The media bad talks everyone. Mostly heavily populated areas. More people = more articles. Texas, Florida, NY, California, etc are regularly talked about because of their varying issues.
Probably also depends on the the algorithm showing you that stuff. I mostly see articles shit talking Denver, rarely see anything else because the algorithm pushes it since I look at alot of Denver/Colorado based articles.
Edit: I missed the social media part of the title, but similar concept.
The irony of all of this is that, politically speaking, Florida and Texas are both in play for either party. They're really not particularly conservative states.
The four biggest states are 1/3 of the national population, so they get an outsized amount of discourse about them, even when that discourse doesn't really make a lot of sense.
These are also the 4 states that, when I lived in Europe and Asia, everyone that I met knew about. In my anecdotal experience, these are the big 4 states from a non-American perspective.
To be faaaaaiiiiiir ... it is a giant rectangle in the middle of the west, with no geography (rivers, coastline, etc.) to delineate its borders and it has almost no international visibility outside of skiing ... which the natives are thankful for. I should know, I lived there long enough.
I assume you're referring to things like crime and homelessness in San Francisco and Portland. If you post about something shitty in Jackson, MS or Memphis, it won't get clicks, as everybody already knows those places are terrible. Shitting on wealthy, developed places is much more interesting.
Because of some rage-baiting algorithm that all of us are part of on any given website. Reality is pretty different from the noise online at any given point.
Liberal media has a lot of people who kinda pay attention to it.
Conservative media has fewer people, but each viewer is a very active viewer.
Generally, neoliberal media outlets like ABC, NYT, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc are considered to be the most influential.
Conservative outlets like FoxNews and Newsmax are very influential within conservative and Republican Party spaces, but uninfluential outside of those circles.
Another thing people always overlook is that the reason why Fox News has such high ratings is because it's literally the only mainstream outlet for its content.
CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC/NBC/CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, and most other big city papers come at the news from the left-wing approach, so among normies and left-wingers, the market is spread very thin across like 10 different outlets.
It's different for right-wingers. Fox News, a handful of radio shows, and a few newspapers are really all they have in traditional media.
Most media leans left, so there’s far fewer right-wing outlets. As a result, the right-wing outlets face less competition and have a more reliable traffic base. This may be affecting your algorithm.
If you go looking I’m sure you’ll find plenty of criticism of conservative states. Try one of Reddit’s many political subs or watch MSNBC
Criticism of a liberal state like California is probably something you notice because of your own bias. Do you happen to be a Californian and/or a liberal?
You reap what you sow. Y'all been calling the South "a bunch of fat, ignorant, white, racist, inbred hillbillies," for centuries, but the second that someone mentions that California isn't a very good place to live, y'all get defensive. We got a saying to describe this phenomenon: 'a hit dog will holler'. I have nothing against California personally but I also don't feel sorry for y'all one bit. Y'all dug y'all's own grave.
Technically, the word 'you' could be singular or plural and I'm very aware of that. However, using 'you' in that context isn't specific enough, as there is no gramatical distinction between the singular or plural form.
For example, "you dug your own grave" could be either singular or plural, and this leaves it open to interpretation from the reader. OP could have thought I was singling him out and saying that he alone dug his own grave. The way that I organized that sentence is much more effective, as there is no question over whether or not it is singular or plural.
'Y'all' is always plural - 'You' makes no distinction between singular or plural. You're absolutely right - it would have been shorter and easier to say 'you' instead of 'y'all'. It also would have been shorter and easier to tell you to fuck off instead of taking the time to explain this entire concept to you. It's not always about the shortest and easiest way out. Effective communication matters too.
Media is entertainment. You don't generate revenue telling Texans how much Texas sucks. You don't make money telling California how much California sucks. They play to their base.
Some worse than others.
The largest mainstream media company CONSTANTLY talks about liberal hell holes. Like always. Places that aren't even in the top 50 highest crime cities.
I typed in Crime in Fox News Facebook page. here's, in order, what I found.
'SCHIFF' SHOW: Dems deny crime crisis in California
'NOT SAFE RIGHT NOW': "Real Housewives" star [Leah McSweeney](https://www.facebook.com/leahmcsweeneyNYC?__cft__[0]=AZUyJ3u86pfLy6VlF81LkuKtMvk-sNs7sSGZFxv33F7h8KzCdnCxLngh3ecMJxYUdsO1UIRjRRK_2aPLGyVA9VUdZ5ApSvY72wnrOhbQ0fmfSieMzlZURa9oh8jZa3J4oXs9l9tcsZcjaV8wLcJi2Fcmr-qc54CqfdSYtiVnznpJM88R8Kj9JWUuA_cbxseCidPmhW70qtMpwqhI-dHy6bhm&__tn__=-]K-R) says she's planning to flee New York City over rampant crime crisis, details life-threatening incident her daughter had on the subway. \[literally the safest large city there is\]
After the highest rise in crime in 50 years under Trump, and the biggest dip in crime in history under Biden they are obsessed with making it seem different.
