Are there any anti-war newscasters?

Anya Ristow

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
151
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
What did we do before social media?
Unfortunately, as long as people have that outlet, most of them are content to do nothing other than virtue signal on facebook. That's the limit of their political engagement. There's a video of a Hillary Clinton canvasing training event in Ohio, where the only person to show up was a Trump supporter. When I posted about it I linked to her page about phone banking and canvasing and people were surprised she even did that. I mean, she has all the money so she has that shit covered, right? I also looked up all my facebook friends who were berating people for not doing the proper virtue signaling during the most important election ever, looked them up on opensecrets.org, and found that not a single one of them had ever opened their damned wallets for their candidate or any candidate. Someone else has it covered, right? All I have to do is insult my friends and share the memes prepared by Center for American Progress. Right?
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,404
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
All this means is that effective activism needs to include people who are reasonably technical. It does. People still know how to network offline. They know how to manage their own servers. What did we do before social media? It’s not the whole internet. And that’s not even getting into things like .onion sites.
It’s not all memes on Facebook.
Exactly. There are a LOT of techies involved with activism. Plus most of the tools you need are usable by anyone partially competent on how to use the intertubes. Meanwhile congress and the like can not even figure out what jargon to use.

For example, awhile back VPNs were scary to set up to anyone that did not know networking. Now you pay a couple bucks a month to a company, download their client, and decide what country you want your traffic (encrypted, of course) to come from. Not that it is a silver bullet but it stops minor stuff and is part of a comprehensive way to use the web.
 

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
885
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
Unfortunately, as long as people have that outlet, most of them are content to do nothing other than virtue signal on facebook. That's the limit of their political engagement. There's a video of a Hillary Clinton canvasing training event in Ohio, where the only person to show up was a Trump supporter. When I posted about it I linked to her page about phone banking and canvasing and people were surprised she even did that. I mean, she has all the money so she has that shit covered, right? I also looked up all my facebook friends who were berating people for not doing the proper virtue signaling during the most important election ever, looked them up on opensecrets.org, and found that not a single one of them had ever opened their damned wallets for their candidate or any candidate. Someone else has it covered, right? All I have to do is insult my friends and share the memes prepared by Center for American Progress. Right?
Most activism is done by the few.

I don’t know what to tell you about the passivity and authoritarianism of average people, only that if you stake your hopes on them, you will wind up nihilistic in short order. I have the (possibly somewhat elitist) view that most people are locked into authoritarian mindsets by some combination of poor education, subculture and psychology, as well as intelligence damaged by factors such as alcoholism.

The problem is especially bad with people who grew up in what I call the broadcast TV generation. Many of these people do not have enough of a life of their own to be able to evaluate what’s coming at them from screens. Fighting all this ignorance is just pouring water into a burning sinkhole.

So - as long as those people don’t vote for the worst candidates, forget ‘em. They will go along with whatever they are programmed to do. And maybe it’s for the best, since if one of these people get the sense something’s not right, their lack of education and lived experience sends them down irrational paths more often than not.

That leaves the people with either decent educations or the practical experience of a life actually lived. I doubt they care much about memes except for a joke. But this group will vote and even try to get out the vote. And I think it’s possible to reach them.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,404
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
Unfortunately, as long as people have that outlet, most of them are content to do nothing other than virtue signal on facebook. That's the limit of their political engagement. There's a video of a Hillary Clinton canvasing training event in Ohio, where the only person to show up was a Trump supporter. When I posted about it I linked to her page about phone banking and canvasing and people were surprised she even did that. I mean, she has all the money so she has that shit covered, right? I also looked up all my facebook friends who were berating people for not doing the proper virtue signaling during the most important election ever, looked them up on opensecrets.org, and found that not a single one of them had ever opened their damned wallets for their candidate or any candidate. Someone else has it covered, right? All I have to do is insult my friends and share the memes prepared by Center for American Progress. Right?
That is a problem, yes, but it is not brain surgery for people to figure out how to do effective things online.
 
  • 2Agree
Reactions: Brenda Archer and Sid

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
885
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
It's not. They're being programmed by six corporations. That's not a democracy.
It’s been this way almost my whole life.

You would have to convince these people to seek out better sources of information, get direct experience of a subject, or otherwise do something that amounts to education. If their psyches are brittle enough, this is the same as asking them to abandon their social personae, which to them is their survival.

They *cannot be enticed by better messaging.* All learning must fit into the framework they have (1), so all the messages they actually receive have been co-opted already to fit their existing beliefs. This kind of education is not entirely wasted, but it won’t cause a narrow person to instantly turn into an adventurous learner. That’s an entire personality change.

Meanwhile, people inclined to action and independent thought are adults doing their various things. In general, activists are in this group. Something has caused them to want to resist or to build, and that something is incorporated deeply into who they are.

Before mass TV, authoritarian people took orders from literalist religions and regional aristocracy. These people have been authoritarian for a long time.

They now *look* smarter than they are, by way of mediated knowledge, but they evaluate sources by authority, not by veracity. So nothing is really new.

The gradual improvement of public education is the way out of the narrow media straightjacket. If you were to suggest to the average person they should get better news than what’s on TV, they would look at you like a weirdo.

(1) Yes, I got this idea from Leary, and Graves, both of whom observed in the Sixties that adults and even cultures have developmental levels.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Han Held

Anya Ristow

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
151
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
It’s been this way almost my whole life.
No, it hasn't. I'm not going to google media consolidation for you.

The programming used to at least be diverse. And there was the fairness doctrine, which used to prevent CNN from making twelve minute Kamala Harris campaign ads and airing them as news. Fox news could not have existed in its present form twenty five years ago.

