>"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.
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.