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.

If fox news announced a poll of the issue in their programming while using the term ground zero mosque then of course their going to agree with them. their poll is completely invalid

Fox only reports that Mr. Rodgers and self-esteem are to blame for the excesses of modernity because they don't want to look at the real culprits. No one in the mainstream media does, because they are part of the problem.

It's not self-esteem that is the problem -- the "personal worth = net worth" type of thinking, that equates goodness with crass materialism and celebrity with prestige, that's the problem.

The problem is not that Paris Hilton thinks she's the most awesome person ever, it's that TV producers lionize her vapid emptiness and present her as a success, while at the same time mocking and trivializing people who have dedicated themselves to quiet lives in service to others.

Self-esteem is not arrogance, it is not vanity, it is not self-delusion and ego run amok, it is simply compassion and acceptance of one's self as one truly is. And without that love for one's self, one can never love others. Without accepting one's self, one can never accept others for who they are, without jealousy and without judgment.

But that's not what Fox is selling. They want you to be jealous, judgmental, angry and afraid. They want you to envy and admire the rich and famous, and to hate and fear the downtrodden and oppressed. And most of all, they want you to believe that black is white, up is down, compassion is hate, selfishness is love, and most of all that evil is good.

They are the mouth of Big Brother, and everything that comes from them is doublespeak.

These are both base, factual statements and yet many people will interpret this as either a clearly liberal, or conservative headline.

Yeah, sorry, this was more of an editing issue. I was basically trying to quickly skim each headline/article, and reduce it down to the ones that were taking some sort of a stance. I felt that was fair, since it seemed to me that it was basically 10 or so headlines, 2 anti-mosque, 6 pro, and then 2 that were informational. I felt that the overall impact of that was "generally pro mosque and then Fox."

That's why I sorta suggested that anyone care do the google search themselves.

That said, I don't see why you'd extend such credit to the mainstream media as you seem to want to. After all, this is a search where basically 80% of the hits were venom spitting polemics, and not the sort of objective reporting that you want to credit the media with producing.

I agree, they should simply objectively report the facts, and while opinion has it's place, it should be closer to the 20% side, preferrably even less.

Van Jones isn't a radical in the environmentalist movement.

Right, but that's precisely the problem. It's the whole "yer doing a great job, Brownie" thing. I'm not saying that Van Jones was/is an environmentalist lunatic. It's precisely the opposite, he's really got minimal environmental credentials, so you know he was brought around just to be brought around. So, the claim is that he's a "refrormed" Marxist. Just like Bush was kicking down jobs to his old boys network, so was Obama. What's disturbing to me, is that Obama's old boys network is Marxist radicals who have essentially admitted that they realized that real change can only be effected from within, which one presumes means that they're still Marxist radicals, but they learned to wear a suit and pose for headshots.

I don't like old boy nepotism, but I certainly don't like it when you're old boy nepotistic with people that hate America as it's currently constituted.

As far as Keroack goes, I'm really no expert, but I got the impression he's just an abstinence, traditional values sort of guy, which is certainly not mainstream, but it's also not at all uncommon. There are a LOT of people who have a similar outlook. Hell, I'm married to one of them. By comparison, a legitimate Marxist is a real fringe lunatic in this country, and unless I've been presented with total falsehoods on Van Jones, then the dude is a Marxist. He's the equivalent of, say, a David Duke type figure being given a role in government, because he claims to have grown up and seen the light.

In fact, Van Jones is exactly what a Marxist David Duke would look like.

I can't claim to see into the dude's soul, maybe he's changed his outlook. But the history is there, in his own words. David Duke was a white supremacist who saw that dressing like a slow and yelling wasn't the game, and that looking classy and playing by the rules was. Now, maybe that's not Van Jones, maybe he really has matured, but a Marxist David Duke would look exactly like Van Jones.

You better believe there'd be a colossal freakout if David Duke got a czar position, even if he claimed to have "changed."

And yet, Robert Byrd, who WAS a Klansman, who DID recruit for the Klan, gets an apologetic at his funeral delivered by none other than Bill Clinton. How does that sort of thing go on, without willing complicity from the mainstream media?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

their poll is completely invalid

It's not "their poll." It's a poll by Opinion Dynamics Corp, which seems to be a popular source for Fox, but I'm not sure what their reputation as a polling agency is. Regardless, they're going to publish their methodology, and the content of the survey.

Plus, HONESTLY, do you think it's so unlikely that Americans would object to a mosque being build near the WTC site? It's a pretty standard response from a country of fairly nationalistic, Christian oriented people.

I find myself spending a great deal of time defending Islam to people in my day to day life. It's not like any sizeable portion of Americans have taken the time to understand or sympathize with it at all.

Phryxis wrote:
That said, I don't see why you'd extend such credit to the mainstream media as you seem to want to. After all, this is a search where basically 80% of the hits were venom spitting polemics, and not the sort of objective reporting that you want to credit the media with producing.

Why wouldn't I credit them with producing objective work when they produce objective work? Failing to do so seems like it would reinforce the perception that the public wants to see bias in their reporting, or at least reinforce the notion that anything that comes from a mainstream agency can be immediately discarded.

Phryxis wrote:
I agree, they should simply objectively report the facts, and while opinion has it's place, it should be closer to the 20% side, preferrably even less.

Honestly, given the brevity of articles that are purely factual, I think that a lot of the problems with modern journalism could be dealt with through simple editorial changes. Something like the return of the old, old school cable section.

Phryxis wrote:
What's disturbing to me, is that Obama's old boys network is Marxist radicals who have essentially admitted that they realized that real change can only be effected from within, which one presumes means that they're still Marxist radicals, but they learned to wear a suit and pose for headshots.

Maybe I'm just sympathetic given that I have many friends ranging from Marxist radicals to jingoistic Neoconservatives, but the only thing that bothers me regarding Jones' appointment is the nepotism involved. Had he been made, say, Secretary of Labor, the Marxist history would bother me a lot.

