>" push to bring CNN back towards hard news coverage, and away from progressive commentary."
I'd be weary about this. I don't sense CNN was somehow compelled to present progressive commentary and they now want to confront that market pressure, but rather, they employ mostly progressive journalists and that is how they choose to cover the news.
I suspect the execs will try to tone it down but progressives aren't known for wanting to be neutral or muted about their causes. Activism and "everything is political" are fundamental aspects of their worldview.
> progressives aren't known for wanting to be neutral or muted about their causes. Activism and "everything is political" are fundamental aspects of their worldview.
I'd agree with this 100% if it didn't pretend that this is only true of progressives. This is undeniably true about the hard right as well.
Indeed it is, but the 'hard right' doesn't exist on CNN. I wouldn't expect people to bring up the problems with progressive commentators on a thread about, say, Fox News, because they don't exist over there.
To me, in this thread with this topic, this reads as whataboutism.
The GP presented these properties as if they are unique to progressives. It's not whataboutism to point out that they aren't.
If they'd simply attributed activism and an "everything is political" attitude to CNN, that would have been reasonable since this discussion is about CNN, but they decided to expand this attribution to to "progressives", which is a very different thing.
>"The GP presented these properties as if they are unique to progressives. "
I genuinely wasn't trying to do that. The article, and discussion, was around progressives when I shared my observation and thoughts about them. Wanting to stay in focus, I kept my comment and observation about them only.
I'm genuinely surprised that by not bringing up a contrast with other political ideologies I'm perceived as believing it is unique to them.
To be honest, I think using "people" rather than "progressives" would be less insightful and would ignore a genuine perception that I, and probably many others, have with progressives as a whole. They are insistent, they are vocal, and they seem particularly driven and uncompromising when it comes to fighting for what they believe. I wanted to present this in a neutral or matter-of-fact way. It can either be seen as a negative (progressives are pushy and obstinate), or it can be seen as virtuous (progressives are relentless in the pursuit of justice).
After reading through all the comments in this thread, I get the sense that many commenters want to dismiss any perception that is remotely negative about the behavior of progressives by attributing the alleged attributes as something that, one, other groups do more, and two, something that everyone does. But in so doing, progressivism becomes something you can only ascribe unquestionably positive attributes to.
I'm not sure how to reconcile "I want to present this as neutral" with "but I also want to say, without supporting evidence, that progressives do this more."
I make absolutely no claims about being able to objectively say which side does this more, but it is clear to me that both sides do it a ton, so trying to attribute it more to one side in any significant way requires some evidence that hasn't been offered.
And for the record, I'd have made the same objection if in some alternate universe comment thread you'd tried to claim this was a particularly conservative trait too. There are unlimited examples of either side being egregiously bias-driven, insistent, vocal, uncompromising, hyper-partisan, activist, etc. There is remarkably little news on either side that's free of it. Note also that this isn't an "I will ignore that because both sides do it" argument. It's deeply disappointing in all cases.
I'm not equipped to provide the sort of evidence you're seeking. In fact, I don't know where to start. If I cited examples in recent memory, they would likely (and possibly rightly) be dismissed as anecdotal, or potentially unrepresentative (along the lines of: so and so isn't actually a progressive). I'm not sure a there is a peer reviewed study available out there, somewhere, that relates to my observation. And I don't feel like hoping on JSTOR to find one!
More broadly, one of the things I am feeling dismayed about is the increasing expectation of 'evidence' on personal observations. I have formed an opinion based on what I have seen, and I wasn't keeping track of everything that informed my perception. Indeed, even if I had, it would not be in an acceptable format because it would be too easy to dismiss for lack of academic rigor. There's something demoralizing about having ideas that you share dismissed so readily because they're not presented with a myriad of citations to back them up. Especially considering I am not sharing them in an academic setting. It also feels stifling because I want to write a few sentences without having to compile a bibliography in an attempt to rout potential naysayers.
I hope this doesn't come across as an attack - I'm just feeling very worn out.
Well, ok, that's perfectly fair, and if you want to make statements about what you personally perceive about progressives, then that's one thing, but it seemed like you were arguing fairly hard that this is "well-known" to be a fundamental part of progressivism, which is why you got some push-back. If you're just offering your personal opinion, I'll go ahead and revise my original response to, "nuh-uh." :)
Edit: would you have accepted a suggestion of changing "progressives" to "partisans" instead of changing "progressives" to "people"? That seems pretty fair to me.
I vouched for this comment when it was flagged. I assume it’s flagged because of the last couple sentences? but I don’t find them all that inflammatory and frankly, it seems kinda accurate to me.
Whether or not the assertion is correct overall? Dunno. I don’t find CNN “progressive” but I suspect the term is being used to refer to more sensational, polarized content, not actually very progressive content.
