 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20110523
I was about to ask "is it really this bad?"
And then I realised the obviousness of the answer...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20110523
> I was about to ask "is it really this bad?"
> And then I realised the obviousness of the answer...
You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
of how bad and biased it is.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I was about to ask "is it really this bad?"
>
>> And then I realised the obviousness of the answer...
>
> You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
> of how bad and biased it is.
Actually I know nothing about Fox. I was operating more along the lines
of "if their 'news' as the same level of factual accuracy as most of the
media coverage in my country, they can't be very accurate..."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/05/2011 8:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I was about to ask "is it really this bad?"
>>
>>> And then I realised the obviousness of the answer...
>>
>> You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
>> of how bad and biased it is.
>
> Actually I know nothing about Fox. I was operating more along the lines
> of "if their 'news' as the same level of factual accuracy as most of the
> media coverage in my country, they can't be very accurate..."
From my understanding, Fox News is very accurate because they get it
directly from God.:-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 31.05.2011 12:34, schrieb Stephen:
> From my understanding, Fox News is very accurate because they get it
> directly from God.:-P
Ah - so it /is/ hearsay after all :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/05/2011 12:02 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 31.05.2011 12:34, schrieb Stephen:
>
>> From my understanding, Fox News is very accurate because they get it
>> directly from God.:-P
>
> Ah - so it /is/ hearsay after all :-)
No, Hearsay. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-05-31 03:58, Invisible a écrit :
>>> I was about to ask "is it really this bad?"
>>
>>> And then I realised the obviousness of the answer...
>>
>> You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
>> of how bad and biased it is.
>
> Actually I know nothing about Fox. I was operating more along the lines
> of "if their 'news' as the same level of factual accuracy as most of the
> media coverage in my country, they can't be very accurate..."
FOX News and the FOX network are two different beasts.
FOX News has a definite conservative bias and will either ignore or
distort facts that go against their narrative. They will also make
ludicrous assertions and end them with a question mark, such as "Is
Obama a secret communist?" to hide behind the excuse of "hey! we're only
asking questions..." A few years ago, one reporter refused to report
something that he felt was factually incorrect and he was fired. He
sued for wrongful dismisal and lost. The case was appealed all the way
to the Supreme Court and they ruled that FOX News was under no
obligation to tell the truth under the free speech clause of the 1st
amendment of the the US Constitution.
Meanwhile, the FOX network airs shows that are considered edgy and often
ruffle the feathers of the more conservative listeners.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 12:02 PM, clipka wrote:
> > Am 31.05.2011 12:34, schrieb Stephen:
> >
> >> From my understanding, Fox News is very accurate because they get it
> >> directly from God.:-P
> >
> > Ah - so it /is/ hearsay after all :-)
>
> No, Hearsay. ;-)
>
> --
> Regards
> Stephen
Hearsay/Heresy... to-MAY-to/to-MAH-to ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/05/2011 13:42, Francois Labreque wrote:
> A few years ago, one reporter refused to report
> something that he felt was factually incorrect and he was fired. He sued
> for wrongful dismisal and lost. The case was appealed all the way to the
> Supreme Court and they ruled that FOX News was under no obligation to
> tell the truth under the free speech clause of the 1st amendment of the
> the US Constitution.
Now here's a peculiar thing. Many people seem to hold the opinion that
"the media" publishes news as a service to the public, so that we can
all live in an informed democracy. They seem to regard the media as the
sacred guardians of of the Holy Truth, and speak about journalistic
freedom as being vital to our existence and so forth.
As far as I can tell, this point of view has no basis in reality. I can
find no evidence of any law requiring them to tell the truth, or
anything remotely resembling the truth. [This presumably varies by
country.] The various media companies are [in general] not public
services, but commercial entities. By definition, their only purpose for
existing is to generate a profit. They are not /required/ to tell the
truth and they have no /incentive/ to tell the truth.
And yet... the majority of people seem to assume that the media always
tells the truth, with only slight exaggerations or inaccuracies. This
makes no sense to me.
