Network Propaganda and the Radicalization of the Right-Wing Media

[Pontifex Maximus]

Anyone attempting to assert that the main stream media is servicing the Trump agenda is fundamentally brainwashed.

[The spartan]

I trust you as an authority on brainwashing.

[Diocle]

Anyone attempting to assert that the main stream media is servicing the Trump agenda is fundamentally brainwashed.

How can you hope to counter bots and the AI moving them?

"Mainstream media always say the truth, right wing media are always biased."

[Heathen Hammer]

90% of mass media? I don't think you get how media works in the US; many of the big corporations are citing stories BY the AP. When you sling around your blanket accusations of MSM lies and propaganda, you are also accusing the AP and Reuters even when they don't match your accusations. Again, it isn't the partisanship you have a problem with, you love it when it is partisan for things you like, it is with the content of the stories telling you something you don't like.

Now you are just twisting my words. Again, doesn't change the fact that 90% of media is owned by major corporations, which obviously have partisan interests which reflect on coverage by media outlets that belong to them.

You don't actually know what my beliefs are, so that is a flat out lie. I also believe CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and many others are indeed biased, but you still don't seem to grasp how that is different than making up lies (you know, like Infowars does). And whose neutral perspective are you using? Your own? Give me a break. Kats has posted an academic study that has actually put time and effort into analyzing this junk and you rejected because you don't like it's conclusion (I don't think you ever read anything beyond the OP); you wouldn't know a neutral perspective if it snuck up and bit you in the ass.

I rejected it because it is based on a false premise of assumed lack of bias in corporate-owned mainstream media. Its seems like "neutrality" to you is complacency with your own beliefs (based on your constant rants about right-wingers and anti-establishment movements), whatever those are.
Also CNN, MSNBC and FOX not making up lies? Are you kidding me?

How can you hope to counter bots and the AI moving them?

"Mainstream media always say the truth, right wing media are always biased."

Belief in neutrality of mainstream media mainly comes down to one's lack of critical thinking or one's beliefs alligning with what that media is saying. Obviously a garden-variety anti-Trump "activist" will eat up anything negative about Trump, as we can see in the Mudpit where even the most crazy negative claims about him are assumed as correct by the same group of posters, who now proceed to project their own lack of skepticism on anyone who disagrees with him.

[Katsumoto]

Are you capable of engaging with the evidence presented to you or are you just going to repeat the same talking points ad nauseum? Because that's the exact opposite of critical thinking.

[Heathen Hammer]

Are you capable of engaging with the evidence presented to you or are you just going to repeat the same talking points ad nauseum? Because that's the exact opposite of critical thinking.

I posted evidence that majority of US mainstream media is owned by a small group of corporations. The article presumes that both mainstream outlets and by implication giant media corporations have no political agenda, which is just being out of touch with reality.

[Love Mountain]

I posted evidence that majority of US mainstream media is owned by a small group of corporations. The article presumes that both mainstream outlets and by implication giant media corporations have no political agenda, which is just being out of touch with reality.

It did no such thing, which simply shows that you haven't read the article.

[Diocle]

It did no such thing, which simply shows that you haven't read the article.

The article is pure crap, but this is a personal feeling of course, what you stubbornly refuse to accept is the very clear and simple fact that Heaten Hammer ..

.. posted evidence that majority of US mainstream media is owned by a small group of corporations. The article presumes that both mainstream outlets and by implication giant media corporations have no political agenda, which is just being out of touch with reality.

Now, I don't think you, or anybody else here, need a degree in astrophysics to comment what he posted, it's clear: "majority of US mainstream media is owned by a small group of corporations"

Now I ask you: have you something to answer to this simple and clear FACT?
Or do you need to go on repeating that he didn't read the article you quoted, just to avoid giving an answer to a FACT which fully annihilates the lunatic thesis of the OP?

Do you understand that if the OP didn't presume that "both mainstream outlets and by implication giant media corporations have no political agenda" it would have been even more lunatic and laughable than it already is?

[Katsumoto]

Quite amusing seeing the study's assertions play out within posts here. Almost like it's on to something.

One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure. Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!) This epistemic closure can be a source of solidarity and energy, but it also renders the conservative media ecosystem fragile.

