I vouched for this comment when it was flagged. I assume it’s flagged because of the last couple sentences? but I don’t find them all that inflammatory and frankly, it seems kinda accurate to me.
Whether or not the assertion is correct overall? Dunno. I don’t find CNN “progressive” but I suspect the term is being used to refer to more sensational, polarized content, not actually very progressive content.
I wasn't trying to be inflammatory or derogatory towards progressives or progressivism in general. I wanted to go back and edit my comment with a little more detail, mainly that I sensed the "progressive commentary" as mentioned in the article itself is likely a result of CNN having hired so many progressive journalists, rather than some directive to cover the news with more progressive commentary that is now being walked back.
By extension, progressives by-and-large tend to be very active and vocal. This is, I believe, a key component as to why their positions and worldviews are so well known and so frequently seen. Activism is a virtue for progressives, and they place a serious emphasis on making sure their voices and perspectives are heard. I don't think it's wrong or disparaging to say that and I suspect I'm not the only one with this observation. I'm commenting on their approach, not condemning them for it.
it does come off as a bit one sided becuase the implication is that when you say "progressives do this" you are also implying that non-progressives don't--even if its not explicit. As someone who sits squarely in the middle, I see this heavily on both sides. A better formulation would be "partisans aren't known for wanting to be neutral or muted about their causes." If they had hired more conservative journalists they'd have the exact ssame issue but in the opposite direction.
(full disclosure--I haven't watched CNN or any other new channel since the Iraq war, i.e. 19 years ago. The all burned their bridges with me then, and I've never been back, so I'm assuming its true that CNN has a tilt left. I've never seen it myself.)
In my view, I have two critiques about mainstream-ish progressive liberal politics.
1. Insistence that everything is political and politics is everything. I’m sorry, sometimes folks are just reading into things too hard. From poorly shoehorned diatribes about sexism in second-rate Vox articles, to tirelessly policing vocabulary to avoid impure etymology, progressives outpace conspiracy theorists in their desire to pattern-match everything into their own personal political causes.
2. Intolerance to tolerance of other viewpoints. Again, it feels like a purity thing: “I can’t be friends with someone who is friends with someone who said something problematic once.” I’m not saying cutting people out of your life based on their bad behavior is bad, but the guilt-by-association to judge other people’s friends and acquaintances I find detestable and very cult-like.
I don’t think these are fringe behaviors on the left right now. I think they’re widespread in fairly mainstream, if not quite the most mainstream, of media, and common among heavy social media users. The closest right-leaning analogues very fringe and much less influential.
Of course, there’s another thing that’s tiring, which is having to constantly reassure everyone that I am still very liberal even though I critique left-leaning folks.
>From poorly shoehorned diatribes about sexism in second-rate Vox articles
This got really bad during the Trump presidency. One could be reading the least "political" article imaginable, and suddenly see something condemnatory about Trump that smugly assumes that everyone reading surely agrees. Nowhere was safe: Film reviews, book reviews, articles about cooking, travelogues, minor human-interest stories, you name it.
>Of course, there’s another thing that’s tiring, which is having to constantly reassure everyone that I am still very liberal even though I critique left-leaning folks.
During the aforementioned Trump years I thought at times about creating /r/ihatetrumpbut, a collection of articles/posts/comments in which the author felt the need to declaim "I hate Trump, but [something Trump/US government did may not necessarily be 100% fascist/evil/a bad idea]". Hey, maybe I'll get more motivation to pull the trigger in November 2024!
You're right when you divide the population into the extreme ends, but this doesn't prove symmetry.
I don't have the link at hand but studies demonstrate that progressives in general are far more politically interested and active versus anybody center to right of center, minus the far right.
In that group center to center-right, there's less idealism and more pragmatism, and sometimes plain indifference.
this has more to do with the “ Intolerance to tolerance of other viewpoints”. The right isn’t gonna come to the discussions until the left calms the argumentative behavior. I’m center right and any discussion with someone on the left almost always gets pushed into argument territory.