(Think about it: On any given day, what *really* happened in the world
today is probably pretty boring. Far less attention-grabbing than
whatever fictional nonsense you would make up off the top of your head.
So which version of reality are you gonna print, given that you want to
sell the maximum number of copies?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 31.05.2011 13:20, schrieb Stephen:
>>> From my understanding, Fox News is very accurate because they get it
>>> directly from God.:-P
>>
>> Ah - so it /is/ hearsay after all :-)
>
> No, Hearsay. ;-)
To be read with Scottish dialect I guess :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> they have no /incentive/ to tell the truth.
Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards
Many countries have organizations whose purpose is to make sure that
the media doesn't break the ethical standards. (Of course this doesn't
mean these organizations cannot be biased.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/31/2011 12:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I was about to ask "is it really this bad?"
>>
>>> And then I realised the obviousness of the answer...
>>
>> You know that a news channel is really bad when even foreigners are aware
>> of how bad and biased it is.
>
> Actually I know nothing about Fox. I was operating more along the lines
> of "if their 'news' as the same level of factual accuracy as most of the
> media coverage in my country, they can't be very accurate..."
The man that owns Fox is.. Well, he seems to be mild conspiracy nuts,
mostly right wing politically, with a with other quirks. He seems to be
more "Tea Party" than "Conservative", in his leanings, but then a lot of
Libertarians tend to lean that way, without being quite so insane. In
any case, you can't get by with saying anything on Fox that contradicts
Fox, or makes it sponsors look bad, etc. By comparison, MSNBC *has*
occasionally commented on the positions of their own other shows, their
company, and others, way more openly.
Basically, all the evidence suggests, including statements the man made
himself on occasion, that Fox is *very specifically* the political
mouthpiece of one single man, with a very specific view, and that its
completely failure to resemble reality has only become serious when
someone like Beck gets so bad that they lost nearly all sponsors for his
show. Until then, no one there cared to contradict him, or say anything
bad about him, or otherwise rock the boat. Now that he is out, you start
to hear some commentary on how he was a bit off his rocker, once in a
while. But, only after his show got pulled.
Its PT Barnum does the news, sans the intent to entertain and amaze, but
instead evangelize.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/31/2011 5:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 13:42, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
>> A few years ago, one reporter refused to report
>> something that he felt was factually incorrect and he was fired. He sued
>> for wrongful dismisal and lost. The case was appealed all the way to the
>> Supreme Court and they ruled that FOX News was under no obligation to
>> tell the truth under the free speech clause of the 1st amendment of the
>> the US Constitution.
>
> Now here's a peculiar thing. Many people seem to hold the opinion that
> "the media" publishes news as a service to the public, so that we can
> all live in an informed democracy. They seem to regard the media as the
> sacred guardians of of the Holy Truth, and speak about journalistic
> freedom as being vital to our existence and so forth.
>
The reason for this has been two fold - 1) Up until Fox, no one
"intentionally" distorted facts, in any grand, unified, and clear way,
intended to push an agenda, or at least on anything like this scale and
apparently perception of legitimacy, 2) for the most part, the news
media *tried* to research things, and get their facts right, even if
they often screwed up via time-bias (which is to say that enough time
passes that any correction becomes meaningless, especially when stated
in a 30 second blurb, instead of the 30 minute special on the subject
they ran previously).
Fox is notable in that they ignore the very idea of trying to report
facts, they do about as much "research" as your average creationist, and
they *****never***** correct their own statements, unless they
correction makes their sides politics look better, after the correction,
and they have enough material to make sure the correct version sticks
(even if they have to make up shit to fill in the time).
