Election Year Debate

[Syco21]

... from what I have read on msn world news Obama seemed a lot better than Bush.

Well, I think that's the problem right there. That "news" source is as biased as they come, and are well known liars here back at home. Chris "I got a thrill up my leg" Matthews being the worst of the bunch.

 

Well, begs to ask now, where is the real news webbys then?

There is no reliable mainstream news source in America. They're all spin and BS.

[marharth]

The only real way to get news in this country is to view it from multiple sources and be able to determine bias.

[Lisnpuppy]

@HeyYou

Lisnpuppy and Granywills insisted on evidence, so I provided it being one of the circling sharks they forgot about when they made the blanket denial and demanded proof. But never said that it was the sole province of the Democrats.... just they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar (again and again which infers pattern of behavior to the offense). :whistling:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4743/shark1.gif

 

Who is this "they" of which you speak? I did not deny anything if you will note. I just said it was a serious accusation and asked for the evidence.

Voter fraud is unfortunately in any and all elections. Sad but true.

 

Actually...and this is only my opinion. The place this country was in last election and this one also...ANY person put in as president..Democrat, Republican...Ron Paul...Me....whomever...is really damned if they do and damned if they do not. I really don't think they can win on the public opinion. I personally blame congress far more than ANY president because they haven't done anything helpful in the last oh...8 years at the very least. It seems everyone is so stuck in the party/I am gonna say no to this just because the other side wishes it to be mode that nothing gets accomplished. Government is made of compromise. All sides must do this for anything to be done. Will one side get 100% of something, no probably not. A great deal of- I will give you this vote if you give me that vote -goes on and really, people seem to hate that but that is how things get done. You have to pick your battles and decide the things your constituents want and need done the most and go for that. Give a little to get a little and get it done. That is what the Founding Fathers did and its what works.

 

Nice shark BTW...makes me sing Jimmy Buffett songs.

[SubjectProphet]

Thank you people for coding a shark that made this page take around 15 minutes to load. :wallbash:

 

As for what was posted 2 pages back, I think that's what I was looking for. I THINK.

 

As for our news, CNN is actually the leading news provider, but they turn everything into a racial argument, political disagreement, etc. I don't tend to like them.

[sukeban]

The only real way to get news in this country is to view it from multiple sources and be able to determine bias.

This is absolutely true. To reflexively insist that a given news outlet is biased is certainly a right that individuals have... but it seems to me to be more of an "ostrich mentality" (burying one's head in the sand), an escape from one's democratic responsibility to remain informed. Just as you would when evaluating a historical source, one should always be aware of the biases and limitations of any given news outlet. Filter out some of the commentary that their opinion-makers might advance, but news outlets are not in the business of fabricating facts in order to increase their readership/viewership. (Taking things out of context is not the same as making them up.)

 

For example, I would have never known about the "Fast and Furious" scandal in the Justice Department had it not been for casually watching Fox News while running at the gym. I am fully aware of Fox's bias, so I take the facts as they are and filter out much of the "dastardly Obama conspiracy" commentary that Hannity and others were trying to advance. Interesting story, sure. Does it reflect a completely misguided and idiotic use of law-enforcement resources and taxpayer dollars, sure. However, is it an enormous Obama-led conspiracy that should lead to his impeachment--not so much. To say so is just Fox sharpening its axe against a liberal grindstone. It is important to know where facts end and opinion begins.

 

So, one can--and probably should--watch both MSNBC as well as Fox, CNN and Bloomberg News, read the Christian Science Monitor, Drudge Report, Mother Jones, and Washington Times (and Post). Absorb the facts that, I promise, they are not just making up. Dismiss their commentary as exactly that--commentary. Personally, I enjoy Chris Mathews because he has the most "inside-baseball" coverage of American politics (IMO) on television. Do I agree with many of his opinions, sure; but I am also aware enough to know that they are merely his opinions--nothing more, nothing less--and not to mistake them for hard news. There are also instances where I stare bewilderedly at the television screen wondering how the heck did he arrive at a certain conclusion given my understanding of the facts... and then wholeheartedly disagreeing with him. Point being that merely having an opinion on news does not make the actual content of a network's reporting automatically illegitimate. To believe otherwise is to gravely misunderstand the difference between opinion and fact.

