On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:42:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> This seems to be the fundamental divide, yes. If you think about it,
>>> these two beliefs are fundamentally opposed. Either the media serves
>>> the public, or it serves itself. Which is it?
>>
>> Both can be served, they're not fundamentally opposed.
> 
> It is possible to perform actions which serve both. The question is,
> given the choice between an action that benefits the public and an
> action which benefits the company, which are they going to choose?

Depends on the company or organisation, there's no one right answer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:11:12 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:42:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>>>> This seems to be the fundamental divide, yes. If you think about it,
>>>> these two beliefs are fundamentally opposed. Either the media serves
>>>> the public, or it serves itself. Which is it?
>>>
>>> Both can be served, they're not fundamentally opposed.
>> 
>> It is possible to perform actions which serve both. The question is,
>> given the choice between an action that benefits the public and an
>> action which benefits the company, which are they going to choose?
> 
> Depends on the company or organisation, there's no one right answer.

And as I said, the two aren't mutually exclusive.  Win-win is entirely 
possible (and achieved by many organisations).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5/28/2011 5:21, Warp wrote:
>    You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
> of how bad and biased it is.

Also when your president actually starts saying stuff like "Come on, guys, 
your lies are really hurting people."  Or when they're not allowed to 
broadcast in neighboring countries because said countries have laws against 
intentionally incorrect news broadcasts.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 5/31/2011 5:58, Invisible wrote:
> As far as I can tell, this point of view has no basis in reality.

It used to, in the USA.  Broadcasters got spectrum in return for having news 
shows that would inform the public, basically.

Eventually, this changed, when they realized they could sell advertising in 
the news shows.  But for many decades, the news reporters really were trying 
to not be entertainment but rather public service.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2011 05:26 PM, Darren New wrote:

> Or when they're not allowed
> to broadcast in neighboring countries because said countries have laws
> against intentionally incorrect news broadcasts.

This.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 5/28/2011 5:21, Warp wrote:
> >    You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
> > of how bad and biased it is.

> Also when your president actually starts saying stuff like "Come on, guys, 
> your lies are really hurting people."  Or when they're not allowed to 
> broadcast in neighboring countries because said countries have laws against 
> intentionally incorrect news broadcasts.

  From the little I have seen, though, most people at Fox News seem to be
pretty smart and good at arguing. If you were to watch only their side of
any argument or how they defend themselves against bias accusations, their
arguments can be pretty convincing. (Of course this is the same as with
conspiracy theorists: If you only listen to them, you are getting very
carefully selected, highly polished arguments, and you are not getting the
whole picture. Trying to form an informed opinion based solely on this would
be a bad mistake.)

  Why are such smart people so stupid at the same time?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2011 11:29 AM, Warp wrote:

>    Why are such smart people so stupid at the same time?

The answer I usually find myself utterly is "maybe they aren't".

Believing something is true when it's obviously false is stupid. But 
claiming something is true when there's some benefit to doing this... 
that's not stupid at all. Arguably, that's the smart thing to do. (See: 
Any crime drama you care to name. The smart people are the liars. Or the 
detective. Hopefully.)

Post a reply to this message

On 6/7/2011 3:29 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 5/28/2011 5:21, Warp wrote:
>>>     You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
>>> of how bad and biased it is.
>
>> Also when your president actually starts saying stuff like "Come on, guys,
>> your lies are really hurting people."  Or when they're not allowed to
>> broadcast in neighboring countries because said countries have laws against
>> intentionally incorrect news broadcasts.
>
>     From the little I have seen, though, most people at Fox News seem to be
> pretty smart and good at arguing. If you were to watch only their side of
> any argument or how they defend themselves against bias accusations, their
> arguments can be pretty convincing. (Of course this is the same as with
> conspiracy theorists: If you only listen to them, you are getting very
> carefully selected, highly polished arguments, and you are not getting the
> whole picture. Trying to form an informed opinion based solely on this would
> be a bad mistake.)
>
>    Why are such smart people so stupid at the same time?
>
Don't remember who said it, but they explained it like this (their 
version being a lot shorter than this), "More knowledge/intelligence, 
when applied badly, leads to more plausible sounding explanations for 
the ridiculous, since they have more to work from, when constructing 
their gibberish. This makes them better able to defend their position, 
unless you are nearly as knowledgeable, and not heavily invested in the 
same errors." The original was directed at the question of why a 
scientist may hold, simultaneously, idiotic ideas, not directly related 
to their own field, while managing to do a good, or even exceptional, 
job at things that *are* in that field. The answer being, "Because they 
can construct better stupidities."

Now, when you have a refusal to recognize certain problems, a political 
agenda that requires either supporting the absurd, or ignoring the 
existence of said problems, and your goal is to minimize inconveniences, 
caused by actually acknowledging such problems, or recognizing 
absurdity, the situation is even worse. In such cases, the convoluted 
idiocies constructed are often directed at a) delaying action, b) 
presenting the problem as non-existent, and designed to inconvenience 
you, or your supporters, and/or c) claiming that, even if the problem 
exists, its not as bad as its made out, so all the steps suggested, 
which cause you, or your supporters, inconvenience, are detrimental. And 
that is without even adding in religious components, which bring with it 
a whole level of, "Even though we constitute 90% of the people in the 
country, we are ***supposed*** to be persecuted, otherwise our nonsense 
might not be true, therefor *everyone* is persecuting us."

