Multiculturalist triumph: Dijon turns into a war zone due to Chechen-Algerian gang war.

[Muizer]

With respect, if you look hard enough there is bound to be some reference story somewhere.

It cannot have escaped you that it's becoming more and more common for people to blame "mainstream media", "legacy media", "liberal media" as an excuse to dismiss things that don't fit well with their world views. As if the degree to which a story aligns with those views is a measure of the source's reliablility. I'd say it's gone so far that anyone using those terms is flagging themselves as a closed minded individual. It's one thing to criticize the media, quite another one to write them off a priori and seek your news inside your comfort zone. I suppose a facile counter would be "that's exactly what liberal people do by only sticking to mainstream media". The problem there is that despite real or perceived bias in traditional journalism, there is still a measure of accountability in that system. Generally speaking there's very little of that in the echo chambers of the internet that some would put forward as the alternative.

[caratacus]

So, basically you didn't see it and you expect us to take your own personal experience as the only reality. Sure...

I think you will find, my low opinion of the news media and its reliability to cover world events, is not unique to me. Increasingly news stories are selected on the basis of the outlets own viewpoints rather than the scale or significance of events. Anything which cuts against those, is either ignored or more usually kept as smaller reports. I don’t call that journalism. I haven't got a clue why the Dijon story wasn't covered in any great depth in the UK. But I suspect any story were ethnicity is associated with violence was viewed as undesirable. The affect of course is to direct and manage news content, rather than focus on keeping people informed.

It cannot have escaped you that it's becoming more and more common for people to blame "mainstream media", "legacy media", "liberal media" as an excuse to dismiss things that don't fit well with their world views. As if the degree to which a story aligns with those views is a measure of the source's reliablility. I'd say it's gone so far that anyone using those terms is flagging themselves as a closed minded individual. It's one thing to criticize the media, quite another one to write them off a priori and seek your news inside your comfort zone. I suppose a facile counter would be "that's exactly what liberal people do by only sticking to mainstream media". The problem there is that despite real or perceived bias in traditional journalism, there is still a measure of accountability in that system. Generally speaking there's very little of that in the echo chambers of the internet that some would put forward as the alternative.

As the ownership of the mainstream media becomes increasingly concentrated, so its ability to present unbiased and informative content becomes less and less.

New Report: Who Owns the UK Media?
https://www.mediareform.org.uk/media...s-the-uk-media

[Cope]

It cannot have escaped you that it's becoming more and more common for people to blame "mainstream media", "legacy media", "liberal media" as an excuse to dismiss things that don't fit well with their world views.

The exact opposite is true: it is the press which is increasingly curating its content to fit particular political narratives.

As if the degree to which a story aligns with those views is a measure of the source's reliablility. I'd say it's gone so far that anyone using those terms is flagging themselves as a closed minded individual. It's one thing to criticize the media, quite another one to write them off a priori and seek your news inside your comfort zone. I suppose a facile counter would be "that's exactly what liberal people do by only sticking to mainstream media". The problem there is that despite real or perceived bias in traditional journalism, there is still a measure of accountability in that system. Generally speaking there's very little of that in the echo chambers of the internet that some would put forward as the alternative.

Rather than accusing people of dismissing pieces they dislike, compare and contrast the amount of coverage different events receive and study the way they're presented. "Fake News" doesn't just refer to outright lies; it also includes the way in which the press creates false impressions of reality to suit particular interests. Typically, this involves constructing the illusion of a consensus around particular issues, whether its WMDs, Russia collusion, C19, Climate change or BLM.

[Cyclops]

Well in Australia its a multicultural nightmare. The Vietnamese are out there making coffee with condensed milk, and the Greeks are leaving the grounds in the cup! THE HUMANITY!

Who the hell messes with Chechens? They are like honey badgers.

This has nothing to do with multiculturalism, there are homogenous bogs and multicultural heavens on this world, the key is the prosperity, lack of prosperity breed a list of bad qualities that has nothing to do with your ethnic origin.

