Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Da Boss wrote:It absolutely boggles my mind that Fox is as successful as it is. It makes me think ungenerous thoughts about the viewing public in the US.

To be fair, my experience tells me that a lot of the viewership is constituted by liberals looking to be angered, and conservatives looking for catharsis. I've only met a couple people that legitimately get taken in by the nonsense, and they weren't the sort that I credited with an abundance of mental fortitude.

Mr. Rogers aired during the childhood of a certain generation of Americans, therefore he is completely and totally responsible for their faults. A shining example of Fox News' logic.

dogma wrote:

Da Boss wrote:It absolutely boggles my mind that Fox is as successful as it is. It makes me think ungenerous thoughts about the viewing public in the US.

To be fair, my experience tells me that a lot of the viewership is constituted by liberals looking to be angered, and conservatives looking for catharsis. I've only met a couple people that legitimately get taken in by the nonsense, and they weren't the sort that I credited with an abundance of mental fortitude.

That's good to know. I'm still confused as to why people would watch a news channel they know is rubbish, but I'm probably abnormal since I don't watch any television at all (barring shows I buy on DVD and Dr Who that I stream through BBC Iplayer).

Fitzz: Recently, my sister's kid started acting out in school, and I was really proud of how she dealt with it. I would have thought she'd be the sort that gets defensive, but she took it constructively and set about fixing the problem. I know that most of her friends would have blamed the teacher or dismissed it as "not a big deal". My Da was always hard on me growing up, and at times that meant I intensely disliked him, but in the end it was better for me. Some of the kids I teach, you can really see they're not getting those boundaries laid down for them- it's almost a form of neglect. But it could be several generations of that attitude, so do you blame the parents of the parents?
Heh. I just wish it was acceptable for me to give them a bollocking when their kid is cheeky to me.

@ Da Boss.

A big thumbs up to your sister.

I also get what you mean concerning your Father,my Grandmother (who raised me) was an "old school" disciplinarian,who would kick my butt at the drop of a hat,but,she would also take the time to explain to me the consequences of my actions,what was expected from me as well as encourage my endeavors (well most of them).

I do honestly feel for kids who don't seem to have anyone to really guide them,or parents who just won't,and unfortunately,it seems to be a growing problem.

Many times when I'm out with my son,we'll see a group of kids that are absolutely on a rampage,often their parents are no where to be found,or worse,they're socializing,on a cell phone,just not giving a gak...my son will ask me if anyone is going to tell the children what they are doing is wrong...most of the time I have to tell him no.

That is strange, as a kid, isn't it. When we asked why other kids didn't have such strict rules, my mam would say "Their name isn't Kennedy!"
Heh. No wonder we never integrated properly with the rest of the village.
Bloody right too, that place was ass backwards.

Da Boss wrote:That is strange, as a kid, isn't it. When we asked why other kids didn't have such strict rules, my mam would say "Their name isn't Kennedy!"
Heh. No wonder we never integrated properly with the rest of the village.
Bloody right too, that place was ass backwards.

Yes,I basically tell my kids the same sort of thing, when they ask me" why so and so can do such and such but they can't?",my answer is " Because they are not my kids."

I do however attempt to couple discipline with understanding (not always easy),and I also let my kids know they can always come to me about anything (and I mean anything),hopefully,when the eventual "rebelion" comes about,It won't be to bad.

Guitardian wrote:

dogma wrote:A 30-something Fox reporter claimed that he is a part of a hard working generation? Wow.

Hey I'm a thirty something too and you better believe I'm hard working... I have to work just to GET work, like many in my generation. I have to pay the baby boomers rent and medicare and ssi checks while they play golf... I have to pay my landlord who just owns stuff for a living, who is part of the previous generation and owns 4 properties because they were cheap enough to buy back in his time. The 90s were hard on me I wasn't spoiled at all I had to work through college, work for donkey-cave bosses since I was 16. Don't call us lazy just because we're Gen Xers raised on Mr. Rogers.

regarding the daily show vs/ally Colbert thing... I believe you are correct sir.

sorry for the rant but we 30 somethings were the LAST generation who didn't just have everything handed to us from computers to cellphones to video games to straight A's.

Bah, at least you could find jobs, I've spent my entire working life living in a recession (my home state, Michigan, was bad long before the rest of the nation).