Yeah i dont see how you can get CNN back to neutral when the staff is not. Not unless you are willing to fire basically everyone. Even the IT and non journalistic staff probably lean that way sense they dont pay exactly great for those roles.
Is anything you're attributing to "progressives" not a quality of "conservatives" as well? Attributing flaws in a system to one particular group is a common rhetorical attack.
People that choose a career journalism are likely motivated by thinking these issues matter, in which case having an opinion is hard to escape, or by self promotion, in which case they'll say anything that draws attention. I suspect TV leans toward the latter because it's such a shallow medium.
>"Is anything you're attributing to "progressives" not a quality of "conservatives" as well?"
I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate - keeping in mind I am not talking about all conservatives or even trying to estimate a percentage of them who fit this observation.
There are many conservatives who hold an "I just want to be left alone" or "the free market will fix it" mindset. The result is that when they are upset about something, they tend to act individually and "vote with their wallet" while hoping that the silent majority will follow suit. This is not to say that conservatives don't organize protests or mass boycotts, just that it seems like they don't do so as readily because they expect the free market to produce the pressure that brings about change. Again, this isn't true for every conservative cause and certainly not the major ones like the 2nd Amendment or overturning Roe v Wade.
I contrast that with how progressives tend to see problems as structural or systemic. In this worldview, they have to be active and vocal to dismantle these systems in order to bring about change. If they don't, the system will continue functioning because that is how it was designed. Because it takes much more energy to reform or replace a system than it does to maintain one, I sense progressives necessarily have to be active and vocal.
Broadly speaking, I believe that conservatives expect that "system will fix it" while progressives expect to "fix the system".
You seem to be thinking of a libertarian wing of conservatism? My impression is that this is a relatively small portion of the American right.
The loudest parts of the conservative movement in my lifetime have been religious conservatives, tea partiers, and now Trump nationalism. All of them have used protest, partisan media, and boycott to push their ideals.
Perhaps you're comparing the conservative community you are in with progressives on TV? In which case I'd suggest that liberal communities have a mirror impression when looking at conservatives on TV.
> The end game for many progressives is things like Mao China.
Doesn't that smack of demonization to you? It has nothing to do with progressivism, any more than all doctors lead to Joseph Mengele. Get out there and read some progressive things; go to the source; stop reading what others say about progressive ideas. It's nothing at all like what you imagine; progressive people are primarly just people, with common sense and opinions, like you.
I know a lot of progressives and I've not met one that idolizes Mao's China, Venezuela, or the USSR. When other countries are brought up as examples to learn from it's Nordic countries and other industrialized, capitalist democracies.
> The end game for many progressives is things like Mao China.
This is less true then “the end game for many conservatives is things like Nazi Germany”; sure, Maoists (and, if one takes “like” that somewhat more broadly, Leninist and other authoritarian Communists) exist, but even among the radical Left they are outnumbered by Anarchists, Libertarian Socialists, and other anti-authoritarians, and the whole of the radical Left is outnumbered by DemSocs and SocDems within the “progressive” space (really, the radical Left and progressives both generally view themselves as different groups, but I suspect “progressive” is being used more broadly as “people to the left of the center of the Democratic Party”.)
OTOH, fairly overt authoritarian White Nationalists/Supremacists (and overlapping but not identical authoritarian theocrats) make up a lot bigger share of the local right (Republican and further right) than authoritarian Communists do of the local left (Democratic and further left.)
But, while we should not ignore the dangerous agenda of certain extremists of either side, and while extremists actions may occasionally merit a particular focussed response, it doesn't really make sense to judge either side by its radical fringe alone.
This is very weird comment. You are talking about progressives as if this is the only large grouping that is vocal or active. Insert conservatives, environmentalists, fundamentalists, jihadists, etc. and the statements remain equally valid. Your point essentially boils down to saying water is wet. Your comments pertain to all politically, philosophically, and religiously motivated groups.