I'm sure there are entrenched social elements in some cultures that lead to clashes but you pretty much nailed it. Every time we get an influx of poor refugees from a warzone their kids form gangs and there's an ethnic-related spike in crime, then they get an education and some jobs and they calm the hell down.

[antaeus]

The exact opposite is true: it is the press which is increasingly curating its content to fit particular political narratives.

"I know you are but what am I?"

The other possibility is that as you grow older, your views are hardening, widening the gap between mainstream and your news sources.

Vanessa Otero produced my favourite survey that largely aligns with how I see media. Although, if Breitbart's reply is anything to go by, that makes me a tyranny loving sock puppet.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rather than accusing people of dismissing pieces they dislike, compare and contrast the amount of coverage different events receive and study the way they're presented. "Fake News" doesn't just refer to outright lies; it also includes the way in which the press creates false impressions of reality to suit particular interests. Typically, this involves constructing the illusion of a consensus around particular issues, whether its WMDs, Russia collusion, C19, Climate change or BLM.

You are literally doing what he is suggesting. You are dismissing an entire world view without basis simply because you don't like it. Right after trying to illustrate how not to do that.

Possibly, what you see as consensus building between literally competing news organisations, once again, is a hardening of your views away from traditional reporting?


One of the key warning signs for me of whether a news source is damaging or not, is how much time it spends reporting on other media. An active campaign against other media signifies an underlying attempt to change the public perception on that media and a deliberate attempt to reinforce partisanship. Media organisations who do this are seeking to create a dependable customer base, and they are using bias cynically to ensure dependable profit. Both CNN and Fox spend a good 10% of their time reporting against each other. This is not news. This is competition for profit at the expense of truth.

Is it time for us to go start another thread on the media?

[Cope]

"I know you are but what am I?"

This is a non argument. Popular trust in the press - particularly among conservatives - hasn't collapsed arbitrarily. As outlets have become increasingly centralized and increasingly corporate, they've become increasingly activist and increasingly unreliable. And this trend is inevitably going to get worse as the flow of information becomes evermore beholden to the financial interests of unaccountable big tech companies like Google.

The other possibility is that as you grow older, your views are hardening, widening the gap between mainstream and your news sources.

I read from news sources across the political spectrum, though I like the baseless insinuation that I must be outside of the mainstream for criticizing the press.

Marketwatch did a great survey that largely aligns with how I see media.

No wonder it's a "great survey". It aligns with what you think.

You are literally doing what he is suggesting. You are dismissing an entire world view without basis simply because you don't like it. Right after trying to illustrate how not to do that.

What drivel. At no point did I "dismiss an entire world view". I simply asked that he consider more carefully why trust in the press is so low.

Possibly, what you see as consensus building between literally competing news organisations, once again, is a hardening of your views away from traditional reporting?

Competition doesn't stop the press from trying to fabricate political/social consensuses on various issues. To paraphrase Corbyn - a man I staunchly disagree with - corporate media disenfranchises the people by drowning out alternatives to the status quo.

[antaeus]

This is a non argument....

...multiquote multiquote...

...To paraphrase Corbyn - a man I staunchly disagree with - corporate media disenfranchises the people by drowning out alternatives to the status quo.

I am merely pointing out that what we perceive to be change around us, is usually also a change within our own belief systems and that you're not immune to this. Most likely what you see as a large almost conspiratorial movement in mainstream media is more likely a reflection on them chasing profit by looking to the largest audience, which maybe you have drifted from over time (or maybe never associated with ever but have increasingly realised as you've matured). I'm not stating this as fact or accusation, I'm offering it as an alternative assessment of your statement "it is the press which is increasingly curating its content to fit particular political narratives."

Mainstream media seek to sell to the majority because they are a big easy cash source. They unintentionally become part of a societal feedback loop by playing to and inadvertently encouraging the majority. Non-mainstream media actively seek to change or reinforce societal narratives to secure loyalty in a smaller fringe marketplace. Ultimately they're all chasing money. They're just using different strategies to attract larger or smaller audiences. Culture wars are symptomatic of the second marketing approach. The deliberate attempt of non-mainstream news sources to secure profit out of fringe beliefs by exaggerating and consolidating the points of difference.

