• 🦊 OneRedFox 🦊@beehaw.orgOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bullshit. At no point does the article tell women to compromise with misogyny. That is what the (un)fair title says and that is a lie.

    They do though (subtly), as it’s the logical conclusion of their stupid suggestion. Just because they didn’t smack you in the face with it doesn’t mean they’re not doing it.

    That said, I do agree that there are subtle messages throughout society that women ought to do the compromising

    I’m glad you agree, as this WaPo article is one such example. Gonna reiterate though that compromise involves both parties making concessions.

    Still, it isn’t fair to make all those implications and accusations the fault and sole responsibility of the Washington Post.

    No one is doing that? The WaPo article in question is just one particular example of many of this phenomenon.

    Can we agree that sensationalistic media coverage is generally a bad thing?

    I mean, sure, but it’s not really relevant to the conversation here. Also, I hate to break it to you, but:

    I remember a time before FOX – a time when journalism was supposed to be unbiased

    Manufacturing Consent was first published in 1988 and used examples from the 1960s to make their case, which predates the existence of Fox News by several decades. “Unbiased journalism” has not been a thing for at least 60 years, if it ever existed at all. Shit’s worse now, don’t get me wrong, but it was never actually good during most of our lifetimes and looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses is not going to produce an accurate picture.

    and the headline here is just as bad as some of mis-spun crap I’ve seen there (like referring to undocumented as ‘criminals’ to promote the idea that cities are not safe).

    This is just ridiculous hyperbole. Following a suggestion to its logical conclusion is nowhere near as bad as intentionally smearing marginalized groups in order to incite state violence (and maybe some stochastic terrorism) against them.

    • memfree@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Look, we should be on the same side. The most obvious thing missing from the piece was that some people might choose a same sex marriage. I think there might also be something about happiness and longevity differences between the sexes such that marriage is a great deal for men, but not so much for women – but I don’t remember enough details to back that up with anything, I simply noted the absence of statistics on if men or women had any difference in their level of happiness in a not-so-great marriage versus being single (because I think I remember something like that, but I’m not sure).

      Anyway, I’m aware that journalism has never uniformly reached its own ideal of unbiased factual reporting, and because of that, I try to keep track of who is spinning things in which direction. Heck, Yellow Journalism became a phrase more than 100 years ago. Today’s drive for clicks and eyeballs means “spin” becomes a frequent, nigh on incessant issue. If no one calls it out, people might think their trusted source is spouting a ‘truth’ that the mainstream media refuses to publish for fear of their stockholders. Fox viewers and their ilk would certainly tell you the WaPo piece is attempting to take away their guns and turn ‘Mr. Burly Man’ into ‘Mr. Yes Ma’am’. When you tell them they’re delusional, they pull a what-about-ism on sites like FAIR for doing the same thing in reverse. As you rightly point out, the conservative side is typically more outrageous than the liberal side, but I don’t want to give them ANY ammunition! These people think commies and fascists are the same thing and that their glorious orange leader is neither.

      So, perhaps it is unfair of me to hold Democracy Now and FAIR and a bunch of other sources to a higher standard than, say, FOX and NEWSMAX but those latter two fail to reach the lowest of bars. They lie and spin and rarely offer opinions that acknowledge any validity to another point of view. We know how conservative sites manipulate the narrative. Is it asking too much that more liberal sites refrain from stooping to their level? All they had to do was make a title like, “Veiled WaPo Nudge to Women: If You Want Marriage, Compromise With Misogyny.” Too wordy? How about, “WaPo Hints: Ladies, If You Want to Marry, Try Misogynists.” Better? It is the same sentiment without the lie that “WaPo tells Women,” which is too gross an overstatement for me to let slide.

      • 🦊 OneRedFox 🦊@beehaw.orgOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Look, we should be on the same side. The most obvious thing missing from the piece was that some people might choose a same sex marriage. I think there might also be something about happiness and longevity differences between the sexes such that marriage is a great deal for men, but not so much for women – but I don’t remember enough details to back that up with anything, I simply noted the absence of statistics on if men or women had any difference in their level of happiness in a not-so-great marriage versus being single (because I think I remember something like that, but I’m not sure).

        I don’t see what this has to do with anything I said.

        but I don’t want to give them ANY ammunition!

        It really doesn’t matter if you do or not, as they’re liars and morons who will use their media apparatus to manufacture outrage if they can’t find something organically.

        So, perhaps it is unfair of me to hold Democracy Now and FAIR and a bunch of other sources to a higher standard than, say, FOX and NEWSMAX but those latter two fail to reach the lowest of bars. They lie and spin and rarely offer opinions that acknowledge any validity to another point of view. We know how conservative sites manipulate the narrative. Is it asking too much that more liberal sites refrain from stooping to their level? All they had to do was make a title like, “Veiled WaPo Nudge to Women: If You Want Marriage, Compromise With Misogyny.” Too wordy? How about, “WaPo Hints: Ladies, If You Want to Marry, Try Misogynists.” Better? It is the same sentiment without the lie that “WaPo tells Women,” which is too gross an overstatement for me to let slide.

        I would say that the unfair part is the bullshit false equivalence you’re drawing here, because again, pointing out the logical conclusion of their suggestion is neither lying nor producing spin. It is the practical result of taking their suggestion. Women will end up compromising with misogyny if they do what WaPo told them to do, so they are effectively telling them to do that. You’re trying to nitpick over something dumb. The headline is fine as is.

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It strains my credulity a bit that the only single thing you’re actually taking issue with is their use of “tells” rather than “hints/insinuates/nudges”. That single word is not making any difference to the impact of the original OR critique articles, as it is, in all colloquial use, a synonym.

        • 🦊 OneRedFox 🦊@beehaw.orgOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That user you’re replying to really seems to struggle with thinking through ideas. They’re probably the type that would have fallen for Southern Strategy.