[rootusrootus]

> Does the US even have left-leaning news?

Nothing mainstream. The right wing is fond of calling the other side communists, though in reality you could probably fit every actual communist American into a single stadium. America is a right-leaning country, there is no left to speak of.

Though I suppose it might be fair to say that such constructs only really matter within a single political system, so "left" and "right" don't automatically have to be a particular definition.

[DiggyJohnson]

How can you defend MSNBC for being anything other than left-leaning?

It’s not always as progressive as American progressives would like it to be, but not being progressive≠ not left leaning.

[carbadtraingood]

MSNBC fundamentally believes capitalism is good and right. They are absolutely left of the Republican party, but they are hardly left.

This is unfortunately a consequence of the two party system in the States. We equate Democrats with Left and Republicans with Right. Anything supportive of Democrats gets labeled "left" even if the policies are really centrist, pro capital ones. Because we don't really have the language here to differentiate the Left and Democrats in mainstream American parlance.

[DiggyJohnson]

I’m confused, are you saying that any news outlet that doesn’t denounce capitalism isn’t truly left-biased?

I think your perspective is more radical than you realize. You sound like a revolutionary to me, not a progressive.

[techdragon]

This is actually a wider issue with political discussion in countries with two dominant parties. There are parties who frequently use “political description words” such as (regex notation to save on duplicates) “democra.?”, “republic.?”, “liberal”, “labour”, “social.?”, “conservative”, and many more. As a consequence of this people begin to develop associations with certain kinds of political views with the full or shorthand names of the political parties that promote them so we get discussions about “Republican/Labour/Liberal/Democrat/Conservative policies” that grow increasingly divorced (from the terms that are needed to discuss them like “liberal” and “conservative” … which generates confusion.

There are fundamentally, multiple axises upon which you can measure political policy, views, goals, parties, etc. A few examples of widely understood ones being “progressive/conservative”, “authoritarian/libertarian”, “collectivist/anarchist”, and some even cover similar things such as “socialist/capitalist” which has philosophical overlap “collectivist/individualist” but is not the same, being obviously more focused on the economic structures than basic political philosophies of collectivism vs individualism.

All of this is to say that boiling politics down to a simplistic “left/right” spectrum does nothing but confuse the issues.

[DiggyJohnson]

I actually very much agree with your characterization of the challenge.

That said, and I'm curious if you'd agree, I don't think that means that we cannot observe that MSNBC is left-biased. Both in a relative (definitely) and absolute sense. That said, if we are going to use such a reductive spectrum, we do lose a huge amount of important details that may keep individuals from agreeing with my perspective.

[techdragon]

I wrote that up because of how hard it is to even agree on what “left” means. I could agree with a characterisation of MSNBC as socially “progressive” but they’re fiscally “conservative” just like the majority of business focused news outlets. They push “individualist” views quite broadly along with the majority of business news by being (in general) anti-union, and they don’t really seem to have a fixed position on the authoritarian/libertarian axis (as in they don’t make the decision if it’s good or bad based on this axis)

Effectively I could agree with a characterisation of MSNBC as “left” if you want to define “left” as just “progressive”. Which feels like an oversimplification that hides the fact that when you look critically at the situation that broadly speaking news in the USA is tailored to instil fear as a mechanism to keep people watching because seeking information (to ensure our safety) on things our brain finds threatening is a basic human instinct that happens at a subconscious level. Effectively the only difference between the 24/7 news channels is what they think you’re afraid of.

[orwin]

No, i think he would be OK with mixed economy and more workers rights, as well as more worker-owned companies.

You can like some aspect of capitalism and think some industry/market should be protected from it (like inherently monopolistic markets?)

[carbadtraingood]

Yep, exactly. Worker coops in a market is fine.

Compare the difference between Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden. Warren and Biden fundamentally believe that capitalism is good and the natural law of the land. Sanders does not. Warren believes that we need to do more to address inequality between the owners and the workers, Biden does not.

I would (personally) consider Bernie to be Leftist, Warren to be Left Leaning, and Biden to be Centrist.

None of them I would consider to be revolutionary left. I've met plenty of tankies who believe in an authoritarian left seized through violence. (I am not one.)

[DiggyJohnson]

Thanks for continuing this thread. Just to close out this discussion - because I think I might be able to pinpoint where we disagree: did you find the MSNBC was opposed to a Bernie candidacy? I didn't make the same observation, and my position does essentially hinge on "if Bernie is leftist, then MSNBC is leftist."