We don’t trust the media. Perhaps you’re saying, “What do you mean ‘we’? I trust the media!” Fine, but you’re outnumbered. Gallup reports that trust in media has been steadily declining since the heyday of the 70s (when the Washington Post single-handedly brought down the corrupt presidency of Richard Nixon).
At first, I was going to say something about this being a bad effort at steelmanning the argument that the press hasn’t lost public trust for justifiable reasons, because it uses NPR as an easy punching bag. (I personally have hated them for a couple decades at least; the last positive memories I have of them date back to the time of Andrei Codrescu’s “The Hole In The Flag”.) But reflecting on it, this is fair, if a bit cartoonish, given NPR distills all the faults of the media for its noisy audience of totebag recipients.
If I were to guess, I'd say that Professor Poon might not see the discrimination against Asians; if your main goal is equity, you might be tempted to define a discriminatory action as an action that disadvantages underrepresented groups. Under that definition, there is no discrimination against Asians.
This revised definition makes little sense to me, but it might be the standard definition in intersectional circles.
The media has always been used as a tool by those who own it. Glad to see you becoming more aware of that. Some sources are more reliable than other sources but they all have their biases. American media is especially bad.
The irony is that (some of) the mainstream media has become what conservatives spend decades falsely accusing it of being. Be careful what you lie about, it just might come true.
When a class of people (liberal media elites) fails to comprehend that their worldview isn’t objectively true and thus not deserving of blind acceptance, and their training has de-emphasized core ethical principles of the profession (at least those that were held and taught in the past), you end up with something akin to proselytization - especially when their worldview is shaped by an unbreakable belief in group power dynamics. Their job is not even to attempt to be unbiased or balanced. It’s to preach to those who haven’t heard the truth yet - to make them understand their place in the group matrix. It’s to convert, not respect. Even if they know how transparently ridiculous they’ve become in some cases - it’s cool to be a fool for Jesus so to speak.
Too often, media falls to either 1) audience capture, or 2) trying way too hard to keep a neutral perspective that it bounces like a ping pong ball. Mainstream sources turn off the hard right, hard left, and whatever "Online Heterodox" is.
As I see it, #1 is definitely the NPR example., while #2 can be seen in the NYT piece about Gal Luft, adding fuel to the conspiracy theory fire about his indictment happening just as he supposedly has dirt on POTUS' son. In both cases, there is some context missing.
At first, I was going to say something about this being a bad effort at steelmanning the argument that the press hasn’t lost public trust for justifiable reasons, because it uses NPR as an easy punching bag. (I personally have hated them for a couple decades at least; the last positive memories I have of them date back to the time of Andrei Codrescu’s “The Hole In The Flag”.) But reflecting on it, this is fair, if a bit cartoonish, given NPR distills all the faults of the media for its noisy audience of totebag recipients.
If I were to guess, I'd say that Professor Poon might not see the discrimination against Asians; if your main goal is equity, you might be tempted to define a discriminatory action as an action that disadvantages underrepresented groups. Under that definition, there is no discrimination against Asians.
This revised definition makes little sense to me, but it might be the standard definition in intersectional circles.
The media has always been used as a tool by those who own it. Glad to see you becoming more aware of that. Some sources are more reliable than other sources but they all have their biases. American media is especially bad.
The irony is that (some of) the mainstream media has become what conservatives spend decades falsely accusing it of being. Be careful what you lie about, it just might come true.
When a class of people (liberal media elites) fails to comprehend that their worldview isn’t objectively true and thus not deserving of blind acceptance, and their training has de-emphasized core ethical principles of the profession (at least those that were held and taught in the past), you end up with something akin to proselytization - especially when their worldview is shaped by an unbreakable belief in group power dynamics. Their job is not even to attempt to be unbiased or balanced. It’s to preach to those who haven’t heard the truth yet - to make them understand their place in the group matrix. It’s to convert, not respect. Even if they know how transparently ridiculous they’ve become in some cases - it’s cool to be a fool for Jesus so to speak.
Too often, media falls to either 1) audience capture, or 2) trying way too hard to keep a neutral perspective that it bounces like a ping pong ball. Mainstream sources turn off the hard right, hard left, and whatever "Online Heterodox" is.
As I see it, #1 is definitely the NPR example., while #2 can be seen in the NYT piece about Gal Luft, adding fuel to the conspiracy theory fire about his indictment happening just as he supposedly has dirt on POTUS' son. In both cases, there is some context missing.