Mike D Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 I always wondered why people made such a big deal about the media either being biased liberal or conservative. Who cares? When I watch the news or some information channel, I filter out the opinions and focus on the facts, and that's how I come to my own opinion about things. I look at news as a way to obtain factual information, not as a propeganda or programming tool which I allow my thoughts and opinions to be based upon. Therefore, it doesn't matter if I watch Fox or CNN, because all I care about are facts, not the slant or the spin. So my question is this: do people get so riled up over these biases because they feel they influence their own opinion? Or do they get riled up because they feel most Americans don't want facts, they just want to sit back in their barcalounger and be spoon fed opinion so they know what to think? And if that is so, isn't the problem not with the bias, but isn't the problem that America is just lazy and doesn't want to think? Why blame the media if Americans are stupid? Someone help me understand this please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 The media have a tendency to not tell all the facts available... or not carefully evaluate the way in which they express the facts that they offer. That is my problem... plus, I don't really see the media as conservative or liberal. They are motivated by money, so whatever makes money is what is reported. This is not so true in print journalism, but still true to a certain degree. I don't get riled up over it very often, I get more riled up at what they choose to cover. As long as independent news sources are available and reliable, and I am free enough as a citizen to be able to verify facts without getting jailed under the Patriot Act, I have few complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInPA Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 They're all sellouts, just like politicians. Liberal, conservative, doesn't matter, I just listen to everything with a skeptical veiwpoint. For example, the war in Iraq. Who the hell knows what's REALLY going on? One can find reports from any side and make any conclusion they want. The sad thing is that the people are kept in the dark. That's why I do NOT debate politics. We're all so uninfomed or misinformed, we have no idea what's REALLY going on Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Have you ever noticed that no matter whether a news source is supposedly "liberal" or "conservative", the answer to all perceived problems is assumed to lie in government somehow? The "drug problem" is "solved" with more hand holding and after school programs if you're a liberal, it's solved with more police budgets and tougher sentencing if you're a conservative. Illiteracy is "solved" with greater school budgets if you're a liberal, and with vouchers if you're a conservative. Poverty requires more social programs if you're a liberal, it requires tax intervention if you're a conservative. Neither side ever stops to question if government itself is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 So my question is this: do people get so riled up over these biases because they feel they influence their own opinion? Or do they get riled up because they feel most Americans don't want facts, they just want to sit back in their barcalounger and be spoon fed opinion so they know what to think? And if that is so, isn't the problem not with the bias, but isn't the problem that America is just lazy and doesn't want to think? Why blame the media if Americans are stupid? Someone help me understand this please I get riled up over media bias because I find TV news to be bigoted and sensational. Whether people admit it or not, we form opinions on what is presented to us as facts. Also, news has a way of doing nothing important and amplifying anything that will make the corp. a bit more money. TV news fails to do everything that news, in my opinion should do. Why do we hear about laws after they are passed, but never run short on news that starts off like "3 young men were killed in a car accident today....."? News should be about activism, not just "being informed" about the latest shooting in a heavily black part of town. I don't think people want to be spoon fed anyone else's opnion. What I do think is that news corps spend all together too much money on Corporate Sociologists/Psychologists who think up ways to give the illusion of offering empowing information to the little people. People are not too lazy to think, they are too tired to think. Between shuttling the little ones to school, going to work, picking the seeds up from school, dinner, housekeeping, paying bills, dental checkups, traffic, ...... we end up having to put our trust in a public medium to give us information that is important. The media distiorts some information while keeping other bits of info away from the public, and at the same time, makes a hell of a lot of coin off of us. But, I do feel that people are to blame as well. If I want to watch the news I want it to be news that is not distorted. I can't imagine there is a person out there who has not heard the criticism that FOX NEWS is slanted. MAybe there are a few people who have not heard this before, but from my experience most viewers of FOX have heard it. It makes sense that if people rely on FOX for their news, that they should look into whether these claims are true or not. If they don't look into why these claims are made against their source of news are being made, then yes, I suppose that would make people stupid. The sad thing is that the people are kept in the dark. That's why I do NOT debate politics. We're all so uninfomed