Network Propaganda and the Radicalization of the Right-Wing Media

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

Well, the issue is that CNN and other mainstream media mostly produces the latter.

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.

In this case "academic take" is based on a false premise, so obviously anyone with common sense would respond with "nuh uh" to an obviously biased study that ignores the fact that mainstream media is just corporate-owned propaganda tool and has no 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.

Wait, are you saying that mainstream media never made false claims? Like seriously? The fact that you are even try to imply that is hilariously outrageous, even with your posting history in mind.

[Basil II the B.S]

You know what shifts people to the right? Things like this:


which are not ''right wing media''. They are liberal, and they openly advocate racism against white people. Of course if the options are two and one advocates genocide, the other is preferable.

The thing is, liberals think that mass censorship and name calling wins them arguments. Instead, it creates martyrs and further detaches them from the common man; which is why the conservative strategy is, rightfully so, not to censor those views, but highlight them, the exact opposite of what liberals do. This is why the right is on the rise. They choose freedom, they highlight the extremism of the liberal agenda, they force people to choose between a clear evil and its opponent. Oxford is obviously extremely biased and off-based. I'm perfectly happy with this too. The least liberals understand what's going on, the more they stick to their laughable ''studies'', which are nothing more than ideological nonsense, the more we win support.

[Katsumoto]

I'm going to go ahead and guess you didn't even skim over the study.

Oxford is obviously extremely biased and off-based. I'm perfectly happy with this too. The least liberals understand what's going on, the more they stick to their laughable ''studies'', which are nothing more than ideological nonsense, the more we win support.

Yeah, who needs studies when you have subjective feelings and a collage of headlines from opinion pieces.

[Heathen Hammer]

Its not like an academic study could be biased or anything. no, no, thats' impossible! Next thing one would suggest is that media itself is biased! Outrageous!
But yeah, Basil is right, the article in OP is just another piece of generic political propaganda camouflaging itself as a serious study.

[Love Mountain]

Its not like an academic study could be biased or anything. no, no, thats' impossible! Next thing one would suggest is that media itself is biased! Outrageous!
But yeah, Basil is right, the article in OP is just another piece of generic political propaganda camouflaging itself as a serious study.

Point out to me where you have your issues with the study.

You know what shifts people to the right? Things like this:

which are not ''right wing media''. They are liberal, and they openly advocate racism against white people. Of course if the options are two and one advocates genocide, the other is preferable.

The thing is, liberals think that mass censorship and name calling wins them arguments. Instead, it creates martyrs and further detaches them from the common man; which is why the conservative strategy is, rightfully so, not to censor those views, but highlight them, the exact opposite of what liberals do. This is why the right is on the rise. They choose freedom, they highlight the extremism of the liberal agenda, they force people to choose between a clear evil and its opponent. Oxford is obviously extremely biased and off-based. I'm perfectly happy with this too. The least liberals understand what's going on, the more they stick to their laughable ''studies'', which are nothing more than ideological nonsense, the more we win support.

I legitimately pity you.



And who is the intellectual powerhouse Conscious Caracal? Well, he seems to stream with similar legendary philosophers of the day,

[Love Mountain]

So since Basil and Heathen don't actually read the articles, before they criticize the headlines. Let's break them down.

The Oscars are way too White. Again

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So, hating on White actors right? Well, here's what the article opens up with.

In a year with extraordinary performances by Michael B. Jordan and Tessa Thompson (Creed), Idris Elba and Abraham Attah (Beasts of No Nation), Oscar Isaac (Ex Machina), Will Smith and Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Concussion), Kitana Kiki Rodriguez and Mya Taylor (Tangerine), Benicio Del Toro (Sicario), and the ensemble cast of Straight Outta Compton, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences nominated an entirely white slate of actors, actresses, supporting actors, and supporting actresses. Even the writers of the hip-hop drama Straight Outta Compton, nominated for best original screenplay, are all caucasian. And the only person nominated from Creed, a film by a black writer-director featuring a black leading man, is white supporting actor Sylvester Stallone.

Frankly, this is a perfectly legitimate criticism if you ask me. This article is an opinion piece, obviously. One could certainly make arguments for why every single Oscar winner deserved their award, but this is not a white-hating article. It's a legitimately good argument, that presented very compelling evidence. The bit about Selma and the film's African American female director was a very good point to bring up.