I wasn't trying to be inflammatory or derogatory towards progressives or progressivism in general. I wanted to go back and edit my comment with a little more detail, mainly that I sensed the "progressive commentary" as mentioned in the article itself is likely a result of CNN having hired so many progressive journalists, rather than some directive to cover the news with more progressive commentary that is now being walked back.
By extension, progressives by-and-large tend to be very active and vocal. This is, I believe, a key component as to why their positions and worldviews are so well known and so frequently seen. Activism is a virtue for progressives, and they place a serious emphasis on making sure their voices and perspectives are heard. I don't think it's wrong or disparaging to say that and I suspect I'm not the only one with this observation. I'm commenting on their approach, not condemning them for it.
it does come off as a bit one sided becuase the implication is that when you say "progressives do this" you are also implying that non-progressives don't--even if its not explicit. As someone who sits squarely in the middle, I see this heavily on both sides. A better formulation would be "partisans aren't known for wanting to be neutral or muted about their causes." If they had hired more conservative journalists they'd have the exact ssame issue but in the opposite direction.
(full disclosure--I haven't watched CNN or any other new channel since the Iraq war, i.e. 19 years ago. The all burned their bridges with me then, and I've never been back, so I'm assuming its true that CNN has a tilt left. I've never seen it myself.)
In my view, I have two critiques about mainstream-ish progressive liberal politics.
1. Insistence that everything is political and politics is everything. I’m sorry, sometimes folks are just reading into things too hard. From poorly shoehorned diatribes about sexism in second-rate Vox articles, to tirelessly policing vocabulary to avoid impure etymology, progressives outpace conspiracy theorists in their desire to pattern-match everything into their own personal political causes.
2. Intolerance to tolerance of other viewpoints. Again, it feels like a purity thing: “I can’t be friends with someone who is friends with someone who said something problematic once.” I’m not saying cutting people out of your life based on their bad behavior is bad, but the guilt-by-association to judge other people’s friends and acquaintances I find detestable and very cult-like.
I don’t think these are fringe behaviors on the left right now. I think they’re widespread in fairly mainstream, if not quite the most mainstream, of media, and common among heavy social media users. The closest right-leaning analogues very fringe and much less influential.
Of course, there’s another thing that’s tiring, which is having to constantly reassure everyone that I am still very liberal even though I critique left-leaning folks.
>From poorly shoehorned diatribes about sexism in second-rate Vox articles
This got really bad during the Trump presidency. One could be reading the least "political" article imaginable, and suddenly see something condemnatory about Trump that smugly assumes that everyone reading surely agrees. Nowhere was safe: Film reviews, book reviews, articles about cooking, travelogues, minor human-interest stories, you name it.
>Of course, there’s another thing that’s tiring, which is having to constantly reassure everyone that I am still very liberal even though I critique left-leaning folks.
During the aforementioned Trump years I thought at times about creating /r/ihatetrumpbut, a collection of articles/posts/comments in which the author felt the need to declaim "I hate Trump, but [something Trump/US government did may not necessarily be 100% fascist/evil/a bad idea]". Hey, maybe I'll get more motivation to pull the trigger in November 2024!
You're right when you divide the population into the extreme ends, but this doesn't prove symmetry.
I don't have the link at hand but studies demonstrate that progressives in general are far more politically interested and active versus anybody center to right of center, minus the far right.
In that group center to center-right, there's less idealism and more pragmatism, and sometimes plain indifference.
this has more to do with the “ Intolerance to tolerance of other viewpoints”. The right isn’t gonna come to the discussions until the left calms the argumentative behavior. I’m center right and any discussion with someone on the left almost always gets pushed into argument territory.
Yeah i dont see how you can get CNN back to neutral when the staff is not. Not unless you are willing to fire basically everyone. Even the IT and non journalistic staff probably lean that way sense they dont pay exactly great for those roles.
Is anything you're attributing to "progressives" not a quality of "conservatives" as well? Attributing flaws in a system to one particular group is a common rhetorical attack.
People that choose a career journalism are likely motivated by thinking these issues matter, in which case having an opinion is hard to escape, or by self promotion, in which case they'll say anything that draws attention. I suspect TV leans toward the latter because it's such a shallow medium.
>"Is anything you're attributing to "progressives" not a quality of "conservatives" as well?"
I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate - keeping in mind I am not talking about all conservatives or even trying to estimate a percentage of them who fit this observation.
There are many conservatives who hold an "I just want to be left alone" or "the free market will fix it" mindset. The result is that when they are upset about something, they tend to act individually and "vote with their wallet" while hoping that the silent majority will follow suit. This is not to say that conservatives don't organize protests or mass boycotts, just that it seems like they don't do so as readily because they expect the free market to produce the pressure that brings about change. Again, this isn't true for every conservative cause and certainly not the major ones like the 2nd Amendment or overturning Roe v Wade.