or misinformed, we have no idea what's REALLY going on Dan Politics and government have been so de-humanized for most people, but that gives no one the excuse that they are uninformed and thus are not entitled to a political opinion. You are right, debating politics is a waste of time if done to show that you are right or part of the "good" party, and the opponent is on the wrong side. However, there is nothing wrong with comparing notes. If we continue to run around in a perpetual state of confusion about what the 100% truth of a situation is, we do nothing but feed the thought that politics should be left to the professionals. That is precisely the wrong attitude to have as a citizen of a Democracy. Debating among voters, if done in the spirit of coming to an educated opinion, is a good way in keeping a sense of ownership in the government that we do in fact own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Debating among voters, if done in the spirit of coming to an educated opinion, is a good way in keeping a sense of ownership in the government that we do in fact own. Unless you are paying someone under the table, you don't own it. Voting is irrelevant, as is caring about national news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 21, 2005 Author Share Posted November 21, 2005 I get riled up over media bias because I find TV news to be bigoted and sensational. Whether people admit it or not, we form opinions on what is presented to us as facts. Also, news has a way of doing nothing important and amplifying anything that will make the corp. a bit more money. Oh I totally agree we form opinions based on what is presented to us as facts, and I think that's what we should do. What I am wondering is if people form their opinions based not on the actual facts but just based on the opinion of a liberal or conservative commentator or news show host. I personally try not to do that, so it doesn't really matter to me what their opinion is. As for what the news tells us is "news" I have to think that's a tough call, I can't say I would want that job. I mean how does one take all the information from a given day which needs to go into a 1 hour time slot and then objectively decide what is newsworthy and what isn't? Seems like a daunting task. I guess at the end of the day it's based on what keeps our attention so that we keep watching and advertisers keep advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Oh I totally agree we form opinions based on what is presented to us as facts, and I think that's what we should do. What I am wondering is if people form their opinions based not on the actual facts but just based on the opinion of a liberal or conservative commentator or news show host. I personally try not to do that, so it doesn't really matter to me what their opinion is. As for what the news tells us is "news" I have to think that's a tough call, I can't say I would want that job. I mean how does one take all the information from a given day which needs to go into a 1 hour time slot and then objectively decide what is newsworthy and what isn't? Seems like a daunting task. I guess at the end of the day it's based on what keeps our attention so that we keep watching and advertisers keep advertising. A chill ran down my back when I wondered how many people actually base their opinions on the opinions of the paid opinionators. Really, who can be certain how many people actually absorb what one rich fuck says and then spits it out word for word? I am sure that there are probably only a small group of people who would admit to getting their information in this manner. But of course the appeal exists for such "news gathering." Listening to Al Franken is a lot less time consuming than reading 6 or 7 dailys. I think the paid opinionators are a a weak starting point at best. I agree that there is far more news than an hour allows. Some people have a larger worldview than others, and want to hear about what is going on in countries arund the world, while other people feel that if they walk out of house without being affected by some topic, it isn't news-worthy. And editors need to appease their sponsors by bringing in the ratings. That is a hard job. I will tell you what though, some little squirl on jet skies being pulled by a boat on a lake is NOT fuckin news. Over-the-top speculation is also not news. I don't appreciate being treated like I care about all that shit. To me, that is a direct waste of time. The new teen sex epidemic??? No, not news. I like how they have these litlle reports on brats who fuck in high school, like it is something new. Hey, lookie some girl dressed like Brittany is getting laid. How sad. And then NOTHING new is said. Blah blah blah condoms blah blah blah abstinence....... Why do we have this shit, the same shit, on every few months? Cuz the ratings soar. Unless you are paying someone under the table, you don't own it. Voting is irrelevant, as is caring about national news. How do you suppose a democracy becomes so tainted? Because people choose to ignore. If public officials are not monitored, they will run around doing whatever they want to. And people have given up. Most of the time any action that takes place in Washington is only a reaction and hardly ever prevention. But even with all that said I still can't bring myself to stop caring about politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Unless you are paying someone under the table, you don't own it. Voting is irrelevant, as is caring about national news. How do you suppose a democracy becomes so tainted? By design. Representative democracy is a classic example of the free rider problem in action combined with what economists call interest seeking (an attempt to gain much through politics for little investment). The people motivated to run for office tend to be power hungry assholes who can be bought off with campaign contributions by those willing to pay them for a return on their investment at your expense. Although it is possible for voters to reign this in to some degree. Because people choose to ignore. If public officials are not monitored, they will run around doing whatever they want to. And people have given up. Most of the time any action that takes place in Washington is only a reaction and hardly ever prevention. They can't be monitored. They are the ones who pay the salaries of the monitoring agencies. Private watchdog groups have had minor success here and there, but suffer from the free rider problem. But even with all that said I still can't bring myself to stop caring about politics. Whatever floats your boat, but please don't fool yourself into thinking your vote matters. If you really want to make a difference, you have to get publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 By design. Representative democracy is a classic example of the free rider problem in action combined with what economists call interest seeking (an attempt to gain much through politics for little investment). The people motivated to run for office tend to be power hungry assholes who can be bought off with campaign contributions by those willing to pay them for a return on their investment at your expense. Although it is possible for voters to reign this in to some degree. Because people choose to ignore. If public officials are not monitored, they will run around doing whatever they want to. And people have given up. Most of the time any action that takes place in Washington is only a reaction and hardly ever prevention. They can't be monitored. They are the ones who pay the salaries of the monitoring agencies. Private watchdog groups have had minor success here and there, but suffer from the free rider problem. But even with all that said I still can't bring myself to stop caring about politics. Whatever floats your boat, but please don't fool yourself into thinking your vote matters. If you really want to make a difference, you have to get publicity. First of all, every political system has a beginning and an end due to the imperfection in design. Democracy does not break that mold, but I feel it is the best system for any society. I think what you are referring to in the first paragraph is bureaucracy, not democracy. Splitting hairs, I know, but the difference I see is that bureaucracy is allowed to infect government when the majority of people don't care. Bureaucracy can never be completely taken out of government, but it can be limited. People can either throw their hands up and say, well we will never get rid of it so why bother, or we can cut it off when we get the chance. Again, I have to say that the only reason we find governmet to be this secretive enigma is because we have turned it into exactly that. Watchdog groups are not around to turn our government into a utopia. They exist to make sure that we are not getting a major screw job. So just because we are not a perfect society doesn't mean that the thinkies and other progressive groups are not effective in their purpose. You are right, voting is pretty tame. Nothing inspiring about punching holes in a ballot box, and the Electoral College decides, not the popular vote. But the members of the EC are VOTED IN. I still go out to do the popular vote because it is (or used to be before electronic voting machines were made) a legal fall back. ~~~Eyelids closing~~~ Ok, on to the last point. I don't think my vote is the deciding factor in national elections, but I sill do it for the reason I stated in the last paragraph. I also just simply would feel ashamed if I didn't vote. There is no logical reason for it, but it works to keep me interested. If I don't go to vote because I want to see someone win, I will certainly go to not feel ashamed. That admission probably hurts my credibility, but it is - in the end - the truth. Oh wait one more thing, I would just like to point out that a democratic / capitalist society allows more social mobility than any other system. That means that more people can be born on a potato farm and grow up to be a powerful billionaire in this country than in any other ( Russia I think recently became another good country for such mobility). People have the ability to aquire power. But political ladder climbing doesn't change much. A cultural movement, a war - those do to most to change society. I do agree with you to a point, and I feel to some degree that we are powerless, but that only makes what we can manipulate that much more important to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 The people motivated to run for office tend to be power hungry assholes who can be bought off with campaign contributions by those willing to pay them for a return on their investment at your expense. Although it is possible for voters to reign this in to some degree. Yes, and therein lays the crux of the problem. The same groups who "motivate" politicians with campaign contributions either own or heavily motivate media as well. The sheep are easy to sway. The primary method is to keep the sheep busy thinking about other stuff: auto crash tests, make overs, pop psychology, Michael Jackson, Jessica, etc..., etc... Thinkers whose votes are not so easily manipulated make up the vast minority so I would agree, your vote means shit. Even more so if you live in a state that is not hotly contested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Re: news and news overload..... As a genealogist I often wonder if people 200-300 