Monday, August 24, 2020

Media Bias Isn't Bias

Scott Adams put forward the idea that what we are perceiving as an impossible persistence of nonjournalism due to bias may actually have a different cause.  Intelligence agencies and other government entities have slowly and quietly taken over news outlets as their house organs. While journalists do collect some information from other sources and pursue stories in the old way, this is just an allowed cover activity.  The bulk of their info is "leaked" to them in carefully curated ways.  We have trouble perceiving this because we start from a zero point of what journalism should look like and what fairness is.  But that may be long ago.  The various outlets have long ago been steered into depending on government sources as their primary food.

It has long been understood by people willing to look on it with a steely eye that the Washington Post is the house organ of many government agencies, and interestingly, ones that do not always have the same goals.  The Post has embraced this role. We have long wondered if that is mostly true, how much is that true of other outlets?  I think Adams is not suggesting anything new.  He is saying "Whatever you previous estimate was, consider doubling it.  And how would you know or measure it anyway?  The skill set of intelligence agencies is to influence governments.  Why not ours?"

It's easy to treat this with as mere cynicism.  Even if not true, it may be truer than we have heretofore credited. Maybe we can't undermine the political bias and push it back because bias isn't the real enemy. We punch the air. Those of us who think in terms of issues and fairness and history tend to think that those must be the factors in play, but others have them badly wrong. Liberal bias may be real but only a  moderately important aspect of what's happening.

Update:  James notes a parallel process in the bias toward foundations that fund media sources.  Link in the comments.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Geopolitics is 'no rules hardball'. Understanding this fact, you must expect the various organs, that inhabit the security apparatus of various states, to do whatever they can to make people believe their side of the storey. In America, perhaps more than some countries, the enduring state has pretty well taken over the major news outlets. In Britain we have a similar, if less overt, control of many news outlets by the class in power, the Conservative party. There are certainly many outlets in both countries that make their own way, but the major outlets are controlled by the state.

This is becoming more common all the world and is not a good direction for most of us, although understanding their lies, can be fun for some of us. To have competing parts of countries, act as if they are at war with each other, is just sad.

If we are going to have a serious cold war, empires never fade gracefully, this will just get worse.

Thos. said...

Is not the UK's experience these last one hundred years one long example of an empire fading gracefully?

One has only to watch the Queen act in any official capacity to realize that it could hardly be managed more gracefully than is presently being managed.

Roy Lofquist said...

Follow the money.

james said...

True, follow the money. For gov't agencies that's easy.

But it would seem just as important, on a state-by-state basis, to know who the rich and powerful players are. Rumor has it that some smaller states are pretty much run by a few families. In Illinois everybody knows about Madigan--but who are his strongest opponents?

dmoelling said...

In France it has been tradition to for the Government to subsidize newspapers (subvention). Nominally it has been to prop up newspapers but it was always a way for the current government to slant the news. The French Secret Service (Deuxieme Bureau) was heavily involved in this during WWI and the interwar years.

I think the bigger bias is the fact that in a small and declining market the editors and reporters begin to shape their stories to match the widest scope of potential employers and investors. If there is only one paper in town and it's usually urban focused you will lean left. When I was young in Chicago my dad read the conservative Tribune on his train into the city and the Democratic Sun-Times on his ride back. Today in NYC I see may people reading the Times inbound and the NY Post outbound.

Anonymous said...

Thos. If the current trends continue, China will be about as big economically, as both the US and the EU by 2030.

Do you think the US will acceded to this gracefully?

Sam L. said...

"Fairness" in the media IST VERBOTEN!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!!!

I despise, detest, and distrust the media. They LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Sam L. said...

I do not believe anything from the NYT and the WaPoo.

Donna B. said...

Yellow type on a blacked out background.

Thos. said...

First, let me remind you that I provided a counterexample to your claim that empires NEVER fade gracefully. A neat and obvious (to the point of being self-evident) counterexample.

As for your new point (diversion, really), re: China? Meh, we've already seen this story - in the 80's, with Japan.

And today's China is even less worrisome than Japan was. The whole country is a house of cards (due largely to the one-child policy), that the CCP is desperately trying to prop up in order to maintain their hold on power. There's some threat to regional neighbors that China's leadership will use its military to lash out as a distraction from internal problems, but no REAL threat to the US.

Now, before you leap into your next deflection, let me be clear that I'm NOT claiming the US hegemony will last forever. But there is no credible replacement for the USA's current role. And the only existential threat is internal, so when the US 'empire' collapses, it will be from internal divisions (political, social, cultural, etc.), and not from being usurped by other ascendant empires.

When the US does fade out, the result will be more analogous to the early medieval dark ages, with a long period of competing lesser powers replacing the pax romana.

But I don't actually expect you to understand any of that. I predict that you will double down on whatever facile analysis that comes of your continuing to mistake the real world for one of your computer games.

Thos. said...

Hmmm, I left out that the above comment is directed to PenGun.

Anonymous said...

Ummm, so you don't believe China will be that big in 10 years? its likely.

Britain withdrew, most ungracefully, from their Empire when they could not control it anymore. Then they were beaten down by two world wars, and it was Ike ordering them to leave Suez, that really ended that run.

But you are not completely wrong. There were periods of reasonable behaviour amongst many examples of unreasonable behaviour.

What's interesting is your rather complete misunderstanding of China. This the return of a 3000 year old civilization to what they consider their proper place. Any study of Chinese civilization could show you that the present government is not really a communist one. Its a return of the way of doing things, that they have done for a very long time.

The US is bad for the world at this point, and needs to get out of the way. I expect China will be a good force for our planet.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

We got onto another topic. I wonder how that happened.

Thos. said...

Yes, PenGun, I will gladly take that bet: In ten years, China's economy will absolutely NOT be as large as the US and the EU combined. (In fact, I do not even believe that it will be as large as the US alone.) The easiest way to get your forecast wrong is to make a straight-line prediction from current trends (see Malthus, Ehrlich, and absolutely every stock prospectus ever).

AVI - I apologize for participating in the derailing of your post. Apparently I am suffering from some ailment that has weakened my ability to ignore abject stupidity. (I should probably avoid the internet until this passes.)

Anonymous said...

I made no offer to bet. Its not really how I operate. ;) In a world where C19 has put the brakes on everyone, China has returned to a 3.2%, annualized, growth in the second quarter of this year. That's low for China, lets wait til Q3.

AVI he wanted to fight over 'empires never fail gracefully'. I dunno why, and so contentious too. Is it a right wing thing to insult the person you disagree with? Maybe that's why your country is in such turmoil. Well that and the legacy of Milton Friedman. Another one. ;)

Assistant Village Idiot said...

That wasn't me.
You retain your faith in your accuracy and correctness even when proven wrong.

Anonymous said...

You really think the British Empire yielded their Empire gracefully? Well you are mistaken.

As I'm very lazy, I will let you find out yourself what the facts are. Google bombing, again, is not how I roll. A little history ... I doubt you will even look.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

It wasn't me who wrote that. I am not commenting on that change of subject. I'm not the lazy one here. Your problem isn't that no one is listening, but that they are listening.

james said...

This turned up: https://www.cjr.org/criticism/gates-foundation-journalism-funding.php. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation...

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Excellent. I should have included the parallel influence of nonprofits and foundations and will update.