This is a question more directed towards our comrades here outside the US. There’s something I’ve always noticed about American liberals (though plenty of conservatives and others are not immune). They seem to have this extreme confidence in their opinions about broader global affairs and what is happening in the world, despite them being incorrect or having only a superficial understanding of the situation. Obvious examples would be how they are sure Ukraine is winning and Putin is just an irrational comic book villain, how Kim Jong Un insists everyone gets the same haircut as him (or no one), believing anything Zenz says about Xinjiang, or really any story at all that involves the global south.
Is this just phenomenon of US American liberals? Or is it rampant across the global north? My interactions with fellow Americans in general on anything geopolitical makes feel like they have this truly unearned sense that they really know what’s going on, when all they do is listening to and ardently defend State Dept propaganda. But I have never really interacted with liberals outside the US so idk.
I asked a liberal about this and I got an answer that sort of makes sense with the liberal worldview.
Basically their response to "the media could be lying to you" is "that would never happen, journalists have integrity." When I dig into that they do agree that probably the people at the top don't have any integrity, but any individual article written by an individual journalist is going to be factual because that individual has integrity. Plus, if media was some big propaganda machine, journalists would want to write about that and we would all know about it.
It perfectly aligns with the neoliberal worldview of individualism. They think a system made up of competent individuals can't be corrupt because the individual parts aren't corrupt.
They're wrong, but it actually helped me understand where they're coming from. So now I only point out systemic issues and focus conversations about broad systemic problems. These conversations confuse liberals but they do seem to be the most effective because you remove the individual from the equation.
I like to point out specific examples. Like when Vanity Fair knew about Epstein, had a story ready to go, and spiked it . It won't make them change their opinions but it does give them cognitive dissonance which causes psychic damage. Or direct them to Jon Stewart giving a tongue bath to war criminals Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice.
Or Jon Stewart giving a medal to a literal Nazi at Disney :desolate:
Does this liberal, like most liberals, proclaim to now be against the War on Terror? If so, force them to read a few NYT articles from 2002/2003 and see how much integrity they see in journalism.
No, they think America should be the world police and that the war on terror was actually good. They're a lib through and through.
Ah yes, journalists, famous for their integrity and for not taking lunch and career influence from powerful individuals.
I mean, the sheer fact that I had to listen to a podcast to understand what was happening with the Bernie campaign in Iowa or Qanon definitely doesn't undermine the journalistic profession at all!
I had to explain the concept of access journalism to a friend the other day after the latest Apple event.
The response was “well how are they supposed to get those interviews?”
The key is to just assume that the interview is biased and probably wrong.
Did you ask them what happens when those people at the top without integrity use their lack of integrity to influence the journalists below them, like, firing them?
"Oh the journalists will still publish then" they might say, so then point out that people like your friend won't listen to them without the prestige of a publication attached. Then point to like Seymour Hersch
Of course. Their answer was that the Free Market corrects this, because if a journalist has a really good story, they will go sell that story to some other media outlet. They actually believe media outlets are competing for readers with hard hitting journalism rather than with advertisement and fearmongering, so hard hitting real investigative journalists are somehow being sought after by media companies.
I mean it used to be that way especially in local news, but it definitely isn't that way anymore. They just haven't seen the change from small independent media organizations that did compete for stories to giant media conglomerates who compete for readers.
ask them why they think Time Warner or whoever owns CNN now has more to gain from "news advertising money" than "manufacturing public opinion for politics advantageous to the owner company"
ask them why they think Fox News does this but like, Comcast has no ulterior motive in owning MSNBC. Disney has no ulterior motive in owning ABC. Ask them how profitable they think "the news" is compared to these company's other holdings. Like, is a pulitzer prize winning article going to give Disney more money than Mickey Mouse? Is it like, a coincidence when you see ABC "opinion" pieces about how extending copyright law is Good, Actually?
Ask them if they'd trust a news organization if Donald Trump bought it and then when they knee jerk say no ask them why they fucking trust one owned by Jeff Bezos any more. because he's polite in his vampiricism??
Did that too. They didn't think the owner would matter, because if journalists were not able to do their ethical journalism for an owner like Bezos or Trump or anyone else, then the journalist would just participate in the free market and find a new job. And once all the journalists have refused to work for unethical people like Bezos, that news outlet would be forced to shut down.
There is really no arguing with a lib that has swallowed the entire boot
So they implicitly think every journalist is ethical because they wouldn't be able to replace them with unethical journalists who say things for money, lol
Don't forget the national-intelligence to msm-contributor pipeline https://archive.ph/https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3138630/why-do-so-many-us-intelligence-chiefs-become-media-pundits