FYI: In political values ranging from views of government and the social safety net to opinions about immigrants, race and homosexuality, Americans are less likely than in the past to hold a mix of conservative and liberal views. At the same time, ideological consistency – the shares of Americans holding liberal or conservative views across a wider range of issues – is increasingly associated with partisanship, a recent Pew Research Center study shows. This reflects a continuation of trends documented in the Center’s 2014 study of political polarization in the American public.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/23/in-polarized-era-fewer-americans-hold-a-mix-of-conservative-and-liberal-views/
Comments
Remember the FCC fairness doctrine? Wasn’t perfect, but at least it gave lip-service to allowing all sides to be heard on the public airways and given equal treatment. (Just my rough recollection from the early 60s). And I think the network news teams more or less followed suit in trying to be even handed in their reporting.
With advent of cable all that changed. Hello Fox and MSNBC (CNN’s a basket case). So you now tune in to hear the “news” that supports your particular political / ideological affiliation and trashes the other side. Of course this hardens attitudes on both sides. Later, the internet had the same effect of sharpening divisions among Americans (and with a little help from our friends in Moscow).
Bloomberg is my daytime choice for news and everything else. Generally I think they try to present the political news even handedly. Not always successful. And of course the owner, Michael Bloomberg is a political figure. However, I think they try harder than most to be fair.
Alas and alack, this is all so true. This past summer, we were on an Alaskan cruise. Our choices were Fox, MSNBC and BBC. We watched BBC.
What ever happened to talking about ideas and working things out. This sort of trajectory is what leads to war. No willingness to compromise. Not able to give and take.
The blessing and the curse of the internet is that you can find the truth about anything you ask . . . yet, if you ask for a lie, it will provide one.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
@rono- Well put, and absolutely true.
"I don't have dishes or cable"
@Mark, @Hank: same here. View NPR, BBC, WSJ, Washington Post, NY Times, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor, SF Chronicle via internet. Also print versions of SF Chronicle, WSJ, & The Enquirer.
Watched a lot of BBC while visiting England last fall. Quality content and objective on British politics from what I could tell. But somewhat slanted on coverage of U.S. Likely reflects a general angst among many there about our situation. (Their U.S. feed might vary somewhat from their domestic).
There was a major U.S. shooting incident when I was there (a Texas church as I recall). Received a lot of attention. They really don’t understand us.
Yes, same in Asia. The whole gun culture thing, the daily gun killings... I taught riflery in the '70s in central Florida. It's not sporting hunters, it seems to me, who are doing all the crazy deranged murdering.
Ah, this is the good example (Comcast) of investing into something of which one is a consumer and familiar with; or can become educated with same. We like to invest, among other areas; with health care as we are current and future consumers, and have and will use the profits to pay for 'stuff' related to health. Kinda like paying ourselves for the purchases via, hopefully; a company profit.
---CMCSA , Comcast
I have placed a link below to compare Comcast against FSPHX and SPY beginning 2 days after the market melt bottom in 2009. The chart may be of interest for the sake of viewing the lines, but here are the numbers for Comcast:
Annualized, total return:
---15 yr = 11.3%
---10 yr = 15.6%
--- 5 yr =15.5%
--- 3 yr = 12.1%
--- 1 yr = 6.5%
YTD = -1%
Current yield = 1.6%
Additionally, since March 11, 2009 the following for the 3 in the graphic.
--- Comcast = +651%
--- FSPHX = +482%
--- SPY = +350%
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?CMCSA,FSPHX,SPY&n=2253&O=011000
K. I'm finished here.
Take care,
Catch
My uncle was a deep racist, but other than a few comments about black people he rarely shot his mouth off during the civil rights fights when we were with him. Nor did we rub his nose in our opinion that blacks should vote, marry anyone they wanted etc.
Now we have guns rights advocates using FB to throw their opinion in our face 24/7 because they do it almost anonymously. Just post your opinion and throw it out there without any attempt to engage in thoughtful respectful discussion.
