politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
With all due respect, I think the problem is essentially two wrongs don't make a right. Can we have media that doesn't suck and enough proles consume it willingly? Idk. I had hope once upon a time, but we've sold it hard to kids that it's uncool to care about anything for more than 5 seconds, and the absolute coolest to fry your brain and consume only impulsive fantasy bs. Beyond that, earlier generations convinced themselves that you don't have to think critically or feel bad about stepping on others as long as it's what your in-group is doing. So idk what the answer is, all I'm saying is all those media options suck ass.
Definitely. The things that "suck" in media are profit engines that can only exist in parallel with the things that proles benefit by consuming. If you have a channel that's "Oops, all ads!" your user base shrivels up into a tiny nugget of Home Shopping Channel die-hards. But if you have a channel that's purely public services, it relies on public sponsorship (either directly through membership or indirectly through state aid). It can't operate at a large profit or justify outside private investment to rapidly expand.
There's always a balancing act between content that benefits the audience and content that benefits the broadcaster.
That's not true. That's never been true. This isn't an issue of generational divide. This is an issue of local communities partitioned by their access to modes of communication and the regional influence of the neighborhood's industrial powerhouse.
One of the most reliable indicators of a voting district's partisan affiliation is the presence of Oil & Natural Gas industrial activity. Like, if you want to talk about why the Gulf Coast states, Ohio, and central Pennsylvania are bleeding red, it centers heavily on their enormous concentration of O&G facilities and staff. Energy sector workers are uniformly predisposed to the party that supports expanding O&G exploration, exploitation, refinement, and export.
These people aren't above "thinking critically". They just see where their bread is buttered (red state plutocracy generally benefits from Oil-Friendly Republican administrations) and vote accordingly. It's the grim math of "Do I want a five/six figure bonus at the end of the year?" which party organizers and their business allies in the state make abundantly clear during election season.
Your problem isn't that people don't think critically, its that they do and the conclusions they reach aren't favorable to your partisan allies.