Phryxis wrote:
And yet, Robert Byrd, who WAS a Klansman, who DID recruit for the Klan, gets an apologetic at his funeral delivered by none other than Bill Clinton. How does that sort of thing go on, without willing complicity from the mainstream media?

I don't even think Fox reported on that, though that may be the result of Byrd's opposition to Obama, same-sex marriage, and abortion.

Phryxis wrote:
I find myself spending a great deal of time defending Islam to people in my day to day life. It's not like any sizeable portion of Americans have taken the time to understand or sympathize with it at all.

Yeah, no doubt. I was actually surprised that the numbers have come back so low regarding national opposition.

Phryxis wrote:
I find myself spending a great deal of time defending Islam to people in my day to day life. It's not like any sizeable portion of Americans have taken the time to understand or sympathize with it at all.

Phyrixis, i dont think of myself as ignorant or uninformed, i have been taught about Islam at work, taught about its culture, flicked through a Koran, and im not an activist or a reactionary, i wouldnt attend a march or go knocking on doors, but seriously, i think i DO understand it, and thats the REASON i dont sympathise with it?

I mean, i sympathise with people in that i think they get their religious views forced upon them as children in almost every case where somebody is extremely devout (that or personal tragedy, but its usually the former) so im not saying i loathe Muslims or anything, but i have scorn for all the very devout religious people, because they never seem to be satisfied with leaving everybody alone, indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others? Religions must propagate effectively or die out right?

So, i think i understand all of the big three monothestic dogmas, and its that understanding that makes me fearful of them, Muslims (devout ones) really do want me to be a Muslim, they really do want me to stop drinking beer (tasty.. tasty beer) Muslims in the UK really are pushing to get halal meat served in schools (and succeeding in some) etc etc

People that adhere too strictly to their ancient texts really are a threat to my way of life. They are never satisfied with just them being strict Muslims or Orthodox Jews or Devout Catholics or whatever, they want me to do what they tell me to do, and live my life how their manuscripts dictate, and as a free man who makes his own decisions and thinks that their texts are merely questionably translated fables, i just think "why should i listen to you?"

Im not trying to be a dick, im just giving you my thought process and telling you why i dont "respect" Religious groups, and its because i dont think they afford me any.

What about this is wrong? Im sure some of it is, and id appreciate you telling me. If you do a good job i promise ill start eating hummus.

mattyrm wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
I find myself spending a great deal of time defending Islam to people in my day to day life. It's not like any sizeable portion of Americans have taken the time to understand or sympathize with it at all.

Phyrixis, i dont think of myself as ignorant or uninformed, i have been taught about Islam at work, taught about its culture, flicked through a Koran, and im not an activist or a reactionary, i wouldnt attend a march or go knocking on doors, but seriously, i think i DO understand it, and thats the REASON i dont sympathise with it?

I mean, i sympathise with people in that i think they get their religious views forced upon them as children in almost every case where somebody is extremely devout (that or personal tragedy, but its usually the former) so im not saying i loathe Muslims or anything, but i have scorn for all the very devout religious people, because they never seem to be satisfied with leaving everybody alone, indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others? Religions must propagate effectively or die out right?

So, i think i understand all of the big three monothestic dogmas, and its that understanding that makes me fearful of them, Muslims (devout ones) really do want me to be a Muslim, they really do want me to stop drinking beer (tasty.. tasty beer) Muslims in the UK really are pushing to get halal meat served in schools (and succeeding in some) etc etc

People that adhere too strictly to their ancient texts really are a threat to my way of life. They are never satisfied with just them being strict Muslims or Orthodox Jews or Devout Catholics or whatever, they want me to do what they tell me to do, and live my life how their manuscripts dictate, and as a free man who makes his own decisions and thinks that their texts are merely questionably translated fables, i just think "why should i listen to you?"

Im not trying to be a dick, im just giving you my thought process and telling you why i dont "respect" Religious groups, and its because i dont think they afford me any.

What about this is wrong? Im sure some of it is, and id appreciate you telling me. If you do a good job i promise ill start eating hummus.

We have the exact same view of religion. Want to be devout? Fine, just keep it to yourself.

Part of being devout in some denominations is 'witnessing' to others, converting the heathens (jahovas witnesses and momon and "modern christian" youth groups come to mind. Other groups also shovel it on you passive-aggressively by not giving you the time of day if you aren't one of them.

mattyrm wrote:...indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others?

Judaism doesn't.

Hah, got in before me there.

Still, good to see your view expressed so clearly and free of vitriol, Matty. I sort of agree with you, but it doesn't irritate me as much as it irritates you, it seems.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:...indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others?

Judaism doesn't.

No actually the orthodox Hassids in New York believes that they are God's chosen people. Sorry you're not invited everyone else. Try taking a walk through Flatbush and see how many of them will even speak to you if you aren't dressed like them and have cute little ringlets for sideburns, unless it is to ask you why you are in their neighborhoods, or if you are working for them. I seen it. They don't try to convert people at all, they just try to avoid them and stick to their own. I don't know which is nastier; The arrogance of flounting whatever belief you have on others, or the segregationist thinking of "us" versus "everybody not us". They are both pretty obnoxious in my slightly humble opinion. When they accept the fact that I am the High Priest Ambassador to Earth from the planet Zoltar, I will accept their wierd stories and happily take a pamphlet and listen to some ideas.

People that adhere too strictly to their ancient texts really are a threat to my way of life.

I certainly agree, but I don't think this is about Islam, so much as authoritarians.

The issue we face is that Islam is prevalent in areas of cultural backwardness. This is not because of Islam, and Islam is not because of it. There were times in history when the most powerful and progressive states were Islamic. Now just doesn't happen to be one of those times.

If I understand your history, you went and fought the Taliban in Afghanistan. It would certainly be difficult not to view Islam in a disfavorable light, given that experience. But, then again, there are Christian nations in Africa where you could just as easily find that sort of horribleness, if not worse. It's not about Islam, it's about poverty, authoritarian/dictatorial governments, and generally crap cultures.

