This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No one asked but one point on this: The CBC in Canada is state-owned and state-funded, I couldn't really object to such a label being put on it. It's technically correct, and twitter can't really differentiate on vibes. But if anyone holds the belief that it's somehow on par with Russia Today, that's ridiculous: it has the same left-wing bias as as every non-right-wing network does, and for the same reasons: it's run by people with that bias. It continues to have that bias no matter who's in political power.
And as queasy as state-funded media might make me on principle, it's got plenty of competition from private entities, and the bias of wanting to spread sensationalism for views is also a problem (including with the CBC, who sells ads and likes views just like everyone), so having some variety in the ecosystem seems good.
Is it?
I've seen a lot of really interesting and insightful programming on Russia today, more so than I have on the CBC (and I don't live in Canada, America or Russia). I don't really see why RT is getting called out for being uniquely bad when they've consistently been more correct on factual issues than the regular press. Hallucinations about Iraqi WMDs and Trump/Russia collusion are just two of the most prominent examples that come to mind (I'm sure people here don't need a long recitation of media perfidy), and I don't see any reason for the BBC to be privileged over RT on that rubric.
If you're saying you find their worldview more appealing, go for it. I'm talking about degree of state-control and overall mission. (If you think RT is better in that regard, then I am brainwashed by the Cathedral and you can ignore whatever I say.) Russia Today is a straightforward tool of the state, when Putin invades Ukraine he knows RT will say what he needs them to, journalists who defy this at risk of falling out windows. CBC does not operate anything like this, they're just part of same Blue-tribe that all think alike. Same with CNN in the Iraq War days, they supported the war for the same reason most Americans did, they were mad about 9/11 and in a patriotic mood, the journalists both felt this themselves and knew it's what their audience wanted.
CBC's mission is probably horribly corrupted by an activist worldview, but they still adhere to whatever mix of journalistic integrity/modern activism their average reporter can defend to themselves. Their gov't stipend has little to do with that and mischaracterizes the entire problem. RT is much simpler and easy to characterize.
I'm not saying I find their worldview more appealing - I know that they have a perspective/angle/bias, I just don't think this means I should pretend that CBC or western media in general does not. Sure, journalists who defy Putin can end up falling out of windows, but I fail to see how this is so much worse than journalists having their cars go out of control and spontaneously explode when they start investigating government wrongdoing or put out stories which badly embarrass military generals.
As for all the mea culpas about their handling of the Iraq war - sure, I believe that. But at the same time absolutely nothing has changed! There has been no reflection, no self-examination, no correction. There have been no retractions or corrections or award rescindments for the unadulterated fiction that was presented as coverage of the Trump/Russia scandal, and the same people are still using the same techniques to manufacture consent on other issues today. Ultimately, I just don't think "whatever mix of journalistic integrity/modern activism their average reporter can defend to themselves. " is worth anything at all, and it in no way justifies the removal of a factually accurate label like "government-funded" or "state media".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link