I contrast that with how progressives tend to see problems as structural or systemic. In this worldview, they have to be active and vocal to dismantle these systems in order to bring about change. If they don't, the system will continue functioning because that is how it was designed. Because it takes much more energy to reform or replace a system than it does to maintain one, I sense progressives necessarily have to be active and vocal.
Broadly speaking, I believe that conservatives expect that "system will fix it" while progressives expect to "fix the system".
You seem to be thinking of a libertarian wing of conservatism? My impression is that this is a relatively small portion of the American right.
The loudest parts of the conservative movement in my lifetime have been religious conservatives, tea partiers, and now Trump nationalism. All of them have used protest, partisan media, and boycott to push their ideals.
Perhaps you're comparing the conservative community you are in with progressives on TV? In which case I'd suggest that liberal communities have a mirror impression when looking at conservatives on TV.
> The end game for many progressives is things like Mao China.
Doesn't that smack of demonization to you? It has nothing to do with progressivism, any more than all doctors lead to Joseph Mengele. Get out there and read some progressive things; go to the source; stop reading what others say about progressive ideas. It's nothing at all like what you imagine; progressive people are primarly just people, with common sense and opinions, like you.
I know a lot of progressives and I've not met one that idolizes Mao's China, Venezuela, or the USSR. When other countries are brought up as examples to learn from it's Nordic countries and other industrialized, capitalist democracies.
> The end game for many progressives is things like Mao China.
This is less true then “the end game for many conservatives is things like Nazi Germany”; sure, Maoists (and, if one takes “like” that somewhat more broadly, Leninist and other authoritarian Communists) exist, but even among the radical Left they are outnumbered by Anarchists, Libertarian Socialists, and other anti-authoritarians, and the whole of the radical Left is outnumbered by DemSocs and SocDems within the “progressive” space (really, the radical Left and progressives both generally view themselves as different groups, but I suspect “progressive” is being used more broadly as “people to the left of the center of the Democratic Party”.)
OTOH, fairly overt authoritarian White Nationalists/Supremacists (and overlapping but not identical authoritarian theocrats) make up a lot bigger share of the local right (Republican and further right) than authoritarian Communists do of the local left (Democratic and further left.)
But, while we should not ignore the dangerous agenda of certain extremists of either side, and while extremists actions may occasionally merit a particular focussed response, it doesn't really make sense to judge either side by its radical fringe alone.
This is very weird comment. You are talking about progressives as if this is the only large grouping that is vocal or active. Insert conservatives, environmentalists, fundamentalists, jihadists, etc. and the statements remain equally valid. Your point essentially boils down to saying water is wet. Your comments pertain to all politically, philosophically, and religiously motivated groups.
>"You are talking about progressives as if this is the only large grouping that is vocal or active. "
I'm surprised it is being received this way, mainly because I specifically tried to avoid making comparisons to other groups so that the topic doesn't get more heated. I also wanted to avoid having my observation about progressive vocality and activism invalidated or diminished because [group xyz] is perceived as more vocal and active.
This has been a wild thread, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of all your comments.
It's pretty interesting to me the difference between how your comments are seen vs a comment with "progressives" replaced with "conservatives". In my experience, a reply saying "well progressives do that too" (just like every response to all of your comments but about conservatives) would very quickly have several replies claiming it's just whataboutism, or just flagged (like yours was!).
You should try an experiment one day to show the bias of this site. Or don’t as your proof is already in this thread. Speak ill, even slightly, of someone on the left on HN and prepare for the onslaught, speak ill of the right and prepare for the praise.
I suspect the execs will try to tone it down but progressives aren't known for wanting to be neutral or muted about their causes. Activism and "everything is political" are fundamental aspects of their worldview.
I have no reason to believe that CNN or FoxNews or any other media outlet is doing anything other than trying to corner whatever part of the market they are going after. Occasionally they have to shift emphasis and direction. In X years when FoxNews starts to lose its audience will people say the same thing but replace progressives with conservatives? If the employees don’t follow the corporate directives they can hire new people. It’s a business that does not have a shortage of people wanting to get rich/famous.
I would like to go back and edit my comment in order to provide more context and word my post more thoughtfully. The terseness of it was a downside, to be sure. Unfortunately it was flagged relatively quickly and I lost the opportunity to add an Edit: at the bottom.
Particularly because your quote of "If the employees don’t follow the corporate directives they can hire new people" is along the lines of something I wanted to get across but failed to do so. I believe that if CNN wants less of a 'progressive stance' they would have to hire more conservative journalists because I don't see the progressive ones as wanting to 'be less progressive', so to speak.