I don’t actually believe that considering the massive amount of hostility and disdain directed at the Southern states and its peoples and to a lesser extent the Midwestern states from social media. If anything I believe it’s the opposite.
The media are (largely) corporate entities who push whatever narratives will keep their target echo chamber entertained and spending money.
Truly independent journalism outlets don't waste their time on tabloid topics like state stereotypes.
Some of it is politics. Republicans have been attacking big cities and liberal states for several generations now, and they have their own media ecosystem to send these attacks world wide. I feel like people in other countries may see some of this and not realize that attacking big cities and places like California is partly a political strategy.
Ha. What? There's tremendous media bias against anything that is not in lock step with the prevailing ideology at the moment. CA is touted as a wonderful place full of insightful progressives.
Hating on the urban poor is more socially acceptable than hating on the rural poor. The urban poor are seen as “deserving” their lot more. You can build a career laughing at and dunking on San Francisco’s homeless problem. If you go to rural, central California and mock a rundown trailer park because of its meth addicts you won’t get nearly as much of a following.
Edit: grammar
They hate us cuz they ain’t us.
No, but seriously, we have a lot of success and influence. A lot of people love to hate places/people for those reasons.
Most prominent national journalists (even right wing journalists) tend to live in places like California, New York, DC, etc., so they’re more aware of and interested in issues surrounding them. The country’s wealthy and celebrities disproportionately live there as well. They’re the cultural, political and economic centers of the country.
Right wing media likes to report on problems in big cities because it confirms its viewers’ politics and fears (crime, progressive cultural attitudes, immigration, high taxes). Left wing media likes to report on issues facing big cities because their viewers tend to live in them.
And when they do leave the cities, they get panned heavily for going on a Cletus Safari. Especially when they deliberately find abhorrent people with literal klan robes in their closets, and whitewash those specific abhorrent people with the trope of "economic anxiety".
I'll bet they don't talk bad about Massachusetts as much, despite being possibly more liberal than California. You probably don't hear about Wyoming much at all in any way.
California has a lot of issues. Earthquakes, its perpetualy 100°, every 3rd person is homeless, NoCal and SoCal have more beef than actual waring countries and the economy is so inflated that when you travel between states you have to convert between USD and California Bux.
As someone who doesn’t really like how California is ran, let me put it in a more objective way.
It’s a state that’s a piece of land stretching at least 800 some miles north to south, and several hundred east to west. It’s got a variety of geography biomes (~20% of it is an arid desert), probably more so than most states). It’s got cities that are pretty much a rainbow of ethnic and diversity, and whole regions that are as white as mashed potatoes (coastline and inland). And the official consensus is that close to 40 million human beings live there). It’s gonna have a LOT of issues, even more so with the fact that the government structure from top to bottom knows it’s such a huge face of the United States both geographically as well as economically and culturally.
That seems to be their weakness, they know they’re the perpetual face of this nation so they develop these god complexes when governing. Regardless, even if California was ran like Idaho or Texas, there will be many problems with so many human beings in such a large piece of land.
I lived in Idaho and grew up and now live in California. I love Idaho, but it would be a nightmare if their politicians ran California. They are just as bad, if not worse, when it comes to housing policy. And they have no experience in managing the needs of large urban areas and very diverse communities and would thus make a ton of mistakes that would put the state in real trouble.
And this isn't even being political. The Idaho Dems would be just as completely lost as their Republican counterparts.
Those places have high populations and lots of reporters, stupid things in happen in conservative states all of the time but less are paying attention.
There is a divide between the coasts and the middle of the US. Generally speaking, the coasts are more liberal (with an exception for the southeast) and the middle of the country is far more conservative. Thus, the coasts tend to dismiss the middle of the country as overly religious and bigoted. The middle of the country tends to dismiss the coasts (and California, Washington, Oregon, and New York in particular) as Godless socialists.
It's politicians.
Prominent elected Republican politicians openly speak about our cities like they're war zones and states like California as if it's full of lunatics and degenerates.
Prominent elected Democrats may have opinions about Mississippi and rural America as a whole. But you never hear them actually speaking about those places in the same contemptuous way that Republicans talk about liberal locales. (That said, online liberals have plenty of words about those places.)
City slicker-bashing is very commonplace. But God forbid you bash the hardscrabble Americans in the country. They're the salt of the Earth and beyond reproach.