[Love Mountain]

The article is pure crap, but this is a personal feeling of course, what you stubbornly refuse to accept is the very clear and simple fact that Heaten Hammer ..

Refuse what? I didn't say he wasn't correct about concentration of assets in media. I said, he wasn't correct about what the article said. He claimed that,"The article presumes that both mainstream outlets and by implication giant media corporations have no political agenda".

The article clear refers to media outlets by their ideological allegiance. "The authors’ conclusion is that “something very different was happening in right-wing media than in centrist, center-left and left-wing media.” Bias is inevitable in journalism, but the thread is about how right-wing media is different in their reporting from everyone else.

[Heathen Hammer]

It did no such thing, which simply shows that you haven't read the article.

Yes it does, it shows that you are the one who hasn't read the article, since it clearly claims that right-wing media seeks to enforce a narrative, while mainstream media just tries to report on facts. Anyone making a basic glance at CNN, MSNBC or any other major corporate-owned news outlet, will know such implication is simply non-factual.

Quite amusing seeing the study's assertions play out within posts here. Almost like it's on to something.

Not really, posts here that debunked the study by pointing out that mainstream media is incapable of being unbiased due to its own corporate nature. Nobody here really posted any references to conservative blogs or even "right-wing" sources, let alone disregard the article due to it being "liberal", instead it was debunked for being non-factual and ignoring a variety of factors which these posts pointed out. Nobody even argued that right-wing media isn't unbiased, in fact it is quite clear that what everyone is saying is that all mainstream media outlets are bound to be biased, again, due to their own nature. So yeah, the quote you posted doesn't really apply to posts that debunked the article, ironically expressing the behavior that article itself attributes to right-wingers.

[Katsumoto]

The study wasn't debunked. You made some irrelevant argument about the ownership of media companies and suggested the study was false because it claimed media companies have no political agenda - which it didn't. Your entire argument is based on a false premise. Had you bothered to read (or not ignore) the excerpt in the OP, let alone the study itself, you would have known this.

First, while we do find fringe sites on the left that mirror the radical sites, these simply do not have the kind of visibility and prominence on the left as they do on the right. Second, the most visible sites on the left, like Huffington Post, are at their worst mirrors of Fox News, not of the Gateway Pundit or Zero Hedge. And third, all these sites on the left are tightly integrated with traditional mainstream media sites like the New York Times and the Washington Post, and most, though not all, of these sites operate either directly under long- standing journalistic norms or are indirectly sensitive to criticism based on reporting that adheres to such norms. As we show in Chapter 3, there is ample supply of and demand for false hyperpartisan narratives on the left. The difference is that the audience and hyperpartisan commercial clickbait fabricators oriented toward the left form part of a single media ecosystem with center, center- left, and left- wing sites that are committed to journalistic truth- seeking norms. Those norm- constrained sites, both mainstream and net- native, serve as a consistent check on dissemination and validation of the most extreme stories when they do emerge on the left, and have no parallels in the levels of visibility or trust that can perform the same function on the right.

Now if it's simply a case of you not understanding what's been written I can explain it you, if you ask nicely.

[Love Mountain]

Yes it does, it shows that you are the one who hasn't read the article, since it clearly claims that right-wing media seeks to enforce a narrative, while mainstream media just tries to report on facts. Anyone making a basic glance at CNN, MSNBC or any other major corporate-owned news outlet, will know such implication is simply non-factual.

It mentioned mainstream media exactly once in the article and this was the context, "There were five times as many Facebook shares of the most widely shared article about it (1.25 million) as of the most widely shared story about the imagined Clinton pedophilia. But all that chatter was followed by near silence in the liberal and mainstream media, as the story failed to survive the most basic fact-checking scrutiny. "

It continues to refer to media by their political biases. So no, the article never claimed that left-wing media only reports facts or that there are no political agenda in journalism.

