I've subscribed to your blog despite the fact that I think I will rarely agree with you on many issues, the same reason I subscribe to Andrew Sullivan (whose blog directed me to you). It is imperative to me that I read and understand and question conservative thinkers who are outside of the Trumpian echo chamber.
I've subscribed to your blog despite the fact that I think I will rarely agree with you on many issues, the same reason I subscribe to Andrew Sullivan (whose blog directed me to you). It is imperative to me that I read and understand and question conservative thinkers who are outside of the Trumpian echo chamber.
For this piece I will only question one part:
[T]he strong alliance between the Democratic Party and the press, which are advocating that major tech companies crack down on “hate,” or “disinformation,” which has quickly become a synonym for “information I don’t like.”
I believe there is a monumental difference between "information I don't like" and deliberate dissemination of lies and disinformation, both through mainstream right wing media (Fox "News") and the insanity of Trumpian social media. They are not providing facts from a different perspective. They are providing "facts" that are bald face lies and are primarily responsible for the polarization we live in today. My Trumpian friends believe everything they hear from Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Ben Shapiro, Breitbart, etc., and have no idea that these cretins are laughing all the way to the bank as they fool their viewers. I challenge anyone to provide me with the names of equally leftist radicals who have the audience these entertainers have.
The fact that you lump all those right leaning sources together is very telling. Giving some/all of them an honest, open-minded listen would quickly reveal they are not all cut from the same cloth. You also don’t mention anything about the lies from the Left. Are you under some impression that Don Lemon is an unbiased without an agenda?
I've read multiple articles and listened to multiple broadcasts of the hosts I "lumped together" and from my perspective I don't see any significant difference from their rhetoric. It may be presented differently, but the use of the same lies is the same.
Don Lemon most certainly is left leaning with an agenda. However, I think, as with most of the opinion speakers on CNN, begins with facts and then goes into his opinion. We can argue all day that the Fox mob does the same thing but having watched them I don't find that to be so.
I'm not sure which sources you believe are biased.
But in all honesty, I don't care.
I assume all sources are biased and I verify or falsify as best I can by consulting both right and left wing sources.
It's not that hard to determine which facts are wrong (error of commission). It's a bit more difficult to determine which facts have been omitted (error of omission). But I try.
There is a another way, subtle and pervasive, the legacy media shapes the narrative. Matt Taibii spells it out here in his essay "The Echo Chamber Era": https://tinyurl.com/yyeextph
Finally, it's bad form to damn the messenger for the message: to do so would be to deploy the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well."
My point is: the facts stand separate from the source. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
So debate the facts rather than the source. Otherwise any reference to the NYT (for example) could easily be dismissed by your adversary.
If you think Shapiro is “Trumpian” you haven’t been paying attention. Not here to argue. Came for the common sense Bari is providing. Truly hope you will read what she writes each week with an open mind.
Challenge accepted!! 90 percent of staff on MSNBC, CNN, New York Times,, Washington Post are leftist radicals. Just like you, they are crowning themselves arbiters of the truth. The fact that you condescendingly think that conservatives that listen to Fox News, Ben Shapiro etc. can't think for themselves, and need someone like you to tell them what to listen to and what to read, tells me that high minded people like you are the biggest part of the exact problem Bari talks about. Just say you disagree, don't try to shut down people by calling them liars...very bolshevik of you, my fellow subscriber
I am no leftist radical and my experience with friends, family and others makes it quite clear that they believe the constant stream of lies that pour out of the mouths of the right wing media. I did not say that their audience can't think for themselves...they choose not to precisely because they do not listen to the other side EVER. You fail the challenge because you are unable to point to a single "leftist radical" who has the platform and audience of a Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, or Ingraham.
I am not the arbiter of truth but verifiable facts are facts and while there is obviously liberal bias in the outlets you single out, they also provide verifiable facts which are missing from the entertainment channels known as Fox "News". As Fox News said itself in court, no rational person should believe what their celebrity hosts say. My "conservative" acquaintances, when asked for proof of their "facts" point to another right wing site with unverified "facts" as their proof.
