"Misinformation"

[Thunktank]

Well, hmffff, this California Democrat has a healthy disdain for medical misinformation AND loves free speech and the exchange of ideas even in the practice of medicine. I’m pretty sure most California Democrats would agree with me about that. I think the populist conservative echo chambers have their collective panties in a knot and like to misinform themselves of the horrors of California, Canada and Scandinavian countries.

Sincerely,
ECD

[Del]

[EDIT I] I'm really picking up on what Russell Brand is laying down these days. He and Bill Maher are sane liberal voices in the sea of madness. Whoda thunk it?

[EDIT II] It's all part of the cancel culture where one group wants to shut down any/all people who say/do things they don't like. Have you seen the ads for liberal talking head Piers Morgan's new show on Fox. He says (speaking to the left one would assume) "You can't cancel me." Fox did the same thing with Juan Williams when he was fired from NPR for not toeing the strict liberal line.

I sincerely miss the sane liberal voices too. Hopefully more serious voices will join Maher and Brand, and the pendulum will swing back to the center.

I expect more of these will be heard under the Republican label, where they can find themselves better tolerated and welcomed -- like Piers Morgan on FOX.

I am just watching the dynamic shift. I have no idea what will happen.

[Thunktank]

[EDIT I] I'm really picking up on what Russell Brand is laying down these days. He and Bill Maher are sane liberal voices in the sea of madness. Whoda thunk it?

[EDIT II] It's all part of the cancel culture where one group wants to shut down any/all people who say/do things they don't like. Have you seen the ads for liberal talking head Piers Morgan's new show on Fox. He says (speaking to the left one would assume) "You can't cancel me." Fox did the same thing with Juan Williams when he was fired from NPR for not toeing the strict liberal line.

I sincerely miss the sane liberal voices too. Hopefully more serious voices will join Maher and Brand, and the pendulum will swing back to the center.

I expect more of these will be heard under the Republican label, where they can find themselves better tolerated and welcomed -- like Piers Morgan on FOX.

I am just watching the dynamic shift. I have no idea what will happen.

Maher is a favorite of mine. I really don’t think the typical Democrat of middle age and above are too far from his general point of view.

For quite a long time this country grew with strong liberal democratic principles. They were found in both parties as we debated various merits about social safety nets, defense spending and so on. One of the primary failures liberalism can fall into is elitism. That happens when liberalism fails to sufficiently deliver on the promises it’s makes and power gets consolidated into to few hands. It negatively effects our trusted institutions and often leads to populism.

Today our political parties suffer from the effects of populism. Both left wing and right wing versions. Wokism, cancel culture, Trumpism, a general lack of understanding and respect for others and the dangerous demeaning of institutions followed by authoritarianism and real threats to our democratic processes.

I think one solution to this problem is for our media to re-establish objectivity more and provide it as a public service more than a ratings competition. Likewise, we must learn to understand that political opinion isn’t where we should get the lions share of our news from if we expect to be informed. There are lots of talented people out there spinning the news to their own ends and people don’t seem to question the basis of their opinions. They just like what they hear. I must admit, I enjoy listening to Bill Maher. But I don’t expect him to inform me of the whole truth on a topic. He’s entertaining.

[FredS]

I think one solution to this problem is for our media to re-establish objectivity more and provide it as a public service more than a ratings competition. . . I must admit, I enjoy listening to Bill Maher. But I don’t expect him to inform me of the whole truth on a topic. He’s entertaining.

Well there's our problem right there. MEDIA. What does that even mean in this context? Is it the network news? Is it Maher's entertaining television show? Is it Facebook? Is it twitter? Is it Joe Rogan? Is it your local newspaper? Is it Tucker Carlson? All that shtuff gets lumped together as "the media". Worse, it's even given the same gravitas by idiots who can't tell the difference between journalism and Sally Mea's facebook post. There'd be no need to try to censor Sally Mea's 'misinformation' if nobody considered her a reliable source of information in the first place. Just because she now has a worldwide audience for her gossip and theories instead of just the girls in her quilting circle or sorority doesn't mean her information is any more accurate or worthy of consideration than before.

I realize the OP was discussing censorship of actual journalists and real experts in the fields of medicine and science, but I'm saying too many people don't even understand who or what the eff "the media" even is. As Thunk wrote - too many of us just like to listen to those we agree with, not necessarily those who are best informed on any given subject.

[Jocose]

[Del]

I wish her well in her new career at MSNBC.

I fear that she won't have nearly as many views, once the independent conservative media quit broadcasting these clips of her.

[Del]

CNN+ got cancelled already -- and there wasn't even a sex scandal yet.

[Del]

Today our political parties suffer from the effects of populism. Both left wing and right wing versions. Wokism, cancel culture, Trumpism, a general lack of understanding and respect for others and the dangerous demeaning of institutions followed by authoritarianism and real threats to our democratic processes.