We really need a clear legal definition of News in this country, clear
standards as to how you correct errors, and, more to the point, a way to
very clearly, without resorting to shit like libel and slander, which
you will never be able to nail them on, to differentiate between what is
actual news, or tries to be, and what chooses to become to video
equivalent of "Weekly World News". If we cannot, and will not, make a
clear distinction, we can't trust any of them, since at any moment they
could all start intentionally lying to us, about everything, and no one
would need a Chinese like, government run, propaganda bureau , to make
it happen. Mind, they would all probably be making up completely
contradictory lies, but that hardly helps, if you can't find the real
facts buried any place among them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 31 May 2011 15:43:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Basically, all the evidence suggests, including statements the man made
> himself on occasion, that Fox is *very specifically* the political
> mouthpiece of one single man,
Actually, the impression I get of Rupert Murdoch is that he's in business
to make money. If he could make money from more a progressive/liberal
audience, he'd probably appear to be on the other end of the spectrum.
He seems to me to be mostly an opportunist, taking advantage of people
who aren't willing to think for themselves.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/06/2011 02:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> He seems to me to be mostly an opportunist, taking advantage of people
> who aren't willing to think for themselves.
Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/05/2011 20:20, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> they have no /incentive/ to tell the truth.
>
> Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards
>
> Many countries have organizations whose purpose is to make sure that
> the media doesn't break the ethical standards. (Of course this doesn't
> mean these organizations cannot be biased.)
Sure. There are voluntary codes of practise. But as far as I know,
there's nothing to stop anybody that wants to from completely
disregarding these at will.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:05:50 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 01/06/2011 02:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> He seems to me to be mostly an opportunist, taking advantage of people
>> who aren't willing to think for themselves.
>
> Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
> people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
the public.
The problem with Fox is that they blur the line between fact and opinion,
which results in stories being "reported" on opinion shows that push a
conservative agenda. They do apparently have serious news shows (that
some on the left even say do a good job reporting the news rather than
opining about the news), but I haven't had the patience to wait for that
2 hour segment during the 24 hour day - always had more important things
to do.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:14:43 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 20:20, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> they have no /incentive/ to tell the truth.
>>
>> Not true.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards
>>
>> Many countries have organizations whose purpose is to make sure that
>> the media doesn't break the ethical standards. (Of course this doesn't
>> mean these organizations cannot be biased.)
>
> Sure. There are voluntary codes of practise. But as far as I know,
> there's nothing to stop anybody that wants to from completely
> disregarding these at will.
In the US there are people who have lost their jobs for behaving
unethically when reporting news. Usually in print media, and usually for
plagiarism.
Fox news was declined the ability to broadcast in Canada because of their
distortion of the facts.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 20:20, Warp wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> they have no /incentive/ to tell the truth.
> >
> > Not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards
> >
> > Many countries have organizations whose purpose is to make sure that
> > the media doesn't break the ethical standards. (Of course this doesn't
> > mean these organizations cannot be biased.)
> Sure. There are voluntary codes of practise. But as far as I know,
> there's nothing to stop anybody that wants to from completely
> disregarding these at will.
Voluntary and voluntary... It's not good publicity if your newspaper
gets officially reprimended by the entity that enforces the journalistic
ethic code. Besides, the media cannot break the law either.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Sure. There are voluntary codes of practise. But as far as I know,
>> there's nothing to stop anybody that wants to from completely
>> disregarding these at will.
>
> Voluntary and voluntary... It's not good publicity if your newspaper
> gets officially reprimended by the entity that enforces the journalistic
> ethic code.
Well, that's true enough.
> Besides, the media cannot break the law either.
That's what I'm saying. As far as I can tell, there's no actual *law*
against printing outright lies in a newspaper. It's just considered poor
journalistic practise by some.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/31/2011 6:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 15:43:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Basically, all the evidence suggests, including statements the man made
>> himself on occasion, that Fox is *very specifically* the political
>> mouthpiece of one single man,
>
> Actually, the impression I get of Rupert Murdoch is that he's in business
> to make money. If he could make money from more a progressive/liberal
> audience, he'd probably appear to be on the other end of the spectrum.
>
> He seems to me to be mostly an opportunist, taking advantage of people
> who aren't willing to think for themselves.
>
> Jim
That may be true. And, if it is the case, then we really have a huge
damn problem, because like 2% of business owners see the long term
consequences of bankrupting the people that buy their goods as a,
"problem", the other 98% figure they can just keep paying people shit,
not hiring anyone, if they can help it, doing all their manufacturing in
other countries, and lining their own pockets. And, those people
constitute the "backbone" of the Republican support.
