Arnold writes: Finally, there is the aspect of elites crying “wolf” about the awful things will be if the populists gain power. But in fact, Meloni, Milei, and Orban seem to be doing much better than Trudeau, Starmer, Macron, and Scholz.
GPT helps add some worthwhile insight for those of us who are not able to skips as many steps as Arnold (thankfully Arnold is very smart):
This sentence highlights the recurring warnings from elites about the dangers of populist leaders gaining power, suggesting that such concerns may be exaggerated or misplaced. It contrasts the actual performance of notable populist leaders—Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Javier Milei in Argentina, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary—with that of more centrist or establishment figures like Justin Trudeau in Canada, Keir Starmer in the UK, Emmanuel Macron in France, and Olaf Scholz in Germany.
The underlying argument seems to be that the dire predictions associated with populist governance—economic instability, authoritarianism, or social unrest—haven’t necessarily materialized to the extent warned about, and, in some cases, these leaders might even outperform their centrist counterparts in key metrics like governance, public approval, or economic management. Meanwhile, the leaders of more traditionally centrist or liberal democracies are facing challenges such as stagnating approval ratings, policy gridlock, or public dissatisfaction, which could indicate that the “wolf” of populism isn’t as threatening as initially claimed.
This contrast invites a closer examination of the biases in elite narratives and the complexities of evaluating political leadership beyond ideological labels.
Seriously, you regard Trudeau, Starmer, Macron, and Scholz as centrist? By what definition? I suppose Macron generally isn't as far left as the other three, but those three are showing/ have shown (in my estimation) a dangerous tenency to authoritarianism at best.
In fact, all four seem more keen on suppressing any opposition than in governing for the benefit of their citizens.
Well, in fairness to him, Trudeau and Scholz can at least be seen as center-left, rather than hard left, no?
I agree that any such claim on Starmer is indefensible; even if it might be true that he is somewhere in the right half of his party, his party and his policies are so left that claims of center-left for him are absurd.
And Macron is in fact broadly centrist, even if he’s to the left of where you and I would prefer.
This is NOT to be taken as a defense for / support of Trudeau or Scholz, especially the former.
Trudeau is farhter Left than center-left imho. Freezing bank accounts. Suppressing speech. and so on.
I suppose Scholz and Macron are center-Left for Europe, but on a serious Left to Right scale they're at least halfway (Scholz is further along) between center and Social authoritarianism. Again, jusr my opinion.
I tend to measure by what would full-blown Communists do if they had full power as my Left anchor.
It is indeed an interesting claim. I wish I had a more complete summary. Thanks for adding a small bit of detail.
One more tidbit. In the last week I heard Milei has brought down inflation from 25% per month to 2% (no time unit given for the 2%). No doubt accomplishing this has caused significant pain. Among other changes, subsidies of various basic goods have been reduced or eliminated. But it seems an astounding success.
And what if it had been a populist leader that did as Trudeau did to the striking truckers? How would have the left-leaning media reacted?
Arnold is as usual being too charitable to Williams who claims alternative media can't even get facts right. They got the Russian collusion hoax right, the Hunter Biden laptop right, the Wuhan Lab origin of Covid right, the ineffectiveness and risk of the mRNA vaccines right, Biden's cognitive state right, and many other things as well. Meanwhile, his institutional media not only didn't get things right, they weren't even interested in the truth, and in some cases were knowingly lying in support of partisan goals. Williams seems to have no idea how ludicrous his attempted defense is.
I'd agree left media got those things wrong to varying degrees but not that alternative got them right. Sure there were a handful of [media] people who were close on each but I'd argue the vast majority were at least as wrong as mainstream media.
You would? Argue? So do so. Show us your argument on at least one of the 5 named big stories many Rep supporting sites got right where the NYT + Dem media got very wrong. In advance it seems you are strictly wrong, 5 of 5.
(Not an argument, yet, merely a summary evaluation of your position.)