Who "everyone" is changes from day to day, ironically, sometimes being 
90% of the country (including all the "not true Christians, because they 
are not as insane as we are"), to 10% of the population that supposedly 
functions like the Legion of Doom, super powers and all, and will, any 
day, take over the world, if they don't whine about us conspiring to do 
it, and scream about being persecuted, or something... Don't ask me how 
the hell that works exactly though. lol In any case, the "who" involved, 
in both sorts of nonsensical cases, politics and religion, is fluid, and 
could constitute nearly everyone on the planet, or two idiots in their 
basement, claiming to be the "New Black Panthers", depending on need. It 
doesn't have to be consistent, sane, rational, etc. Only the overall 
"conspiracy" needs to appear to be, and that constitutes basically, 
"Environmentalists and liberals are trying to destroy the world by 
bankrupting businesses, destroying religion, and overthrowing good 
Christian (only they usually are not) laws!"

Frankly, I personally think it makes about as much sense of the moron 
who took in millions from end of the worlders, but seemed to think, 
assuming he wasn't scamming them, that world wide earthquakes, famine, 
deaths, falling buildings, fires, etc., wouldn't have any effect at all 
on the banking industry, so all that cash would be "helpful" to those 
"left behind". It makes perfect sense, as long as you only get your 
information from people payed to make all the numbers come out in favor 
of the nonsense you already believe.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:05:45 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

>>    Why are such smart people so stupid at the same time?
>>
> Don't remember who said it, but they explained it like this (their
> version being a lot shorter than this), "More knowledge/intelligence,
> when applied badly, leads to more plausible sounding explanations for
> the ridiculous, since they have more to work from, when constructing
> their gibberish. This makes them better able to defend their position,
> unless you are nearly as knowledgeable, and not heavily invested in the
> same errors." The original was directed at the question of why a
> scientist may hold, simultaneously, idiotic ideas, not directly related
> to their own field, while managing to do a good, or even exceptional,
> job at things that *are* in that field. The answer being, "Because they
> can construct better stupidities."

Of course it also helps when people have no memory of what these 
'reporters' have said before.  Quite often they contradict themselves and 
count on the fact that nobody remembers what they said earlier.

That's why Jon Stewart is so successful - he shines a bright light on 
that kind of idiocy, and it all starts with "Roll 2-12". :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:05:45 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>>     Why are such smart people so stupid at the same time?
>>>
>> Don't remember who said it, but they explained it like this (their
>> version being a lot shorter than this), "More knowledge/intelligence,
>> when applied badly, leads to more plausible sounding explanations for
>> the ridiculous, since they have more to work from, when constructing
>> their gibberish. This makes them better able to defend their position,
>> unless you are nearly as knowledgeable, and not heavily invested in the
>> same errors." The original was directed at the question of why a
>> scientist may hold, simultaneously, idiotic ideas, not directly related
>> to their own field, while managing to do a good, or even exceptional,
>> job at things that *are* in that field. The answer being, "Because they
>> can construct better stupidities."
>
> Of course it also helps when people have no memory of what these
> 'reporters' have said before.  Quite often they contradict themselves and
> count on the fact that nobody remembers what they said earlier.
>
Yeah, there is that too. Though, personally, the idea that you can hope 
to get by with that in any sort of long terms shows a great deal of 
blind stupidity as it is, in an day when doing *anything* in the TV is 
likely to end up with copies of what you *actually* said, both times, 
pasted into Youtube, Media Matters, and just about every other place 
imaginable, where someone might archive the shit.

The only reason they can get by with it is that not enough people on the 
other side of the fence are willing to *show* it happening, relying on 
the news media itself to report it, like anyone that watches Fox is 
going to turn on MSNBC, to watch their segment on, "What stupid shit Fox 
said this week, which they said the exact opposite of two days ago." 
Damn people need to get some guts, grow some balls, or something. The 
only competition they seem to present is, "We won't sink to your level 
of lies, by exposing the truth about all the stuff you are lying about." 
Wait, what? Really seriously irritates me.

Hint to the politicians: The press isn't going to do your job for you. 
You can either stand up for the truth, and maybe look bad to a few 
idiots, or you can waffle, and look bad to the people that know what the 
truth is. The later is a 100% certain way to lose *everything*, not just 
the next election, due to looking like someone raking mud.

> That's why Jon Stewart is so successful - he shines a bright light on
> that kind of idiocy, and it all starts with "Roll 2-12". :)
>
> Jim

Well, the other solution is Palin's fans, which is, "If the history 
doesn't reflect what your glorious leader claims, change history." Mind, 
Wikipedia isn't likely to put up with it, but I am sure Conservapedia 
would accept it. And, I do wonder how they plan to redo all the history 
books out there. lol

Post a reply to this message