So long as that condition persists, there simply isn't any money in
catering to the progressive/liberal views. And, imho, it makes his
decision to do so even more stupid, dangerous, and, dare I, as a
liberal, non-Christian, use such a term, "unpatriotic". Hell, some of
these idiots I would go as far as using the term, "treason", on, except
that, until/unless some right winger gets elected and puts *that* back
into law, you probably couldn't try them on it, even if you managed to
get them in front of a judge for being stupid enough to do things damn
close to qualifying.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/1/2011 10:27 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:05:50 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2011 02:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> He seems to me to be mostly an opportunist, taking advantage of people
>>> who aren't willing to think for themselves.
>>
>> Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
>> people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
>
> Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
> the public.
>
> The problem with Fox is that they blur the line between fact and opinion,
> which results in stories being "reported" on opinion shows that push a
> conservative agenda. They do apparently have serious news shows (that
> some on the left even say do a good job reporting the news rather than
> opining about the news), but I haven't had the patience to wait for that
> 2 hour segment during the 24 hour day - always had more important things
> to do.
>
> Jim
Yeah. Most of their time seems to be spent talking about the "reported"
facts, of the opinion show, which reported on someone else's opinion or
the opinion some clown had, about the previously reported news, on the
first show. I.e., why put up new news, if you can just recycle your own
pundits opinions of your own opinion, or the news you barely reported in
the first place? The main "news" show declares, "Spot say a ball",
becomes a discussion on X show about the color of the ball, followed by
Beck (or whom ever is left there now to do this) declares it red, and
says Spot might be a communist, and a few days later the main show is
quoting how Sarah Palin's opinion of what Ann Coulter said, in relation
to Mike Huckabee's comments, about Beck's claims, that Spot is a communist.
BTW, the most stupidly dangerous thing about this isn't if its pandering
to the right, because that is what is making money, its the fact that
half the idiots that seem to be possible candidates for the next
election, or keep trying to run, now "work" for Fox. You can't tell me
that is good for impartiality, or accuracy...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:16:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> BTW, the most stupidly dangerous thing about this isn't if its pandering
> to the right, because that is what is making money, its the fact that
> half the idiots that seem to be possible candidates for the next
> election, or keep trying to run, now "work" for Fox. You can't tell me
> that is good for impartiality, or accuracy...
I suspect the FEC may need to get involved if someone like Palin or
Huckabee decides to run (Huck has decided not to, though), because there
are laws about equal time that FNC would run seriously afoul of (IMHO)
for giving someone like Palin a platform that wasn't available to the
opposition. Fred Thompson had to quit Law & Order when he decided to run
for office because of those very same laws.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:07:34 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That may be true. And, if it is the case, then we really have a huge
> damn problem, because like 2% of business owners see the long term
> consequences of bankrupting the people that buy their goods as a,
> "problem", the other 98% figure they can just keep paying people shit,
> not hiring anyone, if they can help it, doing all their manufacturing in
> other countries, and lining their own pockets. And, those people
> constitute the "backbone" of the Republican support.
What's so maddening is how the right has convinced people that they can
live the "American Dream" and, if they (the 'little people') had money,
they wouldn't want big bad Uncle Sam coming out with his hand out asking
for more money to fund feeding the poor and underprivileged.
But most of those people who vote Republican aren't ever going to benefit
from those tax cuts because the more people there are in that tax
bracket, the less power there is to go around to those people who are in
that tax bracket. So it's in their interest to "keep the dream alive"
for those less fortunate while actively preventing the less fortunate
from actually climbing the economic ladder.
Which is class warfare. It's funny (and sad) how the right spins
increasing taxes on the rich into class warfare and paints it as a 'bad
thing' when in fact they are actively engaged in class warfare and those
who are less fortunate are told that that crap sandwich is *really*
fillet mignon.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:30:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Sure. There are voluntary codes of practise. But as far as I know,
>>> there's nothing to stop anybody that wants to from completely
>>> disregarding these at will.