Closer than the left. But the absence of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. Kind of like the right saying the 2020 election was stolen. Personally, I doubt both but either has a remote possibility of being true.
"the Hunter Biden laptop right,"
Yes. Mostly or completely.
"the Wuhan Lab origin of Covid right,"
The left media (and Fauci) was wrong to say it couldn't have come from the lab but the evidence it did was pretty weak to non-existent back when the right was saying it did, even if it's gotten stronger since then. I'd say the info on origin is still far from conclusive. Both sides made claims too strongly.
"the ineffectiveness and risk of the mRNA vaccines right,"
While far from accurate, I put the left closer to getting it correct.
The vaccines are not cures and they don't prevent spread. To say they are ineffective on either count is more wrong.
Risk is more complicated because (1) there is an individual risk and a group risk and (2) individual risk is based on both age and underlying health. Group risk says everyone should take it. Forced? I don't think so. Individual risk says young healthy males probably shouldn't take it and for many people towards the young and healthy end, the risks probably aren't significantly different than the benefits. Older and/or less healthy, which is near to if not the majority, benefit from the vaccine.
"Biden's cognitive state right,"
Maybe the left didn't give Biden's cognitive status enough attention before the debate but I don't agree they ignored it. And I don't agree we know what it is. And one could argue the left media went too far in the other direction after the debate. My opinion is that anyone (outside of his inner circle that has not said much) has at best very weak evidence. His inner circle no doubt has better evidence but even that is probably also rather weak, short of a cognitive test.
Maybe I'm remembering things incorrectly, but that seems way too charitable. Prior to and during the campaign, every once in a while, a leftie would send up a trial balloon about how Biden shouldn't run. But it was always phrased in electoral terms: he was unpopular, people perceived him as old, etc. The criticisms were be ignored.
When Republicans tried to make an issue of Biden's cognitive status, the wagons were circled and just about every Democrat-adjacent figure called the Republicans liars. They weren't failing to give his cognitive status enough attention. They were actively lying about it--and trying to get the media to go along. Which it pretty much did until the debate.
"They weren't failing to give his cognitive status enough attention. They were actively lying about it--and trying to get the media to go along."
Yes, maybe I'm too charitable here but I'd say you are at least as uncharitable. No doubt there were some in the media who behaved exactly as you say but I feel equally confident in what I said. Some thought he was compromised, some didn't. And more on the right thought he was than on the left.
It seems our biggest discrepancy is you believe we know his cognitive state and I am much more uncertain we have adequate information to make that judgement.
I agree. Few people knew exactly how compromised he was mentally. Those on the right were more likely than those on the left to interpret the available evidence in a negative light.
Few people know now. I certainly don't. But I am 99.44 % sure that there has been a significant decline. Even before the debate, it took a fair amount of "motivated reasoning" to believe that he was as sharp as ever.
(I can't help wondering. What if Biden had not done the debate but instead had run a "stuck in the basement" campaign like in 2020? I think it would have "worked" for a remarkably long time, as the media didn't want to do anything to help Trump. But it would eventually have fallen apart. Since most everyone had put COVID in the rear view mirror, more and more voters would be responsive to the question, "Why is he hiding if there's nothing wrong?" And the polls would show him losing as badly or worse than Kamala, so the media would now do what they could to get rid of him and try to salvage the election.)
If we got into the details I might disagree on how right you were/are but either way, I doubt you are part of the [alternative media] people which I'm referring.
Just being directionally right on, say, 3 of 5 is hugely better than being directionally wrong on 5 of 5. So just go for Russian collusion is fake, Hunters laptop is real, Biden's senility is true, and by then you're already ahead of the MSM by a mile.
(Edited to add: not difficult to be better because we now know the MSM and state apparatus worked hard to deny the truth and fool us.)