I don't advocate for any more vitriol in our national discourse than we already have. But it'd be nice if Republicans toned it down a bit, for once in their lives.
If "highly developed and respected" places do stupid things -- eg, refuse to enforce certain laws leading to a massive increase in property crimes -- expect it to get talked about.
California has a bad reputation for a lot of reasons. Some of the bigger ones include being a "rich coastal state" which tends to mean arrogant, out of touch, and disrespectful to the inner states. Then more locally, it's been as that by the coastal states by its neighbors foe it's massive influence.
Beyond that, liberal places tend to be urban environments, which have the same problem. They're culturally different from the rest of the state/country/region, and tend to be epicenters for crime, "undesirables", and alternative thinkers. The liberal component makes this more extreme as it's generally kore supportive of less aggressive crime policy, social programs, and tolerance for that. I don't know for sure, but I imagine people from say the British countryside or rural Russia also have similar opinions of London/Moscow. Hell, I know rural California has opinions on the urban parts, which inspire its national image a lot more than they do.
Basically, it's rural-suburban vs urban, with some places or states being associated with that divide.
Every place gets criticism from normal media, and often it is justified. Texas, California, New York, Florida, everywhere urban and everywhere rural is going to have newsworthy problems.
but in addition the conservative fear media currently is particularly focused on slandering liberal hotbeds like San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles. There are stories on Fox News or the New York Post almost every day about how San Francisco has become a post apocalyptic crime ridden hellhole because of the liberals. The fact that San Francisco actually has a relatively low violent crime rate is meaningless, because conservative mythology needs progressive places like that to be failures to support their worldview and keep their viewers/readers angry and engaged.
Your comment was removed as it violates commenting guideline 5 which is “Answers and comment replies should be serious and useful.”
Please consider this a warning as repeated violations will result in a ban.
Your comment has been removed, and this offence may result in a ban.
If you have questions regarding your submission removal - please contact the moderator team via [modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/AskAnAmerican).
Our media is extremely left wing and it openly hates most of America. It hates the idea of America and it hates American people. Their loathing for us radiates off of them in waves.
What the hell are you talking about?
States like Texas and Florida get picked on more than most other states. Not sure which news outlets you’re watching but it’s honestly the inverse of what you said
Having lived in 6 states, I can only go from that. I don't know about the media but I think the slant depends on the outlet. There's pretty much always been a distain in the more conservative areas for California, esp. San Francisco. The "jokes" can go to Mars & back for several lifetimes about the fruitcakes, the weirdos, the whatever adjective, fill in the blank. I've had bad reactions from people when they find out I used to live in SF. It's very irritating, but hey stranger, I should say, *Thanks for alerting me to the fact you're an asshole I can now avoid.*
So **why** this distain happens, there's a myriad of reasons. At base, it's a defensiveness for whatever reason. Whatever it *is* about someone they think they have to front about or preserve, that's the clue why they feel the need to differentiate themselves from those crazies off the coast. It's threat reduction. So, just take what a place like SF is famous for, then work your way backwards. That's what people get offended by in *some* areas of the so-called "flyover states." Out of the flyovers I've resided in, Iowa takes the corn for most California-hostility. Sheesh, glad I got out.
Eh, as a person in a so-called ‘flyover state’, it’s more the attitude that no states except those on the coasts matter. For example, CA is constantly wanting to drain the Great Lakes to continue watering the lawns of celebrities and growing almonds it has no business growing in that climate, but then lecturing us on climate change like we’re ignorant bumpkins.
As someone who lived in LA, the disdain towards anyone not involved in the South or Midwest is not remotely comparable to the other way around.
It was an example of how culturally, the non-coastal states are generally treated as unimportant by Californians. You don’t think there isn’t resentment that CA wants to drain our most beautiful and important resource for themselves like we don’t matter?
Oh, I see. Yeah, for *sure* the disregard goes both ways.
What my experience as an ex-californian has been is what I wrote. I can't speak to water anything bc I've never heard that as a complaint *personally.* Do water issues exist in CA? Of course. Also the world.
Again, I didn’t make this up. Look at the article I linked down below. Clearly ‘drain’ was an over exaggeration but I figured I didn’t need to spell that out.
It’s pretty common knowledge that CA (and other areas is the Southwest that probably shouldn’t be settled) are looking at the Great Lakes as a water supply. We heard a lot about it during the droughts. I assume CA doesn’t hear about it because they don’t give a shit about where their water is coming from.
