voters are a bunch of Breitbart junkies?
Why would that be?
Could it be that you have judged them inferior and therefore are looking down on them?
Kind of like the people on the far right look down on those on the far left.
I will never understand this desire by people on both sides to think so highly of themselves and so lowly of others.
The reason I said conservatives get their news from Breitbart is because that is what the link I posted said.
"Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world. This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.
While concerns about political and media polarization online are longstanding, our study suggests that polarization was asymmetric. Pro-Clinton audiences were highly attentive to traditional media outlets, which continued to be the most prominent outlets across the public sphere, alongside more left-oriented online sites. But pro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season."
Could it be that you have judged them inferior and therefore are looking down on them?
I think it's important to be careful when imputing thoughts or feelings to others. Each of us, or at least I know that's true for me, has a tendency to do that in a way that benefits us.
I don't think people who disagree with me are inferior. I many occasions, I have the uneasy sense that many people who I talk to and disagree with me are superior to me. That's not something that's all that hard, really.
As a political person, I think most people look down on me. Politics can be irritating, and it's not fashionable or hip. Although I never aspire to either, I do understand that attitude is out there. I just don't think it matters much. It's certainly not something I focus on.
--Hiram
Laurie,
And I question your interpretation of your source since apparently Breitbart still is a very small player with few readers. Now I agree that some millions of the far Righter Conspiracy theory folks may check it out, just as some millions of the far Lefter Conspiracy theory folks check out Daily Kos, Think Progress, Mother Jones, etc. But remember the definition of asymmetry.
"Definition of asymmetrical. 1 :having two sides or halves that are not the same :not symmetrical. an asymmetrical design"
It just says they are different. The difference can be small. In summary I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill because it supports your perspective of Trump voters.
Hiram,
I think the challenge with both the far Right and the far Left is that they are both so certain that they are correct / good and the other side is wrong / bad that it is the key problem the USA faces going forward.
Both sides just keep reinforcing their beliefs into a near religious fervor like some kind of cult. This leads to a growth in anger and an inability to have productive dialogue.
Look at what Laurie is doing. "My sources are more accurate and balanced." "They are listening to wrong / bad sources." This is exactly the same response I get from my Conservative Parents except in reverse.
I have no idea how we will stop this escalation on both the Left and the Right...
I question your tendency to dismiss research when you disagree with the findings. What is more reliable - John's impressions based on the fact that his parents watch Fox news and don't read Breitbart or a major study from a highly regarded University that considered 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day. Probably conservatives rely on Fox news much more than Breitbart but they are also sharing a great deal of Breitbart content on twitter and facebook.
Jerry, who it seems to be taking another break from here, definitely resides in a world of alternative facts that he is picking up from somewhere.
The left does not have an equivalent to Breitbart and info wars that are as misinforming and as widely read and shared. Huffington post does not do weird conspiracy stories.
Laurie,
My point is that the following is more of an opinion than a statistically quantifiable piece of information. Look at the wording they use.
I can't tell how asymmetrical, what they consider significant,
"While concerns about political and media polarization online are longstanding, our study suggests that polarization was asymmetric. Pro-Clinton audiences were highly attentive to traditional media outlets, which continued to be the most prominent outlets across the public sphere, alongside more left-oriented online sites. But pro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season."
When we know this is inaccurate because my sources show that most Conservatives watch and read FOX News... And Breitbart barely has a following relative to FOX...
And FOX may be biased, but they sure have been around a lot longer than 10 years.
And to make checking me easy. PEW Main News Sources
I don't think I am "correct" about stuff. What we talk about doesn't have correct answers.
--Hiram
Clearly you haven't read or don't understand the information / research results that are being discussed in the columbia journalism study. I am done trying to make my point that the polarized right rely on less reliable sources than the polarized left. I think you misunderstand the information because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
Ironically that is pretty much what my Father tells me when I challenge his view / sources.
Is your father citing research from a highly regarded university that includes over 1 million data points? How did you become such an expert that you place so much trust in your general impressions of how things are? This seems to be one of those instances in which your claim to be self aware seems laughable to me.
Why are you ignoring the pew info that clearly shows Breitbart to be a small player.
And how asymmetric do you think your source claims the asymmetry to be? Magnitude? Is it statistically significant?
I don't believe the 2 studies contradict each other. They just have a different focus.
When conservative retweet and post stories to facebook they most often share Breitbart. Liberals most frequently share Wapo stories.
The little circles in the graphic indicate magnitude. Mostly I rely on the summary of their findings
"Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world. This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.
While concerns about political and media polarization online are longstanding, our study suggests that polarization was asymmetric. Pro-Clinton audiences were highly attentive to traditional media outlets, which continued to be the most prominent outlets across the public sphere, alongside more left-oriented online sites. But pro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season."
Post a Comment