The bit of that story that worried me most was this:
The authors said there was “widespread appreciation” of the BBC’s coverage, but they were “disturbed” by how many viewers, listeners and readers said they did not understand it.
“In our audience research, most had no comment about impartiality on fiscal policy because they didn’t know what the stories meant.”
Education, education, education!
Some of which might include the BBC getting reporters on this stuff to explain as much as report. But that would risk accusations of partiality, of course, given …
“Some journalists seem to feel instinctively that debt is simply bad, full stop, and don’t appear to realise this can be contested and contestable.”
Several such assumptions “seem to lurk like this either unnoticed or uncorrected”, they added. “Others that outsiders observed in BBC coverage were: ‘more public spending is good’ and ‘tax cuts are good.’”
If a BBC report ever said ‘debt is not bad, per se’ the Tory fuckwits would explode with apoplexy.
Yet again, it’s the failure to recognise that “the left” is a broad and diverse collection of communities, where the only thing common to all of us is we don’t want to live in a right wing world.
Anarcha-feminists and girlboss feminists will never agree on much, neither will pink capitalists and queer socialists, or Marxists, liberals and anarchists, but when faced with a common enemy we will come together to fight it.
As far as I can tell all the real leftist ideologies agree that human lives have value, even if they disagree on how to realize that. The right thinks only some do, and the far right thinks the rest have negative value.
The NYT keeps getting these things wrong. The lesson from Wicked is to not always believe the history written by the victors. Elphaba isn’t a supervillain. And Elno isn’t either - he’s manbaby, throwing fits and tantrums but doing the damage with the weight of hundreds of billions of $ behind it.
He’s more Syndrome from The IIncredibles than Lex Luther.
OK, I can kinda see the premise of this being true.
But what the hell is meant by this last paragraph?
They’re taking charge on their own initiative. I see them everywhere.
[…]
These serious people are the real deal, and don’t have time for fluff. They are already detaching themselves from the businesses and institutions that dish out cotton candy culture.
Who are these people? It would have helped if he had given examples of who he thinks is such a serious person, because I don’t “see them everywhere” any more than before
Either he didn’t want to offend anyone by mentioning some serious influencers and leaving many people out, or he just wanted to lament the times we live in and has no idea who is really serious. Today’s most sober thinker can reveal himself to be a court jester in a few weeks.
I came across this article after reading another article that also lamented the era of influencers. The author pointed out that people who, by force of their jobs, like politicians and civil servants, have difficulty communicating with the public, who have become accustomed to the aesthetics of social media. The author jokes that those who want to implement public policies have to learn dance moves or funny pantomimes to use the TikToks that are popping up everywhere.
Can you imagine, for example, someone like Dr. Fauci or Dr. Thedros dancing to the latest pop idol as they Talk about the Coronavirus?
Good Morning America this morning said that Trump was assembling the most ideologically diverse cabinet in decades. The media has given up completely and decided to go full Trump to save their own asses, I guess. Jesus fucking Christ.