Their performance with the fraudulent election nonsense and trying to turn around the Capitol insurrection as really being Antifa, or trying to draw false equivalency between the social justice protests of the summer and storming the Capitol with the intention of overthrowing an election (and possibly assassinating members of Congress and the Vice President) is a case in point.
You're stuck in your echo chamber and your list is yes the low hanging fruit that many not aligned with your limited world view also reject. Look in the mirror and reflect on your own hate. Maybe you should stop watching Fox news.
There are different ways for misinformation to be disseminated by the media. But broadly speaking, there are sins of commission and sins of omission.
I'm less interested in sins of commission, since they are fairly easily sorted out: "Hands up don't shoot" being one kind. And "Bush lied about WMD being in Iraq" is a second, more subtle of way to frame an untruth. (This lie is concealed by the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: a) If there were WMD in Iraq, we'd find them. b) We found no WMD in Iraq. c) Therefore Bush lied. In fact, he was wrong, but intelligence led everyone to believe there were WMD in Iraq. Being wrong and lying are two different things.)
But I'm more interested in the sins of omission. Here's an example from just last week;
There is an AP story in the Seattle Times reporting on the Jan 20 riots in Portland and Seattle where protestors reacted to President Biden's election by vandalizing buildings including the DNC's Portland headquarters. There was nothing said about who the perps might have been. https://tinyurl.com/y2zptyh8also
The AP/Seattle Times story did not indicate who the rioters were, and one could be excused for concluding that the perps were, in fact nutty right wingers who we were told by the media would likely stage violent demonstrations on Jan 20.
The NBC story did mention, in the short second-from-last-paragraph, that the perps were actually Antifa. But here again, after reading 4 or 5 paragraphs to get the gist of what's going on, many readers would likely not bother to finish it. So burying this key fact deep into the column seems a poor way to inform the public, a way more conducive to folks forming incorrect conclusions than correct ones.
The Daily Mail (UK) goes full-on with pictures and a video and makes Antifa central to the story.
Today, I heard on the radio that the together, CBS, NBC and ABC spent about 1 minute total covering the riots
To me, the Daily Mail story seemed more honest, but I respect your right to disagree.
It was clear from the stories I read about it (including The NY Times article posted that Wednesday at 7 pm) that the rioters were a collection of anti-fascists, anarchists and racial justice protesters. Your issue is that you want them all rolled into “Antifa” which is not true. There is no public-facing organization called “Antifa” and even if there were it would only be one segment of left-wing agitators. Just like there is no single group of right wing agitators, although those groups are more public-facing.
And yet my point stands: major news media left a major element — perhaps the most important one — out of the story, or bigly downplayed it.
So for those who do not read the NYT, but get their news from the AP, Seattle Times, and NBC, CBS and ABC, the coverage was minimal.
The absence of a clear identification of the perps in those sources, and I'd wager many other outlets as well — suggests to the casual reader that the riots were the fullfilment of a media prophesy, viz. that right wingers were the perps.
I have to wonder if the rioters were right-wing crazies, would the media have treated them so delicately.
About your objection to my use of the word Antifa. Some of the rioters referred to themselves as Antifa. Doubtless other groups were present. For the purposes of my point, I don't care if they are called Antifa or anarchists or John Smith.
The fact remakns that for whatever reasons, the fact that the rioters were NOT right wing, but instead left-wing, was not a prominent feature of the AP, Seattle Times, NBC, CBS or ABC.
Oh . . . and nothing says "antifacist" better than street thugs dressing in black some of whom carried Molotov Cocktails, who wielded batons, vandalized property and threw dangerous objects at police.
So, CNN provides "verifiable" facts sometimes, but Fox News never, NEVER. I'm sorry to say, but you sound as close minded as you claim your right wing friends are. Notice , Fox News , Ben Shapiro, Breitbart etc. never called for closing their ideological competitors because they spread "lies".. CNN, and other democrat/leftist mouth pieces in media want to do exactly that, and seem to have your support. Don't be so afraid of other people ideas, otherwise you're just a cog... don't be a cog 😎
When Fox News has actual news hours, they provide facts from a right-leaning perspective. I am specifically talking about Fox News main audience which listens to the nuts in prime time. I don't support closing down right wing outlets, despite the damage they do with their outright verifiable lies so the rest of your comment is moot.
