Tucker Carlson himself disagrees with you about the legitimacy of right wing media vs msm which tends to have a liberal bias: https://youtu.be/2_9zX6VyZuM
Tucker Carlson himself disagrees with you about the legitimacy of right wing media vs msm which tends to have a liberal bias: https://youtu.be/2_9zX6VyZuM
They’re a great deal of difference between a paper like the NYT and Murdoch’s NY Post. I wouldn’t lump all of them together. The NYT has many conservative writers but they’re also *good* writers, who for the most part adhere to basic journalistic standards. But also they have a lot of liberal/progressive writers whom you conveniently left out. The WSJ definitely skews right and may have a higher circulation, but i think it’s probably equivalent to something like NYT + WaPo which skew left. But WSJ definitely has fewer writers with liberal views and based on some of the crazy stuff allowed to be published in the WSJ oped, I’d say it was slipping.
US Today is *not* a serious paper and no one would put it in the same category as the others. And the NY Post is little more than a glorified tabloid.
That said Tucker’s point was that the “right” at the time (and even less now) doesn’t have anything close to a news source that takes journalistic integrity serious. They rarely publish stories without naming sources (unless it’s a government source or whistleblower). They require two independent legitimate sources before they will print a story. “They worry about things like making sure they spell a person’s name right”. Are they perfect? No. But they have standards. Right wing media didn’t then - I doubt Rush Limbaugh gave 2 fucks about getting the facts right or the consequences of spreading poorly researched, misleading or downright false information to an audience brimming with grievance about being shut out of main stream media and universities and institutions. But the audience booed him because he committed the crime of faint praise of the NYT.
By then, the right had lost all capacity for humility, self-reflection, and the ability to admit they were wrong about anything. Rather than concede Tucker’s point, they attributed the disparity in the growing dominance of left leaning media and institutions to grievance and discrimination rather than wondering whether it was based on the fact that they had better standards.
So when they tried to retaliate by creating their own universities, media networks and institutions dedicated to promoting right wing values, they completely disregarded the importance of quality or standards - concentrating instead on solely on *ideology* - not how deeply you believed it or how well you could argue it. Because Limbaugh had already made those things irrelevant. He was proof that outrage was more important than facts in terms of ratings. And ratings/money is all that the right ever really cared about. Yay capitalism!
And that’s why we have this dramatic asymmetry that Chris Hayes was alluding to - where even Fox hosts use “left leaning” msm as their main source for reliable information.
Tucker Carlson himself disagrees with you about the legitimacy of right wing media vs msm which tends to have a liberal bias: https://youtu.be/2_9zX6VyZuM
They’re a great deal of difference between a paper like the NYT and Murdoch’s NY Post. I wouldn’t lump all of them together. The NYT has many conservative writers but they’re also *good* writers, who for the most part adhere to basic journalistic standards. But also they have a lot of liberal/progressive writers whom you conveniently left out. The WSJ definitely skews right and may have a higher circulation, but i think it’s probably equivalent to something like NYT + WaPo which skew left. But WSJ definitely has fewer writers with liberal views and based on some of the crazy stuff allowed to be published in the WSJ oped, I’d say it was slipping.
US Today is *not* a serious paper and no one would put it in the same category as the others. And the NY Post is little more than a glorified tabloid.
That said Tucker’s point was that the “right” at the time (and even less now) doesn’t have anything close to a news source that takes journalistic integrity serious. They rarely publish stories without naming sources (unless it’s a government source or whistleblower). They require two independent legitimate sources before they will print a story. “They worry about things like making sure they spell a person’s name right”. Are they perfect? No. But they have standards. Right wing media didn’t then - I doubt Rush Limbaugh gave 2 fucks about getting the facts right or the consequences of spreading poorly researched, misleading or downright false information to an audience brimming with grievance about being shut out of main stream media and universities and institutions. But the audience booed him because he committed the crime of faint praise of the NYT.
By then, the right had lost all capacity for humility, self-reflection, and the ability to admit they were wrong about anything. Rather than concede Tucker’s point, they attributed the disparity in the growing dominance of left leaning media and institutions to grievance and discrimination rather than wondering whether it was based on the fact that they had better standards.
So when they tried to retaliate by creating their own universities, media networks and institutions dedicated to promoting right wing values, they completely disregarded the importance of quality or standards - concentrating instead on solely on *ideology* - not how deeply you believed it or how well you could argue it. Because Limbaugh had already made those things irrelevant. He was proof that outrage was more important than facts in terms of ratings. And ratings/money is all that the right ever really cared about. Yay capitalism!
And that’s why we have this dramatic asymmetry that Chris Hayes was alluding to - where even Fox hosts use “left leaning” msm as their main source for reliable information.