These were in my model, it’s plausible I shouldn’t have posted this without putting more work into laying out the full model and trying to be fair / clear / ITT passing.
I edited the post to address a bit of this. In particular including:
[ETA] Of course, I know for many Trump supporters, the whole point is that he’s destroying a bunch of institutions that need destroying. I am actually pretty sympathetic to the idea that if you want a better government, you need to tear down the old one quickly. There might be enough differences of values here that there’s not much common ground to be had, but for me, the crux is that he seems to:
– Not merely be tearing down various bureaucracies, but, eroding norms like “there is supposed to be rule of law, generally.”
– It does not look like this is laying the way for anything good to follow, it looks like it’s just kinda making a more corrupt world.
...
> That seemed … like it was approaching a methodology that might actually be cruxy for some Trump supporters or Trump-neutral-
No? The pretense that media coverage is “neutral” rather than being the propaganda arm of the permanent education-media-administrative state is exactly what’s at issue.
I agree the examples I listed there weren’t currently a methodology Trump supporters would agree with, the point was just that it felt pointed in a direction where I was like “oh, as long as I’m doing something comprehensive in this way, it’s probably worth putting in the extra work to find something that be cruxy for others.
I do disagree about “searching for instances of conflict between executive branch and courts” being something that’s particularly prone to media bias. I think most sides would agree there was conflict, just disagree on who was right, and media would report on it regardless just with different framing. (But I agree “seems like executive overreach” would definitely have that problem)
These were in my model, it’s plausible I shouldn’t have posted this without putting more work into laying out the full model and trying to be fair / clear / ITT passing.
I edited the post to address a bit of this. In particular including:
...
I agree the examples I listed there weren’t currently a methodology Trump supporters would agree with, the point was just that it felt pointed in a direction where I was like “oh, as long as I’m doing something comprehensive in this way, it’s probably worth putting in the extra work to find something that be cruxy for others.
I do disagree about “searching for instances of conflict between executive branch and courts” being something that’s particularly prone to media bias. I think most sides would agree there was conflict, just disagree on who was right, and media would report on it regardless just with different framing. (But I agree “seems like executive overreach” would definitely have that problem)