I wouldn't exactly call Fox N Friends a news show. It's like GMA or the View, they have guests and riff about whats happening. It's not objective journalism, trying to lambast an entire channel as such is lazy itself. That would be me saying that Keith Olbermann is the only journalistic show on MSNBC (when his show is blatantly an opinion show)

I can see thew angle the hosts were making though, the generation I'm (regrettably) a part of is spoiled, self centered, lazy, complacent and has a total lack of initiative. The kids shows lie about how everyone is tolerant of everything, you'll be accepted for being different. I would rather a show like that be completely honest with me than lie about how everything is okay.

Kids in little league sports are taught that losing is OKAY. Losing isn't necessarily a bad thing, thinking that mediocrity is okay is not. Every kid shouldn't get a trophy for participating.

I can't remember the source, but a little league in the Northeast somewhere made it a rule that if a team wins a Baseball game by 10 runs they actually lose the game to save the other kids feelings.

"The greatest drug is reality" Most of my Fellow "gimme generation" won't know what reality is until they get pounded upside the head by it and they have a nervous breakdown resultant from such.

Mediocrity is acceptable by definition.

dogma wrote:Mediocrity is acceptable by definition.

I tend to judge things down to the Individual level. I can't stand mediocrity. I want to be the best at everything, I might keep failing but I wont stop.

If

But if you aren't the best at something, and cannot become better, then will you allow the fact that you're mediocre destroy your psyche?

No, dogma... If you aren't good at something, do something you are good at doing, and feel happy that you too can contribute. Everybody is good at something.... at the risk of sounding like Ayn Rand, If you can make a damn good burger... then the world is a better place when you make people burgers. If you can build a huge damn or design a suspension bridge then you should do that too. I'll make the burgers for your lunch break.

Mediocre, essentially, means average. Average things can be good as well. For example, there is a saying "There is no bad pizza."

dogma wrote:Mediocre, essentially, means average. Average things can be good as well. For example, there is a saying "There is no bad pizza."

But would you like to have mediocre pizza when you could always rely on above average pizza?

But terrorists can't be picky about their enriched uranium.

Someone has to keep Dominos around.

dogma wrote:But if you aren't the best at something, and cannot become better, then will you allow the fact that you're mediocre destroy your psyche?

Nope, just not part of my DNA. I still strive to the best at everything I involve myself in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Someone has to keep Dominos around.

LOL, those terrorists and their bland pizza.

The new dominos is pretty fething good. Just saying.

I don't think Fred Rogers really promoted mediocrity though. Where did that come from?

I prefer the Papa myself. Hungry Howie's was good too, but they closed the majority of them around here. I also fondly remember Little Caesar's.

Monster Rain wrote:The new dominos is pretty fething good. Just saying.?

It's better than the cardboard they used to sell

If you can make a damn good burger... then the world is a better place when you make people burgers.

Good burgers make me a happy Hat

Unfortunately the lowly burger flipper never gets proper appreciation. I'd know. I flipped burgers for my first job at 16. 120 degree North Carolina weather, no air conditioning, standing in front of the grill, and I got no respect for trying to keep the place neat and tidy

I just read his bio on wikipedia. I always thought the gak about him being a sniper in Korea was true. Anyway, he sounds like a Rosicrucian or something when you read about his lifestyle.

As for "the news", Fox or otherwise, do people still watch it and believe it? I gave up after OJ.

I get my news from flipping between channels. When its a press conference or a breaking catastrophy I stay. The moment it becomes a democrats versus republicans spat or some story about a little old lady who found her lost dog its time to flip, or who bradgelina adopted or who lady gaga sold the rights to or whatever, what actualy killed michael jackson... time to flip. If none of them have real news I'll turn to Jon Stewart for the real news. Pathetic of me and comical I suppose, but a hell of a lot more respectable than the gak we usually get shoveled.

Stormrider wrote:I wouldn't exactly call Fox N Friends a news show. It's like GMA or the View, they have guests and riff about whats happening. It's not objective journalism, trying to lambast an entire channel as such is lazy itself. That would be me saying that Keith Olbermann is the only journalistic show on MSNBC (when his show is blatantly an opinion show)

I think it would be entirely reasonable to say that both FOX and MSNBC produce little useful news content.

Kids in little league sports are taught that losing is OKAY. Losing isn't necessarily a bad thing, thinking that mediocrity is okay is not. Every kid shouldn't get a trophy for participating.