I try to give a generous interpretation to what people are saying but I just don’t see how your statements can be taken as anything other than derogatory to progressives.
You make the baseless claim that progressive views are well known because progressives are vocal and active. This implicitly disavows the notion that progressive views are well known for other reasons; for instance by being what people desire without said desire being the product of brainwashing. You sort of imply that their worldview (as if there is a singular worldview the majority of progressives agree with) is popular because of propagandizing. This might the the case but it need to be backed up with some convincing evidence.
You are framing the issue of CNN wanting to shift its business focus as something that will hard to do because progressives are obstinate and obsessed with being vocal and staying on message. This is demeaning and quite frankly stupid.
Tucker Carlson used to work for CNN. He found a more lucrative niche catering to right wing news junkies. He’s a showman, an entertainer. He can shift emphasis on a dime because he is a professional and likes the money/attention. The same goes for most people in show business. Framing things in terms of how progressives or conservatives are in this instance is…well, I’ll say it’s weird.
He could written the same exact point, but with extra padding, instead:
> I suspect the execs will try to tone it down but progressives aren't known for wanting to be neutral or muted about their deeply held principles, and issues critical to our democracy. They are too thoughtful, and intellectually consistent.
There is one line in the article that mentions progressive commentary. The article is talking about how CNN leadership wants to get back to “hard news” and less commentary. The comments about how “progressives” are this or that is weird and orthogonal to the article. As if CNN or any other media outlet can’t shift focus because too many of its employees are progressive. This needs a lot more justification than what has been given.
Perhaps the point should have been backed up more, but I don't see that it would have helped to remind us that conservatives and Jihadists can also be vocal or active.
That’s not my point. Bringing up how conservatives are or how any other group is would not be germane to the article without giving evidence that it is appropriate. By asserting that progressives are a certain way and inserting this into the discussion is a form of framing that is not appropriate. It is sort of like a complex question in the logic sense as it assumes a conclusion not established.
Instead of talking about how the company will shift its focus we end up talking about how hard it is to get progressives to change or to be compliant. This then establishes in some peoples’ minds that it is well known and assumed that progressives are hard to deal with. They are pig headed one might conclude. I believe the intentions are underhanded and without merit. I could be wrong.
The comment (unintentionally?) singles out progressives when the statements apply pretty equally to journalists on both sides of the spectrum. That is why it is controversial.
To quote "Stephen Colbert" (in character): "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." If you discuss racism as existing, it's liberal. If you discuss homophobia as existing, it's progressive. If you discuss the income gap, it's socialist. If you discuss gun fatalities, it's communist (somehow). It's literally impossible to discuss any social issue in the news in the context of non-white or non-male perspective without being called any sort of those phrases.
Are you saying that CNN's only problem is they've been reporting the truth too much?
Because that's not what CNN was doing. They're a mouthpiece for the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. Maybe that's changing now but it's certainly not an accidental bias.
That's not the case at all though. Conservatives don't deny racism exists, they call out things that leading progressives say such as:
“The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” ~Ibram X. Kendi
So a conservative reads that and thinks it's not only crazy, but literally racist in the context of how Kendi proposes it should drive current policy. Whereas a progressive reads that and says yes, we need to discriminate against "privileged groups" to solve past discrimination. Those are two very different worldviews, and has nothing to do with believing whether or not racism exists. In fact, it requires progressives to use a completely different definition of the word racist to not eat their own tail.
>If you discuss homophobia as existing, it's progressive.
Again, nobody denies homophobia exists. But progressives are known to paint with a very broad brush (ie. "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a Nazi"). Similar with trans issues, where many people who say maybe biological males shouldn't compete against biological females, will have progressives brand you transphobic (and probably a Nazi).
You see this same overshooting across the board on many issues that would actually have wider support, but they go off the deep end with their craziness.
Yes, and this division makes it difficult for those of us who are economically left-wing, but feel that the modern incarnation of progressivism has lost the plot somewhat.
Especially because there is barely any representation anyway for the economic left. Instead, we have two right-wing to centre-right parties fighting over a socially conservative / socially progressive battlefield they've constructed instead. It's very frustrating.
Yes, they almost unanimously do, at least as regards anti-black racism; as of 2021, “A 53% majority of Democrats say White people benefit from advantages in society that Black people do not have. [...] Just 6% of Republicans now say White people benefit from advantages that Black people do not have.”
That's weird, because 69% of republicans said they believe more needs to be done to ensure equal rights regardless of ethnic background in the same poll.