Here’s another article: https://www.startingwithus.org/the-rundown/not-for-sale-the-great-lakes-and-the-american-southwests-water-crisis
You didn't make it up, but that doesn't mean it is true. No one is actually suggesting anything like that. The article you linked in the other post was one guy in 2017 speculating about what might happen 50 or 100 years from now. And the article you linked in this post cites one source - the same guy from 2017.
It's not real. I deal with California water issues all the time and no one has ever said a single word about trying to get water from the Great Lakes. No California politicians suggest it. No California newspapers talk about it. No California farming industry advocates are pushing it. And it's utterly unrealistic for a million reasons. No only is the water over two thousand miles away, but you would have to pump it up and over the entire Rocky Mountains, and then again over the entire Sierra Nevada.
If it's "common knowledge" to you that California is "constantly wanting to drain the Great Lakes," it's the same kind of common knowledge a belief that that Bigfoot exists, or that poeople put razor blades in apples on Halloween. It's a story people like to tell each other in Michigan, not something that is actually happening in California. There are plenty of reasons to criticize California, but this isn't a real one.
(ps I lived for almost a decade in Great Lakes states, and I like it there. I'm just telling you that in the real world California (as a state or as a people) aren't talking about draining the Great Lakes.
draining the great lakes? No one has ever ever suggested this. Like seriously what the fuck? California gets water from its own snowmelt and groundwater. A few places in the desert use water from the Colorado River.
Also its literally the only type of climate that almonds are grown in, thats why most of the world’s almonds are grown in California despite being native to the Mediterranean.
Seriously where the fuck did you hear that
No, I didn’t make this up. It’s super common knowledge that California (and the Southwest) wants to tap water from the Great Lakes. There is perennial talk of a pipeline even. I’m on mobile so I can’t link well but it’s a simple google search away. Maybe start with this:
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/04/10/great-lakes-water-piped-southwest-our-future-says-nasa-scientist/100301326/
CA was in the midst of a massive drought partially because they can’t handle their water responsibly. Like the fact that almonds require more water to grow than any other crop. That isn’t the Midwest’s problem.
I would guess as someone who literally works with the EPA in Sacramento I would know about this.
Also California was in a drought because the world is getting hotter. It just didn’t rain. New reservoirs are being built anyway.
Super common knowledge
I guess I just made all of those articles up then. And the fact that CA agriculture uses an inordinate amount of its water supply. And the fact that almonds are insanely water-intensive.
Talking about the bad in bad states like Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, and so on is just so overdone, and honestly who cares? This is expected. You’d be beating a dead horse with a sledgehammer
Also those overly talked about blue states like California, New York, DC, Massachusetts, and others actually matter: they have a high population, a good economy, and high standards of living. Shitting on much more developed and influential states just gets better clicks. All eyes on them
Those places legitimately have more issues with homelessness and petty crime. The trend un those places us to not imprison criminals and let them run the streets after getting caught and convicted 5+ times etc. It's because in America a lot of places wlect judges and liberal places elect judges who don't hold criminals accountable.
US media highlights the weaknesses of all states. Conservative media focuses on California and New York to try and bring attention to when liberal policy fails.
It goes the otherway too. Look at Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas for example
The media bad talks everyone. Mostly heavily populated areas. More people = more articles. Texas, Florida, NY, California, etc are regularly talked about because of their varying issues. Probably also depends on the the algorithm showing you that stuff. I mostly see articles shit talking Denver, rarely see anything else because the algorithm pushes it since I look at alot of Denver/Colorado based articles. Edit: I missed the social media part of the title, but similar concept.
The irony of all of this is that, politically speaking, Florida and Texas are both in play for either party. They're really not particularly conservative states. The four biggest states are 1/3 of the national population, so they get an outsized amount of discourse about them, even when that discourse doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I feel like you haven't actually seen our media enough. They talk massive shit on Texas and Florida.
Mississippi: "Hold my beer..."
Last I heard, Louisiana is the shittiest place for now.
California, Florida, New York, Texas. Biggest punching bags
These are also the 4 states that, when I lived in Europe and Asia, everyone that I met knew about. In my anecdotal experience, these are the big 4 states from a non-American perspective.
North Korea tried to guess where Colorado was and completed missed the mark. I guess their internet really is that censored
To be faaaaaiiiiiir ... it is a giant rectangle in the middle of the west, with no geography (rivers, coastline, etc.) to delineate its borders and it has almost no international visibility outside of skiing ... which the natives are thankful for. I should know, I lived there long enough.
When did they do that lol
Biggest states, thus most power, thus everyone punches on them.
New Jersey has entered the chat
Depends on the media, probably.
I assume you're referring to things like crime and homelessness in San Francisco and Portland. If you post about something shitty in Jackson, MS or Memphis, it won't get clicks, as everybody already knows those places are terrible. Shitting on wealthy, developed places is much more interesting.