>"You are talking about progressives as if this is the only large grouping that is vocal or active. "
I'm surprised it is being received this way, mainly because I specifically tried to avoid making comparisons to other groups so that the topic doesn't get more heated. I also wanted to avoid having my observation about progressive vocality and activism invalidated or diminished because [group xyz] is perceived as more vocal and active.
This has been a wild thread, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of all your comments.
It's pretty interesting to me the difference between how your comments are seen vs a comment with "progressives" replaced with "conservatives". In my experience, a reply saying "well progressives do that too" (just like every response to all of your comments but about conservatives) would very quickly have several replies claiming it's just whataboutism, or just flagged (like yours was!).
You should try an experiment one day to show the bias of this site. Or don’t as your proof is already in this thread. Speak ill, even slightly, of someone on the left on HN and prepare for the onslaught, speak ill of the right and prepare for the praise.
I suspect the execs will try to tone it down but progressives aren't known for wanting to be neutral or muted about their causes. Activism and "everything is political" are fundamental aspects of their worldview.
I have no reason to believe that CNN or FoxNews or any other media outlet is doing anything other than trying to corner whatever part of the market they are going after. Occasionally they have to shift emphasis and direction. In X years when FoxNews starts to lose its audience will people say the same thing but replace progressives with conservatives? If the employees don’t follow the corporate directives they can hire new people. It’s a business that does not have a shortage of people wanting to get rich/famous.
I would like to go back and edit my comment in order to provide more context and word my post more thoughtfully. The terseness of it was a downside, to be sure. Unfortunately it was flagged relatively quickly and I lost the opportunity to add an Edit: at the bottom.
Particularly because your quote of "If the employees don’t follow the corporate directives they can hire new people" is along the lines of something I wanted to get across but failed to do so. I believe that if CNN wants less of a 'progressive stance' they would have to hire more conservative journalists because I don't see the progressive ones as wanting to 'be less progressive', so to speak.
I try to give a generous interpretation to what people are saying but I just don’t see how your statements can be taken as anything other than derogatory to progressives.
You make the baseless claim that progressive views are well known because progressives are vocal and active. This implicitly disavows the notion that progressive views are well known for other reasons; for instance by being what people desire without said desire being the product of brainwashing. You sort of imply that their worldview (as if there is a singular worldview the majority of progressives agree with) is popular because of propagandizing. This might the the case but it need to be backed up with some convincing evidence.
You are framing the issue of CNN wanting to shift its business focus as something that will hard to do because progressives are obstinate and obsessed with being vocal and staying on message. This is demeaning and quite frankly stupid.
Tucker Carlson used to work for CNN. He found a more lucrative niche catering to right wing news junkies. He’s a showman, an entertainer. He can shift emphasis on a dime because he is a professional and likes the money/attention. The same goes for most people in show business. Framing things in terms of how progressives or conservatives are in this instance is…well, I’ll say it’s weird.
He could written the same exact point, but with extra padding, instead:
> I suspect the execs will try to tone it down but progressives aren't known for wanting to be neutral or muted about their deeply held principles, and issues critical to our democracy. They are too thoughtful, and intellectually consistent.
There is one line in the article that mentions progressive commentary. The article is talking about how CNN leadership wants to get back to “hard news” and less commentary. The comments about how “progressives” are this or that is weird and orthogonal to the article. As if CNN or any other media outlet can’t shift focus because too many of its employees are progressive. This needs a lot more justification than what has been given.
Perhaps the point should have been backed up more, but I don't see that it would have helped to remind us that conservatives and Jihadists can also be vocal or active.
That’s not my point. Bringing up how conservatives are or how any other group is would not be germane to the article without giving evidence that it is appropriate. By asserting that progressives are a certain way and inserting this into the discussion is a form of framing that is not appropriate. It is sort of like a complex question in the logic sense as it assumes a conclusion not established.