Pew was being disingenuous, that's why. From their own data, it's actually 45% that now saw White people benefit from advantages that Black people do not have. Only 34% of republicans don't think white people benefit from advantages Black people do not have at all. (That's still a ridiculous number to me, by the way)
6% say "White people benefit a great deal from advantages Black people lack"
If you were applying for a job at a Fortune 500 company or to get into a top tier university (with equal skills and qualifications), would you rather be a black candidate or a white candidate?
Saying advantages don’t exist and saying racism doesn’t exist are two different things. I don’t believe I have an advantage as a white person with no degree. Even if I had a degree I don’t see the disadvantages PoC supposedly have (I’m told this is because I’m white). I grew up poor just like these disadvantaged people. Yet I still believe there’s racist people. And believe it or not, I know a democrat who is very racist. Literally moved states to be around more white people. Also confirming that racism still exists.
This is where you get conservatives who will point to every single Fortune 500 company putting out job searches with a preference on minority candidates, affirmative action policies that disadvantage white and asian people etc. And speaking of asian people, they make more money than white people and get arrested at lower rates, so then conservatives will say maybe those sorts of "systemic differences" are not so much based on race, but rather on culture.
CNN has such a bad image for multiple reasons. Initially it was just poor news coverage and lazy reporting( I remember so many jokes on reddit bashing them), this was in the 2000's.
Then for whatever reason in the 2010's they started to fork to the hard left and covering every story with a level of bias I would associate with Fox News(but left facing). Some of their news stories were so bad it was comical, ie. saying Joe Rogan had taken horse tranquilizer stands out as particularly egregious(a Dr. prescribed him ivermectin a perfectly safe drug with dubious effectiveness against covid).
This change is like Jerry Springer leaving his trashy TV show and trying to run for Senator(and backing out), his reputation like CNN's is so tarnished that no one would ever take it seriously again.
I actually think most reporters are fairly objective in their reporting. I think bias shows up in editorial decisions on what news to cover, how prominent it should be, and the headlines used to sell it (which journalists don't usually write, if I understand correctly).
Also, the prominent place of opinion "journalism" and talking heads that try to rile people up, especially in visual mediums. Yes, I'm talking about Fox and Friends et al. and some of the hosts on CNN. People spend more time, I think, getting riled up on entertainment, than actually learning about the world. More hard journalism will be a good thing.
Why are you calling out this behavior like it's unique to progressives? Screaming that the sky is falling is the M.O. for Fox News executives. It's just how the mainstream media operates.
seeing CNN and "progressive" in the same context befuddles me - these guys are center-right in almost every sense. I guess that's just where the Overton window is nowadays
They put CNN, and Democracy Now! , in the *same bucket*. that is insane. NYT opinion also has Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Bret Stephens for chrissakes, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, I dont know how they can put NYT opinion in "left" without putting it in "right" as well.
As far as CNN's audience, certainly they would be slightly left because right leaning viewers are sucked into the FOX news vortex.
is any of this "far left"? absolutely not. if you dont see "abolish the police and all prisons" and "forgive all student debt", you aren't looking at far left content.
> NYT opinion also has Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Bret Stephens for chrissakes, David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, I dont know how they can put NYT opinion in "left" without putting it in "right" as well.
Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and David Brooks are the NYT's token "palatable to liberals" conservatives, meant to keep their opinion pages from being a complete echo chamber. They are in no way a justification for placing the NYT opinion section on the "right," just like Alan Colmes didn't put Fox News on the left.
> Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and David Brooks are the NYT's token "palatable to liberals" conservatives, meant to keep their opinion pages from being a complete echo chamber.
What is that based on? Can you provide evidence? The evidence so far says otherwise; dismissing it with a characterization doesn't change the facts.
IMHO, it covers a wide range, from Douthat (certainly not palatable to liberals) to Brooks, more centrist. Bret Stephens was the WSJ editorial page editor before coming to the NYT, and you will see almost zero non-right opinion on the WSJ (seriously, find one opinion piece that supports Democrats and post it here).
> What is that based on? Can you provide evidence? The evidence so far says otherwise; dismissing it with a characterization doesn't change the facts.
The contention was that they make the NYT editorial page somehow "right wing," which is obviously false to anyone who actually reads it. It's clearly left wing, and if it feels to you like it isn't, you might be one of those people who is so far to the left that everything else is to your right.
IIRC, all three that I listed are Never Trumpers. Douthat is probably the least palatable to liberals, but he's often pretty indirect and soft in his columns (compare to the more liberal columnists, who can regularly put out red meat for liberals). The impression I get is he's also probably the least capitalist of the bunch. IIRC, Stephens openly voted for Biden and is strongly for gun control. Like you mentioned, Brooks is quite centrist, probably to the point of being a moderate Democrat. I'd be extremely surprised if he hadn't voted for Biden. For conservatives, they're all fairly moderate with at least some prominent heterodoxy, and I don't think anyone right-of-center would get hired as an NYT columnist without those qualities.