Regarding the Williams piece: “He is tackling the question of why there is populist backlash against elites, when the populist alternatives are themselves flawed.“ This reminds me of the somewhat flawed inequality gap narrative by progressives. This gap is much smaller when we follow people through time. Similarly I wonder if Williams might be confounding statistics of Trump voters, RFK voters, Jay-Bhattacharia followers, NY Times readers, X users, and populists in a misleading way. Were Williams to start “walking the streets” conducting experiments that follow people through time he might improve his accuracy. Possibly Williams is using poor methodology, “a philosophers methodology” rather than “a scientific methodology?”
What is his methodology? Read books and articles looking for problems and patterns and try to explain what’s going on.
The first step to solving a problem is to define the problem very clearly. State what is given. Then state assumptions. Do the analysis, conduct experiments, etc. Then check your assumptions. Has Williams followed this rigorous process?
So let’s first ask Dan to define the problem very clearly. Dig down deeply into his problem statement until we have something concrete to deal with.
My guess is that we haven’t done this first step yet.
I have bigger issues with the Huemer post but will only write in response to your quoted excerpt.
I think all three biases are reasonable because it reflects durable aspects of human experience. Through most of history in most places, prejudice was extreme and life was oppressive in part because there were limited avenues that most could pursue to redress wrongs. Foreigners have typically been quite dangerous; even people from one county or duchy over could be very dangerous, and people speaking a different language entirely moving in masses probably heralded an apocalypse (see Hulagu Khan's mountain of skulls in Baghdad etc.). Government ineptitude and caprice are normal and not extraordinary. Responsive and effective governments are exceptions.
So, when speaking to the people, one should be mindful that they are the way that they are because they have good reason to be. Their biases are not irrational but based on experiences that go down to their bones, deeper than written history. If you as a court wizard or intellectual or what have you are presenting your coalition as better than the normal, you have the overwhelming burden of proof to bear.
How many of those elites would agree on "kill us all soon" or even "kill us all"? I'd bet very few. As for the more common predictions of catastrophe or harms great enough to warrant extreme changes, I'd argue that this isn't entirely wrong even if the risks are overstated and the probability of catastrophe is rather small. It isn't zero.
If you don't get my point, your framing is a bit like saying all of the naysayers believe burning fossil fuels has no effect on the environment.
Agreed. I think there is a subset of elites or maybe different from elites that is further left with a lot of influence among the young. It's not unlike socialism and other more extreme views on the left. The young are more prone to this.
The statement about the NYT, etc., having the facts correct may not be valid. Being a scientist, I have observed that many of these "trusted sources" will support "facts" that aren't valid. Most often factual conclusions for a multi-variable problem using only a few variables.
I'm c) becasue evil and incompetent governments are oppressive and do not allow productive relations with foreign immigrants and exporters. Left and Right basically do not understand econ 101 and think that bad things are good and vice versa.
I'd say all three are good but can be taken to harmful extreme. In my lifetime we've had more of the harmful extreme from the left and right. That doesn't mean the libertarian extreme is any less harmful.
"But in fact, Meloni, Milei, and Orban seem to be doing much better than Trudeau, Starmer, Macron, and Scholz."
"Doing much better" seems rather ambiguous. Unpopular is one thing but acting in ways that threaten society seems more relevant and more interesting to me. I'd like to see a more detailed explanation of how each threatens society, including mention, and maybe assessment, of fears that may be rather speculative.
Or benefits society for that matter. Orban is very good at bloviating, but there aren't many differences between Hungary and say Czech republic, where leadership is much more conventional. E.g. Orban's pro-natalist policies used to be touted as if they were the salvation of the West and the best thing since sliced bread, but Hungarian fertility numbers track together with its neighboring Central European countries quite closely.
Media and “alt media” are money-making ventures, whether selling adverts, subscriptions, views, whatever. They curate an audience and provide content that keeps the audience stimulated, loyal and engaged. That is all. Talk about facts all you want, but these are just incidental- like saying Dairy Queen is in the nutrition business.
