For some reason MAGAnauts are suddenly highlighting a Gallup poll from October about trust in media. "Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Trend Low," reads the headline.
But that's dead wrong. As usual, trust in media is fine among Democrats. The only true statement is "Republicans' Trust in Media Remains at Trend Low":
Nobody should pretend this is some kind of organic change, either. Conservatives have spent the past 30 years setting up an alternate mediaverse—ranging from Fox News to Breitbart to Mark Levin—whose explicit goal has been to persuade Republicans that only they can be trusted. This is why it's nearly impossible to even converse with MAGAnauts: there's no common ground. If all you can do is point to facts and figures from the New York Times or the Department of Labor, you've lost already. The MAGA crowd doesn't believe that stuff anymore, and therefore they don't believe you either.
Are they ever going to come to the realization that in fact it's the GOP and right wing media that has been deceiving them? I have my doubts. They've been conditioned to think this way they for decades.
It's deeply, tragically ironic. The media is more right-tilted than any other time I can think of outside of perhaps the era of yellow journalism, and yet the people who trust it least are those it most seeks to placate and cajole.
Meanwhile, those it alienates most have just been puttering along as if nothing's wrong.
Little wonder that we are where we are.
Even when a network like Fox News tells the truth they tend to reject it and the messenger. At this point they crave the lie, they need the lie.
I just can’t even:
“This is why it's nearly impossible to even converse with MAGAnauts: there's no common ground. If all you can do is point to facts and figures from the New York Times or the Department of Labor, you've lost already. The MAGA crowd doesn't believe that stuff anymore”
It pains me to see Kevin Drum flirting with the status of partisan hack, but there it is for all to see.
There is, of course, some truth to his observation. But why is there no mention of the Left’s media bubble? The implication that only the right exists in its own echo chamber is of course absurd.
Why, after all, was anyone on the Left remotely surprised by Trump’s recent, and completely unsurprising, election victory?
Why do so many on the Left persist in condemning the nearly 80 million Trump voters in our country as little or nothing more than racists?
The indications of a tightly sealed echo chamber don’t get much clearer than that.
In fact, all you have to do to see the extent to which it’s “impossible to even converse” with the Left is to read the comments here in Kevin’s own blog! Any and all disagreement will immediately be denounced with accusations of bigotry.
The narrow mindedness on display in these comments every day is as epic as it is unmistakable. And yet Kevin somehow fails to notice and/or mention it?
So please: just stop projecting. Yes, many on the right are in their own self-enclosed information bubble. But pointing out their ignorance while refusing to acknowledge how bad the same problem is on the left is discrediting hypocrisy.
Why is it the bigot is the one with the long post that makes no pretense of actual factual statements?
Like, he decries 'media bubble' but does he grasp for a single citation?
Nope.
Trolls enjoy the chum you are feeding them. Even shit, to them, tastes good.
Well Leo, just to use one of your examples in comparing the right and left’s media bubbles…sure, I was surprised Trump won…but I believed it when it actually happened!
I don't think anyone on the "left" (or anyone anywhere) was "surprised" when Trump won. It was going to be a toss-up at best either way, and this was universally acknowledged throughout the campaign season. You might want to give the strawman a break, you're working him pretty hard here.
"In fact, all you have to do to see the extent to which it’s “impossible to even converse” with the Left is to read the comments here in Kevin’s own blog! Any and all disagreement will immediately be denounced with accusations of bigotry."
Well, at least you were savvy enough to give yourself a preemptive excuse to be condescending to all of the responses you'll be getting. The true sign of a good faith argument.
Clearly, you are in a bubble if you believe that the "Left" is condemning all Trump voters as being little more than racists. The "Left" is well aware that they are a complicated bunch with many layers: they are also misogynist, xenophobic, transphobic, conspiracy-addled, anti-science, and just plain misinformed.
+1
Who are these people who were surprised? Are they in the room with you right now? Trump won a coin-flip election. Few people were surprised by this.
Because people are what they do. When someone votes for a treasonous, racist, rapist, thief to be President, other people will form opinions of them.
This, of course, is a straight-up lie.
Leo is a case in point. Poor old fool points out that while Kevin is right about the facts, he still has a fact free diatribe to shriek out to the world.
Poor racist old guy, wasting away....
He exists to troll, not inform or be informed.I block people like that on Bluesky because they waste my time with their childish insults.