IMHO, the tension created by their positions makes them far more interesting than most opinion columnists. Columnists that are on friendly ground (e.g. conservatives on WSJ opinion pages, liberals at the NYT) are usually just boring and predicable (especially the WSJ).
> The contention was that they make the NYT editorial page somehow "right wing," which is obviously false to anyone who actually reads it. It's clearly left wing, and if it feels to you like it isn't, you might be one of those people who is so far to the left that everything else is to your right.
I don't recall that contention, but certainly the NYT opinion pages aren't right wing. However, you dismissing anyone who disagrees without as having a distorted, extreme perspective isn't evidence - other than evidence of your perspective.
I think the NYT's opinion page is diverse, but feel free to support your claim: Count up the columnists and their positions.
> Douthat is probably the least palatable to liberals, but he's often pretty indirect and soft in his columns (compare to the more liberal columnists, who can regularly put out red meat for liberals).
I think this characterization of Douthat is way off. Douthat is direct and puts out absurd BS 'red meat'. I think he puts out more brazen BS than any other columnist I've read there, but I seldom read any opinion pieces. And note I say 'brazen' BS; there's plenty more that is just less brazen. The opinion pages are an embarassment of deceit and manipulation to the NYT and other publications; the deceit, from all parties, is obvious if you are informed. I can predict what many will write based on the political navigation: e.g., for Stephens, 'how do I attack Dems without supporting Trump or sounding irrational?'
It is just a little bit disingenuous to demand people not take demands at their face, plain English value, and instead to somehow infer that something less extreme is meant.
Defund doesn't mean zero. Defund means -10%, -20%, -50%. I think many police departments could certainly use a haircut. When you get stopped and 6 cops show up, it's because they have nothing to do.
EDIT: Wow, I didn't think a rational person would think defund meant completely getting rid of police. There are plenty of examples of where defund doesn't mean 100%. During the Reagan administration, the federal government greatly defunded state colleges and universities. Politicians talk about defunding medicare. People talk about defunding the military. To get states to adopt the minimum drinking age of 21, they threatened to defund highway federal highway funding. None of these are 100% removal of funding.
I do not understand the attachment to the slogan "Defund the Police". If a slogan requires a much longer explanation essentially explaining "what we really mean is", then it isn't a good slogan. Especially considering there are better word choices such as "Demilitarize the Police".
Ultimately, 'defund' - to most people - doesn't mean reform. Insisting that the vernacular is incorrect is just fighting an uphill battle.
It' probably because "Reallocate and reduce police funding to other resources," isn't as catchy. But yes, I agree, "defund the police," is obviously too vague and means different things to different people. That's the problem with most political slogans like, "Make America Great Again," "Build Back Better," "We Are the 99%," "Black Lives Matter," "Back The Blue," etc. Not really sure what any of those really mean.
Black Lives Matter is absolutely clear and means what it says. When cops roll up and just gun down a 14 year old kid playing with a toy gun based on a whim and "I know I wont get in trouble so who cares" in their heads, that's an organization that does not value Black Lives. It could not be more clear, people just choose to look away.
> By Mariame Kaba (Ms. Kaba is an organizer against criminalization.)
> ...I’ve been advocating the abolition of the police for years. Regardless of your view on police power — whether you want to get rid of the police or simply to make them less violent — here’s an immediate demand we can all make: Cut the number of police in half and cut their budget in half. Fewer police officers equals fewer opportunities for them to brutalize and kill people. The idea is gaining traction in Minneapolis, Dallas, Los Angeles and other cities.
> ...People like me who want to abolish prisons and police, however, have a vision of a different society, built on cooperation instead of individualism, on mutual aid instead of self-preservation. What would the country look like if it had billions of extra dollars to spend on housing, food and education for all? This change in society wouldn’t happen immediately, but the protests show that many people are ready to embrace a different vision of safety and justice.
That was published a couple weeks after George Floyd's death.
In the sense that outside the United States by and large it is center-right. What is considered ‘left’ in the United States is often times a right leaning view in other countries. The politics of the U.S. have shifted very much to the right over the last 50 years in the U.S. Consider that it was Nixon who approached China, established the EPA and wanted to solve the healthcare issue in the U.S. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system and Regan believed the tax on labor should be less than the tax on capital.
"
AllSides was founded in 2012 by John Gable, a former Republican political aide turned Silicon Valley manager working at Netscape, and Scott McDonald, a software developer.[7][1][8][9] AllSides uses a "multi-partisan" methodology first developed by conservative professor Timothy Groseclose and his collaborator Jeffrey Milyo.[10]"
Founded by Republicans and using methodologies developed by conservatives to arrive at the outrageous conclusion that the NYT and CNN are "left of liberal". No bias there of course
For me, personally, the nonstop rotation of defense lobbyists and uncritical parroting of anything put out by the Pentagon makes CNN appear pretty right wing to me. Especially since it’s a bunch of intelligence community apparatchiks doing the parroting.