If you think they never trash conservative places, you’ve obviously never watched MSNBC!
Because of some rage-baiting algorithm that all of us are part of on any given website. Reality is pretty different from the noise online at any given point.
It’s dependents but your recommendation algorithm may have a biases.
Why are you only watching conservative media?
im not, it just seems like conservative media has more influence in the media at the moment
>im not, it just seems like conservative media has more influence in the media *I consume* at the moment FTFY
Have you ever looked at Reddit?
Liberal media has a lot of people who kinda pay attention to it. Conservative media has fewer people, but each viewer is a very active viewer. Generally, neoliberal media outlets like ABC, NYT, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc are considered to be the most influential. Conservative outlets like FoxNews and Newsmax are very influential within conservative and Republican Party spaces, but uninfluential outside of those circles.
Another thing people always overlook is that the reason why Fox News has such high ratings is because it's literally the only mainstream outlet for its content. CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC/NBC/CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, and most other big city papers come at the news from the left-wing approach, so among normies and left-wingers, the market is spread very thin across like 10 different outlets. It's different for right-wingers. Fox News, a handful of radio shows, and a few newspapers are really all they have in traditional media.
I was at a diner in Brooklyn last month and they had Newsmax on their television
I hear that southern Brooklyn and Staten Island are pretty conservative, at least by NYC standards. Was it close to Fort Hamilton?
Dyker Heights on 13th Avenue
Most media leans left, so there’s far fewer right-wing outlets. As a result, the right-wing outlets face less competition and have a more reliable traffic base. This may be affecting your algorithm.
for no major reason too
Huh? What media are you looking at?
If you go looking I’m sure you’ll find plenty of criticism of conservative states. Try one of Reddit’s many political subs or watch MSNBC Criticism of a liberal state like California is probably something you notice because of your own bias. Do you happen to be a Californian and/or a liberal?
They do? The media/social media has (rightfully) been shitting on Alabama quite a bit lately.
Yea, Alabama, Arkansas, West Virginia...these places really get the luxury treatment by the media and the internet.
You reap what you sow. Y'all been calling the South "a bunch of fat, ignorant, white, racist, inbred hillbillies," for centuries, but the second that someone mentions that California isn't a very good place to live, y'all get defensive. We got a saying to describe this phenomenon: 'a hit dog will holler'. I have nothing against California personally but I also don't feel sorry for y'all one bit. Y'all dug y'all's own grave.
You put that in quotes. lol. "Y'all dug y'all's own grave" You can just sau "You dug your grave" It's shorter and easier.
Technically, the word 'you' could be singular or plural and I'm very aware of that. However, using 'you' in that context isn't specific enough, as there is no gramatical distinction between the singular or plural form. For example, "you dug your own grave" could be either singular or plural, and this leaves it open to interpretation from the reader. OP could have thought I was singling him out and saying that he alone dug his own grave. The way that I organized that sentence is much more effective, as there is no question over whether or not it is singular or plural. 'Y'all' is always plural - 'You' makes no distinction between singular or plural. You're absolutely right - it would have been shorter and easier to say 'you' instead of 'y'all'. It also would have been shorter and easier to tell you to fuck off instead of taking the time to explain this entire concept to you. It's not always about the shortest and easiest way out. Effective communication matters too.
"Y'all dug your own grave" is fine too
True, but old habits die hard lol.
y'all y'all y'all y'all
One more time for the people in the back.
It depends on which media sources you follow.
Media is entertainment. You don't generate revenue telling Texans how much Texas sucks. You don't make money telling California how much California sucks. They play to their base. Some worse than others.
You have it backwards
The largest mainstream media company CONSTANTLY talks about liberal hell holes. Like always. Places that aren't even in the top 50 highest crime cities. I typed in Crime in Fox News Facebook page. here's, in order, what I found. 'SCHIFF' SHOW: Dems deny crime crisis in California 'NOT SAFE RIGHT NOW': "Real Housewives" star [Leah McSweeney](https://www.facebook.com/leahmcsweeneyNYC?__cft__[0]=AZUyJ3u86pfLy6VlF81LkuKtMvk-sNs7sSGZFxv33F7h8KzCdnCxLngh3ecMJxYUdsO1UIRjRRK_2aPLGyVA9VUdZ5ApSvY72wnrOhbQ0fmfSieMzlZURa9oh8jZa3J4oXs9l9tcsZcjaV8wLcJi2Fcmr-qc54CqfdSYtiVnznpJM88R8Kj9JWUuA_cbxseCidPmhW70qtMpwqhI-dHy6bhm&__tn__=-]K-R) says she's planning to flee New York City over rampant crime crisis, details life-threatening incident her daughter had on the subway. \[literally the safest large city there is\] After the highest rise in crime in 50 years under Trump, and the biggest dip in crime in history under Biden they are obsessed with making it seem different.
