[treesknees]

In which senses are they center-right? This is the first time I've ever heard someone refer to CNN as anywhere near the right.

AllSides Bias Rating puts them on the left, https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

Pew Research shows a significant slant toward the left in terms of CNN's audience, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/interactives/media-po...

Searching CNN in this bias chart shows center-left, https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

From 2014 but still showing CNN toward the left, https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444

[zzzeek]

> AllSides Bias Rating puts them on the left

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.

[formerly_proven]

Honestly, left/right is not really a useful tool for arranging political opinions on a scale beyond jerking, at which it excels.

[SllX]

Yet we continue to suffer under the tyranny of the French National Assembly’s seating chart.

[tablespoon]

> 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.

[wolverine876]

> 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).

[tablespoon]

> 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).

[wolverine876]

> 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?'

[Clubber]

>if you dont see "abolish the police and all prisons" and "forgive all student debt", you aren't looking at far left content.

I never took the "defund the police" movement as "abolish the police." I thought equating it to "abolish the police" was just a right wing hit-job.

[Karunamon]

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.

I mean, "reform" is right there...

[Clubber]

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.

[dbrueck]

Most dictionaries (at least from a cursory Googling) disagree with you:

"prevent from continuing to receive funds."

"to stop providing money for something"

"To stop the flow of funds to"

"to withdraw financial support from"

"to deplete the financial resources of"

But Cambridge at least gives you your 2nd meaning as an alternate:

"to stop providing money or as much money to pay for something"

EDIT: Oof, and the Cambridge definition was changed sometime after Dec 2020 to give it that more broad definition:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201207142418/https://dictionar...

[puffoflogic]

For more examples of the phenomenon you mention in your edit, compare definitions of the word "vaccine" from 5 years ago to today.

[BitwiseFool]

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.

[Clubber]

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.

[tablespoon]

> I never took the "defund the police" movement as "abolish the police." I thought equating it to "abolish the police" was just a right wing hit-job.

No, not really. Some on the left actually took it that far.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...

> Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police

> 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.

[krapp]

It meant exactly "abolish the police" until mainstream progressives and politicians appropriated it and watered it down to make it palatable.

[suture]

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.

[zzzeek]

" 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]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllSides

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

[pueblito]

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

[Clubber]

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/news-networks...

https://jacobin.com/2022/04/defense-industry-ex-military-off...

This has been going on for decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

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.