I'm glad that you don't support closing them , but if we want an open society, and not a cancel culture, people on the conservative right like me and on the liberal left like you have to find common cause to actively oppose the closure of outlets, speech we don't like. If we don't work together on this, the leftist totalitarian forces will silence both of us, but, inevitably, they'll come for you first...(see what bolsheviks did to menshiviks during Russian revolution in 1917-18)
And you have to provide an alternative way to stop the constant lies and disinformation coming, in my opinion, mostly from the radical right. You can also look to Hitler and the rise of the Nazis to see the exact same progression of control of the news and the support of an authoritarian regime...you don't need to go back to the Bolsheviks). Trump told nearly 30,000 lies and there was little, if any, pushback from his cheerleaders in the right wing media.
Its sad, that you keep saying lies are only on the right...you keep trying to solve the wrong problem. Conservatives disagree with you, leftist wanna destroy you when you disagree with them, and yet you see conservatives as the biggest problem. When you call disagreement a lie, I'm sorry to say, you become part of the problem.
Do you think the election was rigged or stolen? Do you think the constant lies from the far right about voter fraud and the "stolen election" aren't responsible for inciting the riot at the Capitol? And who touted those lies over and over and over again? Right wing media. That's not a disagreement. That's facts (or lack thereof).
My more leftist friends have never tried to destroy me. They've argued with me, of course, but they respect me and my opinions.
And it is not traditional conservatives I think are the problem. I supported the Lincoln Project. I've voted for Republicans in some of my state and local elections.
This is meant in the spirit of civil discourse :).
Do you think that Hunter Biden's business in China and Russia warranted at least some basic investigation by journalists, and that Glenn Greenwald should have been censored for trying to publish an article referencing the NY Post / Hunter Biden email including criticism of Joe Biden before the election? And that CNN, MSNBC, etc. should have completely ignored the story? Lie of omission when they are positioning themselves as an arbiter of truth?
Was that email ever verified? Did the reporters take their names off the article because they knew it was sketchy? This is an example of a baseless claim still circulating as a fact.
It's hilarious that you call Lincoln Project drifters conservatives.
You still flat out refuse to recognize the problem on your side... they haven't canceled you yet because you agree with them. But if you try to deviate in the future, they will....but, nobody is gonna be there to defend you, once they're done canceling more obvious targets.
And furthermore, it is my experience that anyone who thinks the entire MSM is 90% leftist radicals is disqualified from commenting on it, since that belief is kind of ridiculous. Just like the attempts of the right to paint all Democrats as "socialists".
Do you hear yourself? "....anyone who thinks the entire MSM is 90% leftist radicals is disqualified from commenting on it, since that belief is kind of ridiculous." This is typical progressive thought. I don't agree with you, so you're lying (not opining). You're disqualified (cancelled), ridiculous (banished).
Claiming that 90% of the entire MSM is radical leftists is not an opinion, it's a falsehood that feeds the falsehoods that become ingrained in the minds of those who hear nothing but that kind of nonsense. And if you feel I am cancelling or banishing you that's your problem, not mine. You are free to say whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want and I will respond how I want, where I want, whenever I want.
A sincere welcome! I really appreciate reading a diversity of viewpoints, and I hope for an interesting range of perspectives in the discussions here.
Incidentally, if I recall correctly, I believe Bari considers herself a centrist/moderate, rather than a conservative. You'll note, for example, several comments here from conservatives who, like you, also expect to disagree with her frequently.
Thanks for the welcome. I realize Bari considers herself centrist/moderate. I am not convinced but I have only read two articles and will keep an open mind .
Again, from just the two articles I've read, I see some "black and white" (no pun intended) thinking while I live in the grey. There's a stridency to her positions critical of the left that I don't see so far in her criticism of the right. My initial sense is that she leans center right, perhaps more traditional conservative than center left.
Ugh. I stupidly was typing an expansive response on my phone, and it was lost to the ether. But I can't bring myself to re-write it all. *sigh*
Suffice it to say, I understand where you're coming from. Being a bit more familiar with her work, I do see her as being fairly moderate, or maybe even reflective of traditional liberalism (not progressivism) -- having a mix of conservative and liberal views.