Everything else they report comes from PR NewsWire, and to me that union of corporate power and media also seems very right wing
I think CNN is definitely allied with the Democratic Party. Both parties are hawks when it serves their interest, so not having intelligence propaganda showing wouldn't be an option.
For those that downvoted him, many of the CNN "war contributors" have ties with the defense industry that are not disclosed, and those are all pro-war/intervention.
EDIT: I just noticed but I think it's funny that the WaPo has an article showing that the defense industry has infiltrated our news organizations in the lifestyle section. It's almost as if the editors are trying to hide the fact. I would think it would be a front page thing. Pretty significant assault on the democratic process, particularly on a subject as immense as war.
What do you mean by “almost every sense?” In say Germany, abortion is illegal after the first trimester, riots are stopped by police, I can get Christian classes for my kids in a public school, and the government doesn’t make eligibility for benefits dependent on people’s skin color. CNN is to the left of Germany on each of those issues.
Eh, the German government will pay for abortions in first trimester, rape/abuse, or an important danger to mother's mental/physical health, or if the fetus is disabled (Yay Nazis?).
Germany allows nudity, sex work, and prostitution; bans Nazi imagery; and has socialized medicine.
> Eh, the German government will pay for abortions in first trimester, rape/abuse, or an important danger to mother's mental/physical health, or if the fetus is disabled (Yay Nazis?).
The Mississippi law that supposedly violates Roe also allows abortions after 15 weeks in case of danger to the mother’s health and fetal abnormalities. And unlike in Germany, there is no mandatory counseling or waiting period. The Mississippi law is more similar to the German law than different—certainly much closer to each other than to Roe, which requires legalized elective abortions for two months after nearly all other developed countries ban the practice.
I’ll certainly grant you that, when it comes to the government paying for things, CNN is definitely in the center. But that’s just one of many issues.
I'm convinced that whenever people feel the need to say a news source is right, left, or center, they're usually trying to redefine "the center". The way that someone classifies a news source politically is almost always a perfect indicator of their politics
I am used to Cuba, Venezuela, Kerala as examples of places where far-left ideologies can be found. CNN has a materialist capitalist free-market POV as far as I can tell but since it became the missing child network with Nancy Grace I stopped ever watching it because its annoying, not because its far left.
Besides your comment being some broad generalization, it fails to assert the reality of the 'world' and in its place takes a group of progressive first world countries which align with liberal politics.
The world includes such places as India, Pakistan, Africa and China, oh my, where liberal ideology is a far cry from what you are describing
or...from the perspective that much of Europe views it. American politics is bunk, bought and sold by corporations that think of nothing but profit, by design. literally a country where bribery is legal and encouraged
Is one on the "radical left" if they think LGBTQ people should be able to get married, that the non-religious / non-Christians should have equal rights? This is a serious question, not a troll. I ask it because the "conservative" party in the US explicitly is against such things in their platform documents.
It's rather strange to me that it is so hard for the term "radical left" to be defined in any sort of objective way, often it seems no definition is available at all which makes discussions about the topics hard to have.
LGBTQ people can get married federally, and there is no serious effort to reverse that. It is disingenuous to use marriage rights as a litmus test because whether one morally supports it is irrelevant under the law.
>Is one on the "radical left" if they think LGBTQ people should be able to get married, that the non-religious / non-Christians should have equal rights?
Globally, supporting marriage equality puts you in the minority, both in terms of # of countries as well as per capita. [0] Personally I think it's an obvious right, but that doesn't make it popular.
> Is one on the "radical left" if they think LGBTQ people should be able to get married, that the non-religious / non-Christians should have equal rights? This is a serious question, not a troll.
No, that is not “radically far left.”
In 2019, according to Pew Research, 44% of “Republicans and Republican leaners” supported same-sex marriage.
As for your question about equal rights for “non-religious / non-Christians”, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Can you elaborate?
> I ask it because the "conservative" party in the US explicitly is against such things in their platform documents.
I assume you’re referring to the Republican Party platform document? It’s quite large; can you identify the portions you’re specifically referring to?
P18 in the PDF (p11 as per the included numbering) condemns and calls for the reversal of both US vs Windsor & Obergefell v Hodges as well as calls for marriage to be between one man and one women only.
P 19/12 calls for special rights to worship "God" which is the Christian god in this context, it doesn't call for the same rights for other religious beliefs. It all calls out for special rights to display the Ten Commandments but not other religious artifacts / documents.
