[popmystack]

Yeah, all because people wanted to scream "bias." Sadly the community here seemed apt to agree with it, but I definitely have my opinions on that. Quoted from a previous thread:

>Did the standard for their sources remain relatively constant regardless of the material being discussed? There isn't a clear answer here, but that doesn't make it defacto censorship of one set of particular political opinions. The sources that were discussed aren't credible in any meaningful form. The fact that they happen to be largely conservative seems like a problem conservatives should address instead of calling it censorship.

But ironically, for posting that, I was meant with censorship.

People in aggregate are terrible at curation. You really do need editors for a reason. But Facebook should have been extremely blunt about the situation before. The fact that its curators let through more "liberal" sources than conservative ones, doesn't necessarily mean they're biased. It really could just be that conservative sources are far more likely to not be at a high enough standard to be posted -- which seems to be the case given the examples in the article.

[ta_donk_gt]

> But ironically, for posting that, I was meant with censorship.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but this comes across as "when my opinion is downvoted then it's censorship, but when views I don't agree with are downvoted it's because they are not at a high enough standard".

[popmystack]

You shouldn't downvote based on disagreement, on top of the fact that that seems like an incredibly disingenuous sentiment, what is your point?

[ta_donk_gt]

Not fully sure what you mean here. I did not downvote your comment. I also have no idea what "seems like an incredibly disingenuous statement". I posted how your comment comes off to me, in case you were not aware it was coming off that way, or in case I was misinterpreting then perhaps you would clarify.

[popmystack]

I'm not sure what you want me to clarify? At no point did I indicate that it's okay to downvote people you disagree with. They should constructively contribute to the conversation, and in cases where they are not, the downvote button should be used.

[philwelch]

There are plenty of low-quality left-wing news sources too, but the high-quality sources definitely trend to the left for some reason. Breitbart and Huffington Post are both tabloid garbage, but at least there are highbrow counterparts to Huffington Post.

[lucio]

"...definitely trend to the left for some reason."

It is the same reason why most movies have a happy ending. It is easier to sell daydreams (histories and world-views) than the harsh reality.

[xenadu02]

Not really. The right in the US has gone through several compaction cycles that drummed the RINOs, moderate conservatives, blue-dog Democrats, etc out of office and the party. Republicans are far, far away from being a "big tent" party. It's ideological purity or get purged in the primaries.

By virtue of the two-party system in the US there is only one place left for rational thinking people to end up. This election cycle is producing an even stronger compaction cycle than the last three combined. As the base gets ever more rabid and detached from reality more people flee. (Some on the Left are pissed that the Dems have been moderating too much)

I can't predict the future but it is possible we are looking at a major fracture of the GOP and political re-alignment. It has happened 2-3 times in the past. If I had to guess the Rs will fracture into two or more parties, the Ds will run the table for a decade or two, then things will reset as a new party rises to replace the GOP and peels off D voters.

If Donald Trump keeps claiming he lost due to fraud/the media/some other boogeyman I don't see how the Republicans can keep it together. If nothing else he showed the wanna-be hucksters how to really appeal to the hardcore Republican base. Many astute eyes have been watching and will be ready to replicate his efforts at the local and national level. The Right-wing echo chamber has taught the base that all media are liars, you can't trust government, etc. There is no authority left who can tell them what is a false conspiracy theory and what is truth. Anyone who doesn't buy the conspiracies is branded a traitor and the compaction cycle marches ever onward.

Compaction Cycles are where a group turns inward looking for people to blame. Sometimes there is an obvious cause, sometimes it's just general discontent. People point fingers and anyone who isn't quick enough to jump on the group-think train is purged. Moderate or un-committed members are driven out, (see Tea Party candidates primary-ing a bunch of Rs out). If the movement experiences a failure this can manifest as the blame-game too - see McCain/Romney. When they clinched the nomination various places like r/pol and Freep went on huge purges of anyone not backing them. When they lost the group-think proclaimed it was because they weren't true conservatives. Like fascism, communism, and other -isms conservativism cannot fail, it can only be failed. Compromise is a moral failing. If the leaders just /conservatived even harder/ they would finally win.

When Trump inevitably loses (remember: he hasn't been forecasted to win once since he started running and demographic trends make it almost impossible for Republicans to win the presidency anymore) there will be another massive purge and a huge wave of angry people looking to blame someone. A certain segment of the R base won't believe he lost. They will claim the election was stolen.

[jwatte]

You know what they say: Facts have a well known liberal bias!

[jsmith0295]

I think that may be true, but only because what is widely considered and presented as fact by the most mainstream sources of information actually have a significant center left bias. I think it's generally missed because people confuse bias as having to do with having a more extreme political position, when you can actually be biased in favor of any part of the political spectrum including the center.

[ascagnel_]

As someone with a left-leaning bias, I agree with your assessment, if only in the sense that the loudest and most powerful voices in the most reputable newsrooms tend to also have (implicit) left-leaning biases. I would love for their to be a conservative equivalent (this was the reason for the founding of Fox News pre-Ailes: get a bunch of conservatives in the newsroom and have them do their jobs to the best of their ability, following an implicit rather than explicit bias).

Does any equivalent exist today (eg trying to report as an outlet run by conservatives instead of a conservative outlet)?

[mzw_mzw]

In the case you describe, "they" tend to be a) propagandists and b) poorly-informed people robotically repeating the last political meme those propagandists spoon-fed them.