17 Deplorable examples of White Privilege

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I mean, again, I don't really see what's so offensive here. Are you offended by a reminder that some people don't enjoy the benefits that you do? It's a pretty good list, in particularly, I really like this one.

White privilege means no one questions why you got that really great job; it's assumed you were just highly qualified.

White Women Drive Me Crazy

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This was really hard to read. Again, this was simply a biographical piece that went into, quite annoying (imo), detail about a Middle Eastern woman's struggles as a foreigner and colored person in a world dominated by White people. This is a fairly common experience for many immigrant kids, youth, etc. I don't really see the ing issue here or why it would inspire White Nationalism. It's almost like, White Nationalists don't read the ing article.

We eat eggs and I tell Y about how when I was 8 years old, I taught my white friend, B (actually called Becky), how to count to 10 in Urdu. How at school the next day she looked at her feet as she shuffled past me, and the white teacher pulled me aside and asked me why I was bullying Becky, because Becky’s mum said I was bullying Becky, and that maybe it would be best if I didn’t sit next to her anymore. She suggested this with the kind of half-arsed, sad-eyed, apologetic shrug that white women perform when it is less of a scene to administer psychological warfare against a brown child than it is to challenge your fellow white woman.

I remember well the acute shock and confusion of that day. I had been so damn sure Becky and I were having a good time. I felt so guilty, despite my mother’s insistence that Becky’s mother was a racist and that I had done nothing wrong. I felt frightened of myself and my potential to hurt innocent white girls without even realizing it.

Yeah boys. A real call for racial warfare here.

Why I can’t stand white belly dancers

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is an article that talks about an Arabic woman's frustration with cultural appropriation. Specifically, she doesn't like it when White women are doing belly dancing. There was an explanation of the dance's history and real name. Not very long, obviously. Now, I disagree with the author's opinion, but the article was not particularly extremist. It echoes her resentment with the fetishization of a cultural dance. This paragraph was particularly powerful

At a movie theater in Cairo in 2007, I argued with a male friend about why the lead actress wore a strange, baggy dress underneath a bra-and-skirt dancing ensemble. He suggested that she was uncomfortable with her body; I suggested that the country was becoming more conservative and she was too much of a media darling to appear with her skin exposed. Years later, the revolution happened, or tried to happen, and when the Muslim Brotherhood took over, and Western news outlets began publishing stories that claimed belly dancing was a dying art. Tell that to the women on the streets and on rooftops and in bedrooms and living rooms and weddings dancing their hips off. (See this video, for example, of actual working-class Egyptian women of all sizes and ages dancing in the streets.) The one interesting thing about these stories is that they reported that Western, or white women, were beginning to take over gigs in Egypt. These women moved there out of an obsession with belly dance and are now appropriating it from local dancers.

Now again, I don't agree with the rhetoric and the overall philosophy of the argument, but I don't really see how this would cause someone to embrace White Nationalism.

White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well first of all, this isn't "mainstream" media. This is AlterNet, an extremist left-leaning website. Other than that, the article is actually fairly good. I'm a little annoyed with the "gloom-and-doom" aspect of it, but it does not call for subservience of White Men. It does not ask that White Men should kill themselves. It does not say that White Men are the root of all evil. It's a historical analysis and critique of American politics, in particular, the racist portions of it, as well as a criticism of the current political climate that argues that "White men are blamed too much". Et cetera. This is the final paragraph.

Katznelson is white. So am I. So are many others now writing and speaking honestly and openly about the enduring power of white racism. That is valuable because it strengthens the idea that whites can come to terms with reality, past and present, as opposed to the myths we are encouraged to believe. As we do so, another world does become possible.

Of course white people can’t “save” the world. That mindset is the problem not the solution. But we can help. As Vietnam antiwar leader Rennie Davis points out, it is when we stop being invisible to each other that we start to become a movement.

So much for Whites hating themselves.

Azealia Banks vs Iggy Azalea: 'Privileged white people shouldn’t steal hip-hop'

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is an actual article that could incite White Nationalist zeal. I'll agree to that. It goes directly into racial tensions and asks some hard questions regarding hip-hop. But it isn't something I'd labels as "reverse racism". Now I don't think there's anything particularly revolutionary about Azealia Banks. Quite frankly a lot, if not the vast majority, of hip-hop music of the last 25 years is something I'd label as mediocre. However, I'm not gonna deny that Iggy Azealia makes trashy, frat-party music. The Grammys are a joke, and I think Banks' criticism as well as all the other criticism was fairly on-point. In particular, they referenced a quote that I found very well written.

