Interesting how McKenzie uses Harris as an example of people’s fears regarding free speech, presumably because the Biden Admin. tried to get social media companies to follow their own policies on Covid lies and disinformation while so many people were dying every day. You’d think the better example would be the guy who has come right out…
Interesting how McKenzie uses Harris as an example of people’s fears regarding free speech, presumably because the Biden Admin. tried to get social media companies to follow their own policies on Covid lies and disinformation while so many people were dying every day. You’d think the better example would be the guy who has come right out and said we’re going to rescind network broadcast licenses because we don’t like what they said, we’re going to change libel and slander laws so we can sue newspapers even when they print the truth, we’re going to throw protesting college students out of the country, who pledged to oppose a merger involving CNN because “it’s anti-Trump,” who demanded that the Postmaster General double Amazon’s shipping rates to punish Jeff Bezos for The Washington Post’s coverage, who claims that people who criticize judges or judicial decisions should be heavily fined or even jailed and who most recently pledged to send the U.S. military after “the enemy within,” the “radical leftist lunatics” who oppose him. And we get a discussion of what it means for one side to call the other side “weird” and nothing regarding calling the other side “human scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country” or “Communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will “do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.” Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “fair and balanced.” And I’m sorry to say this Sharon but I think your diss of television news and commercials was unfair and a bit hypocritical. All news organizations are facing dwindling ad revenue but need it to stay in business. You do the exact same thing with ads on your podcasts, promotion of your book sales, promoting your paid subscriptions to The Preamble and offering higher tiered founding subscriptions, etc. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, whether you do it or ABC Evening News does it.
Thank you for calling out the false equivalency of an administration attempting to protect the population from a deadly disease by limiting dangerous mis/disinformation, and relentless hateful rhetoric as examples of threats to free speech.
I don't think Sharon was dissing television news *because* of the commercials, necessarily. I understood it to be pointing out that for the investment of your time, reading offers a much higher return on the amount of information you can consume.
You may be right but I got a different impression since that snippet followed close on the heels of “don’t watch television news …” It’s not so different from scrolling through all of Sharon’s book promos to get to the news and information parts of her posts. TV news divisions are businesses just like SharonSaysSo is a business and as I said, there’s nothing wrong with any of them trying to make money to continue their work to inform and explain. I’m all for it.
I agree with most of what you said but I think there is some context missing to her advice to "stop watching the news" that you are omitting. She said this as a direct response or suggestion to people who claim that they wake up with a pit of dread in their stomach every morning due to the political turmoil and strife going on. She is implying that reading about it may be less anxiety provoking and provide a more balanced view, than watching news that comes with a lot of commentary and commercials etc. I don't think this is her advice at large to most people. I had to re-watch to make sure my assumption wasn't out of left field and it is pretty clear to me that comment was directed to those people and not everyone at large.
Sharon has talked at other times about not watching television news because they are more biased. My understanding was not because of ads but because they have to get viewers to get revenue and those that will tune in are in need of more “drama” to stay tuned and are a different type than those who are scrolling to get information. Every news network, regardless of the slant, seems to me personally to be trying to get me emotionally knotted. So I prefer to read. Almost exclusively from bbc and then my local news. Because otherwise the spin has me spinning and I get tired fast.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Some Preamble subscribers think Sharon has revealed her terrible liberal bias with some of her factual posts whereas I sometimes become frustrated with Sharon and some of her both-sides-ism. But the fact is, we subscribers are here because we want to be and we want more knowledge and thus by definition we are not typical American voters who get their news mostly from social media or the nightly network news broadcast. You feel like the network news teams are trying to get you emotionally knotted, and they probably are for ratings purposes, but they can’t even compete with the drama, misinformation and emotional spin of social media. It’s a losing battle. I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that my mother was in the news media for decades so I get a little prickly when I feel like it’s being unfairly criticized. So I’m biased in a way, too, I suppose.
Interesting how McKenzie uses Harris as an example of people’s fears regarding free speech, presumably because the Biden Admin. tried to get social media companies to follow their own policies on Covid lies and disinformation while so many people were dying every day. You’d think the better example would be the guy who has come right out and said we’re going to rescind network broadcast licenses because we don’t like what they said, we’re going to change libel and slander laws so we can sue newspapers even when they print the truth, we’re going to throw protesting college students out of the country, who pledged to oppose a merger involving CNN because “it’s anti-Trump,” who demanded that the Postmaster General double Amazon’s shipping rates to punish Jeff Bezos for The Washington Post’s coverage, who claims that people who criticize judges or judicial decisions should be heavily fined or even jailed and who most recently pledged to send the U.S. military after “the enemy within,” the “radical leftist lunatics” who oppose him. And we get a discussion of what it means for one side to call the other side “weird” and nothing regarding calling the other side “human scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country” or “Communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will “do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.” Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “fair and balanced.” And I’m sorry to say this Sharon but I think your diss of television news and commercials was unfair and a bit hypocritical. All news organizations are facing dwindling ad revenue but need it to stay in business. You do the exact same thing with ads on your podcasts, promotion of your book sales, promoting your paid subscriptions to The Preamble and offering higher tiered founding subscriptions, etc. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, whether you do it or ABC Evening News does it.
Thank you for calling out the false equivalency of an administration attempting to protect the population from a deadly disease by limiting dangerous mis/disinformation, and relentless hateful rhetoric as examples of threats to free speech.
I don't think Sharon was dissing television news *because* of the commercials, necessarily. I understood it to be pointing out that for the investment of your time, reading offers a much higher return on the amount of information you can consume.
You may be right but I got a different impression since that snippet followed close on the heels of “don’t watch television news …” It’s not so different from scrolling through all of Sharon’s book promos to get to the news and information parts of her posts. TV news divisions are businesses just like SharonSaysSo is a business and as I said, there’s nothing wrong with any of them trying to make money to continue their work to inform and explain. I’m all for it.
I agree with most of what you said but I think there is some context missing to her advice to "stop watching the news" that you are omitting. She said this as a direct response or suggestion to people who claim that they wake up with a pit of dread in their stomach every morning due to the political turmoil and strife going on. She is implying that reading about it may be less anxiety provoking and provide a more balanced view, than watching news that comes with a lot of commentary and commercials etc. I don't think this is her advice at large to most people. I had to re-watch to make sure my assumption wasn't out of left field and it is pretty clear to me that comment was directed to those people and not everyone at large.
Sharon has talked at other times about not watching television news because they are more biased. My understanding was not because of ads but because they have to get viewers to get revenue and those that will tune in are in need of more “drama” to stay tuned and are a different type than those who are scrolling to get information. Every news network, regardless of the slant, seems to me personally to be trying to get me emotionally knotted. So I prefer to read. Almost exclusively from bbc and then my local news. Because otherwise the spin has me spinning and I get tired fast.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Some Preamble subscribers think Sharon has revealed her terrible liberal bias with some of her factual posts whereas I sometimes become frustrated with Sharon and some of her both-sides-ism. But the fact is, we subscribers are here because we want to be and we want more knowledge and thus by definition we are not typical American voters who get their news mostly from social media or the nightly network news broadcast. You feel like the network news teams are trying to get you emotionally knotted, and they probably are for ratings purposes, but they can’t even compete with the drama, misinformation and emotional spin of social media. It’s a losing battle. I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that my mother was in the news media for decades so I get a little prickly when I feel like it’s being unfairly criticized. So I’m biased in a way, too, I suppose.
Great points. I’d now love to see you and Sharon have a convo!