"Corporations are people" and "money is speech" are also new within your lifetime.
 
Last edited:

Anya Ristow

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
151
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
If you were to suggest to the average person they should get better news than what’s on TV, they would look at you like a weirdo.
You think VVO doesn't have a Rachel Maddow bias? You find the message you want from the charismatic talking heads, and anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy nut. VVO isn't above the programming you describe.
 

Anya Ristow

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
151
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
There used to be credible debate on whether the media had a liberal bias. Now there's a "conservative" network and there are "liberal" networks, and simply by deciding on a favorite news source you've chosen sides, and can be free of opposing views. But no matter which side you choose, you will be free of anti-war and anti-corporate views, because both "sides" are both neoliberal and neoconservative.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Han Held

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
885
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
No, it hasn't. I'm not going to google media consolidation for you.

The programming used to at least be diverse. And there was the fairness doctrine, which used to prevent CNN from making twelve minute Kamala Harris campaign ads and airing them as news. Fox news could not have existed in its present form twenty five years ago.

"Corporations are people" and "money is speech" are also new within your lifetime.
For certain there’s plenty of trash programming and consolidation, but does the TV have to be chosen as the source of authority?

In 1970 many households only received one or two television networks and a few radio stations. “Fairness” was a matter of center-right consensus, which was great if that matched your politics. Genuine leftism didn’t get on TV except as it was covered as a “fringe” and possibly un-American menace. If you think that was really fair or diverse, I have a bridge to sell you.

Nowadays an average middle class household has fifty channels, Internet access to curated content from museums and universities, online libraries, papers from all over the world, and more. If some people are still passively consuming mainstream networks of dubious quality and even sketchier YouTube nonsense, it’s because they lack formal or practical education, or because their choice of bullshit appeals to them emotionally, or - and I cannot stress this enough - the major networks are still *authority figures* to them out of old, old habit. So the viewer is very much part of the problem.

I haven’t owned a TV since I was 27 when I decided it was antifeminist trash. I prefer to spend my small budget on Internet access instead. So I, at least, am not getting my info from Maddow. She sounds okay, but what I hear about her is second hand. You can get a sense of my favored sources from my Tweet stream. I read. A lot. It’s something to do.

I’m not pleased by the expansion of corporate power, but that’s not new either. It’s why I turned off my TV as a young adult and started tracking counterculture publications - still all on actual paper at the time.

I know this forum is full of readers so they’re not getting all their info from TV either.

The idiot faction most likely to start a war right now is the hard Right Republicans and most of us hate their guts, so are you going to argue your case for why all the Dems are just as bad, or just go on assuming we’re programmed?
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,404
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
There used to be credible debate on whether the media had a liberal bias. Now there's a "conservative" network and there are "liberal" networks, and simply by deciding on a favorite news source you've chosen sides, and can be free of opposing views. But no matter which side you choose, you will be free of anti-war and anti-corporate views, because both "sides" are both neoliberal and neoconservative.
There are no mainstream liberal TV news outlets though.

Faux is obviously out of the running.

CNN is center-right.

The most liberal US mainstream network is MSNBC. Even they are center-left only on good days.
 

Han Held

Active member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
380
Location
Anchorage
Joined SLU
September, 2010
SLU Posts
7705
There are no mainstream liberal TV news outlets though.

Faux is obviously out of the running.

CNN is center-right.

The most liberal US mainstream network is MSNBC. Even they are center-left only on good days.
That's why it's usually best straight-up ignore MSNBC along with the rest of the cable news crap except to keep in the loop of what the message du jour is.

There's better sources out there, as a techie you know this.
 

Han Held

Active member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
380
Location
Anchorage
Joined SLU
September, 2010
SLU Posts
7705
The gradual improvement of public education is the way out of the narrow media straightjacket. If you were to suggest to the average person they should get better news than what’s on TV, they would look at you like a weirdo.
It's worse than that -they'd nod enthusiastically and ask "oh! you read brietbart too?"
 

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
885
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
Apparently, yes. Even here. If Rachel Maddow hasn't covered it, it isn't credible.
How does that work when some of us don’t watch US TV or even any TV?

Judging from links, I would assume a lot of us are reading papers and Twitter.

Maybe there’s a different reason for the seeming correlation?

I'm not, because they aren't.
Okay.
 

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,309
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
October 2009
There are no mainstream liberal TV news outlets though.

Faux is obviously out of the running.

CNN is center-right.

The most liberal US mainstream network is MSNBC. Even they are center-left only on good days.
I find it funny, whenever I bring up something anti-Trump on Twitter, I get the usual "turn off CNN and watch some real news" from his disciples. First, I find it funny they consider CNN a bastion of liberalism. And second, I sometimes have to respond back with "oh, Honey, I don't watch CNN, but I probably read more news from more sources than you will ever expose yourself to!"
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,404
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
That's why it's usually best straight-up ignore MSNBC along with the rest of the cable news crap except to keep in the loop of what the message du jour is.

There's better sources out there, as a techie you know this.
Oh I know, and I am sure everyone here does too. I regularly get my news from multiple places in multiple formats (tv, newspaper websites, independent news critters, etc) and from multiple countries if I have the time.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,404
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
I find it funny, whenever I bring up something anti-Trump on Twitter, I get the usual "turn off CNN and watch some real news" from his disciples. First, I find it funny they consider CNN a bastion of liberalism. And second, I sometimes have to respond back with "oh, Honey, I don't watch CNN, but I probably read more news from more sources than you will ever expose yourself to!"
Plus no matter their slant CNN is a new source, it is hard to ignore that fact. They pioneered the 24/7 cable news concept. If it were not for that their precious faux would not exist and it would probably be some newspapers in another country.