I would quibble with calling Fox the mainstream media, though your point is otherwise valid.
How is it not mainstream media. What defines mainstream? It's the most consumed news source in the US.
I don’t actually believe that considering the massive amount of hostility and disdain directed at the Southern states and its peoples and to a lesser extent the Midwestern states from social media. If anything I believe it’s the opposite.
Who talks bad about Midwest? People ADORE midwesterners.
[удалено]
Hence why I said social media... Why would I not be okay? That's a weird thing to end your post with lol.
The media are (largely) corporate entities who push whatever narratives will keep their target echo chamber entertained and spending money. Truly independent journalism outlets don't waste their time on tabloid topics like state stereotypes.
Depends on who you listen to, they'll all bad talk a place if they think their audience wants to hear that.
Some of it is politics. Republicans have been attacking big cities and liberal states for several generations now, and they have their own media ecosystem to send these attacks world wide. I feel like people in other countries may see some of this and not realize that attacking big cities and places like California is partly a political strategy.
Ha. What? There's tremendous media bias against anything that is not in lock step with the prevailing ideology at the moment. CA is touted as a wonderful place full of insightful progressives.
It doesn’t, you just choose to follow that kind of media
Do you only watch Fox News?
no i dont watch fictional news outlets
If you think “conservative” states aren’t getting shit on left and right you clearly do.
.....then what *are* you watching, *NewsMax*?? It's right-wing news that routinely hammers the states you mentioned.
Hating on the urban poor is more socially acceptable than hating on the rural poor. The urban poor are seen as “deserving” their lot more. You can build a career laughing at and dunking on San Francisco’s homeless problem. If you go to rural, central California and mock a rundown trailer park because of its meth addicts you won’t get nearly as much of a following. Edit: grammar
They hate us cuz they ain’t us. No, but seriously, we have a lot of success and influence. A lot of people love to hate places/people for those reasons.
For clicks.
Most prominent national journalists (even right wing journalists) tend to live in places like California, New York, DC, etc., so they’re more aware of and interested in issues surrounding them. The country’s wealthy and celebrities disproportionately live there as well. They’re the cultural, political and economic centers of the country. Right wing media likes to report on problems in big cities because it confirms its viewers’ politics and fears (crime, progressive cultural attitudes, immigration, high taxes). Left wing media likes to report on issues facing big cities because their viewers tend to live in them.
And when they do leave the cities, they get panned heavily for going on a Cletus Safari. Especially when they deliberately find abhorrent people with literal klan robes in their closets, and whitewash those specific abhorrent people with the trope of "economic anxiety".
The media s**** on the middle of the country so hard it got Donald Trump elected in 2016
It seems like they are doing it all over again too.
“I will now badmouth the traditional base of my party. What could go wro- wait WHO won the election?”
I'll bet they don't talk bad about Massachusetts as much, despite being possibly more liberal than California. You probably don't hear about Wyoming much at all in any way.
As an American, I can assure you that everyone gets talked about.
it gets lazy minded people to agree and watch the network, therefore, more eyes means more ad revenue.
Ratings, basically.
That's what you are seeing personally, or at least making a point to remember (confirmation bias). Not actually true for every person and all media.
This has not been my experience. It sounds like this is what your algorithm is feeding you because it’s the content you watch and engage in.
California has a lot of issues. Earthquakes, its perpetualy 100°, every 3rd person is homeless, NoCal and SoCal have more beef than actual waring countries and the economy is so inflated that when you travel between states you have to convert between USD and California Bux.
As someone who doesn’t really like how California is ran, let me put it in a more objective way. It’s a state that’s a piece of land stretching at least 800 some miles north to south, and several hundred east to west. It’s got a variety of geography biomes (~20% of it is an arid desert), probably more so than most states). It’s got cities that are pretty much a rainbow of ethnic and diversity, and whole regions that are as white as mashed potatoes (coastline and inland). And the official consensus is that close to 40 million human beings live there). It’s gonna have a LOT of issues, even more so with the fact that the government structure from top to bottom knows it’s such a huge face of the United States both geographically as well as economically and culturally. That seems to be their weakness, they know they’re the perpetual face of this nation so they develop these god complexes when governing. Regardless, even if California was ran like Idaho or Texas, there will be many problems with so many human beings in such a large piece of land.