I think one solution to this problem is for our media to re-establish objectivity more and provide it as a public service more than a ratings competition. Likewise, we must learn to understand that political opinion isn’t where we should get the lions share of our news from if we expect to be informed. There are lots of talented people out there spinning the news to their own ends and people don’t seem to question the basis of their opinions. They just like what they hear. I must admit, I enjoy listening to Bill Maher. But I don’t expect him to inform me of the whole truth on a topic. He’s entertaining.

I've been mulling over your comments for a few days. I searched around a bit for definitions, to make sure I understood "populism" properly.

Essentially, populism is "what the common people want." The opposite of populism is elitism.... "rule by the upper class" (extremely wealthy, powerful people and their 'experts.')

In my parents' generation, and when I was very young -- the Democrats were the populist party. It was a rough time, because common people were content with segregation and racism. The Solid South was a Democrat voting bloc.

During my lifetime, I've seen a great inversion. Republicans have become the populist party, and Democrats are now the party of elites and billionaires. The common people strongly reject racism, and we don't want it to return. The Solid South is a Republican voting bloc.
=========================================

The legacy media are going to have to invite regular people into their bubble if they want to be relevant again. The internet has made it so that you don't have to be a billionaire own the news.

Meanwhile, Tim Pool will have more viewers than CNN. Parents who care about their kids' schools will follow Libs of TikTok. Elite Democrats can't hide the corruption evidence on Hunter's laptops.

[Thunktank]

I've been mulling over your comments for a few days. I searched around a bit for definitions, to make sure I understood "populism" properly.

Essentially, populism is "what the common people want." The opposite of populism is elitism.... "rule by the upper class" (extremely wealthy, powerful people and their 'experts.')

In my parents' generation, and when I was very young -- the Democrats were the populist party. It was a rough time, because common people were content with segregation and racism. The Solid South was a Democrat voting bloc.

During my lifetime, I've seen a great inversion. Republicans have become the populist party, and Democrats are now the party of elites and billionaires. The common people strongly reject racism, and we don't want it to return. The Solid South is a Republican voting bloc.

I would agree that the Democratic Party has a strong elitist flow today. Dominated by certain industries and supported by professionals, entertainers and wealthy and upper middle class urbanites and some suburbanites. These folks can be out of touch with the needs and concerns of the working class in both rural and urban areas. However, I would say quite a lot of populism is found on the left in the Democratic Socialist movement for example. The Republican Party was heavily elitist too, and some still are, I won’t mention names here now. But suffice is to say that especially from the Tea Party on up through Trumpism a steady hike toward a more populist position took hold in the Republican Party.

Liberalism needs to do it’s job. It needs its experts, it educated, it’s successful visionaries, it’s wealth to effect positive social and economic progress and protect the freedoms for everyone. It doesn’t always work well that way. But it should try and not leave others behind, or worse exploit them. But sometimes liberal elites do. I’m am critical of my Democratic Party of doing that too often and not listening to concerns of rural Americans or working class people of which so much depends. Sometimes liberal elites are willfully ignorant of the concerns many folks have.

I am also critical of the populist movement within the Republican Party. While recognizing the “common man” it has rejected our experts, our institutions who it views as overbearing or threatening to their freedoms (and I agree that sometimes it can be). Unwilling to participate for the common good. In the worse cases, it participates in political violence and denies objective scientific evidence in its crusade against the elites (that for all their inconsideration at least have some decent education and institutional expert knowledge). Oh and let’s not forget the anti immigration and racial bias many have. Oh yes they do.

The populist American left in it’s worse cases come up with stupid and antagonist terms like “defund the police” then riot and block traffic and burn businesses and beat up patriotic veterans who would dare confront their misbehavior. They will without authority destroy monuments often without clear purpose or mandate other than to spew their own version of hatred to counter past wrongdoing and imperfections of history.

So what’s the common thread? Well, I would like to show that in order to have a well functioning society we need liberalism to return to its root purposes and embrace the whole of the people from the wealthy to the poor the educated experts to the hard worker. We need them all.

[FredS]

. . .I am also critical of the populist movement within the Republican Party. While recognizing the “common man” it has rejected our experts, our institutions who it views as overbearing or threatening to their freedoms (and I agree that sometimes it can be). . .

Dear old Bob Dole once said it seemed like people wanted Forrest Gump running things. A heroic idiot who bumbled his way through life, surviving only on luck. That eventually played out in Trumps election. He's certainly not a fool, nor a "common man", but he ran on that platform. I think he's a smart guy who loves his country and most of the people he shares it with and he tried to take back ground that the common man had lost over the preceding 30 years. I don't think most of his voters realized how viciously the left would fight to retake that ground and more. I never voted for him, but my goodness, I never imagined how fast and furious the Democrats would be once they came back to power.