"The problem is an unusual set of economic, technological, and cultural conditions that have congealed in a way that has created social conformity in an industry where that conformity is uniquely dangerous to the basic mission."
I suspect it's more than a simple convergence of conditions, in that there is active manipulation, but recogniz…
"The problem is an unusual set of economic, technological, and cultural conditions that have congealed in a way that has created social conformity in an industry where that conformity is uniquely dangerous to the basic mission."
I suspect it's more than a simple convergence of conditions, in that there is active manipulation, but recognizing both the "unique danger" and "the basic mission" is why Freddie's media critique is so popular, and why he's drawn a subscriber base broader than his political home.
I don't begrudge media outlets with a particular ideological mission. There is a place for those, and they don't deny their biases/ideologies. But it's absolute poison for the mainstream, forever resting on its Paper of Record laurels, or concocting creepy Democracy Dying In Darkness, Hence our Beacon Lighting the Singular Truth mottos, to pretend that it speaks universal truths and doesn't go out of its way to perpetuate conformity. It's depressing to watch media outlets become the opposite of what they're supposed to be. They pollute our national discourse when they run everything through the same tired and predictable narrative filter.
I've never understood those who wince at the "diversity of ideas" ideal. The criticism is always some infantile Reductio ad Hitlerum brush off, or some popular meme of a sickly looking stick figure speechifying about the collective "we" having determined who needs to be shown the door and instructed to quit talking. This shitty meme is premised on the fallacy that the "we" is the voice of absolute unanimity, and not some self-appointed censor deciding what people must or may not be exposed to. By all means, enjoy your strictly enforced ideological inbreeding, but don't act surprised that your institutions' appeal, vitality and longevity are in decline.
Honestly, knowing what I know of media in the older days, media presenting itself as non-partisan is a massive aberration- a function of the early TV era documented extensively in "Manufacturing Consent". Before, newspapers in the US basically ran the ideological gamut from socialist to conservative with others for more direct audiences. They didn't ask for diversity of opinion within each paper, more there were enough papers for everyone. Afterward, yeah, you end up in today. Of course, the problem is for ideological content, NYT, etc. are completely outflanked- thusly they end up having to play this pantomime where they want to be a liberal paper but they don't want to be branded that way so they throw in a token conservative on the editorial board and call it done.
Though, to be honest, the conservative bleating about 'diversity of ideas' is kinda hilarious to me because no one's making Conor Friedersdorf or Ross Douthat work there- they could easily just wander on over to Breitbart and get no complaints but they want the prestige that Breitbart can't offer.
The strong argument against some meanings of "diversity of ideas" is where you end up discussing astronomy with two astronomers, a NASA engineer, a flat-earther, and a young-earth creationist. That is, there are ideas and beliefs and belief systems that are just silly and counterfactual, and there's no point entertaining them.
The problem is that this gets applied based on social truth--currently popular positions and received wisdom and things everyone's expected to say--rather than on any kind of careful consideration of the facts. So when we were running up to the war in Iraq, there was no reason at all to include viewpoint diversity on whether or not Saddam actually had WMDs or posed a threat to the US--after all, all the right people were saying that he definitely did and was, and only weirdo outsiders were saying differently.
There are many contexts where "diversity of ideas/opinions" is inappropriate, particularly when applied to facts, as opposed to theories or solutions.
But the "diversity of ideas/opinions" plea is an outcropping from diversity initiatives (now rebranded as DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion) in hiring, academic teachings and discourse, and news reporting. It was a response to efforts to diversity the workplace, focusing only on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, while being hostile (outwardly) to diversity of ideas. So the flip side of diversity in the appearance of the workforce was no diversity in the ideas and opinions this workforce may bring to the table, in a strange way maintaining sameness rather than combatting it.
In the media, you will hear the diversity of ideas criticism where editors won't allow certain reports/articles to be run, and maintain a narrative control on news reporting. The tone is set at the top, and you have to stay true to it if you want to keep your job, in a shrinking market where jobs are scarce. The lack of diversity also manifests in the ideologically homogenized cliques Freddie describes. I realize there has always been an angle in reporting. I just don't remember the lines being this starkly drawn, and political disagreements being a valid reason to hate people or cut them out of your personal and work life. That part is new.