Not really, posts here that debunked the study by pointing out that mainstream media is incapable of being unbiased due to its own corporate nature. Nobody here really posted any references to conservative blogs or even "right-wing" sources, let alone disregard the article due to it being "liberal", instead it was debunked for being non-factual and ignoring a variety of factors which these posts pointed out. Nobody even argued that right-wing media isn't unbiased, in fact it is quite clear that what everyone is saying is that all mainstream media outlets are bound to be biased, again, due to their own nature. So yeah, the quote you posted doesn't really apply to posts that debunked the article, ironically expressing the behavior that article itself attributes to right-wingers.

The posts here did not address the study at all... You haven't said a single thing about the conclusion and what you didn't like about it. All you've done is attempt to smear media you don't agree with. Which is fine, but it doesn't change that you didn't address the subject matter at hand.

[Heathen Hammer]

The study wasn't debunked. You made some irrelevant argument about the ownership of media companies and suggested the study was false because it claimed media companies have no political agenda - which it didn't. Your entire argument is based on a false premise. Had you bothered to read (or not ignore) the excerpt in the OP, let alone the study itself, you would have known this.



Now if it's simply a case of you not understanding what's been written I can explain it you, if you ask nicely.

Again, it seems like you didn't actually read replies in this thread or pretending not to have done that. What you call "false premise" is in the very quote you posted.
Especially this part:

The difference is that the audience and hyperpartisan commercial clickbait fabricators oriented toward the left form part of a single media ecosystem with center, center- left, and left- wing sites that are committed to journalistic truth- seeking norms.

Not really, as it was pointed pout earlier the premise of the article was, in fact, debunked based on the fact that article failed to take into the account that any mainstream media, no matter political leaning, is going to be biased due to its own nature as an entity that merely provides media voice to its corporate owner. There are no norms-constrained mainstream media outlets. Just look at mass media coverage of Trump's presidency.

It mentioned mainstream media exactly once in the article and this was the context, "There were five times as many Facebook shares of the most widely shared article about it (1.25 million) as of the most widely shared story about the imagined Clinton pedophilia. But all that chatter was followed by near silence in the liberal and mainstream media, as the story failed to survive the most basic fact-checking scrutiny. "

It continues to refer to media by their political biases. So no, the article never claimed that left-wing media only reports facts or that there are no political agenda in journalism.

LOL but they did repeat similar claims about Trump, which is my point.

The posts here did not address the study at all... You haven't said a single thing about the conclusion and what you didn't like about it. All you've done is attempt to smear media you don't agree with. Which is fine, but it doesn't change that you didn't address the subject matter at hand.

So it looks like you quoted my post but are replying to the exact opposite of what it says. Have you tried reading what you quoted?

[Katsumoto]

LOL but they did repeat similar claims about Trump, which is my point.

Except the study explicitly demonstrates - had you read it - the difference in reporting by examining how exactly such a story didn't gain traction in the mainstream media - precisely because of the fact-checking and truth-seeking norms that you insist don't exist.

What prevented the “Trump raped a 13-year-old” frame from taking off on the left was not a lack of audience desire to receive strong, visceral confirmation of their hatred of Trump. Nothing could be more bias- confirming for Trump opponents. The tremendous success of the Huffington Post and MSN stories during the week of June 29– July 7 exhibits that the desire to believe such a story about Trump existed in spades. It was not the absence of political clickbait fabricators who were trying to push the story to their financial benefit. The passage we quoted from Occupy Democrats and the supply of Trump rape stories from that kind of political clickbait site we showed in Figure 3.5 establish that there were efforts to capitalize on supplying more of this type of story. What prevented this disinformation effort from taking root was the network dynamic whereby diverse sites, many operating on norms dedicated to evaluating the veracity of a story rather than its fit to political purpose or clickbait value, check each other. Even in the absence of the more traditional mainstream press (except the Guardian ), the presence and attention of both journalists and readers to diverse sites was enough to enforce a hard constraint on the ability to disseminate politically affirming falsehoods.

[NosPortatArma]

As the below excerpt states, "having a segment of the population that is systematically disengaged from objective journalism and the ability to tell truth from partisan fiction is dangerous to any country."