When a kid is 9 or 10 a few extra months development can make a huge difference in how good they are at a sport. While that development difference fades over time the encouragement and confidence they gained doesn't - as a result kids born in the first two or three months of a sport's age bracket are vastly over-represented at the elite level.

When a kid is 10 getting out and playing really is enough. Once you get into u-13s or thereabout you should start recognising performance, but before then it's not needed.

"The greatest drug is reality" Most of my Fellow "gimme generation" won't know what reality is until they get pounded upside the head by it and they have a nervous breakdown resultant from such.

Yeah, this is a thread on board for nerds to talk about miniatures, complaining about how kids these days can't handle reality.

"What continues in me is the knowledge that each one of us can be used in perfectly wonderful ways and it doesn't necessarily have to do with what the world would call great talents."

Mr. Rogers said this in his Archive of American Television interview but it would fit perfectly into Paul's letters or Augustine's Confessions. He had been asked whether his family was very religious and, in the course of answering that question affirmatively, he mentioned his friendship with Henri Nouwen and Fr. Nouwen's work with the disabled as a member of L'Arche. Mr. Rogers, who swam every morning, proceeded to tell a story about a disabled man named Jeff who worked at his local pool. At the time of the interview, John F. Kennedy, Jr., had recently died and Jeff was very invested in the news coverage. Mr. Rogers asked him why. "He said 'Well, I grew up with them. I was nine years old when his daddy died.' So I said to him 'How old were you when your dad died?' 'Eleven.' So, I think that what I want to say about all of that is that television is an exceedingly personal medium. It reflects the story back to us . . . whatever we happen to be watching, we bring our own story to the screen. And so consequently, it's like a dialog." Against the backdrop of breakneck technological development and all the ethical and moral questions such development raises, Mr. Rogers's work reaffirms the importance of compassion, humility, and solidarity--especially as facets of human communication. It is hardly a surprise that Mr. Rogers and Fr. Nouwen were great friends.

In reference to the effect of his work, specifically with regard to communications from viewers, Mr. Rogers said "that's not anything you can do yourself." Mr. Rogers told the interviewer of an e-mail he had recently received. It was from a lady who had very nearly committed suicide while driving fourteen years earlier. She was so depressed at the time that she did not even remember that her sixteen-month-old child was in the backseat. Just as she was about to swerve into an oncoming truck, she heard her child's tiny voice begin to sing 'it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood . . ." She was writing to thank Mr. Rogers. Hearing her child sing that song made her not only reconsider but also get the psychological help she needed. "The Holy Spririt informs and sends out our simple messages," Mr. Rogers told the interviewer.

I am pretty flabbergasted they would go to such lows as to blame Fred Rogers of all people for the sense of self entitlement americans are known for.

Meh, it's really just a sensationalist spin on a study that was released. They're trying to throw something in to add interest to their story. As you can see, they're laughing at the idea that he's an "evil genius," so basically they're trying to get people stirred up, but they're not comfortable enough with the riff to really stand behind it.

This is a chat show, not a reporting show. I mean, did you get upset when Rosie O'Donnell spewed idiocy about 9-11 on The View?

I am a believer in behavioral psych and all things Skinner, and placing the blame on him is simply facile.

And, again, I think they know that at Fox news. They're just trying to be silly/controversial.

They're also talking about a real study that was done, that made the claim he was responsible. I think it's laughable, but the study was done.

However, I do agree that there is a large amount of damage to the american psyche. The self entitlement rampant in america celebrating mediocrity is astounding, even today.

I agree. I also think the foundation for this was laid during the time that Mr. Rogers was on TV. That's not to say he's to blame, just that it was happening at that point in time. I think he's really just a manifestation of that time, not the cause of it. The US was going through an indocrination of self entitlement, and he's just what it looks like when a kind, friendly man has a TV show during such a moment in history.

This is not really a problem, we just have to correct it as we go along. Things like this tend to pendulum, because a culture the size of the US is large, and has a lot of inertia. People look at the nation, they say "people need better self-image" so they start pushing that direction, with no real idea how much impact they're having. Once it gets going, it tends to keep going. Then you end up with the ridiculous narcissim of today. It'll correct back, eventually.

In any case, as always, I feel my role in Fox News Bashing threads is to point out that, while it sucks, that's how news is done today. Fox News is no better or worse than MSNBC. It's just the conservative version of "idiot TV news."