 

Also, if one then states that all "mainstream" news outlets are biased and that one shouldn't trust them, what exactly is left? Alex Jones and the freaking World Net Daily* (today's headline: Is God of Israel Speaking to America?)? Total fringe conspiracy internet sites with glaring and obviously paranoid axes to grind? No way, man. That isn't news. FEMA death camps are not coming soon to a town near you.

 

*And even I scan the WND from time to time to see what craziness (and possibly legitimate news) is making headlines there.

 

All of this comes back to a point that I made earlier about the absolute necessity of an outside arbiter (most would say science and reason) as the referee between opinions in the democratic process. This is, of course, where our system of government came from, out of the Enlightenment's insistence on the primacy of objective facts and reasoning over the blind faith of religion. There simply cannot be a successful resolution to a dispute when two sides both insist on their own private version of the "truth." To deny this is to deny the foundation of our system of government, to deny the validity of the Enlightenment, to insinuate the superiority of "faith" (doesn't have to be religious faith, just any sort of unquestioned, unverifiable insistence that their position is correct) over reason. It is to make the positively retrograde assertion that their position is correct by virtue of the fact that they believe it, that evidence is superfluous after they have made up their mind. Indeed, that is the stuff of tyranny, where disagreements may only be resolved through force of arms, as neither side is open to reconsidering their position.

 

Trust me, this is not where we want our politics to be headed. It is time to cease dismissing legitimate news outlets as "biased" simply because you disagree with their interpretation of real news. Until that moment in time when they actually begin to fabricate news (there was a James Bond movie about this, no?), you should still be paying attention.

 

More information is ALWAYS better. To insist otherwise is, IMO, to shirk one's responsibility as a democrat.

Edited March 16, 2012 by sukeban

[grannywils]

Ok, Sukeban, tell the truth... Where did you really come from??? You cannot have been living inside my mind all this time without my knowledge. :unsure: How is it that you can say all of this so well, and all I do is stutter and drool on myself when I begin to speak :sad:

 

Seriously though, what you say about keeping in touch with all sides of the media is so absolutely true. I believe that this is why although I am a liberal by nature, I enjoy so well the dialogue with many of my conservative leaning friends. We all have many issues in common, and keeping an open mind and remembering that we need to live together on this planet regardless of who happens to be in power this month keeps us all (somewhat) honest. And I find it stimulating and refreshing to find a forum such as this one where these ideas can be explored and discussed in a hearty and healthy manner.

 

Thank you for adding your voice. You and Aurielius (the OP of this fine thread) in particular are keeping me on my toes!!! ;D

[HeyYou]

~snip~

 

All of this comes back to a point that I made earlier about the absolute necessity of an outside arbiter (most would say science and reason) as the referee between opinions in the democratic process. This is, of course, where our system of government came from, out of the Enlightenment's insistence on the primacy of objective facts and reasoning over the blind faith of religion. There simply cannot be a successful resolution to a dispute when two sides both insist on their own private version of the "truth." To deny this is to deny the foundation of our system of government, to deny the validity of the Enlightenment, to insinuate the superiority of "faith" (doesn't have to be religious faith, just any sort of unquestioned, unverifiable insistence that their position is correct) over reason. It is to make the positively retrograde assertion that their position is correct by virtue of the fact that they believe it, that evidence is superfluous after they have made up their mind. Indeed, that is the stuff of tyranny, where disagreements may only be resolved through force of arms, as neither side is open to reconsidering their position.

 

See, that's just the trouble we have at the moment though. Everyone INSISTS that their way, is the only way, and the other guys, are driving the country into the ground. Doesn't matter that we can look back and see just whose policies it was that drove us to the brink of disaster, and that the continuation of those policies by the following administration, strangely enough, STILL hasn't improved anything. You will notice that the three latest Free Trade agreements were signed without ANY fanfare whatsoever. Gee, why do you think that is? Could it possibly be because those agreements help the multinational corporations only, deprive americans of jobs? Ensure that more money is headed OUT of our economy than coming in???? But, seems folks in government STILL think this is a good idea?????

[Syco21]

Also, if one then states that all "mainstream" news outlets are biased and that one shouldn't trust them, what exactly is left?

Isn't that precisely what you just said as well? I never said one should never watch any news, I simply stated there are no reliable sources for news. They all exist to sell the party line and not much more.

 

As for Alex Jones? The man's a damned nut.

