I appreciate your thoughtful, reasonable and balanced response. It also treats the opposing viewpoint, the WSJ's opinion, with a degree of intellectual integrity.
Your point about 'blind spots' though is a very gentle jab to my larger point. I don't believe this is a 'blind spot'. My point is more basic - I don't think the WSJ has any real intellectual integrity.
In all honesty I think its bad from a viewpoint diversity to have such a small number of outlets control this much of the flow of information. And so if this was a real concern of the WSJ then maybe they would take that approach to very similar and present concern - the purchase of Tribune Media by Sinclar. Tribune Media owns 40+ TV stations. Sinclair owns at least 100 stations. In some cities Sinclair owns 3 stations. Certainly if the WSJ cares about 'viewpoint diversity' they would be concerned about a single company owning that much of the media landscape.
Except they don't take issue with Sinclair the same way they have concerns of Google/Facebook. As a matter of fact the WSJ probably loves the Sinclair merger. I disagree with your point, I do not believe this is a blind spot. I think its much simpler.
WSJ doesn't like the Facebook/Google duopoly because they represent a viewpoint they don't like, a more left or liberal viewpoint. And they do at least tacitly approve of the Sinclair merger because Sinclair does have a viewpoint they agree with, a more conservative one.
There is no intellectual heft to "we don't like it when they do to us what we do to them". So the WSJ has to manufacture some phony principled argument that under normal circumstances would contradict their typical position.
I'm not here to argue the for or against the government intervention trying to prevent a narrowing of the diversity of opinion. I'm saying the WSJ does not give a crap about diversity. They have no real ideals. They only care when their side has a disadvantage.
I can't read more than the first paragraph due to the paywall. But I do think that the WSJ is being intellectually dishonest when they try to advocate against Google/Facebook narrowing the diversity of opinions when its more like "we don't like it when the other side can crowd us out'. The WSJ hates opinion diversity, unless it is their own.
I get the distaste for what can easily be seen as political opportunism. I think it's entirely possible that you are right that WSJ would not care about viewpoint diversity unless that position was benefiting them at the moment.
But after years of following endless cultural trench warfare carried out on social media, I strongly believe that focusing the debate on the perceived evil of certain people/organizations (like WSJ) doesn't help. I think it's actively toxic and prevents us from finding common ground.
I have no particular love for WSJ, but viewpoint diversity is something I feel very passionate about. This cause is being spearheaded by Heterodox Academy, who focus specifically on academia: https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/
So even though I might disagree with WSJ on all sorts of other things, I'm still happy to see them popularize an argument that I care about. I can feel "in coalition" with them on this issue, even if I might disagree strongly with them on other things. Pointing out contradictions in their argument (as you have done above) is totally fair game and could force them to reconcile these inconsistencies if enough people call them on it.
> I'm not here to argue the for or against the government intervention trying to prevent a narrowing of the diversity of opinion. I'm saying the WSJ does not give a crap about diversity. They have no real ideals. They only care when their side has a disadvantage.
I feel exactly the opposite: I'm not here to argue whether WSJ is a sinner or a saint. To me it's a fruitless question because even if you could prove they have bad motives, that doesn't tell us what we should think about this argument. People can make good arguments for the wrong reasons. That doesn't mean we should throw the argument out based on who is making it.
By the way, I say this as someone who has broken this rule countless times over the years. I don't say all this because I think I am better at productive argumentation than other people. I say this because I've spent too much time over the years on toxic discourse that goes nowhere.
I think this is how blind spots are supposed to work
> Except they don't take issue with Sinclair the same way they have concerns of Google/Facebook.
Facebook case could be a very different proposition compared to traditional media outlets precisely because of it's sheer size and network effects. If you have concerns with a small media outlets controlling how we consumer information and view the world, Facebook is an order of magnitude bigger threat than Sinclair
> In all honesty I think its bad from a viewpoint diversity to have such a small number of outlets control this much of the flow of information. And so if this was a real concern of the WSJ then maybe they would take that approach to very similar and present concern - the purchase of Tribune Media by Sinclar. Tribune Media owns 40+ TV stations. Sinclair owns at least 100 stations. In some cities Sinclair owns 3 stations. Certainly if the WSJ cares about 'viewpoint diversity' they would be concerned about a single company owning that much of the media landscape
Your point about 'blind spots' though is a very gentle jab to my larger point. I don't believe this is a 'blind spot'. My point is more basic - I don't think the WSJ has any real intellectual integrity.
In all honesty I think its bad from a viewpoint diversity to have such a small number of outlets control this much of the flow of information. And so if this was a real concern of the WSJ then maybe they would take that approach to very similar and present concern - the purchase of Tribune Media by Sinclar. Tribune Media owns 40+ TV stations. Sinclair owns at least 100 stations. In some cities Sinclair owns 3 stations. Certainly if the WSJ cares about 'viewpoint diversity' they would be concerned about a single company owning that much of the media landscape.
Except they don't take issue with Sinclair the same way they have concerns of Google/Facebook. As a matter of fact the WSJ probably loves the Sinclair merger. I disagree with your point, I do not believe this is a blind spot. I think its much simpler.
WSJ doesn't like the Facebook/Google duopoly because they represent a viewpoint they don't like, a more left or liberal viewpoint. And they do at least tacitly approve of the Sinclair merger because Sinclair does have a viewpoint they agree with, a more conservative one.
There is no intellectual heft to "we don't like it when they do to us what we do to them". So the WSJ has to manufacture some phony principled argument that under normal circumstances would contradict their typical position.
I'm not here to argue the for or against the government intervention trying to prevent a narrowing of the diversity of opinion. I'm saying the WSJ does not give a crap about diversity. They have no real ideals. They only care when their side has a disadvantage.
I can't read more than the first paragraph due to the paywall. But I do think that the WSJ is being intellectually dishonest when they try to advocate against Google/Facebook narrowing the diversity of opinions when its more like "we don't like it when the other side can crowd us out'. The WSJ hates opinion diversity, unless it is their own.