So, when it comes to a mosque in NYC, you're basically talking about American Muslims, and while, technically they're Muslims, I think you'll find the really operative descriptor there is "American." An American Muslim is VASTLY more like an American of any other type, than they are like an Afghan Talibani.

So, put it this way: You like beer, and Muslims don't drink beer. Ok. Well, I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US we have (and are just now finally getting rid of), blue laws. You couldn't sell beer on Sundays. In some places you couldn't seel ANYTHING on Sundays. And we had prohibition, etc. etc. Point being, there's a strong religious basis for all of this, and it's Christian religion. You're worried about Muslims taking away your beer, but Christians already have done it.

The issue isn't the specific scriptures, it's the people behind it. Authoritarians are authoritarians.

Similarly, take halal. It's basically the exact same thing as kosher. The Jews have kosher guidelines, but they're not trying to impose anything on anybody else, even though their scriptures are very similar in this regard. So, you don't HAVE to get in people's faces about things like this if you don't want to. The reason it's a problem for you in the UK isn't because the people in question are Muslims, it's because they're DOUCHEBAGS. They could just as easily be douchebag tories, or douchebag marxists, or douchebag environmentalists, or douchebag footie fans.

Everyone's got their perspective. Having a perspective isn't a problem. Being a douche about it is.

And, honestly, this is me "defending" Islam. I'm not really even defending it, so much as saying that it's not really what people are mad at. I'm not saying Islam is good. I'm saying I hate the same things you do, but let's make sure to identify them correctly.

We both hate backwards, authoritarian, jerkwater douchebags. I want to know where these people sleep, so I can shoot a Hellfire missile at it. If somebody knows where that is, I don't want to miss that info, just cause the person in question identifies as a Muslim.

We have the exact same view of religion. Want to be devout? Fine, just keep it to yourself.

I somewhat agree. I wouldn't say "keep it to yourself" so much as "don't try to force me to follow it." If somebody is religious and they think it's important that I know it, that's fine. If they think I could benefit from it, and want to tell me the address of ther church, that's fine. I'm not going to pay it that much mind, but it's realy their right to tell me what they think is important, the same way somebody might tell me about homeopathic remedies, or the healing power of meditation, or how they're much healthier now that they job.

Whatever...

The problem is when you start making laws that force me to go to your church, or use your remedies, or go jogging with you.

I think people are much too sensitive to religion being "forced" on them. You can always walk away from a conversation. Somebody being pushy isn't forcing you to do anything. It might be rude, but people are rude all the time.

I mean, i sympathise with people in that i think they get their religious views forced upon them as children in almost every case where somebody is extremely devout (that or personal tragedy, but its usually the former) so im not saying i loathe Muslims or anything, but i have scorn for all the very devout religious people, because they never seem to be satisfied with leaving everybody alone, indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others? Religions must propagate effectively or die out right?

How is that unique to religion? When people think they are in on some big secret, they like talking. There are plenty of atheists/agnostics/scientists/politcal activists/whatever's out there doing the exact same thing. What you've said is true of all ideas, movements, or even just social groups. It's hardly something only the religious do.

Phyxis hit the nail with this:

Everyone's got their perspective. Having a perspective isn't a problem. Being a douche about it is.

Welcome to the human experience. Political, Religious, Scientific; doesn't matter what it is someone's always out there pushing it a little harder than the rest of us would like.

Phryxis wrote:Well, your version has more words....

Substance tends to need more words than sensationalism, yeah.

As an experiment, I just googled "mosque" on the "news" tab.

I didn't get those results at all. The ones that related to the Ground Zero mosque were...

"Obama in a muddle over Ground Zero Mosque"
"Mosque dispute takes Obama off message on Gulf Coast"
"Ground Zero mosque plans 'fuelling anti-Muslim protests across USA"
"Ground Zero mosque debate rages on"
"Passions remain high over proposed New York City mosque"

They're all neutral, commenting on the contraversy but not on the merits of either side.

Like all zealots, all I see in the world is confirming data, and this is confirming data for me.

Did I read that right? Did you just say you're a zealot

You've got Fox saying one thing, everyone else saying the opposite, and they're all kinda angry about it. You've also got 64% of people agreeing with Fox news.

This is exactly what I'm describing. Setting aside judgement of the mosque, and of people who pontificate on the mosque, in the end what it comes down to is that 64% of Americans think building the mosque is "wrong," and only ONE news organization is willing to take that side.

This is why I say that there's a bias in the media. They're not mainsteam Americans, they're liberal intellectuals.

Is it really the job of journalists to teach us what to think? I think that job is actually called "propagandist."

What you've said there is the entire problem with how so many people see the media. It isn't propaganda to inform people, it is the basic responsibility of the media. On the other hand, picking a 'side' as you've accepted FOX News has and reporting news in a way most agreeable to that side is propaganda, and is a big problem.

The idea that a news organisation should pick a demographic and set about reinforcing the beliefs of that demographic is absolutely awful. Reports should provide the most important facts of the issue, regardless of how agreeable they are to any group... it is just that simple. Now, bias is inevitable (to argue there should be no bias is to argue an article on a murder shouldn't contain the personal belief 'murder is bad') but there is a massive difference between bias and disingenuous reporting. To write an article is accept there will be bias, to align yourself with a political faction is to embrace disingenuous reporting.

For people that claim to be concilliatory and compassionate, liberals are very casual about dominating the discourse and shouting over those that think differently

Rebecca Soint's recent Hope in the Dark is an excellent read, it makes some excellent comments on the nature of left wing politics. Simply put, the way the left wing views itself is not at all how it actually is. It is frequently shrill, and simple constructive policies are over-ridden by doomsaying and self-flagellation.

But the answer to this is not an equally shrill, equally pessimistic right wing. I don't know even know which came first... but I do know that they're both absolute poison to constructive political debate.

So, if nothing else, not only does it seem to me that the headlines aren't as you suggest they are, but if they were, they'd actually agree with what most Americans think. This is not sensationalism based journalism, this is ideology based journalism.