Perhaps if the liberals running all the major media outlets allowed conservatives to have more than one channel, they could have one that DIDN'T cater to the lowest common denominator.

You make some good points Phryxis but I think what is most interesting about this is that Mr. Rogers promoted traditional values. In fact, for the millions of conservative Christians that watch Fox News, those values are easily recognizable as being from the Gospel. If Fox News really is a litmus test for American conservatism then this report shows that it suffers from a deep contradiction. But I suppose that's not news, either.

Phryxis wrote:This is a chat show, not a reporting show. I mean, did you get upset when Rosie O'Donnell spewed idiocy about 9-11 on The View?

Yes. Do you think we shouldn't?

"It's a chat show" does not grant an exemption from thought and reason.

Fox News is no better or worse than MSNBC. It's just the conservative version of "idiot TV news."

MSNBC and FOX News are both crap. In many ways CNN is worse than both of them. It's not an excuse for any of them that their competition are as bad as they are.

The issue with FOX News is beyond it's quality, though, and beyond simply being rightwing. The problem is that they have deliberately attached themselves to a main political party, and their bias doesn't come from holding political beliefs, it comes from wanting to show one party in the best light possible, and the other party in the worst light possible. That's a very different thing.

Just to put this into better context, this whole "they don't keep score in t-ball, out of control self-esteem" thing is a pet issue for conservatives. They think it's an angle they've really "got" on liberals, much in the same way liberals think they've "got" racism on conservatives (for example).

What's funny about it, is that most liberals hate the "self-esteem movement" just as much as conservatives do, and most conservatives hate racism just as much as liberals.

What's yet MORE funny about it, is that because liberals control the media so completely, it ends up being a one sided conversation. If you ask any conservative who started the "self esteem movement" they'll say it was the liberals. Many liberals have no idea it's being blamed on them.

My mother is a high school teacher and a pretty huge liberal. She's always lamenting how soft and coddled kids are. When I told her it was liberal ideology that caused it, she considered the idea completely alien and bizzare. To her, it was "overly controlling parents."

So, basically my point is that this whole "self-esteem movement" thing makes a lot more sense to a conservative audience, because they actually hear about it. Liberals never have to hear what conservatives think. Conservatives are constantly made to hear liberal ideas.

As a result, a self professed liberal like Hellfury doesn't have context on this, like most Fox viewers do. They realize it's one of their old saws, with a Mr. Rogers spin. They're focused on the old saw being played, the Mr. Rogers backup music is just for color. But to somebody who's never heard the saw played before, the Mr. Rogers part is most familliar, and seems like it's the focus.

But, I feel compelled to repeat: American liberals have NO idea what it's like to be an American conservative, and how constantly you're forced to hear ideology that you find offensive.

Imagine if every movie you saw, and about 6 out of 7 TV news channels you might watch, were all run by Fox news.

That's what it's like.

Do you really think that most people so completely define themselves as one way or the other? I know that for myself, I can't stand to hear about the "self esteem leads to entitlement and the welfare state" argument but I also hate hearing about how private ownership of firearms increases violent crime. Maybe I'm just projecting but I think most people are pretty mixed on the spectrum by issue. Channels like Fox News and MSNBC are not really for delivering news so much as being political organizations like any other, dedicated to mobilizing people to be all right or all left.

Hence why even Mr Rogers is ideologically suspect according to Fox News.

Yes. Do you think we shouldn't?

Well, nobody seemed to especially notice, so I assumed that nobody cared.

I think we should care about as much as we ever would about a person who has abused their privileged soapbox with ideas that kill puppies through their sheer stupid ignorance.

So, basically, we shouldn't worry about what fat, stupid morons like Rosie O'Donnell say, because they're beneath notice. But, if we're going to pass judgement on these sorts of things, then I judge that she should be shot at dawn, but preferrably with a suitably powerful round as is required to humanely kill a creature of her ponderous bulk.

The problem is that they have deliberately attached themselves to a main political party

It's my perception that this is exactly what MSNBC has done with the Democrats.

If it's not as obvious, I'd argue that that is because there's such a pervasive liberal bias in the mainstream media, that Fox sticks out like a sore thumb, while MSNBC blends in a bit more.

Phryxis wrote:But, I feel compelled to repeat: American liberals have NO idea what it's like to be an American conservative, and how constantly you're forced to hear ideology that you find offensive.

This sounds a lot like "identity politics." (Sorry, couldn't resist.)