"The problem is an unusual set of economic, technological, and cultural conditions that have congealed in a way that has created social conformity in an industry where that conformity is uniquely dangerous to the basic mission."
I suspect it's more than a simple convergence of conditions, in that there is active manipulation, but recognizing both the "unique danger" and "the basic mission" is why Freddie's media critique is so popular, and why he's drawn a subscriber base broader than his political home.
I don't begrudge media outlets with a particular ideological mission. There is a place for those, and they don't deny their biases/ideologies. But it's absolute poison for the mainstream, forever resting on its Paper of Record laurels, or concocting creepy Democracy Dying In Darkness, Hence our Beacon Lighting the Singular Truth mottos, to pretend that it speaks universal truths and doesn't go out of its way to perpetuate conformity. It's depressing to watch media outlets become the opposite of what they're supposed to be. They pollute our national discourse when they run everything through the same tired and predictable narrative filter.
I've never understood those who wince at the "diversity of ideas" ideal. The criticism is always some infantile Reductio ad Hitlerum brush off, or some popular meme of a sickly looking stick figure speechifying about the collective "we" having determined who needs to be shown the door and instructed to quit talking. This shitty meme is premised on the fallacy that the "we" is the voice of absolute unanimity, and not some self-appointed censor deciding what people must or may not be exposed to. By all means, enjoy your strictly enforced ideological inbreeding, but don't act surprised that your institutions' appeal, vitality and longevity are in decline.
Honestly, knowing what I know of media in the older days, media presenting itself as non-partisan is a massive aberration- a function of the early TV era documented extensively in "Manufacturing Consent". Before, newspapers in the US basically ran the ideological gamut from socialist to conservative with others for more direct audiences. They didn't ask for diversity of opinion within each paper, more there were enough papers for everyone. Afterward, yeah, you end up in today. Of course, the problem is for ideological content, NYT, etc. are completely outflanked- thusly they end up having to play this pantomime where they want to be a liberal paper but they don't want to be branded that way so they throw in a token conservative on the editorial board and call it done.
Though, to be honest, the conservative bleating about 'diversity of ideas' is kinda hilarious to me because no one's making Conor Friedersdorf or Ross Douthat work there- they could easily just wander on over to Breitbart and get no complaints but they want the prestige that Breitbart can't offer.
The strong argument against some meanings of "diversity of ideas" is where you end up discussing astronomy with two astronomers, a NASA engineer, a flat-earther, and a young-earth creationist. That is, there are ideas and beliefs and belief systems that are just silly and counterfactual, and there's no point entertaining them.
The problem is that this gets applied based on social truth--currently popular positions and received wisdom and things everyone's expected to say--rather than on any kind of careful consideration of the facts. So when we were running up to the war in Iraq, there was no reason at all to include viewpoint diversity on whether or not Saddam actually had WMDs or posed a threat to the US--after all, all the right people were saying that he definitely did and was, and only weirdo outsiders were saying differently.
There are many contexts where "diversity of ideas/opinions" is inappropriate, particularly when applied to facts, as opposed to theories or solutions.
But the "diversity of ideas/opinions" plea is an outcropping from diversity initiatives (now rebranded as DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion) in hiring, academic teachings and discourse, and news reporting. It was a response to efforts to diversity the workplace, focusing only on ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, while being hostile (outwardly) to diversity of ideas. So the flip side of diversity in the appearance of the workforce was no diversity in the ideas and opinions this workforce may bring to the table, in a strange way maintaining sameness rather than combatting it.
In the media, you will hear the diversity of ideas criticism where editors won't allow certain reports/articles to be run, and maintain a narrative control on news reporting. The tone is set at the top, and you have to stay true to it if you want to keep your job, in a shrinking market where jobs are scarce. The lack of diversity also manifests in the ideologically homogenized cliques Freddie describes. I realize there has always been an angle in reporting. I just don't remember the lines being this starkly drawn, and political disagreements being a valid reason to hate people or cut them out of your personal and work life. That part is new.