The shift in mainstream journalism

[lewisnotmiller]

I've put this in discussion since it's more me brain-farting about an interesting topic and viewpoint rather than trying to convince anyone of anything with hard facts, etc.

I was listening to a podcast featuring Batya Unger-Sargon (pm me if you're interested) where she was outlining some key ideas from her book;
Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy.

Pretty controversial title, which is obviously the point to a degree.
But the broad points of discussion were interesting. She wasn't so much suggesting the media had slid left, in and of itself, but more that there was a class divide in the US in which the mainatream media was now differently positioned than in the past.

Without going into detail, she drew the point that analysing the media over the last 100 years shows that there has always been a high level of polarisation and bias. However, where journalists were most commonly drawn from the non-college educated working class in the more distant past (resulting in large numbers of communist inspired papers, supporting the assertion of both polarisation and left wing elements not being new) they are now almost exclusively drawn from the college educated, resulting in a different set of values and biases than were previously present.

More generally she hypothesises that much of the current polarisation discussed relating to race and gender can be more productively viewed through a lens of class, particularly around education status (as opposed to intelligence) and wealth.

Whilst there were some bits I found resonated more than others, I think seeing things in terms of class makes more sense and is more self-corrrecting over time than gender or race based views (without suggesting for a moment there aren't specific gender or race considerations).

I also found the discussion on the trends in mainstream journalists class background an interesting thought, rather than a more direct assertion that the media is overly liberal.

In some ways it's splitting hairs, but I think the thought processes are as important as any conclusions drawn in most scenarios, so it was interesting to me.

Not a debate thread, but open to discussion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I looked up the description of the book on Amazon and found this:

Today’s newsrooms are propagating radical ideas that were fringe as recently as a decade ago, including “antiracism,” intersectionality, open borders, and critical race theory. How did this come to be?

Critical race theory has been around since the '70s, while intersectionality is hardly "fringe" considering that it is largely a combination of preexistent ideas from feminism, racial-equality activism, LGBT movements, etc. As for anti-racism, I can't even begin to parse how she thinks that's fringe or new considering that it has roots at least as far back as the abolitionist movement.

I also find it hard to take seriously a claim that "woke media" is undermining democracy when high-profile attacks on democracy have come from the likes of Bolsonaro and Trump, who are as far away from "woke" as black is from white.

I suppose she might have some valid points amidst the hyperbole, but I really dislike this sort of clickbait/yellow journalism... which I find ironic considering that she criticizes the status quo of mainstream journalism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I looked up the description of the book on Amazon and found this:



Critical race theory has been around since the '70s, while intersectionality is hardly "fringe" considering that it is largely a combination of preexistent ideas from feminism, racial-equality activism, LGBT movements, etc. As for anti-racism, I can't even begin to parse how she thinks that's fringe or new considering that it has roots at least as far back as the abolitionist movement.

I also find it hard to take seriously a claim that "woke media" is undermining democracy when high-profile attacks on democracy have come from the likes of Bolsonaro and Trump, who are as far away from "woke" as black is from white.

I suppose she might have some valid points amidst the hyperbole, but I really dislike this sort of clickbait/yellow journalism... which I find ironic considering that she criticizes the status quo of mainstream journalism.

I realise I'm swimming against the tide to a degree, as many here see 'wokeness' as either positive or a weaponised term used against completely valid positions.

However I'd argue that her positions don't quite line up with that book description. I'd also admit to not having read the book, but instead listened to an extended discussion on the book between her and a guy I'd think of as pretty centrist (albeit he was a former Democrat party operative, so left to some degree).

In any case, her points weren't that feminism or racism are meaningless, but more that there is a degree of agreement across party lines about them as broad concepts.
Does racism occur in the US? Yup. But largely people agree racism isn't positive. Equally the main thrusts of feminism...achievement of broad workplace equality, voting rights, etc, have been achieved.

She made no argument that these things were perfect, finished, etc. There is still sexism, and there is still racism.

However, she did make an interesting point around consideration of class, and that this might be far more impactful (particularly on the mainstream media) than other identity considerations, whilst also being less explicitly discussed.

Again, remembering that her topic is around the mainstream media, would you see them as more or less equitable to women than a hundred years ago? More or less equitable in terms of race?
More or less equitable in terms of class representation of the working class?

And that is her point in brief. Critical race theory has been around for a long time. But how the media handle it? Eeesh. Does it enlighten anyone? How does the working class...including the black working class..see critical race theory as presented by the media compared to socio-economic equality, consideration of working class issues, and a general sense of disconnect from the mainstream media?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I realise I'm swimming against the tide to a degree, as many here see 'wokeness' as either positive or a weaponised term used against completely valid positions.

However I'd argue that her positions don't quite line up with that book description. I'd also admit to not having read the book, but instead listened to an extended discussion on the book between her and a guy I'd think of as pretty centrist (albeit he was a former Democrat party operative, so left to some degree).

In any case, her points weren't that feminism or racism are meaningless, but more that there is a degree of agreement across party lines about them as broad concepts.
Does racism occur in the US? Yup. But largely people agree racism isn't positive. Equally the main thrusts of feminism...achievement of broad workplace equality, voting rights, etc, have been achieved.

She made no argument that these things were perfect, finished, etc. There is still sexism, and there is still racism.

However, she did make an interesting point around consideration of class, and that this might be far more impactful (particularly on the mainstream media) than other identity considerations, whilst also being less explicitly discussed.

Again, remembering that her topic is around the mainstream media, would you see them as more or less equitable to women than a hundred years ago? More or less equitable in terms of race?
More or less equitable in terms of class representation of the working class?

And that is her point in brief. Critical race theory has been around for a long time. But how the media handle it? Eeesh. Does it enlighten anyone? How does the working class...including the black working class..see critical race theory as presented by the media compared to socio-economic equality, consideration of working class issues, and a general sense of disconnect from the mainstream media?

I see "wokeness" as such a malleable term that it is practically meaningless except in the context in which it is applied. For example, some see support for same-sex marriage as "wokeness." When this is framed as a positive thing, it comes across as self-righteous and self-congratulatory. When it is framed as a negative thing, it weaponizes the term and employs it as a slur to demonize support for the legal equality of LGBT people.

Conversely, when the term "wokeness" is used to criticize a legitimately problematic position, there's almost always a more accurate and less emotionally and ideologically charged way to phrase the objection to said position.

In all of the above cases, the entire discussion could do better with a different term altogether.

I don't disagree with the rest of the points, and my worldview strongly aligns with a similar perspective due to my own Marxist/dialectically materialist leanings. I think the far right could be defeated much more comprehensively and effectively, for instance, if more mainstream political parties on the left dedicated more effort to addressing economic and class-related inequalities and struggles. Talking alone is insufficient; history shows that a lot of people change their voting habits based on the outcomes they see in practice and not just in speeches or party platforms.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hate the article's title.
"Media" is plural (eg, Newspapers, radio, TV).
So it should be "How woke media are...".

I feel better now.
And yes, I see "woke media" pursuing polarizing
coverage of events, eg, coverage of police shootings
being about black victims.