>>
>> Voluntary and voluntary... It's not good publicity if your newspaper
>> gets officially reprimended by the entity that enforces the
>> journalistic ethic code.
>
> Well, that's true enough.
>
>> Besides, the media cannot break the law either.
>
> That's what I'm saying. As far as I can tell, there's no actual *law*
> against printing outright lies in a newspaper. It's just considered poor
> journalistic practise by some.
Depends on the lie. Some lies certainly would be illegal if they were
libelous (for example).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
>> people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
>
> Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
> the public.
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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/1/2011 5:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:16:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> BTW, the most stupidly dangerous thing about this isn't if its pandering
>> to the right, because that is what is making money, its the fact that
>> half the idiots that seem to be possible candidates for the next
>> election, or keep trying to run, now "work" for Fox. You can't tell me
>> that is good for impartiality, or accuracy...
>
> I suspect the FEC may need to get involved if someone like Palin or
> Huckabee decides to run (Huck has decided not to, though), because there
> are laws about equal time that FNC would run seriously afoul of (IMHO)
> for giving someone like Palin a platform that wasn't available to the
> opposition. Fred Thompson had to quit Law& Order when he decided to run
> for office because of those very same laws.
>
> Jim
Yes, but they only have to quit. Not that it wouldn't be a damn screwed
up scandal if they claimed to quit, but actually got caught still
getting a pay check, but.. some of these people are either way too
clever for their our own good, or just stupid enough, to do that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/2/2011 1:01 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
>>> people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
>>
>> Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
>> the public.
>
> 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?
Third option? It serves the corporate world, i.e., the money, so which
ever side those people are on, determines what gets on the air. Mind,
given that the modern corporate world tends to be made up of Ayn Rand
fans, mixed with the plain greedy, and less than 2% of the "big" ones
probably comprehend, or care, how screwed up they are making the
economy, this is nearly indistinguishable from, "It serves itself." Its
own self interest will, naturally, be to kiss the ass of the people with
the power, regardless of what the end game is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/1/2011 5:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:07:34 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> That may be true. And, if it is the case, then we really have a huge
>> damn problem, because like 2% of business owners see the long term
>> consequences of bankrupting the people that buy their goods as a,
>> "problem", the other 98% figure they can just keep paying people shit,
>> not hiring anyone, if they can help it, doing all their manufacturing in
>> other countries, and lining their own pockets. And, those people
>> constitute the "backbone" of the Republican support.
>
> What's so maddening is how the right has convinced people that they can
> live the "American Dream" and, if they (the 'little people') had money,
> they wouldn't want big bad Uncle Sam coming out with his hand out asking
> for more money to fund feeding the poor and underprivileged.
>
Yeah, because the companies that *had* a social conscience 50-100 years
ago where all, "communist!" Isn't it obvious? Long, slow, slide into a
state where, instead of half of them giving a shit about their workers,
even the ones that do now often have their hands tied by legislators,
who create laws that make it impossible to compete, by paying what the
ones who still have a damn conscience, or concept of basic civics (never
mind economics) think their people deserve.
> But most of those people who vote Republican aren't ever going to benefit
> from those tax cuts because the more people there are in that tax
> bracket, the less power there is to go around to those people who are in
> that tax bracket. So it's in their interest to "keep the dream alive"
> for those less fortunate while actively preventing the less fortunate
> from actually climbing the economic ladder.
>
> Which is class warfare. It's funny (and sad) how the right spins
> increasing taxes on the rich into class warfare and paints it as a 'bad
> thing' when in fact they are actively engaged in class warfare and those
> who are less fortunate are told that that crap sandwich is *really*
> fillet mignon.
>
I thought of the perfect example to show this. Everyone with an Olympic
sized swimming pool gets an extra ration of 500 gallons of water, and
doesn't have to give anything back, if they are clever enough. Everyone
with a smaller pool has to fight, tooth and nail, to just break even.