Polling doesn’t seem to suggest that the positions you’ve represented are held by moderates, so no, I wouldn’t label opposition to them as “radically far left”.
I’d suggest this recent piece as a very cogent breakdown of the lost ascendancy of the religious right in conservative politics:
How about letting men takeover woman's sports?
Forcing people to pretend that men are woman or one of 86 other things.
Reparations is now a thing?
Forcing people promote things they don't believe in.
Grooming 5 year olds with deep sexual content.
Schools taking away basic rights of parents.
Or the last few years where random government agencies can just make up whatever rules they want to fully control peoples lives.
Constantly attacking anyone that disagrees on any topic.
It’s telling that when the favored side has protests fraught with arson, destruction, violence, and even multiple deaths, it’s “mostly peaceful” and “the vast majority didn’t commit crimes”.
Whereas when a single act of violence occurs on the disfavored side, that’s used to paint the entire protest as violent, and indeed, the entire disfavored political demographic as irredeemable.
"Far left" in America is "center right" in a sane country.
Card-carrying communists sit in the parliaments of some Western democracies. Yet they somehow still get on as democracies, without many of the problems that plague the USA like wars of resource appropriation, rampant racism, and school shootings.
Since you are talking about western democracies, I assume you are referring to Europe? In which case, I'm sorry but what? Racism is as much of a problem in europe, if not more. The difference is that it's not really seen as an issue in Europe, and is swept under the rug.
The mainstream rhetoric around North Africans, Africans and Roma people in europe would be totally unacceptable in the US and make the American right look downright tolerant in comparison. Remember, "blood and soil" political parties such as the FN in france that literally advocated for kicking back north Africans and openly calls for discrimination against Muslims can get up to 40% of the vote. Prejudice against the Roma people is so insanely prevalent and violent too that it's just disturbing. So much so that it would be worthy of an entire thread on its own.
The difference is that American issues get worldwide coverage and tons of internal debates. That's not the case in europe, especially on the internet where there's a weird complex of inferiority that pushes people to reflexively downplay or deny local issues whenever they get brought up.
As for resource appropriation, I guess the Libyan war never happened? And maybe you should look up what Francafrique is. Neocolonialism is still a very European hobby.
Yes exactly. The US is also at the forefront of Western discussion about colonial repartitions (yes the British Crown still owns the biggest diamond in the world, the Kohinoor, from India) and discussions on sexual minorities.
The only context where GP's sentiment makes sense is a purely economic one. Left economic parties, like social democrats and communists, do a lot worse in the US than in Europe. But this Europe good, US bad meme by folks who identify as progressive is an incredibly shallow reading of politics and history.
Sorry to slow down the AMERICA BAD train, but this seems pretty naive. These are incredibly complex, long running issues, and comparing the US with much smaller and less diverse countries is pretty pointless.
Every country falls somewhere on the political spectrum, implying that they are all insane because the aren't Sweden or something is revealing some heavy bias.
Definitely not on social issues, the vast majority of Europe consider American left wing identity politics batshit insane just like your christian fundamentalists.
From economic side probably yes, but that's not straightforward either. Conservatives in Eastern Europe often hold power by generous social programs and benefits while liberals want to cut it down.
I’m a (non-American) outsider unfamiliar with either of those, but a quick reading leads me to believe that your description is so reductionist as to be intentionally misleading. There’s more nuance to it than “attempts to overturn civil rights”.
Just my opinion.
Also, it’s not clear from the links (or I missed it) but are you calling these “Democratic” initiatives because they were the official position of the Democratic Party or simply because they are occurred in mostly left leaning states?
> There’s more nuance to it than “attempts to overturn civil rights”.
These are repealing civil rights laws in order to recreate government bigotry. Factually, that is what they do.
You can feel that institutionalizing racism is a good idea — the “nuance” you say I’m omitting — but that doesn’t change that these are attempts to repeal civil rights laws which ban discrimination on the basis of protected class.
> are you calling these “Democratic” initiatives because they were the official position of the Democratic Party
Yes — re-creating institutionalized racism is part of the Democrat party platform, using euphemisms like “equity”.
Can I just say how absurd it would be to reduce music, art, cooking, literature, sexuality, religions, or fashion down to a simplified one-dimensional spectrum, so maybe we should think twice about doing this with politics, which is equally complex and nuanced as any of those other fields of human endeavor. To do so is to invite confusion, and synthetic arguments not about policy, but terminology.
I'd be weary about this. I don't sense CNN was somehow compelled to present progressive commentary and they now want to confront that market pressure, but rather, they employ mostly progressive journalists and that is how they choose to cover the news.
I suspect the execs will try to tone it down but progressives aren't known for wanting to be neutral or muted about their causes. Activism and "everything is political" are fundamental aspects of their worldview.