"Here's an outrageous thing to be outraged by and here's a poll that shows how outraged other people are about this outrageous thing" is exactly sensationalistic journalism is. I simple refuse to believe you can't see that, what FOX did with it's article is grade-A sensationalism.

What you've said there is the entire problem with how so many people see the media. It isn't propaganda to inform people, it is the basic responsibility of the media. On the other hand, picking a 'side' as you've accepted FOX News has and reporting news in a way most agreeable to that side is propaganda, and is a big problem.

How big of a problem is it? How many other sources of news are there and what is the actual impact on those sources, due to XBOXnews existing?

I don't live in Korea and microwave news doesn't necessarily present the threat you suggest. At least, it isn't as big of a problem as it seems you are suggesting. There are so many opinions in the media and they appear diverse enough for me, to the point where I am not particularly concerned about one relatively loud cable news network. There is enough balance IMO, which in itself does not preclude the need for excessive liberal outlets. I don't think we have an excess of either, nor does either side appear excessive over it's counterpart. Perhaps FOXbox has higher ratings because more conservatives are interested in that kind of infotainment.

The idea that a news organisation should pick a demographic and set about reinforcing the beliefs of that demographic is absolutely awful. Reports should provide the most important facts of the issue, regardless of how agreeable they are to any group... it is just that simple. Now, bias is inevitable (to argue there should be no bias is to argue an article on a murder shouldn't contain the personal belief 'murder is bad') but there is a massive difference between bias and disingenuous reporting. To write an article is accept there will be bias, to align yourself with a political faction is to embrace disingenuous reporting.

I would say that every media outlet is required to work with generic demographics. If I were to split the middle between far right and far left, I would be left with something that was better written by a robot. It seems like FOXnews caters to angry people. Maybe that is a stupid thing to say but I would back it up by suggesting that is true of cable news in general. Person A is angry about one thing, which happens to bring them in to watch a certain show, while person B will probably never watch that show. Person B doesn't want a show that talks from the center, they want something that speaks to their perspective. It pays to target your audience and I still fail to see how cable news could destroy the planet.

If I want serious journalism, I can find it in a matter of 30 seconds. The internet is awesome and until I am forced to watch cable news as my only source of information (via censorship or what have you), I'll continue to be content with the point that my options are incredibly diverse.

It would be great if I could see a study or something that shows a serious threat on the part of FOXnews and similar news outlets. I understand how it could be perceived as a threat but we are hardly without other options. I also see no way to remedy the problems you bring up. Maybe a disclaimer. That would be hilarious.

FOXnews... isn't really news so much as large amounts of opinion mixed with bits of information.

My theory regarding the absence of truly neutral news agencies essentially boils down to this: neutral people don't care about sensationalism at all.

It frustrates me to see sensationalism everywhere in the media, but a sensationalist media source serves the same purpose, for me, that a non-sensationalist source would; ie. it makes me aware of something that I can further inquire into. Even if a media source would present me with nothing beyond fact, I would still look to verify it before considering it true or representative. As such, sensationalism doesn't keep people like me from watching the news, but it does draw people that wouldn't otherwise watch the news to watch the news.

Wrexasaur wrote:How big of a problem is it? How many other sources of news are there and what is the actual impact on those sources, due to XBOXnews existing?

The lack of substance in all media is a much bigger problem than the presence of one or more politically aligned stations. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

And yes, there are lots of different opinions presented in the media, but how many of them are actually considered views built on an understanding of the complexities of the issues? How many are built around simple talking points repeated over and over again?

Perhaps FOXbox has higher ratings because more conservatives are interested in that kind of infotainment.

Yeah, that's a big part of it. It's why rightwing talkback radio does well, and leftwing variants don't - the rightwing audience looking to tune in and get outraged is bigger than the leftwing equivalent. The other part is that FOX News is a more skillfully run production than the other channels - not in terms of news quality, but in terms of hype, message control and all the rest they know what they're doing.

I would say that every media outlet is required to work with generic demographics. If I were to split the middle between far right and far left, I would be left with something that was better written by a robot.

No, you don't split the line between any political faction. It doesn't matter what the right or left wing views are on the issue, you simply state the facts of the case. Some bias is inevitable, but the moment you start tailoring your bias towards a political faction, you stop being an informative source of news.

It seems like FOXnews caters to angry people. Maybe that is a stupid thing to say but I would back it up by suggesting that is true of cable news in general. Person A is angry about one thing, which happens to bring them in to watch a certain show, while person B will probably never watch that show. Person B doesn't want a show that talks from the center, they want something that speaks to their perspective. It pays to target your audience and I still fail to see how cable news could destroy the planet.

Yes, FOX News caters to angry people. Yes, FOX News will not destroy the planet. No, not destroying the planet doesn't mean a thing isn't bad enough to be a major problem. And yes, it is bad when people are relying on disingenuous news services to make their political judgements. And no, the ability of a person to find decent journalism doesn't make it less of a problem, because most people are happy to tune into various crap merchants (there's plenty more than just FOX) to get safe news that lines up with their political beliefs.

sebster wrote:The lack of substance in all media is a much bigger problem than the presence of one or more politically aligned stations. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

No problem, I hope that I didn't come across as antagonistic. I think that the major changes in news and the many forms that it has come to be distributed in, speaks very clearly to the point that all news can't be set to the same standards. Some information when combined with a large enough dose of opinion, becomes flatly useless. As dogma suggests, many people that watch 'insta-news' would not otherwise and do not currently find their news in any other form.

And yes, there are lots of different opinions presented in the media, but how many of them are actually considered views built on an understanding of the complexities of the issues? How many are built around simple talking points repeated over and over again?

Repeating talking points is not entirely a bad thing. If one wishes to send a message beyond the immediate conversation, it is helpful to be somewhat consistent in the manner that a message is conveyed. Personality branding is not a useless thing and does a great deal to reinforce an overall image or idea. Talking points are repeated because diverting from that would be detrimental to both broadcasters and those trying to make their arguments. Not that all arguments are equal but there is hardly enough reason to limit all national news to what most would consider informative debate.