Either way, though, I am inclined to agree with the commenter who said (paraphrased) that Bari criticizes the Left to help the Left. There are a lot of sources trying to provide a check on the Right's worst excesses and negative impulses. And that's a good thing. The Left needs more honest, good-faith (that being key) criticism than it gets, and Bari is helping patch the gap, I think.
I’ve read your comments and I appreciate your willingness to engage civilly and desire to better understand. Without trying to persuade here (b/c I don’t have time!), I will say I think you’ll come to realize Bari is more left than right, and that the power and bias of the liberal media is greater than you realize. In a way, she (and others) are pointing out the flaws of the left to help the left win, rather attacking the right to help the left. Attacking the right is easy. It’s done all day everyday by countless influential people. But rarely do people on the left call out the BS of the left, which ironically is probably what fuels and motivates so many people to be on the right. Sadly, if you call out the problems of the left, even if you ARE the left, you get labeled as being on the right. This has happened to me, and it’s what you’re doing to Bari. It’s why so many people are afraid to speak out and stand up against bad ideas of the left - there’s a price to pay socially and possibly professionally.
Anyway, this is a total rambling of thoughts but based on your comments I thought you might benefit from this perspective. Hopefully you’ll keep reading and maintain an open mind, sadly a rarity these days!
I appreciate your comment and can only, once again, state that my experience of Bari's work is so limited that I am only speaking initial impressions. I am going to take the time to search for more of her work and could very possibly replace my initial impression with one based on a better understanding.
I've subscribed to your blog despite the fact that I think I will rarely agree with you on many issues, the same reason I subscribe to Andrew Sullivan (whose blog directed me to you). It is imperative to me that I read and understand and question conservative thinkers who are outside of the Trumpian echo chamber.
For this piece I will only question one part:
[T]he strong alliance between the Democratic Party and the press, which are advocating that major tech companies crack down on “hate,” or “disinformation,” which has quickly become a synonym for “information I don’t like.”
I believe there is a monumental difference between "information I don't like" and deliberate dissemination of lies and disinformation, both through mainstream right wing media (Fox "News") and the insanity of Trumpian social media. They are not providing facts from a different perspective. They are providing "facts" that are bald face lies and are primarily responsible for the polarization we live in today. My Trumpian friends believe everything they hear from Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, Ben Shapiro, Breitbart, etc., and have no idea that these cretins are laughing all the way to the bank as they fool their viewers. I challenge anyone to provide me with the names of equally leftist radicals who have the audience these entertainers have.
New York Times, CNN, Washington post, VOX,
Ummm. Russiagate and most of the attendant stories.
The fact that you lump all those right leaning sources together is very telling. Giving some/all of them an honest, open-minded listen would quickly reveal they are not all cut from the same cloth. You also don’t mention anything about the lies from the Left. Are you under some impression that Don Lemon is an unbiased without an agenda?
I've read multiple articles and listened to multiple broadcasts of the hosts I "lumped together" and from my perspective I don't see any significant difference from their rhetoric. It may be presented differently, but the use of the same lies is the same.
Don Lemon most certainly is left leaning with an agenda. However, I think, as with most of the opinion speakers on CNN, begins with facts and then goes into his opinion. We can argue all day that the Fox mob does the same thing but having watched them I don't find that to be so.
I'm not sure which sources you believe are biased.
But in all honesty, I don't care.
I assume all sources are biased and I verify or falsify as best I can by consulting both right and left wing sources.
It's not that hard to determine which facts are wrong (error of commission). It's a bit more difficult to determine which facts have been omitted (error of omission). But I try.
There is a another way, subtle and pervasive, the legacy media shapes the narrative. Matt Taibii spells it out here in his essay "The Echo Chamber Era": https://tinyurl.com/yyeextph
Finally, it's bad form to damn the messenger for the message: to do so would be to deploy the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well."
My point is: the facts stand separate from the source. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
So debate the facts rather than the source. Otherwise any reference to the NYT (for example) could easily be dismissed by your adversary.