That is an overly simplistic view. You are correct in that nyt and wsj curate very different audiences but implicit in what you write is an assumption each media entity thinks and acts with one mind. It does not. Writers and editors each have significant levels of independence and are more likely to be primarily focused on reaching truth, or at least truth as they see it in their biased view. The writers and editors have infinitely more ability to vary the product than the managers and cooks at Dairy Queen. And they often do.
As a regular reader of the WSJ I would say that the difference from the NYT is much smaller that you imagine. The real difference comes only in the editorial pages. The latter is what makes the subscription worthwhile.
I usually agree with your takes, but claiming little difference between the WSJ and NYT non-editorial page is just not credible.
Because even if the WSJ pages on net slant a bit to the left, they don’t explicitly not cover stories that harm Dems, and they don’t explicitly lie, and they don’t do nearly as much pro-Dem, anti-GOP opinion editorializing *within* their so-called news pieces.
All of which the NYT does with significantly increased frequency ever since Trump appeared on the scene. Jim Rutenberg’s piece gave theok for the leftist media to be more overtly brazen with their bias.
No doubt the reporting is much closer to the same than the editorial. That is true of both papers even if more on the wsj side. But to argue that non-editorial wsj is like nyt would suggest it doesn't curate an audience. That doesn't seem logical or reasonable.
They are in the clicks business, not the “truth” business. It is a money making venture with customers to please. And sure, it can contain “truth”, just as DQ contains nutrition- but that is not their business.
Editors don’t sit around in a vacuum and dream up narratives. Narratives and stories are pushed to editors dozens of times each day by political parties, activist groups and think tanks- ie parts of the loyal audience of the NYT and the “thought leaders” its readers respect. It is no coincidence that the same narratives and often the same wording is chosen by varying outlets- the stories are essentially written for them. Lesser outlets might reprint the content nearly verbatim, while better outlets have editors that will assign journalists to go build a story around the pushed narrative or “research”received.
Is every story created this way? Of course not. Sports, entertainment, local news, etc are usually not and sometimes political reporting occurs without an agenda and pre-packaged narrative. As I said, DQ contains nutrition- it is just not how they make money.
A perfect example is The NY Times story on PFAS. Do you think she and her editors came up with this idea in a vacuum? It was pushed to them, and they knew their readers would love its
There are leftist groups working with ambulance-chasing lawyers who want to make billions suing companies for PFAS in the environment. They throw up a lot of possibilities - fertilizers, containers, pesticides until they find one that “sticks” as a story.
The NYT article quotes the groups that fed them the story idea/narrative without owning up to their involvement in the “journalism”. Meanwhile, the NYT criticized companies for lobbying when all of the groups feeding the NYT are lobbyists as well, and are hoping for government funds and lawsuits that will cut them in on any legal settlements.
Some of these groups are noble, not just greedy ambulance chasers. The EWG was one of the story sources and they do good work and would likely exist even without the prospect of being cut in as a payee in government lawsuits.
Anyway, I don’t think we really want to know how the media sausage (or the Blizzards) are being made- it is enough that we like it.
Arnold writes: Finally, there is the aspect of elites crying “wolf” about the awful things will be if the populists gain power. But in fact, Meloni, Milei, and Orban seem to be doing much better than Trudeau, Starmer, Macron, and Scholz.
GPT helps add some worthwhile insight for those of us who are not able to skips as many steps as Arnold (thankfully Arnold is very smart):
This sentence highlights the recurring warnings from elites about the dangers of populist leaders gaining power, suggesting that such concerns may be exaggerated or misplaced. It contrasts the actual performance of notable populist leaders—Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Javier Milei in Argentina, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary—with that of more centrist or establishment figures like Justin Trudeau in Canada, Keir Starmer in the UK, Emmanuel Macron in France, and Olaf Scholz in Germany.