Instead of talking about how the company will shift its focus we end up talking about how hard it is to get progressives to change or to be compliant. This then establishes in some peoples’ minds that it is well known and assumed that progressives are hard to deal with. They are pig headed one might conclude. I believe the intentions are underhanded and without merit. I could be wrong.
The comment (unintentionally?) singles out progressives when the statements apply pretty equally to journalists on both sides of the spectrum. That is why it is controversial.
To quote "Stephen Colbert" (in character): "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." If you discuss racism as existing, it's liberal. If you discuss homophobia as existing, it's progressive. If you discuss the income gap, it's socialist. If you discuss gun fatalities, it's communist (somehow). It's literally impossible to discuss any social issue in the news in the context of non-white or non-male perspective without being called any sort of those phrases.
Are you saying that CNN's only problem is they've been reporting the truth too much?
Because that's not what CNN was doing. They're a mouthpiece for the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. Maybe that's changing now but it's certainly not an accidental bias.
That's not the case at all though. Conservatives don't deny racism exists, they call out things that leading progressives say such as:
“The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” ~Ibram X. Kendi
So a conservative reads that and thinks it's not only crazy, but literally racist in the context of how Kendi proposes it should drive current policy. Whereas a progressive reads that and says yes, we need to discriminate against "privileged groups" to solve past discrimination. Those are two very different worldviews, and has nothing to do with believing whether or not racism exists. In fact, it requires progressives to use a completely different definition of the word racist to not eat their own tail.
>If you discuss homophobia as existing, it's progressive.
Again, nobody denies homophobia exists. But progressives are known to paint with a very broad brush (ie. "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a Nazi"). Similar with trans issues, where many people who say maybe biological males shouldn't compete against biological females, will have progressives brand you transphobic (and probably a Nazi).
You see this same overshooting across the board on many issues that would actually have wider support, but they go off the deep end with their craziness.
Yes, and this division makes it difficult for those of us who are economically left-wing, but feel that the modern incarnation of progressivism has lost the plot somewhat.
Especially because there is barely any representation anyway for the economic left. Instead, we have two right-wing to centre-right parties fighting over a socially conservative / socially progressive battlefield they've constructed instead. It's very frustrating.
Yes, they almost unanimously do, at least as regards anti-black racism; as of 2021, “A 53% majority of Democrats say White people benefit from advantages in society that Black people do not have. [...] Just 6% of Republicans now say White people benefit from advantages that Black people do not have.”
That's weird, because 69% of republicans said they believe more needs to be done to ensure equal rights regardless of ethnic background in the same poll.
Pew was being disingenuous, that's why. From their own data, it's actually 45% that now saw White people benefit from advantages that Black people do not have. Only 34% of republicans don't think white people benefit from advantages Black people do not have at all. (That's still a ridiculous number to me, by the way)
6% say "White people benefit a great deal from advantages Black people lack"
If you were applying for a job at a Fortune 500 company or to get into a top tier university (with equal skills and qualifications), would you rather be a black candidate or a white candidate?
Saying advantages don’t exist and saying racism doesn’t exist are two different things. I don’t believe I have an advantage as a white person with no degree. Even if I had a degree I don’t see the disadvantages PoC supposedly have (I’m told this is because I’m white). I grew up poor just like these disadvantaged people. Yet I still believe there’s racist people. And believe it or not, I know a democrat who is very racist. Literally moved states to be around more white people. Also confirming that racism still exists.
This is where you get conservatives who will point to every single Fortune 500 company putting out job searches with a preference on minority candidates, affirmative action policies that disadvantage white and asian people etc. And speaking of asian people, they make more money than white people and get arrested at lower rates, so then conservatives will say maybe those sorts of "systemic differences" are not so much based on race, but rather on culture.
Whether or not the assertion is correct overall? Dunno. I don’t find CNN “progressive” but I suspect the term is being used to refer to more sensational, polarized content, not actually very progressive content.