The people that only hope to own a pool, but might not even have a
bathtub, are asked to spit in a cup, because the government needs the water.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That's what I'm saying. As far as I can tell, there's no actual *law*
>> against printing outright lies in a newspaper. It's just considered poor
>> journalistic practise by some.
>
> Depends on the lie. Some lies certainly would be illegal if they were
> libelous (for example).
Right. So if I say that vitamine C overdoses cause cancer, that's fine,
but if I say that Dr Smith has proved that vitamine C overdoses cause
cancer, that's libel. (?)
In short, you can lie all you want, so long as you don't lie about
people or commercial entities, or if you do, you make sure that whatever
ficticious claims you make can't be rigoriously refuted.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
>>> the public.
>>
>> 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?
> Third option? It serves the corporate world, i.e., the money
Since this is to the benefit of the media and not the people, that would
be "it serves itself". ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:13:29 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> That's what I'm saying. As far as I can tell, there's no actual *law*
>>> against printing outright lies in a newspaper. It's just considered
>>> poor journalistic practise by some.
>>
>> Depends on the lie. Some lies certainly would be illegal if they were
>> libelous (for example).
>
> Right. So if I say that vitamine C overdoses cause cancer, that's fine,
> but if I say that Dr Smith has proved that vitamine C overdoses cause
> cancer, that's libel. (?)
If you *say* it (and it's provably untrue), it's slander, not libel. I
used libel as an example, not as the end-all be-all of possible outcomes.
Slander = spoken
Libel = written
There are lots of laws that cover what is and isn't legal. But it also
takes someone to decide to go to court over something that someone says
in order to get it tried. As a civil matter, most often, which means in
order to sue you have to have standing (ie, you have to have been defamed
in some demonstrable way), and the cost of litigation often precludes
people from doing so.
> In short, you can lie all you want, so long as you don't lie about
> people or commercial entities, or if you do, you make sure that whatever
> ficticious claims you make can't be rigoriously refuted.
No, as I said, that's one example. ASA there in the UK has standards for
advertising (similar to the consumer protection agency here in the US,
AIUI).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 06:39:28 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 5:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:16:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, the most stupidly dangerous thing about this isn't if its
>>> pandering to the right, because that is what is making money, its the
>>> fact that half the idiots that seem to be possible candidates for the
>>> next election, or keep trying to run, now "work" for Fox. You can't
>>> tell me that is good for impartiality, or accuracy...
>>
>> I suspect the FEC may need to get involved if someone like Palin or
>> Huckabee decides to run (Huck has decided not to, though), because
>> there are laws about equal time that FNC would run seriously afoul of
>> (IMHO) for giving someone like Palin a platform that wasn't available
>> to the opposition. Fred Thompson had to quit Law& Order when he
>> decided to run for office because of those very same laws.
>>
>> Jim
> Yes, but they only have to quit. Not that it wouldn't be a damn screwed
> up scandal if they claimed to quit, but actually got caught still
> getting a pay check, but.. some of these people are either way too
> clever for their our own good, or just stupid enough, to do that.
Tuesday night's episode of The Colbert Report actually talked about this
a bit, it was quite good - check it out online. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:01:15 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
>>> people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
>>
>> Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
>> the public.
>
> 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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.06.2011 20:13, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>> That's what I'm saying. As far as I can tell, there's no actual *law*
>>> against printing outright lies in a newspaper. It's just considered poor
>>> journalistic practise by some.
>>
>> Depends on the lie. Some lies certainly would be illegal if they were
>> libelous (for example).
>
> Right. So if I say that vitamine C overdoses cause cancer, that's fine,
> but if I say that Dr Smith has proved that vitamine C overdoses cause
> cancer, that's libel. (?)
>
> In short, you can lie all you want, so long as you don't lie about
> people or commercial entities, or if you do, you make sure that whatever
> ficticious claims you make can't be rigoriously refuted.
I guess claiming that "Taking 500 mg of Citalopram a day is good for
your mental health" would make you liable to lawsuits in virtually any
country, /especially/ if you're a journalist. And even if it's just a typo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