In his post White Rapper FAQ, comedian Aamer Rahman writes: “Blackface was all about white people acting out caricatured, fetishized depictions of black people for the entertainment of white audiences. Iggy Azalea, Kreashawn etc. are all about… well, you get the picture. Their entire careers rely on them perpetually acting, talking and behaving like college students at an ironic-not-racist-but-actually-racist ‘Ghetto Fabulous’ themed frat party.”

He continues: “A white rapper like Iggy Azalea acts out signifiers which the white majority associates with black culture - hyper sexuality, senseless materialism, an obsession with drugs, money and alcohol – as well as adopting clothing, speech and music – as a costume that they can put on and discard at will. It’s a cheap circus act.” Quite.

I'm inclined to agree. Either way, while I can see why some dumb, redneck, KKK teenager might get offended (if he listens to pop music), but I found the article well-written. An intelligent person would not be incited to chant at a Trump parade after reading this.

Why it’s not OK for white people to have dreadlocks

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Great title, I'll give them that. The first sentences on the article?

In this article, a black man will tell you why white people should not have dreadlocks. This is by no means intended to oppress any white people who reassure me they have Jamaican friends and are avid drinkers of Red Stripe so having dreadlocks surely doesn’t make them an appropriator of black culture.

Having dreadlocks doesn’t mean you are a racist person and sure, you may not have meant to piss people off – but that doesn’t mean that dreadlocks on white people exist in an anti-race vacuum.

I disagree with the "appropriation" argument, but it's an opinion. I'm allowed to disagree with it, just as other people are allowed to have them. If black people don't like you wearing dreadlocks, suddenly you want to be a White Nationalist? Jesus, get over yourself, is all I'm gonna say

Needless to say, I could go on and on, but I'm getting tired. In short, these articles, despite their titles, aren't anti-White or anti-anything at all really. In fact, if you want to be an elitist GOP suit, you can dismiss these as minorities whining. At the end of the day these are opinion pieces and they do not advocate for any violence, they do not advocate crackpot theories like "the great replacement", and they do not advocate for anti-white hate speech. Your image is a joke and if that's really your argument. Then I'm just gonna ask this.

So White Nationalism is on the rise because people don't read beyond titles?

[Diocle]

I legitimately pity you.

Why do you pity him? Perhaps because he quoted a guy nicknamed "Conscious Caracal"?

Because for you, if posted by a guy whose nick is Conscious Caracal, the pics of those idiotic pages by mainstrem media are less true and less disgusting?

If only I could tell you, without infringing the ToS, my thoughts (as Italian speaking user) about your nick!

About anti White politics:

[Love Mountain]

Why do you pity him? Perhaps because he quoted a guy nicknamed "Conscious Caracal"?

Because for you, if posted by a guy whose nick is Conscious Caracal, the pics of those idiotic pages by mainstrem media are less true and less disgusting?

What exactly is in those article that's so disgusting? Do tell me.

If only I could tell you, without infringing the ToS, my thoughts (as Italian speaking user) about your nick!

What a friendly comment.

About anti White politics:

Considering Blacks are the poorest demographic in America, I'm sure Amazon is shaking in their boots.

[Diocle]

What exactly is in those article that's so disgusting? Do tell me.

Banal stupidity.

I think that Leftist clichés, associated with the natural stupidity of mainstream press, are better than an emetic drug. Aren't them?

[Love Mountain]

Banal stupidity.

I think that Leftist clichés, associated with the natural stupidity of mainstream press, are better than an emetic drug. Aren't them?

You justify White Nationalism because of “banal stupidity”?

[Basil II the B.S]

So since Basil and Heathen don't actually read the articles, before they criticize the headlines. Let's break them down.

The Oscars are way too White. Again

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So, hating on White actors right? Well, here's what the article opens up with.

Frankly, this is a perfectly legitimate criticism if you ask me. This article is an opinion piece, obviously. One could certainly make arguments for why every single Oscar winner deserved their award, but this is not a white-hating article. It's a legitimately good argument, that presented very compelling evidence. The bit about Selma and the film's African American female director was a very good point to bring up.

17 Deplorable examples of White Privilege

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I mean, again, I don't really see what's so offensive here. Are you offended by a reminder that some people don't enjoy the benefits that you do? It's a pretty good list, in particularly, I really like this one.

