There is a type that succeeds in journalism and elsewhere: people who explain the world “through the kid gloves and sickeningly shallow likeability of the Raymond types”; people who are subtly politically correct, inoffensive, fence-sitting, conformist, and appeasing; people who repress their imagination and fail to challenge the status quo and move society forward.
While I agree with a lot of what you say here, James, I’m not so sure about your enthusiasm for “picking a side, jumping down, rooting firmly” etc. It seems to me that we’re too quick to pick a side on everything nowadays, probably swayed (or pressured, even) by those influencers you mention – not just the mainstream media ones, but the social media ones as well. Too many people can’t be bothered to seek out the facts of an issue so they just shortcut to the position that’s promoted by their cohort (or their party, their church, their union . . .). It’s why ideologues can’t argue, but can only recite slogans.
"Rooting firmly" might just be the root of polarization and sanctimony. I don’t favour fence-sitting if it’s strictly for comfort or safety (i.e. the resort of the lazy or the weaselly), but sometimes it actually takes more courage to stay on the fence and admit you don’t know enough yet. Ideally the fence-sitters should be reading/listening so they might take an informed position, but if they can’t (because of life’s demands), I’d rather see them on the fence than carrying a sign at a protest or a counter-protest.
I’m not on X, or any social media (with the exception of Substack). Links do take me to posts on X; it’s interesting, but it seems to encourage opinions being laid down fast, before the next poster beats you to it. On Substack, I like Bari Weiss’s The Free Press, especially a recent addition they call The Fight Club, which features opposing views from within their own newsroom. And of course Woke Watch and The Turn : )
The Epoch Times was created and funded by Falun Gong, a religious movement founded in China in 1992 by a secretive, charismatic leader who lives on a compound, tells his followers not to use medicine, and believes that a program of five simple exercises can “save all sentient beings.” Musk spreads conspiracy theories --- see his latest about undocumented immigrants registered to vote in Arizona.
Marshall McLuhan was certainly right to point out the difference between "hot" media from "cool." I find it interesting that the news nets occasionally got "hot," launching fierce uncivilized debates on left/right issues. In the main, however, they stick with "rational" analysis. For the reasons you delineate.
Also fascinating: how "hot" presidential debates have become. Trump is certainly not cool in his rhetoric and often hot in its realization. If Trump would cool down, the mainstream media wouldn't be half as antagonistic. A quarter? A third? A bit?
One the main reasons X is gets your approval: it's a cool medium based largely on the written word. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans can't read above a 5th grade level (20 percent are completely illiterate). So X is rightly seen as an egg-head's preserve.
If you want to see the current state of popular conservative thought, it's on TikTok and YouTube. Yes, there. And it's very effective. As someone who worked in the mainstream media (CNN), I can assure you there's more access to conservative thought available now than ever before.
Independent journalists worth following: Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Douglas Murray, journalists of Rebel News and Epoch News
True North
There is a type that succeeds in journalism and elsewhere: people who explain the world “through the kid gloves and sickeningly shallow likeability of the Raymond types”; people who are subtly politically correct, inoffensive, fence-sitting, conformist, and appeasing; people who repress their imagination and fail to challenge the status quo and move society forward.
Musk's purchase of Twitter/X has been a godsend. He really does deserve a Nobel Prize.
While I agree with a lot of what you say here, James, I’m not so sure about your enthusiasm for “picking a side, jumping down, rooting firmly” etc. It seems to me that we’re too quick to pick a side on everything nowadays, probably swayed (or pressured, even) by those influencers you mention – not just the mainstream media ones, but the social media ones as well. Too many people can’t be bothered to seek out the facts of an issue so they just shortcut to the position that’s promoted by their cohort (or their party, their church, their union . . .). It’s why ideologues can’t argue, but can only recite slogans.
"Rooting firmly" might just be the root of polarization and sanctimony. I don’t favour fence-sitting if it’s strictly for comfort or safety (i.e. the resort of the lazy or the weaselly), but sometimes it actually takes more courage to stay on the fence and admit you don’t know enough yet. Ideally the fence-sitters should be reading/listening so they might take an informed position, but if they can’t (because of life’s demands), I’d rather see them on the fence than carrying a sign at a protest or a counter-protest.
I’m not on X, or any social media (with the exception of Substack). Links do take me to posts on X; it’s interesting, but it seems to encourage opinions being laid down fast, before the next poster beats you to it. On Substack, I like Bari Weiss’s The Free Press, especially a recent addition they call The Fight Club, which features opposing views from within their own newsroom. And of course Woke Watch and The Turn : )
XTwitter is one of the few places where there can be true open free speech.
The Epoch Times was created and funded by Falun Gong, a religious movement founded in China in 1992 by a secretive, charismatic leader who lives on a compound, tells his followers not to use medicine, and believes that a program of five simple exercises can “save all sentient beings.” Musk spreads conspiracy theories --- see his latest about undocumented immigrants registered to vote in Arizona.
Marshall McLuhan was certainly right to point out the difference between "hot" media from "cool." I find it interesting that the news nets occasionally got "hot," launching fierce uncivilized debates on left/right issues. In the main, however, they stick with "rational" analysis. For the reasons you delineate.
Also fascinating: how "hot" presidential debates have become. Trump is certainly not cool in his rhetoric and often hot in its realization. If Trump would cool down, the mainstream media wouldn't be half as antagonistic. A quarter? A third? A bit?
One the main reasons X is gets your approval: it's a cool medium based largely on the written word. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans can't read above a 5th grade level (20 percent are completely illiterate). So X is rightly seen as an egg-head's preserve.
If you want to see the current state of popular conservative thought, it's on TikTok and YouTube. Yes, there. And it's very effective. As someone who worked in the mainstream media (CNN), I can assure you there's more access to conservative thought available now than ever before.