|The masthead at the Blendle online site|
Blendle not quite an aggregating site. It's a place where you can read one or two articles and just pay for them one at at time, like 25 or 50 cents per. I'd thought of this business model myself, a way long time ago, and thought it a great business potential. Others thought so too, and created Blendle. How many folks would be happy to pay a quarter or up to a buck to read a single article, but don't want the hassle of a monthly sub to the paper? Many, I'd bet. And here's Blendle to do it for you. (My twist on it, which I think is better is: pay for each article by mobile phone number, each of which is unique and has the capacity for small individual payments. But that's another thing...).
Well, above is the masthead of Blendle, proclaiming that "Blendle is the biggest platform of premium journalism in the country."
But it's clear that to Blendle "premium" means Left of centre. Every single one of those sources of "premium journalism" is Left to Far Left of centre. There's not a single respectable conservative voice there amongst those fourteen: not a Nation Review, not a New York Post, not even a Wall Street Journal. How can this be the "biggest platform"? And if it is, shame on us.
In all democracies in the world, the electorates are divided pretty much 50/50. One Divides into Two.
So, by taking only the Left as "premium journalism", Blendle are ignoring the thoughts, values and ideals of at around half the human population. Are they all "deplorables"? (Sadly, many Democrats, including ones I admire, really seem to think so).
Thing is: polls tell us this skewed media access is common: The Left reads and watches almost exclusively media on the Left. The Right reads and watches mostly on the Right, but also watches and reads media on the Left. Conservatives watch about six times more liberal media than liberal watch conservative media. Look at this Gallup poll:
|From "Bubbles and Vortexes"|
Partly, I guess, that's because they have to, since Left media is so dominant. But partly too it's surely down to a curiosity about what drives that much maligned "other", their political opponents. Whereas liberals see conservatives as “racist or bigoted or sexist" twice as much as the other way around, and we have the Editor of the New York Times, Dean Baquet, admitting, in an unguarded moment "the Left as a rule doesn't want to hear thoughtful disagreement".*
That's not the case on the Right. I know many conservative podcasters who would love to have Democrats on their shows, but find no takers. Podcasts and cable TV on the Left never ask conservative guests on their shows (a few notable exceptions: like Bill Maher having Ben Shapiro on). When conservatives are asked to appear on liberal media, they always do. When liberals are asked to appear on conservative shows, they never do.
So, how, Joe, are we supposed to "come together" and "unify", if the Left won't even engage? (I'm thinking here of old Joe's speech last night to Congress).
******************************“The Left as a rule doesn’t want to hear thoughtful disagreement,” [NYT Editor Dean Baquet] pointed out." [here]
~~ May 30, 2017. (Things have only got worse since]