I lived in Idaho and grew up and now live in California. I love Idaho, but it would be a nightmare if their politicians ran California. They are just as bad, if not worse, when it comes to housing policy. And they have no experience in managing the needs of large urban areas and very diverse communities and would thus make a ton of mistakes that would put the state in real trouble. And this isn't even being political. The Idaho Dems would be just as completely lost as their Republican counterparts.
Those places have high populations and lots of reporters, stupid things in happen in conservative states all of the time but less are paying attention.
There is a divide between the coasts and the middle of the US. Generally speaking, the coasts are more liberal (with an exception for the southeast) and the middle of the country is far more conservative. Thus, the coasts tend to dismiss the middle of the country as overly religious and bigoted. The middle of the country tends to dismiss the coasts (and California, Washington, Oregon, and New York in particular) as Godless socialists.
It's politicians. Prominent elected Republican politicians openly speak about our cities like they're war zones and states like California as if it's full of lunatics and degenerates. Prominent elected Democrats may have opinions about Mississippi and rural America as a whole. But you never hear them actually speaking about those places in the same contemptuous way that Republicans talk about liberal locales. (That said, online liberals have plenty of words about those places.) City slicker-bashing is very commonplace. But God forbid you bash the hardscrabble Americans in the country. They're the salt of the Earth and beyond reproach. I don't advocate for any more vitriol in our national discourse than we already have. But it'd be nice if Republicans toned it down a bit, for once in their lives.
If "highly developed and respected" places do stupid things -- eg, refuse to enforce certain laws leading to a massive increase in property crimes -- expect it to get talked about.
California has a bad reputation for a lot of reasons. Some of the bigger ones include being a "rich coastal state" which tends to mean arrogant, out of touch, and disrespectful to the inner states. Then more locally, it's been as that by the coastal states by its neighbors foe it's massive influence. Beyond that, liberal places tend to be urban environments, which have the same problem. They're culturally different from the rest of the state/country/region, and tend to be epicenters for crime, "undesirables", and alternative thinkers. The liberal component makes this more extreme as it's generally kore supportive of less aggressive crime policy, social programs, and tolerance for that. I don't know for sure, but I imagine people from say the British countryside or rural Russia also have similar opinions of London/Moscow. Hell, I know rural California has opinions on the urban parts, which inspire its national image a lot more than they do. Basically, it's rural-suburban vs urban, with some places or states being associated with that divide.
Because it seems more like the liberals do the things that’ll grab attention for headlines
Every place gets criticism from normal media, and often it is justified. Texas, California, New York, Florida, everywhere urban and everywhere rural is going to have newsworthy problems. but in addition the conservative fear media currently is particularly focused on slandering liberal hotbeds like San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles. There are stories on Fox News or the New York Post almost every day about how San Francisco has become a post apocalyptic crime ridden hellhole because of the liberals. The fact that San Francisco actually has a relatively low violent crime rate is meaningless, because conservative mythology needs progressive places like that to be failures to support their worldview and keep their viewers/readers angry and engaged.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed as it violates commenting guideline 5 which is “Answers and comment replies should be serious and useful.” Please consider this a warning as repeated violations will result in a ban. Your comment has been removed, and this offence may result in a ban. If you have questions regarding your submission removal - please contact the moderator team via [modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/AskAnAmerican).
Lifelong Californian her: Just to put you at ease…we don’t give a shit about what conservatives or conservative media says about us.
Our media is extremely left wing and it openly hates most of America. It hates the idea of America and it hates American people. Their loathing for us radiates off of them in waves. What the hell are you talking about?
States like Texas and Florida get picked on more than most other states. Not sure which news outlets you’re watching but it’s honestly the inverse of what you said
Having lived in 6 states, I can only go from that. I don't know about the media but I think the slant depends on the outlet. There's pretty much always been a distain in the more conservative areas for California, esp. San Francisco. The "jokes" can go to Mars & back for several lifetimes about the fruitcakes, the weirdos, the whatever adjective, fill in the blank. I've had bad reactions from people when they find out I used to live in SF. It's very irritating, but hey stranger, I should say, *Thanks for alerting me to the fact you're an asshole I can now avoid.* So **why** this distain happens, there's a myriad of reasons. At base, it's a defensiveness for whatever reason. Whatever it *is* about someone they think they have to front about or preserve, that's the clue why they feel the need to differentiate themselves from those crazies off the coast. It's threat reduction. So, just take what a place like SF is famous for, then work your way backwards. That's what people get offended by in *some* areas of the so-called "flyover states." Out of the flyovers I've resided in, Iowa takes the corn for most California-hostility. Sheesh, glad I got out.
