[quote]Therizza wrote:
My question is why did the media blow the importance/intelligence of the Vice President out of proportion during the election? Politicians, in both parties, don’t know anything more than what they are briefed on by experts.
Politicians are concerned with politics, staffers figure out policy.[/quote]
Who wants to discuss the role of education, and the media, in creating the abstraction of the ‘reified other’, which is the precursor to genocide? Let’s talk about some real politics(human interaction!) in this forum, not the boring realm of politicians.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Who wants to discuss the role of education, and the media, in creating the abstraction of the ‘reified other’, which is the precursor to genocide? Let’s talk about some real politics(human interaction!) in this forum, not the boring realm of politicians.[/quote]
You know, there is a funny book with a serious topic called “Don’t believe everything you think” which is just an entertaining introduction to fallacious thinking (got it for my kids). One chapter cites a study done on the media and its accuracy after the fact. It had a success rate of roughly 10% on financial matters – that is worse than simply guessing (which would have been 50%).
Why? Because every financial forecast took the absolute worst case scenario. The point is that the source of information we require to make our decisions is fundamentally biased and this is done at an institutional level.
My kids are taking a history course in public school that is little more than polemical BS, for example. (For the record, the goal of history is to try and figure out how people came to make the decisions they did, rather than excoriating them for a lack of environmental or economic awareness.)
The topic on this thread is media bias but that is just the tip of the iceberg. I think that the problem is (1) a failure in education, so that people really are hobbled in their thinking – most people would not recognize bad thinking if it ran up and bit them on the leg. (2) the fact the the news industry is an industry just like the auto industry – one makes cars, the other manufactures news.
As with any industry, it panders to an existing market which in our case is a strong bias to on leftist interpretations – mostly because they got sanctified some time back as the outsider position and are usually simple enough to give as a soundbite.
So here is another bit to think about. As I said, I work at a university and am a career Scientist. I have had run-ins with the Science Dept. at various news agencies. Whoever runs them has usually screwed up some other assignment and has been placed there.
I am supposed to give a report on some cutting edge bit of real Science while sandwiched between someone who thinks they are a Ghostbuster and what is an extended ad for Horny Goatweed. This almost completely destroys any understanding of how real Science is done. This happens because the people running the show honestly don’t know any better.
I see this treatment as symptomatic of how they are doing their political commentary. As a series of half thought out mis-steps and lots of muddling.
Again, yes the media is biased, because they are ignorant, have been trained to think in post-modernist terms about everything and have a deadline. Most of them are not qualified to hold an opinion on anything they report. In the absence of clear thinking, facts or even a way to tell if they are screwing it up, they will drift in to BS.
All that saves us is that there is so much BS that it has a numbing effect and nobody takes it too seriously (I hope). Wasn’t it Mark Twain who quipped once that your options are ignore or read a paper so it comes down to being uniformed or misinformed?
And as always, I might just be full of shit…
– jj
Dude… righteous. I agree completely with your 2 points about the societal failures that breed media bias. What type of scientist are you, if I may ask.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< (Also, read Hemingway. I used to think I didn’t need to read him; I was wrong. The short stories are best.)[/quote]
I haven’t avoided Hemingway for any particular reason, I just never got around to reading him. Maybe the crime and poverty deal should be saved for another thread. My fault.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
A couple long posts that appear to portray an even deeper cynicism than I hold myself[/quote]
However, though I may be wrong, I smell a trap.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
This discussion started out great, but has gone astray.
There are ‘elitists’ in every camp. Elitism doesn’t have one political leaning.
I think as far as media and media personalities go, there is a perceived ‘hollywood elitsism’ that leans far left. Because of that, their views are perpetuated in a much greater proportion of media than other sources. For example, Matt Damon and Leo DeCaprio who are without a doubt, bumbling fools, have their views perpetuated in news, entertainment, and tabloid media because of their star power (yes, sadly, tabloids are where many folks get their political insights).
[/quote]
If people get their political opinions from actors, they were lost causes anyway.
He’s no different than any other politician in this.
To easy to say that- like what? The evidence against global warming? Because of the studies that have legitimacy- I’ve seen them in the news quite often. At least on Reuters.
And that’s why I only post here for politics. This forum has a bigass history of ugly ass battles, and political correctness doesn’t often find a home here. There are a number of posters who refer to Obama as “BHO” or by his full name, in order to insinuate his Muslim-sounding name or his “differentness.”
But I’m OK with that. And Pig it is, and will remain.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
There are a number of posters who refer to Obama as “BHO” or by his full name, in order to insinuate his Muslim-sounding name or his “differentness.”
But I’m OK with that. And Pig it is, and will remain.[/quote]
So it’s uncool to use his ACTUAL given name, and that’s bad somehow? Maybe YOU are reading into it.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Again, yes the media is biased, because they are ignorant, have been trained to think in post-modernist terms about everything and have a deadline.
[/quote]
Very interesting that you say this.