If you think Shapiro is “Trumpian” you haven’t been paying attention. Not here to argue. Came for the common sense Bari is providing. Truly hope you will read what she writes each week with an open mind.
Challenge accepted!! 90 percent of staff on MSNBC, CNN, New York Times,, Washington Post are leftist radicals. Just like you, they are crowning themselves arbiters of the truth. The fact that you condescendingly think that conservatives that listen to Fox News, Ben Shapiro etc. can't think for themselves, and need someone like you to tell them what to listen to and what to read, tells me that high minded people like you are the biggest part of the exact problem Bari talks about. Just say you disagree, don't try to shut down people by calling them liars...very bolshevik of you, my fellow subscriber
I am no leftist radical and my experience with friends, family and others makes it quite clear that they believe the constant stream of lies that pour out of the mouths of the right wing media. I did not say that their audience can't think for themselves...they choose not to precisely because they do not listen to the other side EVER. You fail the challenge because you are unable to point to a single "leftist radical" who has the platform and audience of a Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, or Ingraham.
I am not the arbiter of truth but verifiable facts are facts and while there is obviously liberal bias in the outlets you single out, they also provide verifiable facts which are missing from the entertainment channels known as Fox "News". As Fox News said itself in court, no rational person should believe what their celebrity hosts say. My "conservative" acquaintances, when asked for proof of their "facts" point to another right wing site with unverified "facts" as their proof.
Their performance with the fraudulent election nonsense and trying to turn around the Capitol insurrection as really being Antifa, or trying to draw false equivalency between the social justice protests of the summer and storming the Capitol with the intention of overthrowing an election (and possibly assassinating members of Congress and the Vice President) is a case in point.
You're stuck in your echo chamber and your list is yes the low hanging fruit that many not aligned with your limited world view also reject. Look in the mirror and reflect on your own hate. Maybe you should stop watching Fox news.
There are different ways for misinformation to be disseminated by the media. But broadly speaking, there are sins of commission and sins of omission.
I'm less interested in sins of commission, since they are fairly easily sorted out: "Hands up don't shoot" being one kind. And "Bush lied about WMD being in Iraq" is a second, more subtle of way to frame an untruth. (This lie is concealed by the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: a) If there were WMD in Iraq, we'd find them. b) We found no WMD in Iraq. c) Therefore Bush lied. In fact, he was wrong, but intelligence led everyone to believe there were WMD in Iraq. Being wrong and lying are two different things.)
But I'm more interested in the sins of omission. Here's an example from just last week;
There is an AP story in the Seattle Times reporting on the Jan 20 riots in Portland and Seattle where protestors reacted to President Biden's election by vandalizing buildings including the DNC's Portland headquarters. There was nothing said about who the perps might have been. https://tinyurl.com/y2zptyh8also
NBC reported on the same event. NBC mentioned who the perps near the end. https://tinyurl.com/yxj49jsl
The Daily Mail (UK) provided yet another source, with videos and pictures. https://tinyurl.com/y69nntvb
The AP/Seattle Times story did not indicate who the rioters were, and one could be excused for concluding that the perps were, in fact nutty right wingers who we were told by the media would likely stage violent demonstrations on Jan 20.
The NBC story did mention, in the short second-from-last-paragraph, that the perps were actually Antifa. But here again, after reading 4 or 5 paragraphs to get the gist of what's going on, many readers would likely not bother to finish it. So burying this key fact deep into the column seems a poor way to inform the public, a way more conducive to folks forming incorrect conclusions than correct ones.
The Daily Mail (UK) goes full-on with pictures and a video and makes Antifa central to the story.
Today, I heard on the radio that the together, CBS, NBC and ABC spent about 1 minute total covering the riots
To me, the Daily Mail story seemed more honest, but I respect your right to disagree.
It was clear from the stories I read about it (including The NY Times article posted that Wednesday at 7 pm) that the rioters were a collection of anti-fascists, anarchists and racial justice protesters. Your issue is that you want them all rolled into “Antifa” which is not true. There is no public-facing organization called “Antifa” and even if there were it would only be one segment of left-wing agitators. Just like there is no single group of right wing agitators, although those groups are more public-facing.