The fascinating thing about your response is that you claim the left is in some sort of similar news bubble as the right, as if there is an equivalence here. I agree that there. At best some truth to that from some on the left, but by in large, the progressives look at multiple data points to come up with an opinion, and none of those sites have had to pay a $7.87 million dollar fine for abject lying. The entire right wing media has become a gaslighting enterprise. No, we don’t think that everyone that voted for Trump is an idiot racist, just those that have been fooled by the consistent propaganda of the right. This has been going on for a very long time and was only accelerated by Citizens United. But, you do you and indulge in your false equivalence story.
Or we read people like Paul Krugman who look at multiple data points for us. Contrary to accusations he also admits he might be wrong or actually was wrong.
Actually, there *is* no significant "left" in America. What the right-wing trolls call "left" are really mostly Rockefeller Republicans who aren't part of the MAGA cult. Don't use their branding.
Trust me, liberal media feeds are full of right wing bullmanure. No matter how many times you tell Elmo and Zuck to get that garbage out of the way, they fling more at you.
Fuck off back to your troll hole, Leo.
That bias and opinions that are sometimes at odds with the facts exists on the left is of course true. Always has been and it always has been true on the right as well.
What has changed on the right is that ANYThING that is at odds with the MAGA view is just dismissed out of hand. Start with something simple like : Who won the 2020 election ? Move on to who invaded who in Ukraine. The list is now endless. THIS is what should worry you, not some pious bothsiderism.
And please don't bring up any of your "Woke" obsessions because there is planty of debate and disagreement on the left and, as shown by things like "Defund the Police", the Democratic Party and liberals in general never embraced this.
+1
Please don't feed the leo troll. It leaves its droppings to get attention. Starve the troll.
You're so dishonest.
In answer to the question "Why do so many on the Left persist in condemning the nearly 80 million Trump voters in our country as little or nothing more than racists?"
It's because Trump voters ARE little or nothing more than racists. That's not narrow-mindedness; it's just a decent respect for the truth.
+1
My observation is that when we introduce the concept of "believe the ..." we get into trouble,
The typical argument is "so do you really believe ...".
And my response typically is that we should not believe anyone. We should look at their evidence and corroborate the evidence.
If they have no evidence or it can not be corroborated or otherwise demonstrated by evidence to be credible, then we should hold in abeyance any believe in it until it can be corroborated.
And when posed like this, those making the conservative argument typically:
- state evidence is not required
- misstate the evidence
- manufacture false evidence
but will not engage in an objective evidenced based discussion.
The real issue is that much of the conservative argument is based simply on this is what I want to believe so it must be true.
And at that point all one can do is give them the opportunity to clearly demonstrate that their argument has no basis.
And nature being a harsh task master, eventually their fantasies will probably be dispelled, usually very abruptly and harshly.
As an example, since FEMA is so bad and we need to disband it, let's see what happens when the hurricanes hit this hurricane season.
The post before yours is a great example of your point. No attempt at supporting its assertions.
I've been calling this form of argumentation "If you can't make me say I'm wrong I win" since, well the 90's at the very latest. This seems to be predominant mode of discussion employed by the Left Behinders, those who remain in those left-behind parts of the country after all the smart and motivated -- dare I say 'different'? -- people have been driven out.
I know plenty of well off MAGA people who are the same. One guy who went to college with me and my husband and was very intelligent is so deep in the right wing cult that he has done — still does?— business with the crooked Casino Jack Abramoff. My “friend” still insists Abramoff did nothing wrong, aggressively defends Trump and responds nastily when people dare defend Democrats. He chooses to ignore the fact that Abramoff has apologized for the harm he caused Native American tribes with his casino con.
They may be well off, but they still identify as victims.
There's a huge difference between training and learning.
"And my response typically is that we should not believe anyone. We should look at their evidence and corroborate the evidence."
Exactly. Beliefs are like nose hairs. Everybody's got 'em.
That's a dictionary issue. There is belief founded on evidence, and belief founded on faith. If I say I believe something to be true, that means I have examined the evidence and found it convincing. If I say I believe a person, that means that I have examined the evidence and have found that person to be credible.
In that sense, we all HAVE TO believe something. On the other hand, "I believe because I have faith" should be rejected, always.
I can't help but notice that WaPo is failing, though. Democrats are abandoning select media outlets, having lost trust in those of the fourth estate which have chosen the path of appeasement.
Ahhh, but when bought and aimed in such a public manner, who could trust that source?
Yep. I've stopped reading the NYT and WaPo because of their sanewashing. Not gonna pay a subscription fee to subsidize right-wing views.
