This morning I listened to yesterday’s Daily Signal podcast, which featured Batya Ungar-Sargon, the deputy opinion editor at Newsweek. She has a new book coming out, Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy. The podcast is worth your time, if for no other reason than to hear about how the New York Times is monetizing emotion.
6 thoughts on “Batya Ungar-Sargon against the woke”
Comments are closed.
Of course they’re monetizing emotion. Everyone is. Honestly, seems like it started with Fox News and the old Rush of Windbaughs.
I heard a rumor Twitter is going to add a don’t like button. More engagement with the platform probably.
This interview was definitely a conservatives’ dream. Full of familiar biased perceptions but light on objective, substantive content.
So right off the bat, the interview starts on a curious note. The author says historically there was an inherit desire for journalists to be outside of power demanding justice for the “little guy”. First, what’s inherently wrong with that notion and why is “justice” a partisan issue? In a country that espouses the virtues of justice, you’d think having an advocate with a broad platform would be a positive thing. In fact, some like to tout that the US is a Christian nation. Well, helping the little guy is noted in scripture as a good thing (Proverbs 31:9; Psalm 82:3; Isa. 1:17). If the media is able to actualize this in a meaningful way, it seems it should be praised not criticized.
As well, what is inherently wrong with journalists focusing on race and identity in their work? If the audience has no interest the purveyors of such content will not prevail. The fact that such topics have endured over significant spans of time indicates there is a market for it. So, let the market decide. Isn’t that what conservative principles once taught?
The author indicates journalism leans into racial topics at time when America is less racist. As well, that media uses words like oppression, marginalization and like ideas with great frequency but those concepts are foreign to people of color. I’d be interested in understanding how she substantiates those notions. She doesn’t speak to them in a substantive way during the interview. In fact, she makes many sweeping statements but presents little evidence to support them.
Interestingly, the host references a stat that alleges Blacks are largely ignoring woke/liberal media. But, then says that 36% of black Democrats are Fox News viewers but 56% are CNN viewers. Wait…so if black Democrats are ignoring liberal media, how is it that CNN still has a significantly larger black Democrat viewer base? They seem to make a point of only 12% of blacks read the NYT. Has the NYT ever had a large black reader population? If so, was there a significant decline and why? Yet, the author doesn’t seem to address these questions. It’s presented as an isolated stat and that alone is suppose to tell the story? The stat quoted by the author could be for a number of reasons, not specific to wokeness.
Another interesting dynamic is the author blames white liberals for initiating and promulgating wokeness…faulting them for speaking as experts and advocating on issues that people of color don’t d desire. Yet, the author seems to do the same in some of her commentary relative to the interest of blacks…at times almost speaking as an authority. So, “she” (not being black) can speak with credibility as to the perspective of black Americans, but white liberals can’t?
Early in the interview the author indicates there’s no longer a partisan divide over issues relative to race and the underprivileged. Yet, later in the interview questions why conservatives don’t take more initiative to address underprivileged black communities…since they are alleged to be the party of the working class. Even the host didn’t have a good response for that dynamic. So, they have the right “words” but no actions to show for them…lip service? How is that better than what the woke liberals offer this population?
It’s like the author takes conservative “perceptions” and attempts to use them as factual points. For instance, she notes that black media is focusing on issues of the underprivileged and police brutality but not “woke” issues. Wait, isn’t those very items a part of the “woke” agenda? As well, she pits the slogan, “Defund the Police” against other things she says is “really” important in black media. I’d be the first to admit that “Defund the Police” is a HORRIBLE slogan. Yet, what is meant by the notion (once you get past the title) aligns with what black media seems to be advocating for. So, she made a hard distinction based on superficial terminology, not true substance.
Another interesting nugget, the author criticizes “liberal” media for going to emotional extremes for profit and engagement. Yet, doesn’t call out the “conservative” media for doing the same thing. Fox, Oan, Breitbart, The Daily Wire, et. al. are rife with such content. Both sides profit from the polarization they inspire. In fact, much of Trump’s movement was using social media to feed on the anger and discontentment within his base. Post his presidency, he’s garnered 100 million in donations by using such tactics. Sidney Powell has done the same and has cashed in on 14 million from her supporters for spreading lies and telling tales of the impending release of a kraken. Yet, it’s the liberals that are going for emotional extremes? Really?
The only part of the interview I found compelling was the end where the author encourages people to not put so much stock in the media but get actively involved in community and spiritual activities. As well, taking time to engage with those one disagrees with and working together to stitch the fabric of America back together.
This interview was definitely a conservatives’ dream. Full of familiar biased perceptions but light on objective, substantive content.
What an absurdly biased way to introduce your comments.
I think Ms. Ungar-Sargon was endorsing the idea of journalists as working class people fighting for the little guy. She is decrying the change from that to an elite class of journalists who think they’re celebrities.
It seems clear to me you listened to the interview through a very distorted lens.
But a whole new class of journalist has arisen with Fox and is now expanding to such outlets as Breitbart and Newsmax. Surely the rightwing Tucker Carlson and the like are no less elite than any liberal journalist. Indeed, for a long time conservatives have a long time have had an elite squad of journalists, e.g. Buckley and his crew in National Review. Fox is of course much cruder and more belligerent, but hardly working class.
QUOTE: I think Ms. Ungar-Sargon was endorsing the idea of journalists as working class people fighting for the little guy. She is decrying the change from that to an elite class of journalists who think they’re celebrities.
Ms. Ungar-Sargon was endorsing the idea that the woke media is undermining democracy and has an obsession with covering race and identity issues. The crux of her decry is pandering to emotional extremes by the media. Yet, much of her interview seemed to pander to the biased perceptions of conservatives (relative to this topic) and didn’t provide much substantiation for her sweeping statements. In fact, many of the elements she criticized in the “liberal media” are present and practiced by the “conservative media”. Yet, somehow that wasn’t noted. Given that, my opening summary statement stands…this interview was definitely a conservatives’ dream. Full of familiar biased perceptions but light on objective, substantive content.
QUOTE: What an absurdly biased way to introduce your comments…it seems clear to me you listened to the interview through a very distorted lens.
I initiated my commentary with a summary of my thoughts after investing over 40 minutes listening to the interview….nothing biased about that. That said, my perspectives on this topic likely have been influenced by my previous experiences and knowledge. I’d say that’s the situation for most people. Someone once stated, “People should admit their own ignorance, of course. But it’s far more important that they admit their own bias.” Do you and/or conservatives have any bias relative to this topic? Is there ever any distortion in the lens you and/or conservatives view this subject through?