[seebetter]

Also because the corporate media in general and the left leaning companies, don’t really respect facts anymore. Entire networks ignore valid stories. And they subtly and aggressive distort and deflect, “There is no explicit evidence of overt corruption and to suggest otherwise is dangerous to our institutions.”

I’m a big defender of intelligence agencies but people like John Brennan are widely hated within the Intelligence Community. The political operatives masquerading as intelligence officials are leading CNN — which is disturbing.

Reality has been conflated. We’re all living in a conspiracy theory.

[thechao]

I have a genuine question: why is it that left-leaning companies dominate media and/or nearly all other walks-of-life? I hear this all the time, but I’d like to know how it came about. I would guess, knowing nothing else, that companies would tend to lean right.

[rsynnott]

> why is it that left-leaning companies dominate media and/or nearly all other walks-of-life?

... I mean, they don't. The largest media network by most metrics (at least in the sense that people normally mean by media; Comcast and Liberty Global would be bigger, but are mostly comms companies, really) is News Corporation and its affiliates. This owns Fox and the Sun and various other right-wing gutter press, along with some more respectable, but certainly right-leaning, organs like the Times and WSJ.

Other top tens include Sinclair Broadcasting Co (hardly left-leaning), and the Daily Mail and its affiliates.

[tyingq]

Geography has something to do with it. New York and Washington are liberal leaning, and that's where the origins of many of the big media companies lie.

The other piece is likely the motivation to be a journalist, as well as the college experience. Journalism programs tend to have lots of students and staff that want to be seen as "fighting for the little guy", which tends to line up more directly in a liberal context. You can see this pretty clearly by looking at the news stories that have won Pulitzers in the past.

[Taikonerd]

My guess is that it's about education levels. Americans with a 4-year college degree are much more likely to be liberal... and people with 4-year college degrees are, in turn, more likely to be decision-makers in business / academia / the media.

[forest_dweller]

It couldn't be because those colleges promote left wing ideas? I honestly couldn't tell you because I haven't been to one in over 10 years. However there is this idea that left-wing ideas are correct because those that are educated have them as if they came to these ideas because they are better educated.

I see no evidence of this at all. Most people who are educated at a University level seem to be just as misinformed as those that aren't about political issues.

The difference I find is that those that are University educated have a particular hubris about their political views whereas those that aren't typically don't.

Also poor (logical) reasoning doesn't dissapear because someone is university educated. They are typically better at defending their bad reasoning.

[vharuck]

The parent post wasn't trying to insult people without four year degrees. It's just saying that most major news companies will be led and staffed by people with college degrees (business, journalism, whatever). And, because those with four year degrees tend to lean left in the US, it makes sense the companies they lead and staff will do the same. Venn diagrams, and all that.

Personally, I don't believe this. In fact, I don't believe "the media" is a useful phrase at all. It's like pigeonholing Trump supporters. It can make you feel superior or smart, but it's not actually informative. I think the Republican Party has chosen the tactic of discrediting media sources after Fox News showed it could work. No news organization is perfect, and it's best to consume a balanced diet, but avoiding all "mainstream media" just leaves us with dregs.

[forest_dweller]

> The parent post wasn't trying to insult people without four year degrees.

I didn't say they were. However there is a particular line of thinking that follows. It goes something like this:

1) Group A are university educated.

2) They typically vote for X

3) Group B aren't unviersity educated.

4) They typically vote for Y.

5) X must be better than Y because Group A are better educated then Group B.

I think the line of reasoning is very dangerous. As it allows you to dismiss the other side as "dumb" even if some of their concerns are legitmate.

> And, because those with four year degrees tend to lean left in the US, it makes sense the companies they lead and staff will do the same. Venn diagrams, and all that.

But why does having a four year degree make you lean left? That was what I was commenting on. I don't think it is simply having a higher level of education.

> Personally, I don't believe this. In fact, I don't believe "the media" is a useful phrase at all. It's like pigeonholing Trump supporters. It can make you feel superior or smart, but it's not actually informative.

I think you are conflating having a healthy skepticism of what you are told by journalists, politicians or large corporations to those that go completely off the deep end.

The news media at the beginning of COVID said it was a nothing burger. I knew it wasn't. Why was that? Because I was on a discord that had a twitter feed from Falun Gong reporter in China that was reporting on the virus, I then cross checked that with stuff from other sites and news groups on my own account and I was fairly certain this maybe serious. I was proven right much to the chargrin of my coworkers.

I was right this time. Maybe I will be wrong in the future. However it is better than blindly believing what you are being told.

> I think the Republican Party has chosen the tactic of discrediting media sources after Fox News showed it could work.

That maybe the case. However they (the MSM) exacerbated the sitation themselves.

It wasn't uncommon for mainstream media outlets contradict their position on a particular issue after Donald Trump (it was Boris Johnson here) was for (or against) something. If Trump/Boris liked it (almost didn't matter what it was) it was automatically bad. It was petty and pointless. If there is legitimate criticism I am quite happy to hear it. But it was quite obvious they were just taking the contrarian view.

The other thing they have done is selectively edit or quote what people have said. Both the left and the right do this so both sides are guilty of doing this.

There is an infamous quote of Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London and an important member of the Labour party) from several years back in the UK where they quoted him as saying "Terrorism is part and parcel of living in a city" which would be outrageous if he said it. The context was totally removed. IIRC correctly he said (obviously I am paraphrasing) "We have to be vigilant about Terrorism. It is part and parcel of being in a big city". But you would only know that by going out of your way to find the original clip.

Both MSM and independant media (that were more right leaning) left out the complete context of the quote.

So these parties either knowingly took the quote out of context, or they didn't bother to find the original clip (which IIRC I found on after a few minutes of using the search function on youtube). Either way I cannot trust these new outlets because at best they are lazy or at worst they are lying.

In short they discredit themselves.

> No news organization is perfect, and it's best to consume a balanced diet, but avoiding all "mainstream media" just leaves us with dregs.

I spend a lot of time listening to various news outlets and those that criticise them (mostly independant people). I think you can split the news media into two segments "mainstream news media" and "independant media". Fox News, BBC, ABC, Sky News etc are part of the mainstream. There are other outlets that are independant or are just guys doing analysis on the news.

Both groups are full of bad actors as far as I can tell and will play to the cognitive bias of their audience. I will freely admit I've been duped a few times (from both MSM and independant media). So now I am extremely skeptical of anything I am told and I make sure I check everything out.

However there are those that will go through an issue in a logical and point out the inconsistencies and list their sources. These people in my opinion are great. If I feel something is off, I can always check it myself.

A lot of mainstream media outlets appear to repeat a similar narrative (irrespective whether this is true). This from what I can tell is because they simply just copy one another articles, another part of this is that many of the new companies are owned by the same corporations. I speak to a Belgian friend and from what he tells me their news media just copy and paste articles from English speaking news outlets and translate articles into Flemish.

It not about that being "perfect". I don't expect that. I don't even expect them to be unbiased. The problem is that they appear to promote a particular narrative.

So it isn't about a balance diet of MSM and other stuff. You need to actively check everything (especially if it too one sided) and find the original sources. You cannot trust anyone.

[pjc50]

Obviously this isn't true; any analysis would require first trying to establish where "left" and "right" might be, then looking at media ownership, and also referencing the extreme Overton Window effects of the US.

Biden/Harris are center-right candidates, which probably contributed to them winning the election, and definitely contributed to them winning the primaries.

(also you'd need to disentangle "left" and "liberal"!)