The underlying argument seems to be that the dire predictions associated with populist governance—economic instability, authoritarianism, or social unrest—haven’t necessarily materialized to the extent warned about, and, in some cases, these leaders might even outperform their centrist counterparts in key metrics like governance, public approval, or economic management. Meanwhile, the leaders of more traditionally centrist or liberal democracies are facing challenges such as stagnating approval ratings, policy gridlock, or public dissatisfaction, which could indicate that the “wolf” of populism isn’t as threatening as initially claimed.
This contrast invites a closer examination of the biases in elite narratives and the complexities of evaluating political leadership beyond ideological labels.
Long live Arnold and his valuable insights!
Seriously, you regard Trudeau, Starmer, Macron, and Scholz as centrist? By what definition? I suppose Macron generally isn't as far left as the other three, but those three are showing/ have shown (in my estimation) a dangerous tenency to authoritarianism at best.
In fact, all four seem more keen on suppressing any opposition than in governing for the benefit of their citizens.
Well, in fairness to him, Trudeau and Scholz can at least be seen as center-left, rather than hard left, no?
I agree that any such claim on Starmer is indefensible; even if it might be true that he is somewhere in the right half of his party, his party and his policies are so left that claims of center-left for him are absurd.
And Macron is in fact broadly centrist, even if he’s to the left of where you and I would prefer.
This is NOT to be taken as a defense for / support of Trudeau or Scholz, especially the former.
Trudeau is farhter Left than center-left imho. Freezing bank accounts. Suppressing speech. and so on.
I suppose Scholz and Macron are center-Left for Europe, but on a serious Left to Right scale they're at least halfway (Scholz is further along) between center and Social authoritarianism. Again, jusr my opinion.
I tend to measure by what would full-blown Communists do if they had full power as my Left anchor.
It is indeed an interesting claim. I wish I had a more complete summary. Thanks for adding a small bit of detail.
One more tidbit. In the last week I heard Milei has brought down inflation from 25% per month to 2% (no time unit given for the 2%). No doubt accomplishing this has caused significant pain. Among other changes, subsidies of various basic goods have been reduced or eliminated. But it seems an astounding success.
And what if it had been a populist leader that did as Trudeau did to the striking truckers? How would have the left-leaning media reacted?
That's 2% per month. High for us but a remarkable achievement for Argentina.
Arnold is as usual being too charitable to Williams who claims alternative media can't even get facts right. They got the Russian collusion hoax right, the Hunter Biden laptop right, the Wuhan Lab origin of Covid right, the ineffectiveness and risk of the mRNA vaccines right, Biden's cognitive state right, and many other things as well. Meanwhile, his institutional media not only didn't get things right, they weren't even interested in the truth, and in some cases were knowingly lying in support of partisan goals. Williams seems to have no idea how ludicrous his attempted defense is.
I'd agree left media got those things wrong to varying degrees but not that alternative got them right. Sure there were a handful of [media] people who were close on each but I'd argue the vast majority were at least as wrong as mainstream media.
You would? Argue? So do so. Show us your argument on at least one of the 5 named big stories many Rep supporting sites got right where the NYT + Dem media got very wrong. In advance it seems you are strictly wrong, 5 of 5.
(Not an argument, yet, merely a summary evaluation of your position.)
"They got the Russian collusion hoax right,"
Closer than the left. But the absence of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. Kind of like the right saying the 2020 election was stolen. Personally, I doubt both but either has a remote possibility of being true.
"the Hunter Biden laptop right,"
Yes. Mostly or completely.
"the Wuhan Lab origin of Covid right,"
The left media (and Fauci) was wrong to say it couldn't have come from the lab but the evidence it did was pretty weak to non-existent back when the right was saying it did, even if it's gotten stronger since then. I'd say the info on origin is still far from conclusive. Both sides made claims too strongly.
"the ineffectiveness and risk of the mRNA vaccines right,"
While far from accurate, I put the left closer to getting it correct.