I will not say that a further extreme of what we have would be a good thing. I believe that at least to some degree there is a problem that goes beyond finding better news; I also feel that considering mainstream journalism nothing less than opinion journalism (which would obviously be considered something besides journalism in many situations) is a fairly reasonable statement. Perhaps you feel there is more opinion journalism than we could possibly ever need. Maybe the amount of it in itself is a bad thing, I wouldn't entirely disagree with that. It still doesn't seem to be enough of a problem from my perspective, until the point that I literally can't find serious journalism.

I can most definitely still find 10 shades of serious journalism, no matter what FOXnews' presence does to my psyche. Taco. Hmmm... it doesn't do much of anything besides make money and possibly trigger a noticeable amount of influence within politics. There IS a noticeable influence but I see no reason to consider that influence in it's entirety a bad thing. I'm not going to eat it but I can see why some would want FOXbox around so they can agree with the heads on TV.

Yeah, that's a big part of it. It's why rightwing talkback radio does well, and leftwing variants don't - the rightwing audience looking to tune in and get outraged is bigger than the leftwing equivalent. The other part is that FOX News is a more skillfully run production than the other channels - not in terms of news quality, but in terms of hype, message control and all the rest they know what they're doing.

IMO they are allowed to do what they know how, if for nothing but the fact that they hold no sort of monopoly on 'news'. Nor does their genre. You can say that professionalism is generally lacking within news organizations and I would simply ask who's standard are they living up to? Should there be further restrictions on what can be called news? I wouldn't disagree with that premise but I would certainly question the ease and practicalities of which such standards could be implemented.

No, you don't split the line between any political faction. It doesn't matter what the right or left wing views are on the issue, you simply state the facts of the case. Some bias is inevitable, but the moment you start tailoring your bias towards a political faction, you stop being an informative source of news.

You actually stop being news... just to be clear. There has already been a case against FOXnews for having 'news' in their name, so you obviously have some sort of argument. The problem is that they are still allowed to claim the same title because the term 'news' can be loosely interpreted, as underhanded some of those interpretations may be.

Yes, FOX News caters to angry people. Yes, FOX News will not destroy the planet. No, not destroying the planet doesn't mean a thing isn't bad enough to be a major problem. And yes, it is bad when people are relying on disingenuous news services to make their political judgements. And no, the ability of a person to find decent journalism doesn't make it less of a problem, because most people are happy to tune into various crap merchants (there's plenty more than just FOX) to get safe news that lines up with their political beliefs.

What are you suggesting be done about it? The best I can come up with within my own power, is to share what news sources I use and how I come to the opinions that I have.

If people need sensationalist 'news' I see few reasons why they should be denied it. Some people watch Judge Judy and take it seriously. Some people took Jerry Springer seriously, even though on many counts he did not regard his show in the same way. Other people take FOXbox seriously and even further some take MSNBC in much the same way.

I don't take them that seriously and whenever I do find out about something via cable news, I will look further into it using several news outlets. That is what I do, I don't feel that is what everyone should HAVE to do.

..one day eh ? http://www.tomscott.com/warnings/

Wrexasaur wrote:No problem, I hope that I didn't come across as antagonistic.

Not at all.

I think that the major changes in news and the many forms that it has come to be distributed in, speaks very clearly to the point that all news can't be set to the same standards. Some information when combined with a large enough dose of opinion, becomes flatly useless. As dogma suggests, many people that watch 'insta-news' would not otherwise and do not currently find their news in any other form.

No, and it is a fair point. I guess my issue is with the high proportion of light weight news compared to substantive, in-depth material.

Repeating talking points is not entirely a bad thing. If one wishes to send a message beyond the immediate conversation, it is helpful to be somewhat consistent in the manner that a message is conveyed. Personality branding is not a useless thing and does a great deal to reinforce an overall image or idea. Talking points are repeated because diverting from that would be detrimental to both broadcasters and those trying to make their arguments. Not that all arguments are equal but there is hardly enough reason to limit all national news to what most would consider informative debate.

Repeating talking points is fine for politicians, it's what they need to do win. The media needs to take them off message, but frequently fails to even try.

Perhaps you feel there is more opinion journalism than we could possibly ever need. Maybe the amount of it in itself is a bad thing, I wouldn't entirely disagree with that. It still doesn't seem to be enough of a problem from my perspective, until the point that I literally can't find serious journalism.

I think the amount of opinion journalism is fine, it's the quality of it that's the issue. Too many editorials do little more than compare and contrast the talking points of the two sides, rather than look to the substance of what's really happening in an issue.

What are you suggesting be done about it?

And that is the really big question. I certainly agree that we shouldn't be banning anyone or anything like that.

I think the first thing is for people to get a clear picture of the problem, and it isn't limited to crap merchants like FOX, I think the bigger problem is the quality of media being put out by respected outlets.

sebster wrote:No, and it is a fair point. I guess my issue is with the high proportion of light weight news compared to substantive, in-depth material.

There is probably more 'insta-news' because it simply sells better. I am not a media studies major even if the concept interests me. I have had a bit of a hard time finding reputable studies that I can readily share via a forum.

Maybe this addresses some of your point, I haven't personally read it myself. You'll need an account, though.

http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/nc/publications/risj-challenges/public-trust-in-the-news.html

Repeating talking points is fine for politicians, it's what they need to do win. The media needs to take them off message, but frequently fails to even try.

I have a problem with many of the 'experts' you run into watching TV. There is so much noise sometimes, that it becomes difficult to sort through everything. A higher standard on that point, seems a pretty reasonable change in general. I want the right people asking the right questions, it would also be nice if they actually had experience in what they are talking about.

You'll find that even the best professional journalism has to offer will still be forced to stick to talking points, because in many situations that is what it takes to wear down people in power. They say potato five times, you say tomato ten times. If it pays to work a conversation in a different way, that is great but I hardly see many arguments in which you don't repeat yourself several times. It would be nice if politicians simply moved in the direction a conversation needs them to go but forcing them is a more practical solution.