You may want to read Unmasked by Andy Ngo.
And yet my point stands: major news media left a major element — perhaps the most important one — out of the story, or bigly downplayed it.
So for those who do not read the NYT, but get their news from the AP, Seattle Times, and NBC, CBS and ABC, the coverage was minimal.
The absence of a clear identification of the perps in those sources, and I'd wager many other outlets as well — suggests to the casual reader that the riots were the fullfilment of a media prophesy, viz. that right wingers were the perps.
I have to wonder if the rioters were right-wing crazies, would the media have treated them so delicately.
About your objection to my use of the word Antifa. Some of the rioters referred to themselves as Antifa. Doubtless other groups were present. For the purposes of my point, I don't care if they are called Antifa or anarchists or John Smith.
The fact remakns that for whatever reasons, the fact that the rioters were NOT right wing, but instead left-wing, was not a prominent feature of the AP, Seattle Times, NBC, CBS or ABC.
Oh . . . and nothing says "antifacist" better than street thugs dressing in black some of whom carried Molotov Cocktails, who wielded batons, vandalized property and threw dangerous objects at police.
Here's Andy Ngo's account of the riots: https://tinyurl.com/y4npnwur
Scarborough, Brezinski, Lemon, Blitzer, Cuomo, Stephanopoulis, Bash, Mitchell, and Williams.....i could go on....
Do any of them demonstrably lie on a constant basis? No, I didn't think so.
Your opinion....my opinion....the problem here is that you ask a question....and then you answer it.
Yes. Every day. You just like their lies better so you ignore them. It really is that simple.
Do any of them have the fan base of the Fox "News" mob? No, I didn't think so.
So, CNN provides "verifiable" facts sometimes, but Fox News never, NEVER. I'm sorry to say, but you sound as close minded as you claim your right wing friends are. Notice , Fox News , Ben Shapiro, Breitbart etc. never called for closing their ideological competitors because they spread "lies".. CNN, and other democrat/leftist mouth pieces in media want to do exactly that, and seem to have your support. Don't be so afraid of other people ideas, otherwise you're just a cog... don't be a cog 😎
When Fox News has actual news hours, they provide facts from a right-leaning perspective. I am specifically talking about Fox News main audience which listens to the nuts in prime time. I don't support closing down right wing outlets, despite the damage they do with their outright verifiable lies so the rest of your comment is moot.
I'm glad that you don't support closing them , but if we want an open society, and not a cancel culture, people on the conservative right like me and on the liberal left like you have to find common cause to actively oppose the closure of outlets, speech we don't like. If we don't work together on this, the leftist totalitarian forces will silence both of us, but, inevitably, they'll come for you first...(see what bolsheviks did to menshiviks during Russian revolution in 1917-18)
And you have to provide an alternative way to stop the constant lies and disinformation coming, in my opinion, mostly from the radical right. You can also look to Hitler and the rise of the Nazis to see the exact same progression of control of the news and the support of an authoritarian regime...you don't need to go back to the Bolsheviks). Trump told nearly 30,000 lies and there was little, if any, pushback from his cheerleaders in the right wing media.
Its sad, that you keep saying lies are only on the right...you keep trying to solve the wrong problem. Conservatives disagree with you, leftist wanna destroy you when you disagree with them, and yet you see conservatives as the biggest problem. When you call disagreement a lie, I'm sorry to say, you become part of the problem.
Do you think the election was rigged or stolen? Do you think the constant lies from the far right about voter fraud and the "stolen election" aren't responsible for inciting the riot at the Capitol? And who touted those lies over and over and over again? Right wing media. That's not a disagreement. That's facts (or lack thereof).
My more leftist friends have never tried to destroy me. They've argued with me, of course, but they respect me and my opinions.
And it is not traditional conservatives I think are the problem. I supported the Lincoln Project. I've voted for Republicans in some of my state and local elections.
This is meant in the spirit of civil discourse :).