The vaccines are not cures and they don't prevent spread. To say they are ineffective on either count is more wrong.
Risk is more complicated because (1) there is an individual risk and a group risk and (2) individual risk is based on both age and underlying health. Group risk says everyone should take it. Forced? I don't think so. Individual risk says young healthy males probably shouldn't take it and for many people towards the young and healthy end, the risks probably aren't significantly different than the benefits. Older and/or less healthy, which is near to if not the majority, benefit from the vaccine.
"Biden's cognitive state right,"
Maybe the left didn't give Biden's cognitive status enough attention before the debate but I don't agree they ignored it. And I don't agree we know what it is. And one could argue the left media went too far in the other direction after the debate. My opinion is that anyone (outside of his inner circle that has not said much) has at best very weak evidence. His inner circle no doubt has better evidence but even that is probably also rather weak, short of a cognitive test.
Maybe I'm remembering things incorrectly, but that seems way too charitable. Prior to and during the campaign, every once in a while, a leftie would send up a trial balloon about how Biden shouldn't run. But it was always phrased in electoral terms: he was unpopular, people perceived him as old, etc. The criticisms were be ignored.
When Republicans tried to make an issue of Biden's cognitive status, the wagons were circled and just about every Democrat-adjacent figure called the Republicans liars. They weren't failing to give his cognitive status enough attention. They were actively lying about it--and trying to get the media to go along. Which it pretty much did until the debate.
"They weren't failing to give his cognitive status enough attention. They were actively lying about it--and trying to get the media to go along."
Yes, maybe I'm too charitable here but I'd say you are at least as uncharitable. No doubt there were some in the media who behaved exactly as you say but I feel equally confident in what I said. Some thought he was compromised, some didn't. And more on the right thought he was than on the left.
It seems our biggest discrepancy is you believe we know his cognitive state and I am much more uncertain we have adequate information to make that judgement.
I agree. Few people knew exactly how compromised he was mentally. Those on the right were more likely than those on the left to interpret the available evidence in a negative light.
Few people know now. I certainly don't. But I am 99.44 % sure that there has been a significant decline. Even before the debate, it took a fair amount of "motivated reasoning" to believe that he was as sharp as ever.
(I can't help wondering. What if Biden had not done the debate but instead had run a "stuck in the basement" campaign like in 2020? I think it would have "worked" for a remarkably long time, as the media didn't want to do anything to help Trump. But it would eventually have fallen apart. Since most everyone had put COVID in the rear view mirror, more and more voters would be responsive to the question, "Why is he hiding if there's nothing wrong?" And the polls would show him losing as badly or worse than Kamala, so the media would now do what they could to get rid of him and try to salvage the election.)
Looks like I'm five for five in the list above and it wasn't even hard.
Caveat: Covid origins might be worse than just a lab leak. There is that unexplained early spread to Iran and some other strange facts.
If we got into the details I might disagree on how right you were/are but either way, I doubt you are part of the [alternative media] people which I'm referring.
Just being directionally right on, say, 3 of 5 is hugely better than being directionally wrong on 5 of 5. So just go for Russian collusion is fake, Hunters laptop is real, Biden's senility is true, and by then you're already ahead of the MSM by a mile.
(Edited to add: not difficult to be better because we now know the MSM and state apparatus worked hard to deny the truth and fool us.)
Powerful comment. I like everything except the last sentence.
Regarding the Williams piece: “He is tackling the question of why there is populist backlash against elites, when the populist alternatives are themselves flawed.“ This reminds me of the somewhat flawed inequality gap narrative by progressives. This gap is much smaller when we follow people through time. Similarly I wonder if Williams might be confounding statistics of Trump voters, RFK voters, Jay-Bhattacharia followers, NY Times readers, X users, and populists in a misleading way. Were Williams to start “walking the streets” conducting experiments that follow people through time he might improve his accuracy. Possibly Williams is using poor methodology, “a philosophers methodology” rather than “a scientific methodology?”