There is also the problem of keeping the politicians around to ask questions to. If the politicians simply avoid the conversation within a professional setting and stick with news organizations that reinforce their views and goals, the outlets that choose not to do so will inevitably lose material to work with. You can reference as many clips from other stations as you'd like but you still need the politician on YOUR station to actually ask the questions that you're 'obligated' to. Most companies are obligated to stay in business above all else, it isn't particularly hard to see why much of television/cable is so watered down.

I think the amount of opinion journalism is fine, it's the quality of it that's the issue. Too many editorials do little more than compare and contrast the talking points of the two sides, rather than look to the substance of what's really happening in an issue.

It is probably cheaper to write articles in that way. You can find a lot of information that shows many news outlets are simply cutting back on actual journalists, and/or overworking the journalist they still have on staff. It isn't surprising that pressures related to business, end up forcing the substance of an issue out of many articles.

And that is the really big question. I certainly agree that we shouldn't be banning anyone or anything like that.

I think the first thing is for people to get a clear picture of the problem, and it isn't limited to crap merchants like FOX, I think the bigger problem is the quality of media being put out by respected outlets.

There are likely incentives that could be put in place in order to promote 'better' journalism. More professional and substantive journalism, really.

The private sector has responded to the market and produces news that sells. I see few expedient ways in which a large shift in the quality of mainstream journalism could be accomplished. Whether or not the quality continues to decrease because of increasing pressures on the pockets of news outlets overall, is basically left to be seen. Maybe the future will not be kind to serious journalism, maybe it will. Perhaps we will have to read more to gain the information we seek and that will be the bottom line for our consumption of news. I can only create so much incentive on my own and much of that is derived from the fact that I give advertising dollars to several news outlets on any given day of the week. It might be the case that by not choosing fewer sources of news, I am promoting what news I find important. That all depends on how the news outlets that I visit, interpret my actions.

I expect to have to pay for much of what I read in the future. If not, I expect to be left with fewer choices overall and the need to use many outlets to piece together my own opinion.

Did you just say you're a zealot

Yes. Half in jest, but half in truth. Self awareness is one of the things that separates us from the animals. Like Shuma.

They're all neutral, commenting on the contraversy but not on the merits of either side.

Ok, but you also did it a couple days later, after Obama weighed in, and the story became that.

In addition to sensationalist idiocy, another function of the media is to rapidly cycle in near perfect unison.

In general, I think the pattern will remain that FOX is against, everyone else is for, and then everyone will run a certain amount of semi-objective coverage.

It isn't propaganda to inform people, it is the basic responsibility of the media.

I agree with all you're saying here, I just don't think the media are objectively reporting, or really even trying to do so.

I agree that it's bad for news orgs to pick a side and preach to that choir as well...

But what I think is even worse, is when there's not only a political bias to the reporting, but it's out of sync with the nation. That means that not only are the orgs picking a side, but they're picking a side with the specific aim of pulling the national consciousness in a given direction.

This isn't just "giving the people what they want" this is "telling the people what to want." It's not just stooping to the level of the masses, it's thought control.

I simple refuse to believe you can't see that, what FOX did with it's article is grade-A sensationalism.

Don't get me wrong, they all LOVE some senationalism. I'm not suggesting they're not sensationalists. I'm simply prioritizing their hierarchy of needs, and at the very top, IMO, is politics.

My point here is that these news orgs all know that most Americans are against the mosque. If you were simply trying to get attention, had no political ideology at all, you'd hype up how terrible the mosque is, and sell that majority your product.

But that's NOT what these news orgs (FOX aside) do. They go against the prevailing sentiment, despite the obvious cost that entails. They place the importance of presenting their ideology over pandering to their potential audience. This is a fundamentally ideologically driven mentality.

it makes me aware of something that I can further inquire into.

This is also how I view it. For example, when I listen to Glenn Beck, and he makes some damning accusation against somebody I hate, I go home and cross my fingers and hope it's true. When all the google hits are Free Republic notesboards, I feel somewhat sad, and hope that he will actually prove what he's saying at some point.

But, basically, I don't believe anything I hear on TV or the radio.

the rightwing audience looking to tune in and get outraged is bigger than the leftwing equivalent.

I understand the basis for your logic, and I don't really have a counter argument, but (as Stephen Colbert would say) my gut tells me this isn't exactly right.

My feeling is that the American right feels silenced and ignored. They're not really more prone to outrage as they are looking for validation of their outrage. Americans are all pretty much spouting with self-righteous outrage, the conservative ones just have a much more limited number of venues to "me too" about it.

Most Americans are opposed to a 'ground zero mosque' most Americans are not opposed to 'a Muslim cultural center with a small area for religious purposes located two blocks away'.

Its all semantics and how you ask the question. now which of these questions is based on fact and which is sensationalist.

Guitardian wrote:

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:...indeed, do the scriptures not all in some way demand that its followers try and convert others?

Judaism doesn't.

No actually the orthodox Hassids in New York believes that they are God's chosen people. Sorry you're not invited everyone else. Try taking a walk through Flatbush and see how many of them will even speak to you if you aren't dressed like them and have cute little ringlets for sideburns, unless it is to ask you why you are in their neighborhoods, or if you are working for them. I seen it. They don't try to convert people at all, they just try to avoid them and stick to their own. I don't know which is nastier; The arrogance of flounting whatever belief you have on others, or the segregationist thinking of "us" versus "everybody not us". They are both pretty obnoxious in my slightly humble opinion. When they accept the fact that I am the High Priest Ambassador to Earth from the planet Zoltar, I will accept their wierd stories and happily take a pamphlet and listen to some ideas.

Maybe being ignored by them isn't so bad, just 200 years ago you could get burned at the stake if you turned up in the wrong neighborhood.