Mr Drum claims "trust in the media is fine among Democrats", ignorning the precipitous recent drop to what? 52%? And falling? Poster children from the last (let's hope not!) election with the NY Times, the WaPo, the La Times? The collapse of CNN and MSNBC ratings?
It's like that cartoon with the little dog sitting in the flaming room and the caption "This is okay."
Notice how the MAGAs don't consider FOX or the rightwing media to be "the media"?
They know on some level that those outlets aren't actual journalism but propaganda.
Democrats are from Mars, Republicans are from Pluto.
I continue to wish to heaven that KD's posts here were front page analysis in WaPo, the NYT, CBS, NBC……it would change the atmosphere of this country’s discussions. The core centrality of the reactionary mediasphere to the multi-decadal rise of Trumpistan is something Mr. Drum pegged a long time ago. As he's pointed out many times, this must change if the country has any chance at a durable return to actual democracy. The question is how.
You can’t ban the reactionary mediasphere but you can outperform it, and until this country is restructured there’s no other choice. One necessary dimension of this must be a sea change in how Democrats approach their relationship(s) with the media, i.e., understanding the asymmetry of how American legacy media 'report' the 'news,' studying how the reactionaries exploit this, and developing models for delivering powerful, reality based messaging that resonates with people who do not necessarily agree with you politically. It means not playing only to a limiting and reductive base. It means acting and sounding confident, like you own the room and the narrative. It means never - never - complaining or explaining but always being "on the front foot," as they say in soccer. Kamala Harris' destruction of Trump in the debate is a perfect example; Chris Murphy is also on point right now and Bernie has the basic domestic message. It means stop using weak qualifiers like “I think,” “I believe,” “it seems,” “it could be that,” and too many others to mention. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and stand behind it (this includes admitting mistakes as a show of courage, character, and adult level ability). It means understanding that whether you like it or not, whether you signed up for it or not, whether you want it or not you’re in a fight, not a business meeting or “disagreement” or road to non-existent “bipartisanship.” Project reality based strength and confidence, not hesitancy or uncertainty. Be on message and on point, always. Stop the lazy over-reliance on identity politics (which are structurally divisive and by extension exclusionary, fractured, and weak) and find common ground for pathway(s) to durable power, which is unitary in its base and application. We’re the answer Americans need and are looking for, and you’re welcome to join us but if you don’t we’re not going to band over backwards for you. If fact, we’re not going to bend at all. Doing this while holding true to one's core values and principles is a very powerful ‘message’ that anyone can understand and will internalize, and that is necessary for outcompeting America’s rightwing propaganda machine.
I am a numbers guy so data is important to me and I have to agree that trying to discuss issues with the MAGA types is almost impossible now. Note that I say MAGA as I still know Republicans who have not bought into the MAGA stuff and they are reasonable. Anyway, with the MAGA people it's not so much that they reject all numbers, it's that they are selective. That means that they reject any numbers you cite from BLS, FRED, Census Bureau, FBI or from any university source outside of those they like, unless its data they agree with.
So, for example, if the FBI numbers show crime is up and it fits with their world view, they cite that data as truth. If the numbers show crime is down and that doesnt fit their world view, they reject it and claim the FBI is wrong or corrupt. If unemployment numbers are adjusted up and they like that, they cite the numbers. If they adjust up and it disagrees with their POV, the numbers are bad.
Of course this is just for the few MAGA types who make an attempt to even use numbers. Mostly they just repeat whatever their leader and media says they should believe.
Steve
I disagree. Facts have a well-known liberal bias, so MAGAnuts generally rely on anecdotes. Point out that crime is actually down and they point to some story about someone getting murdered. Point out that inflation has eased and they point to the high price of eggs.
My chairman is a Trumpist*. In early 2020, he bought the right-wing propaganda that COVID19 would be gone by spring. I won a bottle of single malt scotch whisky betting that he was wrong. Now, he's struggling with the consequences of the NIH budget cuts and funding delays to the department's bottom line. Fortunately, I'm emeritus.
*He's also a highly accomplished physical biochemist and structural biologist, proving once again that in humans, the traits of high intelligence and good judgement are unlinked.
I'm surprised he didn't insist that the reported deaths were all fake - just doctors faking death certificates for some unexplained reason. I've heard that one from many true believers.
This is the most glaring trait of MAGAnuts - the ability to believe the most outlandish nonsense in the face of irrefutable evidence before their eyes. It's tribalism squared. Quite remarkable, really.