What is his methodology? Read books and articles looking for problems and patterns and try to explain what’s going on.
The first step to solving a problem is to define the problem very clearly. State what is given. Then state assumptions. Do the analysis, conduct experiments, etc. Then check your assumptions. Has Williams followed this rigorous process?
So let’s first ask Dan to define the problem very clearly. Dig down deeply into his problem statement until we have something concrete to deal with.
My guess is that we haven’t done this first step yet.
4. If elites aren't truly elite (i.e. compatent at running the culture/politics, etc) then they will turn authoritarian.
I have bigger issues with the Huemer post but will only write in response to your quoted excerpt.
I think all three biases are reasonable because it reflects durable aspects of human experience. Through most of history in most places, prejudice was extreme and life was oppressive in part because there were limited avenues that most could pursue to redress wrongs. Foreigners have typically been quite dangerous; even people from one county or duchy over could be very dangerous, and people speaking a different language entirely moving in masses probably heralded an apocalypse (see Hulagu Khan's mountain of skulls in Baghdad etc.). Government ineptitude and caprice are normal and not extraordinary. Responsive and effective governments are exceptions.
So, when speaking to the people, one should be mindful that they are the way that they are because they have good reason to be. Their biases are not irrational but based on experiences that go down to their bones, deeper than written history. If you as a court wizard or intellectual or what have you are presenting your coalition as better than the normal, you have the overwhelming burden of proof to bear.
How about the elites, who have been telling us that unless we take drastic measures now, climate change will kill us all soon?
How many of those elites would agree on "kill us all soon" or even "kill us all"? I'd bet very few. As for the more common predictions of catastrophe or harms great enough to warrant extreme changes, I'd argue that this isn't entirely wrong even if the risks are overstated and the probability of catastrophe is rather small. It isn't zero.
If you don't get my point, your framing is a bit like saying all of the naysayers believe burning fossil fuels has no effect on the environment.
I suspect that most elites don't believe that climate change will make the earth not worth living when their children grow up.
So why do so many young people seem to believe that? Where is that coming from?
Agreed. I think there is a subset of elites or maybe different from elites that is further left with a lot of influence among the young. It's not unlike socialism and other more extreme views on the left. The young are more prone to this.
I've personally lived through The End Of The World (according to predictions, anyway) at least 6 times.
The statement about the NYT, etc., having the facts correct may not be valid. Being a scientist, I have observed that many of these "trusted sources" will support "facts" that aren't valid. Most often factual conclusions for a multi-variable problem using only a few variables.
I'm c) becasue evil and incompetent governments are oppressive and do not allow productive relations with foreign immigrants and exporters. Left and Right basically do not understand econ 101 and think that bad things are good and vice versa.
I'd say all three are good but can be taken to harmful extreme. In my lifetime we've had more of the harmful extreme from the left and right. That doesn't mean the libertarian extreme is any less harmful.
Well, we may never know about the libertarian extreme because no one will let us try it.
"But in fact, Meloni, Milei, and Orban seem to be doing much better than Trudeau, Starmer, Macron, and Scholz."
"Doing much better" seems rather ambiguous. Unpopular is one thing but acting in ways that threaten society seems more relevant and more interesting to me. I'd like to see a more detailed explanation of how each threatens society, including mention, and maybe assessment, of fears that may be rather speculative.
Or benefits society for that matter. Orban is very good at bloviating, but there aren't many differences between Hungary and say Czech republic, where leadership is much more conventional. E.g. Orban's pro-natalist policies used to be touted as if they were the salvation of the West and the best thing since sliced bread, but Hungarian fertility numbers track together with its neighboring Central European countries quite closely.
Media and “alt media” are money-making ventures, whether selling adverts, subscriptions, views, whatever. They curate an audience and provide content that keeps the audience stimulated, loyal and engaged. That is all. Talk about facts all you want, but these are just incidental- like saying Dairy Queen is in the nutrition business.