White Women Drive Me Crazy

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This was really hard to read. Again, this was simply a biographical piece that went into, quite annoying (imo), detail about a Middle Eastern woman's struggles as a foreigner and colored person in a world dominated by White people. This is a fairly common experience for many immigrant kids, youth, etc. I don't really see the ing issue here or why it would inspire White Nationalism. It's almost like, White Nationalists don't read the ing article.



Yeah boys. A real call for racial warfare here.

Why I can’t stand white belly dancers

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is an article that talks about an Arabic woman's frustration with cultural appropriation. Specifically, she doesn't like it when White women are doing belly dancing. There was an explanation of the dance's history and real name. Not very long, obviously. Now, I disagree with the author's opinion, but the article was not particularly extremist. It echoes her resentment with the fetishization of a cultural dance. This paragraph was particularly powerful


Now again, I don't agree with the rhetoric and the overall philosophy of the argument, but I don't really see how this would cause someone to embrace White Nationalism.

White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well first of all, this isn't "mainstream" media. This is AlterNet, an extremist left-leaning website. Other than that, the article is actually fairly good. I'm a little annoyed with the "gloom-and-doom" aspect of it, but it does not call for subservience of White Men. It does not ask that White Men should kill themselves. It does not say that White Men are the root of all evil. It's a historical analysis and critique of American politics, in particular, the racist portions of it, as well as a criticism of the current political climate that argues that "White men are blamed too much". Et cetera. This is the final paragraph.



So much for Whites hating themselves.

Azealia Banks vs Iggy Azalea: 'Privileged white people shouldn’t steal hip-hop'

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is an actual article that could incite White Nationalist zeal. I'll agree to that. It goes directly into racial tensions and asks some hard questions regarding hip-hop. But it isn't something I'd labels as "reverse racism". Now I don't think there's anything particularly revolutionary about Azealia Banks. Quite frankly a lot, if not the vast majority, of hip-hop music of the last 25 years is something I'd label as mediocre. However, I'm not gonna deny that Iggy Azealia makes trashy, frat-party music. The Grammys are a joke, and I think Banks' criticism as well as all the other criticism was fairly on-point. In particular, they referenced a quote that I found very well written.



I'm inclined to agree. Either way, while I can see why some dumb, redneck, KKK teenager might get offended (if he listens to pop music), but I found the article well-written. An intelligent person would not be incited to chant at a Trump parade after reading this.

Why it’s not OK for white people to have dreadlocks

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Great title, I'll give them that. The first sentences on the article?



I disagree with the "appropriation" argument, but it's an opinion. I'm allowed to disagree with it, just as other people are allowed to have them. If black people don't like you wearing dreadlocks, suddenly you want to be a White Nationalist? Jesus, get over yourself, is all I'm gonna say

Needless to say, I could go on and on, but I'm getting tired. In short, these articles, despite their titles, aren't anti-White or anti-anything at all really. In fact, if you want to be an elitist GOP suit, you can dismiss these as minorities whining. At the end of the day these are opinion pieces and they do not advocate for any violence, they do not advocate crackpot theories like "the great replacement", and they do not advocate for anti-white hate speech. Your image is a joke and if that's really your argument. Then I'm just gonna ask this.

So White Nationalism is on the rise because people don't read beyond titles?

White privilege, cultural appropriation, systematic oppression and all these newspeak concepts are from postmodernism, which as the grievance studies showed is a hate based ideology, to the point that they managed to have published a black feminist rewriting of the Mein Kampf so long that it replaced the word ''Jew'' with ''white male''. The core tenet of postmodernism is that there are no truths, only interpretations, something that is present in every single article above, where someone from minority background expresses anger against the white majority that welcomed him and gave him rights he didn't have, but nonetheless the author blames for his own personal failures. Guess what? He can off. And I mean it, ungrateful excrements are welcome to go back to their own craphole countries if they are that disturbed by white majorities. Nobody forces them to be in our successful societies.