Listen carefully to the same story on FOX and NPR. They are both biased in their language, slant and emphasis. If you agree with them you don't notice it, unless you really listen carefully
Facebook? Well, the Russians proved what it's best used for. Twitter, much the same. Pick your slant and keep it coming.
NPR is the most reliable, factual. And you'll hear about grossly awful stuff that you won't hear about anywhere else--- stuff we should all be reacting to, but of course, we don't, or won't.
For example: pus-brains with NO SOUL and NO ETHICS elected to serve in the Florida Legislature:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587548408/florida-house-declines-debate-on-assault-rifles-calls-porn-a-health-risk
And:
Also on NPR, yesterday: I heard a report of a woman who was in hospital for ovarian cancer treatment, years ago. She notified Medicaid she could not make a renewal appointment because she was IN HOSPITAL. Her Medicaid coverage was not renewed. A MACHINE made the decision, based on "non-cooperation." Are you SHITTING ME? No! She fought through channels, and was renewed--- the day after she DIED from ovarian cancer. Putrid, fetid slime-guzzlers are in charge.
And: Someone I know personally called with an issue or question from Massachusetts here, about Food Stamps. The phone-answerers, come to find out, are in TEXAS, and all they know about is standard boilerplate crap. Shameless junk. More than likely paying Texans less than some outfit here in MASSACHUSETTS. Conclusion: the ones administering these programs for the disadvantaged don't care about disadvantaged people. They only care about PRETENDING to be of service. It's the same everywhere.
All competent. Yet, you might come away with completely different takes on the same news story as reported by each. I don’t see blatant bias in any of these. But I recognize that different organizations evolve different cultures. So, try as they might (and I think they do), some of that cultural bias comes through in their reporting. A critical reader learns to look through some of that and also not to rely on just one source. However, to attribute to any of these reputable organizations the kind of blatant unapologetic bias practiced by the likes of MSNBC and FOX is to miss the mark - and by a considerable distance. BTW, CNN should drop the “news” from its name. They pander relentlessly and unabashedly for ratings. If they can’t find a sensational story to report on, they’ll take a legitimate news story and turn it into a sensational one.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=59894
"NPR, WP, WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, PBS, BBC & CSM
All competent. Yet, you might come away with completely different takes on the same news story as reported by each. I don’t see blatant bias in any of these. But I recognize that different organizations evolve different cultures. So, try as they might (and I think they do), some of that cultural bias comes through in their reporting. A critical reader learns to look through some of that and also not to rely on just one source."
@Hank- Yes, exactly. That's why I get input from that range of sources. It doesn't take all that much to get a feel for the most-likely / most reasonable version on a major report.
On non-headline reports that involve a fair amount of background work I find it interesting to see, surprisingly often, very complementary coverage in both the WSJ and The Economist. Almost as if they read each others' stuff, and somebody says "hey, that's interesting... we should take a look at that too".
Agree with most that FOX and MSNBC are both biased, although IMHO the latter not as much as the former. That said, the vast majority of news sources are trying to be 'fair and balanced'.
The disinformation campaign is basically being waged by FOX, AM talk radio and Trump. Here's the latest plans from FOX - for those that want to mainline Hannity
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/media/fox-news-streaming.html
I'll stay with simply that you are entitled to your own set of beliefs, but not your own set of facts.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/opinion/guns-nasty-brutish-trump.html
(PKrugman NYT)
"For whatever reason, there’s a faction in our country that sees public action for the public good, no matter how justified, as part of a conspiracy to destroy our freedom.
"This paranoia strikes both deep and wide. Does anyone remember George Will declaring that liberals like trains, not because they make sense for urban transport, but because they serve the “goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism”? And it goes along with basically infantile fantasies about individual action — the “good guy with a gun” — taking the place of such fundamentally public functions as policing.
"Anyway, this political faction is doing all it can to push us toward becoming a society in which individuals can’t count on the community to provide them with even the most basic guarantees of security — security from crazed gunmen, security from drunken drivers, security from exorbitant medical bills (which every other advanced country treats as a right, and does in fact manage to provide)."
and so it goes,
peace,
rono