That is an overly simplistic view. You are correct in that nyt and wsj curate very different audiences but implicit in what you write is an assumption each media entity thinks and acts with one mind. It does not. Writers and editors each have significant levels of independence and are more likely to be primarily focused on reaching truth, or at least truth as they see it in their biased view. The writers and editors have infinitely more ability to vary the product than the managers and cooks at Dairy Queen. And they often do.
As a regular reader of the WSJ I would say that the difference from the NYT is much smaller that you imagine. The real difference comes only in the editorial pages. The latter is what makes the subscription worthwhile.
I usually agree with your takes, but claiming little difference between the WSJ and NYT non-editorial page is just not credible.
Because even if the WSJ pages on net slant a bit to the left, they don’t explicitly not cover stories that harm Dems, and they don’t explicitly lie, and they don’t do nearly as much pro-Dem, anti-GOP opinion editorializing *within* their so-called news pieces.
All of which the NYT does with significantly increased frequency ever since Trump appeared on the scene. Jim Rutenberg’s piece gave theok for the leftist media to be more overtly brazen with their bias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26454551/donald-trump-interview-new-york-times-media-objectivity/
Sorry, but to claim that the WSJ is almost as bad as the NYT today is unfounded.
You wanna claim WSJ 2024 roughly equals NYT 2008, *that* argument I might be open to.
No doubt the reporting is much closer to the same than the editorial. That is true of both papers even if more on the wsj side. But to argue that non-editorial wsj is like nyt would suggest it doesn't curate an audience. That doesn't seem logical or reasonable.
One of them is Baskin-Robbins
They are in the clicks business, not the “truth” business. It is a money making venture with customers to please. And sure, it can contain “truth”, just as DQ contains nutrition- but that is not their business.
Editors don’t sit around in a vacuum and dream up narratives. Narratives and stories are pushed to editors dozens of times each day by political parties, activist groups and think tanks- ie parts of the loyal audience of the NYT and the “thought leaders” its readers respect. It is no coincidence that the same narratives and often the same wording is chosen by varying outlets- the stories are essentially written for them. Lesser outlets might reprint the content nearly verbatim, while better outlets have editors that will assign journalists to go build a story around the pushed narrative or “research”received.
Is every story created this way? Of course not. Sports, entertainment, local news, etc are usually not and sometimes political reporting occurs without an agenda and pre-packaged narrative. As I said, DQ contains nutrition- it is just not how they make money.
A perfect example is The NY Times story on PFAS. Do you think she and her editors came up with this idea in a vacuum? It was pushed to them, and they knew their readers would love its
There are leftist groups working with ambulance-chasing lawyers who want to make billions suing companies for PFAS in the environment. They throw up a lot of possibilities - fertilizers, containers, pesticides until they find one that “sticks” as a story.
https://peer.org/?s=Pfas
The NYT article quotes the groups that fed them the story idea/narrative without owning up to their involvement in the “journalism”. Meanwhile, the NYT criticized companies for lobbying when all of the groups feeding the NYT are lobbyists as well, and are hoping for government funds and lawsuits that will cut them in on any legal settlements.
Some of these groups are noble, not just greedy ambulance chasers. The EWG was one of the story sources and they do good work and would likely exist even without the prospect of being cut in as a payee in government lawsuits.
Anyway, I don’t think we really want to know how the media sausage (or the Blizzards) are being made- it is enough that we like it.
someone should tell Williams about Gell-Mann amnesia
"But in fact, Meloni, Milei, and Orban seem to be doing much better than Trudeau, Starmer, Macron, and Scholz."
Reality is so very very important to Truth seeking folk. Compared to what? is always the right question for comparing two or more choices.
Is Orban doing well by the standards of people who care about civil liberties?
I don't think anyone's worry about him is that he's going to crash the Hungarian economy.