Sweeping negative generalizations against an entire race is the dictionary definition of racism, which nonetheless, you are defending. Mostly because postmodernism is the religion of the Democratic party, and white bashing is the fun of woke, upper class, primarily white progressives, who are indeed privileged for their economic status but nonetheless demand the right to lecture the underclass and speak for the oppressed. The funny thing is that, as the ''Tribes of America'' study showed, most minorities don't even agree with such approach at all. The problem is that roughly 8% of Americans, the upper class white cosmopolitan progressives are overrepresented in the media, the academia and the Silicon Valley. This is an economic, ethnic and social declaration of war that I'm willing to fight back against.The difference between their approach and mine is that I don't want these people to be silenced. I want to give voice to them, because it's a good way to distinguish good from evil. There's no room for negotiation with people who ''less'' of me because I'm straight white and male. I'm not interested in any negotiations under that premise. Nor you can blame me for an openly hostile reaction. They started it and under many aspects, they are on the winning side. For now. I look forward the day a Republican runs with the slogan ''liberals want genocide'' because after that there will be no going back. This evil must be stopped.

[Katsumoto]

Can we limit the boring tirades about 'white genocide' to the threads dedicated to them? If you can't refute the evidence presented to you please spare us the same old nonsense as it's irrelevant to the topic.

[Basil II the B.S]

What evidence has he provided? His opinion that liberal media tirades against white people are fine? An opinion isn't a fact.

[Katsumoto]

I meant the study in OP which you daftly dismissed as ideological nonsense. Bringing up your white genocide headlines was irrelevant and did nothing to address the matter at hand.

[Basil II the B.S]

The only thing I can agree with the study is that Infowars is comparable to Slate.

I actually read a portion of the it and it's pretty clear they are biased as they can possibly be. Section 13 is nothing short of astounding. They believe in the Russia conspiracy, the ''patriarchy'', they think Republicans need to be annihilated electorally for the ''right wing echo chamber'' to disappear, suggest that Google should filter unwanted news sites, that the Republican party should go back to cuckeservativism long enough for psychotic Democrats to complete their demographic destiny agenda, finally that NYT and WaPo have legitimate journalistic integrity.

It's typical liberal echo chamber rubbish. I guess they'll brand me ''radicalized'', but quite frankly, advocates of censorship are extremist themselves, so indeed, compared to them I'm obviously an extremist. Everyone reasonable is.

I mean, according to them, Associated Press is balanced.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A bunch of communist praising, anti-American propagandists are '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' balanced''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

That's their level. Bye

[Katsumoto]

What a surprise, you got nothing but nonsensical prejudice, excessive quotation marks and one 'communist praising' tweet to disprove the analysis of millions of news stories and social media shares. I am in awe of such a rigorous, intellectual rebuttal.

[Basil II the B.S]

Do you really think that WaPo and NYT are fair and balanced?

[Katsumoto]

I don't know what you mean by fair and balanced. I think the vast majority of their reporting is focused on truthful reporting, as opposed to the bias-reinforcing, 'propaganda feedback loop' reporting we see on the right which the study details.

[Basil II the B.S]

I was waiting for that.

So here's the thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...been-negative/

Now you have a defintive evidence that WaPo/NYT/CBS/NBC/CNN are bias-reinforncing, because the ratio of their coverage's bias is 9 to 1. This obviously creates the propaganda feedback loop that right wing media are blamed for.

The other reason I find the analysis so superficial is that it assumes that Zerohedge, Infowars and Breitbart do independent, biased reporting. For an over 400 pages analysis, that shows little understanding. Most ''right wing'' sites mainly operate a selection of news from the increbily vast array of old and new media, obviously including the mainstream ones. Their original stories are limited, I don't have a data on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's 10% at best. What I mean is that readers of those sites are exposed to the views of mainstream media, because they are used as sources for stories (just like I did right above anyway). What the authors are confusing with ''bias reinforcing'' is simply outright disagreement with their views. This is further evidence when Twitter and Facebook tried to manipulate their algos so that people would get the opposite perspective in news feeds. The outcome: it didn't change people's views, it reinforced them. So there isn't an echo chamber of right wing media that is insulated from the ''correct'' views. We just disagree. We often don't care about what you perceive as issues, just like you don't care about what we perceive as issues. Because of that, we also don't really like each other.

I'll give you an example:
- I don't know what your opinion on Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is. Let's assume you think she's a bit of a dreamer and a honest, genuinely positive person.

Now I expose you to my view:
- She thinks that green jobs will lead to and I quote ''social and racial justice'', meaning that she thinks that highly skilled jobs will somehow economically empower disenfrenchised, low skilled minorities. That's moronic and skips various basic logical elements. She's a liberal retard.

Do you like her more now? Because one of the reasons of her rise to prominence is the negative coverage right wing media do of her; they point out every single mistake she does. And that makes her even more liked by the progressive crowd. Now, that's a self-reinforcing loop, but it's not caused by same views, it's caused by opposite ones.