It's all marketing. Political beliefs in this context might as well be flared jeans or the latest Drake single.

Edit: To bring it back to the topic... it is also true of most of our ideas about multiculturalism - any two people in relatively similar places in life can get along, until a salesperson comes along and says that one could benefit from "this lovely skin whitening cream" while the other really could buy "this lovely fake tan"

[Cope]

I am merely pointing out that what we perceive to be change around us, is usually also a change within our own belief systems and that you're not immune to this.

Most likely what you see as a large almost conspiratorial movement in mainstream media is more likely a reflection on them chasing profit by looking to the largest audience, which maybe you have drifted from over time (or maybe never associated with ever but have increasingly realised as you've matured). I'm not stating this as fact or accusation, I'm offering it as an alternative assessment of your statement "it is the press which is increasingly curating its content to fit particular political narratives.

Mainstream media seek to sell to the majority because they are a big easy cash source. They unintentionally become part of a societal feedback loop by playing to and inadvertently encouraging the majority. Non-mainstream media actively seek to change or reinforce societal narratives to secure loyalty in a smaller fringe marketplace - they see this as a first step towards joining or becoming/replacing the mainstream. Ultimately they're all chasing money. They're just using different strategies to attract larger or smaller audiences. Culture wars are symptomatic of the second marketing approach. The deliberate attempt of non-mainstream news sources to secure profit out of fringe beliefs by exaggerating and consolidating the points of difference.

It's all marketing. Political beliefs in this context might as well be flared jeans or the latest Drake single.

It seems like you're agreeing with me rather than the other way round. When media conglomerates "curate content to fit particular political narratives", they're abandoning the complexities of reality to sell their readers/viewers digestible, but ultimately distorted, reflections of the truth - reflections which play to the audience's preexisting biases (themselves often a consequence of mainstream myths). This is the very essence of fake news. And while profiteering is a central element of this practice, the mainstream press is also clearly invested in protecting the status quo of which it is a constituent structure.

[Muizer]

Rather than accusing people of dismissing pieces they dislike, compare and contrast the amount of coverage different events receive and study the way they're presented. "Fake News" doesn't just refer to outright lies; it also includes the way in which the press creates false impressions of reality to suit particular interests. Typically, this involves constructing the illusion of a consensus around particular issues, whether its WMDs, Russia collusion, C19, Climate change or BLM.

The real question you should be answering is why it is apparently not possible to "expose these lies" while at the same time complying with high standards of journalism. Explain that without resorting to the cop-out of monster conspiracy to silence 'the truth'. We've had attempts at journalistically sound 'voices of the new right' and the reality is .... they can't do it. It seems there is no such thing. The invective and rhetoric of those worldviews doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. It can only thrive in echo chambers.

[Cope]

The real question you should be answering is why it is apparently not possible to "expose these lies" while at the same time complying with high standards of journalism. Explain that without resorting to the cop-out of monster conspiracy to silence 'the truth'. We've had attempts at journalistically sound 'voices of the new right' and the reality is .... they can't do it. It seems there is no such thing. The invective and rhetoric of those worldviews doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. It can only thrive in echo chambers.

It is perfectly possible to expose fake news and to comply with high standards of journalism. For the reasons I explained above, the mainstream press simply chooses not to.

Consider, for example, this article from the BBC (published today). It attempts to prop up a simplistic race narrative with vague anecdotes from largely unnamed sources, appeals to emotion and a reliance on nebulous concepts from the far-left like "microagressions". The few stats that it raises are presented incoherently and without explanation or scrutiny. It is fake news. Yet it will go completely unchallenged.

[caratacus]

Those questioning the validity of aternative news sources, should really be asking why peole are turning to them to get informed.

