TBH one of the things I always wonder about is not so much the “sidesism” as the “both.” How are people deciding what should count as a side, and why there should be two? And when should something no longer count as a side?
I mean, I get it in practice, there’s nothing this self-reflective going on at all and it’s all decided by inertia, FPTP voting, and revenue. I still would naively have expected more people on the audience side to have the realization that:
Good point, I guess all-sidesism would be more desirable, this would take the form of panels representing different experts, opinions or demographics. Some issues, like US politics do end up necessarily polarised though, given there are only two options, even if you begin with a panel—they did start with an anti-vax candidate too with RFK Jr (with the Ds and even the Rs being arguably pro-vax), but political expediency results in his being subsumed into the binary.
General elections necessarily do. Coverage of issues does not. Assignment of opinions in the press can be to people and ideologies without pretending everyone in a party shares or should share identical views.
I agree, it seems as though the incentives aren’t aligned that way, so it ends up incumbent upon the audience to distill nuance out of binary messaging, and to recognise the value of those who do present unique perspectives.
TBH one of the things I always wonder about is not so much the “sidesism” as the “both.” How are people deciding what should count as a side, and why there should be two? And when should something no longer count as a side?
I mean, I get it in practice, there’s nothing this self-reflective going on at all and it’s all decided by inertia, FPTP voting, and revenue. I still would naively have expected more people on the audience side to have the realization that:
Good point, I guess all-sidesism would be more desirable, this would take the form of panels representing different experts, opinions or demographics. Some issues, like US politics do end up necessarily polarised though, given there are only two options, even if you begin with a panel—they did start with an anti-vax candidate too with RFK Jr (with the Ds and even the Rs being arguably pro-vax), but political expediency results in his being subsumed into the binary.
General elections necessarily do. Coverage of issues does not. Assignment of opinions in the press can be to people and ideologies without pretending everyone in a party shares or should share identical views.
I agree, it seems as though the incentives aren’t aligned that way, so it ends up incumbent upon the audience to distill nuance out of binary messaging, and to recognise the value of those who do present unique perspectives.