Do you think that Hunter Biden's business in China and Russia warranted at least some basic investigation by journalists, and that Glenn Greenwald should have been censored for trying to publish an article referencing the NY Post / Hunter Biden email including criticism of Joe Biden before the election? And that CNN, MSNBC, etc. should have completely ignored the story? Lie of omission when they are positioning themselves as an arbiter of truth?
Was that email ever verified? Did the reporters take their names off the article because they knew it was sketchy? This is an example of a baseless claim still circulating as a fact.
It's hilarious that you call Lincoln Project drifters conservatives.
You still flat out refuse to recognize the problem on your side... they haven't canceled you yet because you agree with them. But if you try to deviate in the future, they will....but, nobody is gonna be there to defend you, once they're done canceling more obvious targets.
So you’ve canceled the Lincoln Project?
And furthermore, it is my experience that anyone who thinks the entire MSM is 90% leftist radicals is disqualified from commenting on it, since that belief is kind of ridiculous. Just like the attempts of the right to paint all Democrats as "socialists".
Do you hear yourself? "....anyone who thinks the entire MSM is 90% leftist radicals is disqualified from commenting on it, since that belief is kind of ridiculous." This is typical progressive thought. I don't agree with you, so you're lying (not opining). You're disqualified (cancelled), ridiculous (banished).
Claiming that 90% of the entire MSM is radical leftists is not an opinion, it's a falsehood that feeds the falsehoods that become ingrained in the minds of those who hear nothing but that kind of nonsense. And if you feel I am cancelling or banishing you that's your problem, not mine. You are free to say whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want and I will respond how I want, where I want, whenever I want.
A sincere welcome! I really appreciate reading a diversity of viewpoints, and I hope for an interesting range of perspectives in the discussions here.
Incidentally, if I recall correctly, I believe Bari considers herself a centrist/moderate, rather than a conservative. You'll note, for example, several comments here from conservatives who, like you, also expect to disagree with her frequently.
Thanks for the welcome. I realize Bari considers herself centrist/moderate. I am not convinced but I have only read two articles and will keep an open mind .
Out of genuine curiosity (not some kind of "gotcha"), might I ask why you feel she is better described as a conservative?
Again, from just the two articles I've read, I see some "black and white" (no pun intended) thinking while I live in the grey. There's a stridency to her positions critical of the left that I don't see so far in her criticism of the right. My initial sense is that she leans center right, perhaps more traditional conservative than center left.
Ugh. I stupidly was typing an expansive response on my phone, and it was lost to the ether. But I can't bring myself to re-write it all. *sigh*
Suffice it to say, I understand where you're coming from. Being a bit more familiar with her work, I do see her as being fairly moderate, or maybe even reflective of traditional liberalism (not progressivism) -- having a mix of conservative and liberal views.
Either way, though, I am inclined to agree with the commenter who said (paraphrased) that Bari criticizes the Left to help the Left. There are a lot of sources trying to provide a check on the Right's worst excesses and negative impulses. And that's a good thing. The Left needs more honest, good-faith (that being key) criticism than it gets, and Bari is helping patch the gap, I think.
Thanks...this is what I’m hoping for.
I’ve read your comments and I appreciate your willingness to engage civilly and desire to better understand. Without trying to persuade here (b/c I don’t have time!), I will say I think you’ll come to realize Bari is more left than right, and that the power and bias of the liberal media is greater than you realize. In a way, she (and others) are pointing out the flaws of the left to help the left win, rather attacking the right to help the left. Attacking the right is easy. It’s done all day everyday by countless influential people. But rarely do people on the left call out the BS of the left, which ironically is probably what fuels and motivates so many people to be on the right. Sadly, if you call out the problems of the left, even if you ARE the left, you get labeled as being on the right. This has happened to me, and it’s what you’re doing to Bari. It’s why so many people are afraid to speak out and stand up against bad ideas of the left - there’s a price to pay socially and possibly professionally.
Anyway, this is a total rambling of thoughts but based on your comments I thought you might benefit from this perspective. Hopefully you’ll keep reading and maintain an open mind, sadly a rarity these days!
I appreciate your comment and can only, once again, state that my experience of Bari's work is so limited that I am only speaking initial impressions. I am going to take the time to search for more of her work and could very possibly replace my initial impression with one based on a better understanding.