[sukeban]

Isn't that precisely what you just said as well? I never said one should never watch any news, I simply stated there are no reliable sources for news. They all exist to sell the party line and not much more.

I think that, to cut to the chase, major media outlets exist to milk their respective audiences (i.e. target demographic) and make money. I would bet a large amount of money that every outlet does a voluminous amount of market research and analysis before they schedule their programming or hire new talent, catering their content to precisely the crowd that their analytics tells them comprises the majority of their viewership (or, to a lesser extent, readership). Going beyond the actual content (both of actual reporting but also in terms of personalities hired), I would also wager that said analytics informs even the presentation of news and commentary as well. You could then begin to form a general list of character traits, personality preferences, and aesthetic sensibilities that are common to the median viewer of a given outlet. I would postulate the following:

 

1. MSNBC -- Liberals like to view themselves as dispassionate and sober. Hosts will emphasize the intellectual validity of their positions (polling and research data) and defer to data whenever possible. Diversity is regarded as desirable which will be manifested in selection of program hosts and featured commentators. Viewership, however, is mostly white, urban, college-educated, and middle/upper middle class.

 

2. Fox News -- Conservatives like to view themselves as realistic and reasonable. Hosts will emphasize the "common sense" practicality of their positions versus the overly intellectual/elitist opinions of those they disagree with. Diversity is not viewed as a desirable end unto itself, thus ethnic and sexual minorities are largely absent from their hosting cadre and Commenteriat. Viewership is overwhelmingly white, with majority of viewers in the lower middle and lower tiers of the upper classes (owners of small, traditional businesses), and is drawn more heavily from the rural and suburban areas of the country. Commentators are chosen for bombastic rhetorical talent and charismatic personality;* content presentation is designed to visually stimulate and appeal to various emotions--especially love, patriotism, and derision.

 

*A special feature of conservative programming, especially prevalent in talk radio, is the sense of being aggrieved and/or besieged and/or persecuted by society as a whole, and it being the responsibility of the conservative to react against this. I could elaborate on this, but it's not really material to the discussion at-hand.

 

3. CNN -- The Middle Path of American news, adhering to a strict belief in the neutrality of journalists. Hosts will take great pains to present both sides of the issue--while continually reminding the audience of this--even if both sides of an issue are not equal in terms of their claims to legitimacy. Viewership is likely more non-partisan than the other networks, as well as more politically apathetic in general. This despite likely having the most authentically diverse audience out of any of the major networks. Diversity is regarded as important, but not overly so. Viewers are probably evenly distributed throughout the economic spectrum, with most culled from the middle of the middle class, as well as being geographically well-distributed throughout the country.

 

4. CNBC/Bloomberg, etc. -- These are for the high-earners or those that aspire to be high-earners. Viewership probably skews Republican by a mile, but these are likely not social conservatives nor defense hawks. Viewers are fiscal conservatives and pro-Big Business/unregulated capitalism, though demographically viewers are probably white collar professionals or managers in larger-sized companies. Audience is likely heavily, heavily white. Despite political leanings, viewers do not share the "real Americans" aggrieved mentality of conservative radio listeners, as, by and large, they are doing quite well in this economy. Viewers are largely urban and well-educated, likely residing on the coasts or in affluent enclaves/capitals in rural states. Diversity is not regarded as something important, but small amounts of ethnic personalities are featured to (perhaps more subconsciously than intentional) insinuate that our present manifestation of capitalism works for people other than "well-born" whites.

 

5. ABC/NBC/local -- Honestly, I have no idea. These are probably the last of the bastions for classical liberal journalism (i.e. "just the facts" non-partisanship) in an age of partisan niche specialization. It would then be no wonder that they are losing ground vis-a-vis the demographically focused outlets, as they are essentially ignoring the demands of the market. Viewers of these stations are likely either the poor (unable to afford cable/satellite), the truly politically apathetic (again, perhaps also poor) or those of a certain subset of liberals who are more concerned with local issues than the national political landscape. Diversity is probably contingent on the locality of the broadcast, reflecting the local distribution of minorities/attitudes toward minorities. Once upon a time, this is what our news used to be like. It is sad, in a way, that this is no longer the case.

 

Eh, I had more to say, but I've lost my head of steam. All of the above is strictly "IMO."

