Lots of content! But a weakness in the presentation, alas.
¶ 2: OAN is “the Trumpiest of the pro-Trump propaganda TV channels.”
¶4: “Put bluntly, OAN is Trump cult TV.” Also, OAN “doesn’t have a coherent identity beyond Trump worship and owning the libs.”
But then, ¶7: ‘Worst of all is a report from the Wall Street Journal that doesn’t even mention OAN’s reputation for spreading conspiracy theories or misinformation, but instead describes it as a “pro-Trump channel.”’
But that’s exactly how you’ve spent six paragraphs describing it! In ¶1 you tell us that conservatism is supposed to be something more dignified than spreading conspiracy theories and promoting a cult of personality,” but after that you just list pro-Trump content and pro-Trump conspiracy theories.
I mean, you’re *correct*, of course, but it’s a jolt to this reader to see the WSJ article called out as ‘the worst” for referring to OAN only as “pro-Trump” when that’s a fair summary of your own immediately-preceding description. The only non-Trump misinformation you’ve cited at this point is OAN’s spreading of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and I think a lot of political readers see those as pro-Trump conspiracy theories too, in the DeSantis sense of “prolonging the pandemic hurts Trump’s opponents.”
Maybe it’s just me, but it brought my reading to a halt and I thought I should say something.
This is a fair critique, Matt! What I meant by singling out the WSJ report for criticism is that they use the "pro-Trump" descriptor to whitewash the most insidious and conspiratorial aspects of OAN programming.
Sure, OAN is pro-Trump, but they're pro-Trump in the way that North Korean media is pro-Kim. I think the WSJ report does a disservice to readers but not being more clear about the fact that OAN content is way, way out there. You could also argue, for instance, that the WSJ is pro-Trump, but the manner in which they're pro-Trump is far different and less harmful than OAN.
But I certainly could've made that point more clearly, so I appreciate your constructive criticism.
This criticism makes my eyes cross maybe because I think it minor. The issue is "conservatism", what it is, or was, the meaning of the word anymore, and how Trumpism and McConnell-ism has taken the name hermit crab-like, and morphed it, taken it to another level of revision, not just reactionary,but made the word actually mean lying, propaganda, chaos, obstruction, hyper-partisanship, minority rule, even authoritarian, i.e from something tolerable to active destruction of our representative democracy.
I've always wondered how CNN figures it's reporting in an unbiased fashion when it is ultimately answerable to such a comms giant as AT&T. I'm sure all their journos *feel* as though they're reporting in an unbiased fashion, but do the editors/producers truly allow that??
I don't have inside information on this but knowing a number of people who work at CNN, I do think, to their credit, they have a pretty firm firewall insulating reporters from corporate pressures.
So much packed up so nicely today.
Thanks Jay!
Lots of content! But a weakness in the presentation, alas.
¶ 2: OAN is “the Trumpiest of the pro-Trump propaganda TV channels.”
¶4: “Put bluntly, OAN is Trump cult TV.” Also, OAN “doesn’t have a coherent identity beyond Trump worship and owning the libs.”
But then, ¶7: ‘Worst of all is a report from the Wall Street Journal that doesn’t even mention OAN’s reputation for spreading conspiracy theories or misinformation, but instead describes it as a “pro-Trump channel.”’
But that’s exactly how you’ve spent six paragraphs describing it! In ¶1 you tell us that conservatism is supposed to be something more dignified than spreading conspiracy theories and promoting a cult of personality,” but after that you just list pro-Trump content and pro-Trump conspiracy theories.
I mean, you’re *correct*, of course, but it’s a jolt to this reader to see the WSJ article called out as ‘the worst” for referring to OAN only as “pro-Trump” when that’s a fair summary of your own immediately-preceding description. The only non-Trump misinformation you’ve cited at this point is OAN’s spreading of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and I think a lot of political readers see those as pro-Trump conspiracy theories too, in the DeSantis sense of “prolonging the pandemic hurts Trump’s opponents.”
Maybe it’s just me, but it brought my reading to a halt and I thought I should say something.
This is a fair critique, Matt! What I meant by singling out the WSJ report for criticism is that they use the "pro-Trump" descriptor to whitewash the most insidious and conspiratorial aspects of OAN programming.
Sure, OAN is pro-Trump, but they're pro-Trump in the way that North Korean media is pro-Kim. I think the WSJ report does a disservice to readers but not being more clear about the fact that OAN content is way, way out there. You could also argue, for instance, that the WSJ is pro-Trump, but the manner in which they're pro-Trump is far different and less harmful than OAN.
But I certainly could've made that point more clearly, so I appreciate your constructive criticism.
This criticism makes my eyes cross maybe because I think it minor. The issue is "conservatism", what it is, or was, the meaning of the word anymore, and how Trumpism and McConnell-ism has taken the name hermit crab-like, and morphed it, taken it to another level of revision, not just reactionary,but made the word actually mean lying, propaganda, chaos, obstruction, hyper-partisanship, minority rule, even authoritarian, i.e from something tolerable to active destruction of our representative democracy.
I've always wondered how CNN figures it's reporting in an unbiased fashion when it is ultimately answerable to such a comms giant as AT&T. I'm sure all their journos *feel* as though they're reporting in an unbiased fashion, but do the editors/producers truly allow that??
I don't have inside information on this but knowing a number of people who work at CNN, I do think, to their credit, they have a pretty firm firewall insulating reporters from corporate pressures.
I had hoped so, but it's good to have confirmation. :)
Republicans are great at redefining words.. very Orwellian. “Woke executives” Woke is bad, progressive is bad. Upsidedown-ism