Guitardian:

Speaking of people's appearances, have you considered that if your appearance is similar to that of your avatar, pretty much anybody that isn't homeless is going to avoid you or ask why you're wandering around their neighborhood?

Wrexasaur wrote:Maybe this addresses some of your point, I haven't personally read it myself. You'll need an account, though.

http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/nc/publications/risj-challenges/public-trust-in-the-news.html

I'll have a look at it when I get home. Thanks for the link.

I have a problem with many of the 'experts' you run into watching TV. There is so much noise sometimes, that it becomes difficult to sort through everything. A higher standard on that point, seems a pretty reasonable change in general. I want the right people asking the right questions, it would also be nice if they actually had experience in what they are talking about.

One of the great shames is that many of the talking heads are quite interesting when they are taken off message. They are well informed and they do often have interesting things to say if the debate is approached in a new way. Unfortunately that rarely happens.

You'll find that even the best professional journalism has to offer will still be forced to stick to talking points, because in many situations that is what it takes to wear down people in power. They say potato five times, you say tomato ten times. If it pays to work a conversation in a different way, that is great but I hardly see many arguments in which you don't repeat yourself several times. It would be nice if politicians simply moved in the direction a conversation needs them to go but forcing them is a more practical solution.

Yeah, that's true.

There is also the problem of keeping the politicians around to ask questions to. If the politicians simply avoid the conversation within a professional setting and stick with news organizations that reinforce their views and goals, the outlets that choose not to do so will inevitably lose material to work with. You can reference as many clips from other stations as you'd like but you still need the politician on YOUR station to actually ask the questions that you're 'obligated' to. Most companies are obligated to stay in business above all else, it isn't particularly hard to see why much of television/cable is so watered down.

It was interesting in Australia to see the media steadily turn on our former Prime Minister, after he consistantly refused to engage the serious news programs, instead sticking to softball stuff on semi-news programs. But we're a small country with few media outlets and a fairly small collection of political journalists, what appears to have worked here wouldn't work elsewhere.

It is probably cheaper to write articles in that way. You can find a lot of information that shows many news outlets are simply cutting back on actual journalists, and/or overworking the journalist they still have on staff. It isn't surprising that pressures related to business, end up forcing the substance of an issue out of many articles.

This is a huge part of it, media sources are constantly cutting back on staff so there just isn't time allowed for a journalist to cover issues with the necessary rigour.

There are likely incentives that could be put in place in order to promote 'better' journalism. More professional and substantive journalism, really.

Yeah, there are awards and the like, and they serve as a good incentive. It's important to keep those kind of things independant from government, though.

The private sector has responded to the market and produces news that sells. I see few expedient ways in which a large shift in the quality of mainstream journalism could be accomplished. Whether or not the quality continues to decrease because of increasing pressures on the pockets of news outlets overall, is basically left to be seen. Maybe the future will not be kind to serious journalism, maybe it will. Perhaps we will have to read more to gain the information we seek and that will be the bottom line for our consumption of news. I can only create so much incentive on my own and much of that is derived from the fact that I give advertising dollars to several news outlets on any given day of the week. It might be the case that by not choosing fewer sources of news, I am promoting what news I find important. That all depends on how the news outlets that I visit, interpret my actions.

I suspect journalism is a thing that goes through good patches and bad. Right now it appears to me it's trending downwards, but it's certainly nowhere near as bad as it has been.

I expect to have to pay for much of what I read in the future. If not, I expect to be left with fewer choices overall and the need to use many outlets to piece together my own opinion.

I'd be happy to pay a premium for a decent service.

Phryxis wrote:Yes. Half in jest, but half in truth. Self awareness is one of the things that separates us from the animals. Like Shuma.

Shuma keeps us seperate from the animals? Like, physically, with fences and stuff?

Ok, but you also did it a couple days later, after Obama weighed in, and the story became that.

Ah, that'd be what it was.

In addition to sensationalist idiocy, another function of the media is to rapidly cycle in near perfect unison.

Oh yeah, they can turn a complex issue into a simplistic narrative at near light speed.

I agree with all you're saying here, I just don't think the media are objectively reporting, or really even trying to do so.

I agree that it's bad for news orgs to pick a side and preach to that choir as well...

Yeah, I don't think we see objective reporting, and I don't think that purely objective reporting is either achievable or a good thing (the crime reporter should hold the personal bias that murder is bad). But there is a difference between a person who happens to be a journalist having personal views that colour his story to some extent, and a news organisations that aligns itself so closely with a political party they become part of their media machine.

Take something like The Daily Show for instance (ignore that it's a comedy show because lets be honest it's where a lot of people get their news). The Daily Show is overtly leftwing, and doesn't pretend to be otherwise, but it hasn't attached itself to Democrats, in fact it regularly criticises the Democrats for not being as left wing as The Daily Show, as well as for being incompetent and cowardly. While Stewart views the stories through his own belief set and that is bias of a sort, it is a wholly different thing to what FOX does, and what MSNBC is trying to do.

This isn't just "giving the people what they want" this is "telling the people what to want." It's not just stooping to the level of the masses, it's thought control.

The job of the media isn’t to reinforce the natural bias of the population. The truth of a story isn’t democratically determined. The job of the media is to challenge the population, and if the facts appear one way, and the population feels another, you tell it as it is anyway.

There would be an issue if the political convictions of a group were not being covered at all, but that just isn’t happening. Well, it certainly isn’t happening to either of the major parties, who both manage to exert a massive amount of influence on the overall narrative, despite neither party’s talking points having a great deal of relation to the real world.

Don't get me wrong, they all LOVE some senationalism. I'm not suggesting they're not sensationalists. I'm simply prioritizing their hierarchy of needs, and at the very top, IMO, is politics.

No, selling print is priority number 1, plain and simple. People who write stories that don’t appeal to readers get fired, regardless of how much their political ideology fits with whoever else.

My feeling is that the American right feels silenced and ignored.

The American left also feels silenced and ignored. That’s the nature of politics.

They're not really more prone to outrage as they are looking for validation of their outrage.