French city looks like 'warzone' – as critics claim Macron is 'hardly mentioning it'
ARMED police have flooded a suburb of a riot-torn French city after score-settling between rival gangs sparked four nights of ferocious street violence
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-marine-le-pen

German journalist Wolfgang Münchau said Dijon looked like a war zone with gangs carrying rifles and a car accident that seemed out of an action movie.
He said: "Videos and comments went viral on social media, though interestingly there was hardly any coverage in the main newspapers.

Interesting that French newspapers do not report on the violence in Dijon, whereas it's big news elsewhere in Europe. Censorship? Self-censorship?
http://eurointelligence.com/public.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think you will find, my low opinion of the news media and its reliability to cover world events, is not unique to me. Increasingly news stories are selected on the basis of the outlets own viewpoints rather than the scale or significance of events. Anything which cuts against those, is either ignored or more usually kept as smaller reports. I don’t call that journalism. I haven't got a clue why the Dijon story wasn't covered in any great depth in the UK. But I suspect any story were ethnicity is associated with violence was viewed as undesirable. The affect of course is to direct and manage news content, rather than focus on keeping people informed.

I know, there are many people who argue as if their own personal experience represents the reality when it really doesn't. In reality, its unlikely that you can show us a difference in coverage on these same issues from a left or right leaning news agency.

[Muizer]

It is perfectly possible to expose fake news and to comply with high standards of journalism. For the reasons I explained above, the mainstream press simply chooses not to.

Here's another way of looking at it: newspapers have always represented a wide range of perspectives. You're making it sounds as if journalism is a supplier's market, such that when your viewpoint is not catered to that must be a sign of censorship/marginalisation. I ask, if all these existing mainstream media are not supplying what you say is a widely held perspective there must be room in the market. Why is that room not being filled by new media with mainstream business models?

[Knight of Heaven]

Are you sure?

https://greece.greekreporter.com/202...double-murder/

Generally. Yes.

Greece is still ranked as High in the general peace index.

https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/06/1...ighbours-rank/

[Cope]

Here's another way of looking at it: newspapers have always represented a wide range of perspectives. You're making it sounds as if journalism is a supplier's market, such that when your viewpoint is not catered to that must be a sign of censorship/marginalisation. I ask, if all these existing mainstream media are not supplying what you say is a widely held perspective there must be room in the market. Why is that room not being filled by new media with mainstream business models?

This was already addressed above. The truth is messy, complicated and usually not fully known to us. It doesn't sell, and it isn't particularly good for convincing people of political positions. Equally, journalists themselves rarely have a proper grasp on the issues they're reporting on - something that I think we all notice when reading a story dedicated to a subject with which we are familiar.

[Muizer]

This was already addressed above. The truth is messy, complicated and usually not fully known to us. It doesn't sell, and it isn't particularly good for convincing people of political positions. Equally, journalists themselves rarely have a proper grasp on the issues they're reporting on - something that I think we all notice when reading a story dedicated to a subject with which we are familiar.

This sounds more like a complaint about journalism in general, regardless of perceived allegiances or business model. Regarding the latter, the problem is that accountability only exists in a shared public space. The very fact that people can complain about 'mainstream media' is because they are manifest in that shared public place, such that people are exposed to viewpoints that are not their own, and in turn the media are scrutinized by people whose perspective is different. I think some people may believe a publication like Breitbart is filling the gap left by mainstream media, but it's simply a fact that it does not share in our public space. They do not have to maintain any kind of integrity in the face of hostile public scrutiny, such that they need to place rectifications or fire staff in order to regain public trust if they slip up. IMHO, more than the viewpoints themselves that's what is being dismissed when people write off 'mainstream media'. It comes across as an excuse to evade that public arena and retreat into a comfort zone of the like minded. So where are all the high quality conservative mainstream media? I would read them, you know. But most of the time I see anything approaching the tone and substance of the new right in print it's in a gutter press publication, alongside the scandals of celebrities and gruesome crimes and other rubbish like that.

[Aexodus]

Posters are reminded that while incidental criticism of specific sources can be relevant, an extended discussion on journalism in general is an off topic tangent. You are asked to stay on topic in your discussion, which is the gang war and unrest in Dijon, and the merits of multiculturalism.