See, I never took a journalism course in college. I took one class in High School where I learned the very basics, and people are often surprised when they hear that. But I’m glad, because I think by just walking into the business with no concept of what my ethics or style should be, I formed my own under the tutelage of a very good boss.
And on the concept of postmodernism - I was taught it a little bit as an English major in college by two super-liberal professors that I did not like. We read Foucalt, and I have never seen a more worthless pile of shit than his writings. You can’t fucking understand them, and what you can understand doesn’t make sense.
I swore after reading his babbling crap (and hearing my profs’ interpretations of it) that I would never again let someone else tell me how I should be thinking. I argued incessantly with them, and in the end ignored the shit out of it.
[quote]
Most of them are not qualified to hold an opinion on anything they report.
– jj[/quote]
To be fair, journalists report on a massive variety of things, forcing us to be jacks of all trades. Oftentimes, we’re learning about something as we write the article.
It is not possible to know everything about every subject, or, really, to even have a basic knowledge of every subject. If they were experts in the field of science, or truly loved science to the point where they would write an article that YOU would enjoy and understand, they’d probably be scientists, not journalists.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
There are a number of posters who refer to Obama as “BHO” or by his full name, in order to insinuate his Muslim-sounding name or his “differentness.”
But I’m OK with that. And Pig it is, and will remain.
So it’s uncool to use his ACTUAL given name, and that’s bad somehow? Maybe YOU are reading into it.
[/quote]
It is clear, and always has been clear, why people address him by his full name. If his middle name wasn’t the same as a recently deposed dicatator, no one would say it.
Barack Sean Obama just doesn’t have the same kick for Republicans.
Let’s discuss the systemic problems, not just one iteration of their symptoms. So we have got journalists with no ethics, poor education (or is it just really easy to get a journalism degree) and people seeking awards/ratings for their own sake, and not for the betterment of mankind/dissemination of unbiased facts. What am I missing?
[quote]Therizza wrote:
Let’s discuss the systemic problems, not just one iteration of their symptoms. So we have got journalists with no ethics, poor education (or is it just really easy to get a journalism degree) and people seeking awards/ratings for their own sake, and not for the betterment of mankind/dissemination of unbiased facts. What am I missing?[/quote]
I just had a conversation with an editor at a big paper around here, and they said that one of the biggest problems is that no one simply COVERS A BEAT.
Reporters want to tie in issues with big huge things going on in the state, instead of just concentrating on their town’s problems. Kind of fits in with the “Award hunting” thing as well.
As such, the reporter don’t quite understand the issues in the towns themselves, and don’t know the history.
I told the editor that they sounded just like David Simon, which brought a laugh.
good point irish. nobody wants to get their feet wet doing shit stories for 10 years anymore, being a public servant more or less like a policeman. They get out of journalism school and immediately want a Pullitzer. At least that’s what I feel like.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
good point irish. nobody wants to get their feet wet doing shit stories for 10 years anymore, being a public servant more or less like a policeman. They get out of journalism school and immediately want a Pullitzer. At least that’s what I feel like.[/quote]
And you would be absolutely right. Valuable things (like developing sources) can only be learned on the job. And with the way papers are cutting now, they’re getting rid of the older people with the sources and leaving younger reporters who don’t have the experience or the connections to fill the void.
Lol @ anyone who thinks the prime motive behind MSNBC, FOX News, or any other cable news isn’t money.
[quote]dtheyer wrote:
Lol @ anyone who thinks the prime motive behind MSNBC, FOX News, or any other cable news isn’t money.[/quote]
Lol@anyone who thinks that that is relevant.
[quote]dtheyer wrote:
Lol @ anyone who thinks the prime motive behind MSNBC, FOX News, or any other cable news isn’t money.[/quote]
Ahh 2009. Year of the fucktards.
Truer words were never spoken
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
There are a number of posters who refer to Obama as “BHO” or by his full name, in order to insinuate his Muslim-sounding name or his “differentness.”
But I’m OK with that. And Pig it is, and will remain.
So it’s uncool to use his ACTUAL given name, and that’s bad somehow? Maybe YOU are reading into it.
It is clear, and always has been clear, why people address him by his full name. If his middle name wasn’t the same as a recently deposed dicatator, no one would say it.
Barack Sean Obama just doesn’t have the same kick for Republicans. [/quote]
While I personally feel no need to call Palin Pig, there are certainly no shortage of people on these forums and elsewhere who throw around the words “BHO,” Barrack Hussein Obama," “The Chosen One,” “Black Baby Jesus,” and “Opie” to denigrate him.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
This discussion started out great, but has gone astray.
There are ‘elitists’ in every camp. Elitism doesn’t have one political leaning.
I think as far as media and media personalities go, there is a perceived ‘hollywood elitsism’ that leans far left. Because of that, their views are perpetuated in a much greater proportion of media than other sources. For example, Matt Damon and Leo DeCaprio who are without a doubt, bumbling fools, have their views perpetuated in news, entertainment, and tabloid media because of their star power (yes, sadly, tabloids are where many folks get their political insights).
There is certainly an element of ‘social elitism’ there.
[/quote]
Fair points.