It’s not that they’re more prone to outrage, it’s that their kind of outrage just works in a talk radio/political hack format. The left wing version of the same doesn’t.

At the same time, the leftwing have coffee houses playing gak world music where everyone wears black rimmed glasses to show they’re unique and complain about how Hugo Chavez is getting a raw deal. It isn’t because the left is more inclined to echo chambers, it’s just a format that works for the kind of people they are.

I was going to comment on how the presence of intelligence in a child's life will make a world of difference to what are their values and beliefs when it comes to the world around them. I can say with certainty that the professions of my father and mother, both working at universities that are considered above average made an enormous impact on my beliefs of the value of education and respect. However I recently had an incredible experience that most children aren't given, and for the opportunity I was thankful, but it also changed my view of intelligence in relation to education.

I took courses from my local university offered to high school students. The program was held at Carnegie mellon and offered college level courses that are accelerated 2.5 times to make a semester fit into 6 weeks. If you were successful you got real college credit, but you had to work for it. I worked my butt off studying and completing assignments and projects in order to make good on the opportunity (and my parents money). I expected to be average in the class, I'm not stupid by any measure but I was taking courses that did not play to my strengths, because they were the only ones offered that I saw possible personal use for. Instead I was close to the top of the class, while most of the class had test scores that amazed me. I want to really stress that this was not a "How could you not get this by the first lecture like I did" but more of a "exactly how much time were you studying, because I saw you sleeping in class and it would take a lot of work to make up that mistake". This actually happened, I was amazed someone would waste their parents money and such an opportunity like that. I spent time studying, and got an 89 on my first test, which I though A) was significantly larger then what I expected to receive, and B) was even more surprised that my professor refused to calculate the class average because the number would embarrass him to look at. Most people, who were equal to me in intelligence, got grades in the teens. This was a trend throughout the semester. At the end I did well, and I think most people did really badly based upon in class public work and former test grades. Based upon my previous experience I had, perhaps wrongly, assumed that intelligence would lead to the understanding that the input of work is required in life. 6 weeks after this experience my understanding was radically shaken, and it worried me a little bit that perhaps even I too was a little like them. I get average grades in high school, and am sometimes surprised that my grades are lower then what I expected (which to be fare is not straight A's). I am really at a loss to explain this. Is it really bad parenting, or is something else there that I'm missing. Someone please point this out if I'm missing it because I'm at a loss.


Unrelated, but relevant to the op, I met mr. Rogers great nephew . He was in my grade but transferred schools after his first year in my high school. In that time I got to hear a lot of stories about his great uncle, and it proved that the man was a shining beacon of kindness and encouragement in his personal life as well as on TV.

@Tryagain bragg

standards for grades have drastically decreased. Lots of extremely mediocre kids parents like to flaunt the fact that their kid has a 4.0 GPA, straight As, and they didn't have the benifit of college educated parents (my Dad is a proffessor too so I know what it's like growing up in academics).

I was babysitting for an 8 year old the other day because his parents just sort of left him with us while they took off (if I wanted to play with kids I would have one... but that's another issue)

So I take him for a walk to the store to pass the time while his parents did their thing, hoping they would get back soon. Bought him some chips, a soda, a candy bar, tossed some rocks in the river from the bridge with him. etc cool kid.... we get home and he sees my girlfriend's XBox in the corner... asked if he could play it. Now keep in mind this kid is 8 years old. He knew the ins and outs and secret codes and stuff to every level of LEGO STAR WARS. I asked him if he could spell "video game". He didn't, but he sure can play it well.

There is your problem. Mr Rogers or Kermit used to be our babysitters and we learned to read. Now They learn cheat codes, memorize levels, and the school system, in order to save face on something that isnt really their fault, has to dumb down the standards, hence all the straight-A-ignorant-kids. Not only that, but when all the old 'real' newspeople left the building, sensationalism became the new thing, so when a kid actually does bother to watch the news, said kid ends up with as warped a view of reality as the parents quite probably have. Grab some popcorn and watch a movie called "Idiocracy".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Guitardian:

Speaking of people's appearances, have you considered that if your appearance is similar to that of your avatar, pretty much anybody that isn't homeless is going to avoid you or ask why you're wandering around their neighborhood?

Dude it's NYC There's far more freaky hair going on there than mine (including the wierd ringlet kids) so I don't know what you were getting at with that.

Yes it is just me, and that is their problem not mine, when I am there to fix their computer for them. I hope yours is similar to your avatar if you take that approach to judging people. Oooooh I have long hair and don't need to bother cutting it to kiss ass, or wear a tie for a cush job in a cubicle. Yeah I've been homeless too, and met some of the best people I know while out there. I can also teach your kid math, edit your term paper, and so on. Don't judge books by their covers, that's kind of rude. Ever tried talking to a homeless person before making such a classist remark?

It's okay though, Rogers told me I'm okay just the way I am. When I puss out and get a haircut I'll let you know.

Guitardian, earlier you said that kids (Generation One) are lazy because their parents (Generation Two) are lazy. Yet, if this is true, wouldn't Generation Three also have to be lazy in order to make Generation Two lazy? Wouldn't this leave your generation at fault for the crisis you see looming? The idea that your generation is at fault is further reinforced by your complaints against absent parents (who would be of your generation).

Absolutely true. That's why I don't have kids. children raised by children raised by children... When I feel I am in the right life situation and settled with the right mom, I will raise a little ninja jedi master kiddo. But until then I don't want to do a botch job either just because I was horney and didn't have a condom. There's enough of those kids already (like the one I was babysitting a couple days ago). I do resent absent parents, especially those of my generation. They are the worst offenders. My GF's friend has 2 kids from 2 different dads and a 3rd one on the way.... She also has a large collection of disney movies and doesn't do gak for herself. She is my generation. I dont really like her, but she has been my GF's friend since they were kids, so I just follow along, silently disgusted.

Guitarian:

I take it back. It's clearly your winning personality that draws out the best in people, not your appearance. Though the notion of you editing one of my term papers is comedy gold...