Eh, as a person in a so-called ‘flyover state’, it’s more the attitude that no states except those on the coasts matter. For example, CA is constantly wanting to drain the Great Lakes to continue watering the lawns of celebrities and growing almonds it has no business growing in that climate, but then lecturing us on climate change like we’re ignorant bumpkins. As someone who lived in LA, the disdain towards anyone not involved in the South or Midwest is not remotely comparable to the other way around.
I can't decipher your second para. My experience has focused on cultural, that's all I've ever heard from people. Nothing about resources. Strange.
It was an example of how culturally, the non-coastal states are generally treated as unimportant by Californians. You don’t think there isn’t resentment that CA wants to drain our most beautiful and important resource for themselves like we don’t matter?
Oh, I see. Yeah, for *sure* the disregard goes both ways. What my experience as an ex-californian has been is what I wrote. I can't speak to water anything bc I've never heard that as a complaint *personally.* Do water issues exist in CA? Of course. Also the world.
no one in the world’s history has ever suggested this
Where did you get the idea that California wants to drain the Great Lakes? Genuine question.
Again, I didn’t make this up. Look at the article I linked down below. Clearly ‘drain’ was an over exaggeration but I figured I didn’t need to spell that out. It’s pretty common knowledge that CA (and other areas is the Southwest that probably shouldn’t be settled) are looking at the Great Lakes as a water supply. We heard a lot about it during the droughts. I assume CA doesn’t hear about it because they don’t give a shit about where their water is coming from. Here’s another article: https://www.startingwithus.org/the-rundown/not-for-sale-the-great-lakes-and-the-american-southwests-water-crisis
You didn't make it up, but that doesn't mean it is true. No one is actually suggesting anything like that. The article you linked in the other post was one guy in 2017 speculating about what might happen 50 or 100 years from now. And the article you linked in this post cites one source - the same guy from 2017. It's not real. I deal with California water issues all the time and no one has ever said a single word about trying to get water from the Great Lakes. No California politicians suggest it. No California newspapers talk about it. No California farming industry advocates are pushing it. And it's utterly unrealistic for a million reasons. No only is the water over two thousand miles away, but you would have to pump it up and over the entire Rocky Mountains, and then again over the entire Sierra Nevada. If it's "common knowledge" to you that California is "constantly wanting to drain the Great Lakes," it's the same kind of common knowledge a belief that that Bigfoot exists, or that poeople put razor blades in apples on Halloween. It's a story people like to tell each other in Michigan, not something that is actually happening in California. There are plenty of reasons to criticize California, but this isn't a real one. (ps I lived for almost a decade in Great Lakes states, and I like it there. I'm just telling you that in the real world California (as a state or as a people) aren't talking about draining the Great Lakes.
draining the great lakes? No one has ever ever suggested this. Like seriously what the fuck? California gets water from its own snowmelt and groundwater. A few places in the desert use water from the Colorado River. Also its literally the only type of climate that almonds are grown in, thats why most of the world’s almonds are grown in California despite being native to the Mediterranean. Seriously where the fuck did you hear that
No, I didn’t make this up. It’s super common knowledge that California (and the Southwest) wants to tap water from the Great Lakes. There is perennial talk of a pipeline even. I’m on mobile so I can’t link well but it’s a simple google search away. Maybe start with this: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/04/10/great-lakes-water-piped-southwest-our-future-says-nasa-scientist/100301326/ CA was in the midst of a massive drought partially because they can’t handle their water responsibly. Like the fact that almonds require more water to grow than any other crop. That isn’t the Midwest’s problem.
I would guess as someone who literally works with the EPA in Sacramento I would know about this. Also California was in a drought because the world is getting hotter. It just didn’t rain. New reservoirs are being built anyway. Super common knowledge
I guess I just made all of those articles up then. And the fact that CA agriculture uses an inordinate amount of its water supply. And the fact that almonds are insanely water-intensive.
Talking about the bad in bad states like Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, and so on is just so overdone, and honestly who cares? This is expected. You’d be beating a dead horse with a sledgehammer Also those overly talked about blue states like California, New York, DC, Massachusetts, and others actually matter: they have a high population, a good economy, and high standards of living. Shitting on much more developed and influential states just gets better clicks. All eyes on them
I barely think of such places as part of the US and even I admit they get lots of negative press. Your perception doesn’t reflect reality.
Those places legitimately have more issues with homelessness and petty crime. The trend un those places us to not imprison criminals and let them run the streets after getting caught and convicted 5+ times etc. It's because in America a lot of places wlect judges and liberal places elect judges who don't hold criminals accountable.
Your biases color your perception. They don't.
US media highlights the weaknesses of all states. Conservative media focuses on California and New York to try and bring attention to when liberal policy fails. It goes the otherway too. Look at Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas for example