[Katsumoto]

I was waiting for that.

So here's the thing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...been-negative/

Now you have a defintive evidence that WaPo/NYT/CBS/NBC/CNN are bias-reinforncing, because the ratio of their coverage's bias is 9 to 1. This obviously creates the propaganda feedback loop that right wing media are blamed for.

Sorry but no. You have evidence that coverage of Trump has been predominantly negative. You know, the guy who has been mired in scandals even before he took office and who says something dumb or outrageous practically every day. Has the coverage of him been untruthful? The study you quoted doesn't suggest that. Balance doesn't mean equally covering the good and the bad if the bad is more common and more significant than the good. And no, that's not a propaganda feedback loop.

The other reason I find the analysis so superficial is that it assumes that Zerohedge, Infowars and Breitbart do independent, biased reporting. For an over 400 pages analysis, that shows little understanding. Most ''right wing'' sites mainly operate a selection of news from the increbily vast array of old and new media, obviously including the mainstream ones. Their original stories are limited, I don't have a data on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's 10% at best. What I mean is that readers of those sites are exposed to the views of mainstream media, because they are used as sources for stories (just like I did right above anyway). What the authors are confusing with ''bias reinforcing'' is simply outright disagreement with their views. This is further evidence when Twitter and Facebook tried to manipulate their algos so that people would get the opposite perspective in news feeds. The outcome: it didn't change people's views, it reinforced them. So there isn't an echo chamber of right wing media that is insulated from the ''correct'' views. We just disagree. We often don't care about what you perceive as issues, just like you don't care about what we perceive as issues. Because of that, we also don't really like each other.

I'm not sure this is the case. I can think of several ridicilous stories that were created by right-wing sites which were then propagated by the rest of them. Stuff like the Clinton paedophelia stuff, Uranium One, various conspiracies about the Deep State etc. Even if mainstream media is used, the reporting can often be distorted to fit the narrative. This isn't about disagreement or opinion, this is about accuracy of reporting. By design, the right-wing media ecoystem feeds the bias of its audience through propagating false stores (or at least, not properly checking their veracity as per journalistic standards) because that's what its audience wants. That's the actual propaganda feedback loop.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now, a new media outlet is launched that adopts a different strategy by emphasizing partisan-confirming news over truth and helping segments of the public to reduce their discomfort by telling them that the outlets providing disconfirming news are not trustworthy. Members of the public who tend to seek confirmation more than truth reward this outlet with attention. Some politicians seek out those outlets and those members. Members of the public now have media outlets and elites confirming their prior beliefs, contrary to what they hear on other media, and are also told by these outlets and elites that other media that contradict what they say are themselves biased and hence untrustworthy. The public that buys into this adjust their levels of trust in other media downward. This reduces the psychological cost of tuning in only to the bias-confirming outlets, as they are now more confident that the partisan good news they hear is true and conflicting news from other outlets is false. Politicians who thrive in this media ecosystem will have done so by aligning their positions and narratives with like-minded publics and supportive media sources or by shifting the narrative in a direction that the public and media are willing to follow. Ideological positions, interpretations of real-world events, and partisan talking points are jointly negotiated by elites, partisan media, pundits, and political activists. News media reject the separation of news and opinion, and compete by policing each other for deviance from identity confirmation, not truth. They similarly align their coverage of politicians to offer favorable coverage to identity-confirming politicians and attacks on opponents, and when they police deviance from politicians, it is identity confirmation, not truth, that they police. All these are intended to help sustain a steady flow of identity-confirming news to audiences who tune in to get precisely that from their media. Subsequent politicians who now enter the arena will find it harder to rely on the mainstream media to challenge assertions made by politicians focused on bias-confirming statements. The public that occupies the partisan media ecosystem no longer believes the external lying media. Challengers within the party are forced to use the same partisan media, subject to the same trade-offs between truth and bias confirmation as the incumbent. Incumbents and challengers consume the partisan media more, because they need to understand what their public believes, what they must confirm, and what parameters shape the way in which they can challenge incumbents. We call this dynamic the “propaganda feedback loop,” because once it is set in motion the media, elites, and public are all participants in a self-reinforcing feedback loop that disciplines those who try to step off it with with lower attention or votes, and gradually over time increases the costs to everyone of introducing news that is not identity confirming, or challenges the partisan narratives and frames (Figure 3.2)