Sweden is an example of how this happened, but on the left and with mainstream media. Msm had the majority of Swedes believe that mass immigration was normal, and economically and culturally beneficial. Things that are obviously false were given as truths, such that people comming were all refugees, that "unaccompanied minors" weren't adults, that mass migration is economically beneficial and needed to save future pensions, that sweden has always been a country of immigration and multicultural etc. The journalists of swedish mainstream media are inarguably biased to the left. They distorted, omitted and outrighted lied, in order to paint immigration in a positive light.

the same thing can of course be found on the right.. but right wing media is just a reaction to the leftist bias of msm. Any serious discussion must begin by acknowledging that. That there was a right wing reaction is hardly suprising or mysterious... What is more interesting is how msm was so thoroughly infiltrated by leftists, who imposed their agenda upon it.

[Heathen Hammer]

Except the study explicitly demonstrates - had you read it - the difference in reporting by examining how exactly such a story didn't gain traction in the mainstream media - precisely because of the fact-checking and truth-seeking norms that you insist don't exist.

Plenty of things that never happened get traction in mass media. Do you really want us to bombard you with examples of mass media making false claims that very much so gained traction despite all the imaginary truth-seeking norms?

[The spartan]

Now you are just twisting my words. Again, doesn't change the fact that 90% of media is owned by major corporations, which obviously have partisan interests which reflect on coverage by media outlets that belong to them.

You still don't get it. Ok, let's take a hypothetical:

Let's say the AP published a story about how Donald Trump understated the number of casualties in Puerto Rico during hurricane Maria, and CNN picks up on the story. CNN may publish an article citing the AP that they title "Trump doesn't care about Puerto Ricans" or something, that is their spin. Within the article, they cite the specifics laid out by the AP, but also add their interpretation that Trump is indifferent to the suffering of Puerto Ricans. That is their own biased assertion, there is no way to definitively prove Trump's motivation for understating casualties, but my guess is that you would count that as the "MSM" making up lies when really it isn't. CNN would be citing an entirely factual story from the AP; they don't also add in the article "Trump then proceeded to eat a Puerto Rican baby", that would be a made up lie.

I rejected it because it is based on a false premise of assumed lack of bias in corporate-owned mainstream media. Its seems like "neutrality" to you is complacency with your own beliefs (based on your constant rants about right-wingers and anti-establishment movements), whatever those are.
Also CNN, MSNBC and FOX not making up lies? Are you kidding me?

I never made a claim to neutrality, you did. You said: "I get that you think that mainstream media that reflects your beliefs is not partisan and is unbiased, but any look form more neutral perspective will say otherwise." As in, your perspective, you didn't cite anything neutral, you just made your own claim. Kats actually put forth an academic take on trends in the media, and your whole response is "Nuh uh!". They put forth a different conclusion than you, and since your conclusion is different, you are saying their methodology is flawed. That is the laziest and least effectual critique you can have of an academic paper. They came out with an answer and showed their work along the way, but you don't like the answer, so without looking at their work you say "wrong!" and move on with a false sense of superiority.

Plenty of things that never happened get traction in mass media. Do you really want us to bombard you with examples of mass media making false claims that very much so gained traction despite all the imaginary truth-seeking norms?

False claims according to who? You?

I like how you keep pretending to be an authority on the matter, it humors me.

[Katsumoto]

The recent case of the 'MAGA Bomber' seems to provide a fresh example of the propaganda feedback loop the study described - rather than providing a check on the conspiracy theory that it was all a hoax by Democrats, figures on the right furthered the theory without evidence and continued even after the suspect was arrested. Rather than provide accurate information about the event, they all seem to compete to provide a narrative that supports the worldview of their consumers, regardless of its accuracy.

The sending of package bombs to prominent Democrats and other high-profile figures this week was accompanied by a disturbing phenomenon. Baseless conspiracy theories, once confined to the fringes in the wake of violent acts, leaped with shocking speed into the mainstream discussion of the attacks.

A surprisingly large number of figures from the conservative establishment — commentators, radio hosts, a Trump family member, and other pro-Trump figures — shared, liked, hinted at, raised questions about or otherwise endorsed an evidenceless theory that this was a “false-flag” attack — one that was staged to advance the political goals of the very people it seemed intended to hurt (in this case, Democrats).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.3ba2e662c05a

[Love Mountain]

The report in question.

As you said, an "alternative pipeline" that indoctrinates it's readers and watchers into a rabbit hole of alt-right propaganda.