Edited March 19, 2012 by sukeban

[marharth]

Isn't that precisely what you just said as well? I never said one should never watch any news, I simply stated there are no reliable sources for news. They all exist to sell the party line and not much more.

I think that, to cut to the chase, major media outlets exist to milk their respective audiences (i.e. target demographic) and make money. I would bet a large amount of money that every outlet does a voluminous amount of market research and analysis before they schedule their programming or hire new talent, catering their content to precisely the crowd that their analytics tells them comprises the majority of their viewership (or, to a lesser extent, readership). Going beyond the actual content (both of actual reporting but also in terms of personalities hired), I would also wager that said analytics informs even the presentation of news and commentary as well. You could then begin to form a general list of character traits, personality preferences, and aesthetic sensibilities that are common to the median viewer of a given outlet. I would postulate the following:

 

1. MSNBC -- Liberals like to view themselves as dispassionate and sober. Hosts will emphasize the intellectual validity of their positions (polling and research data) and defer to data whenever possible. Diversity is regarded as desirable which will be manifested in selection of program hosts and featured commentators. Viewership, however, is mostly white, urban, college-educated, and middle/upper middle class.

 

2. Fox News -- Conservatives like to view themselves as realistic and reasonable. Hosts will emphasize the "common sense" practicality of their positions versus the overly intellectual/elitist opinions of those they disagree with. Diversity is not viewed as a desirable end unto itself, thus ethnic and sexual minorities are largely absent from their hosting cadre and Commenteriat. Viewership is overwhelmingly white, with majority of viewers in the lower middle and lower tiers of the upper classes (owners of small, traditional businesses), and is drawn more heavily from the rural and suburban areas of the country. Commentators are chosen for bombastic rhetorical talent and charismatic personality;* content presentation is designed to visually stimulate and appeal to various emotions--especially love, patriotism, and derision.

 

*A special feature of conservative programming, especially prevalent in talk radio, is the sense of being aggrieved and/or besieged and/or persecuted by society as a whole, and it being the responsibility of the conservative to react against this. I could elaborate on this, but it's not really material to the discussion at-hand.

 

3. CNN -- The Middle Path of American news, adhering to a strict belief in the neutrality of journalists. Hosts will take great pains to present both sides of the issue--while continually reminding the audience of this--even if both sides of an issue are not equal in terms of their claims to legitimacy. Viewership is likely more non-partisan than the other networks, as well as more politically apathetic in general. This despite likely having the most authentically diverse audience out of any of the major networks. Diversity is regarded as important, but not overly so. Viewers are probably evenly distributed throughout the economic spectrum, with most culled from the middle of the middle class, as well as being geographically well-distributed throughout the country.

 

4. CNBC/Bloomberg, etc. -- These are for the high-earners or those that aspire to be high-earners. Viewership probably skews Republican by a mile, but these are likely not social conservatives nor defense hawks. Viewers are fiscal conservatives and pro-Big Business/unregulated capitalism, though demographically viewers are probably white collar professionals or managers in larger-sized companies. Audience is likely heavily, heavily white. Despite political leanings, viewers do not share the "real Americans" aggrieved mentality of conservative radio listeners, as, by and large, they are doing quite well in this economy. Viewers are largely urban and well-educated, likely residing on the coasts or in affluent enclaves/capitals in rural states. Diversity is not regarded as something important, but small amounts of ethnic personalities are featured to (perhaps more subconsciously than intentional) insinuate that our present manifestation of capitalism works for people other than "well-born" whites.

 

5. ABC/NBC/local -- Honestly, I have no idea. These are probably the last of the bastions for classical liberal journalism (i.e. "just the facts" non-partisanship) in an age of partisan niche specialization. It would then be no wonder that they are losing ground vis-a-vis the demographically focused outlets, as they are essentially ignoring the demands of the market. Viewers of these stations are likely either the poor (unable to afford cable/satellite), the truly politically apathetic (again, perhaps also poor) or those of a certain subset of liberals who are more concerned with local issues than the national political landscape. Diversity is probably contingent on the locality of the broadcast, reflecting the local distribution of minorities/attitudes toward minorities. Once upon a time, this is what our news used to be like. It is sad, in a way, that this is no longer the case.

 

Eh, I had more to say, but I've lost my head of steam. All of the above is strictly "IMO."

This is pretty much explains it perfectly. I would change the Fox News one a bit, but for the most part it explains the news outlets spot on.