years ago weren't a lot calmer and more focused. A farmer in a rural area could probably go a month before he learned of a war in another country, or a week before he learned of the death of the owner of a near-by piece of land. No news at all regarding traffic, business openings, job rates, market moves, politics, etc. One of these days I will successfully cut myself off from all the info-glut being forced on me and I think I'll be happier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I don't get riled up over the liberal or conservative slant of editorial pieces. What does rile me up are: - Editorial comments passed off as facts - Selective presentation of facts to sway the viewer or reader to a conclusion (omission of facts that don't fit the bias of the news organization) - Lies presented as facts - Conjecture presented as fact - Media organizations that simply parrot propaganda they receive from government or corporations or other groups without bothering to check the accuracy of the material they are given Democratic societies cannot function properly without a healthly and honest news media. We should all be riled up whenever any organization claiming to be a news outlet is anything but honest and unbiased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I don't get riled up over the liberal or conservative slant of editorial pieces. What does rile me up are: - Editorial comments passed off as facts - Selective presentation of facts to sway the viewer or reader to a conclusion (omission of facts that don't fit the bias of the news organization) - Lies presented as facts - Conjecture presented as fact - Media organizations that simply parrot propaganda they receive from government or corporations or other groups without bothering to check the accuracy of the material they are given So what you are saying is the media riles you up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I don't get riled up over the liberal or conservative slant of editorial pieces. What does rile me up are: - Editorial comments passed off as facts - Selective presentation of facts to sway the viewer or reader to a conclusion (omission of facts that don't fit the bias of the news organization) - Lies presented as facts - Conjecture presented as fact - Media organizations that simply parrot propaganda they receive from government or corporations or other groups without bothering to check the accuracy of the material they are given So what you are saying is the media riles you up? Yup. Usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Ok I am going to stop with this thread. I have tried to start a reply several times, and I can't help but sound preachy with everything I write. And so why preach to people who have clearly made up their minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Ok, on to the last point. I don't think my vote is the deciding factor in national elections, but I sill do it for the reason I stated in the last paragraph. I also just simply would feel ashamed if I didn't vote. I think that's probably the reason most people vote, out of some sense of obligation or duty. I actually see it the other way around. I see voting as participation in an inherently bad system, and it doesn't matter to me if it is the least worst system or not. If I vote, I share some responsibility for every bad thing that they do, which is pretty much almost everything they do no matter who's in office. Since my vote will not decide the outcome anyway, I'd just as soon keep my conscience clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Ok, on to the last point. I don't think my vote is the deciding factor in national elections, but I sill do it for the reason I stated in the last paragraph. I also just simply would feel ashamed if I didn't vote. I think that's probably the reason most people vote, out of some sense of obligation or duty. I actually see it the other way around. I see voting as participation in an inherently bad system, and it doesn't matter to me if it is the least worst system or not. If I vote, I share some responsibility for every bad thing that they do, which is pretty much almost everything they do no matter who's in office. Since my vote will not decide the outcome anyway, I'd just as soon keep my conscience clear. I hate it when people say if you don't vote you don't have any right to talk about politics. HELLO to them! My not voting is my stance on a given subject. Or my voting for a write in candidate because I don't like either of the chumps offered to me is my stance. As for the media, it is pretty much nothing but propaganda & aggrandized BS that no one should pay attention to if they want to keep a healthy, positive state of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad3232132 Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 The "mainstream" media is even worse than if it were liberal or conservative. The media just doesn't care either way. They put whatever shit on TV that gets the raitings whether the story is real or imagined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 I hate it when people say if you don't vote you don't have any right to talk about politics. HELLO to them! My not voting is my stance on a given subject. That's how it is for me as well. If it weren't a waste of my time, I would go vote and write in "no-one" for every office. Not only could I shut those people up, but I could toy with their minds in the process... "Who did you vote for?" "no-one" "Well, if you don't vote you can't complain." "You don't understand, I DID vote." "I though you said you didn't vote for anyone." "No, I said I voted for 'no-one'." heh heh, ... hours of pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts