Media Folly: Over- and Under-informed in the West [Archive] - The Dancing Lawn

Parthian King

05-14-2007, 11:57 PM

I just read what I considered perhaps the most absurd use of bandwidth ever perpetrated on a "news" website: A piece on the future of our galaxy (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18665052/). This gem explains what will (might?) happen to our solar system in five billion years.

Before anyone jumps on me for an anti-intellectual dearth of curiosity in relation to the created order, let me bring up a little factoid I came by this past week. Recently a leftist president (Correa) has been elected in Ecuador. He is enormously popular (about 80% approval rating) and is aggressively moving to rewrite the nation's constitution, reform the congress, and tighten his grip on everything from freedom of the press to foreign debt and banking relations. Among his agenda items is the expulsion of U.S. military forces (by 2009) from the Pacific penninsula which (most significantly) monitor drug and illegal human traffic out of both Colombia and Peru. Now, this information has received some coverage for those who would look for it. What has not been explained, and I only learned by corresponding with a missionary friend who still lives in Ecuador (I lived there some 7 years), is that Correa's vendetta against the U.S. is grounded in a childhood memory: His father was busted for drug smuggling by U.S. DEA personnel in Panama when he was a boy.

My question is this: Why must I, a relatively interested and curious reader, find out via the back door and by sheer happenstance (instead of proper news channels) something so significant as this about a foreign head of state whose motivations and actions could have such a powerful impact on the U.S. and its security? Why is the American public fed with speculation about the 5 billion year hence history of the universe or the current state of Britney's rehab, while what we need to hear is left out?

Much has been said about the "liberal media" and its agenda. I am beginning to think the Enemy doesn't want to turn us into pseudo-intellectual liberals so much as blatantly moronic lunatics.

Olórin the Wise

05-15-2007, 12:35 AM

I agree completely, PK. The media is, in my opinion, one of the worst things that ever happened to my country. Take the Iraq war, for instance. Personally, I think that it was a necessary evil but let's not get into that right now. With the Iraq war, the media has been taking every death, every wound, every tiny scratch that's happened to the US forces in Iraq, and reporting it individually. I don't know what their motives are, but whatever they might be, the media is smoothly convincing this country that not only is the war in Iraq a terrible thing, but that war is ALWAYS, without exception, the WRONG choice - that there is no such thing as a just war. I heard a quote somewhere - it went something like this: "War is an evil thing, but not the evilest of things. A society so decadent that it would never go to war - that it had nothing left that it felt was worth fighting for - that would be worse than war." And it's exactly the opposite of that which the media is feeding to the masses right now. Sometimes it just makes me sick.

PrinceOfTheWest

05-15-2007, 04:38 AM

As I look at the stuff the media is pushing these days, I'm reminded of nothing so much as a stage magician, who keeps his audience distracted with meaningless activity done with one hand while he does the real trick with the other. For instance, people are encouraged to get all worked up about the possibility of climate change (what climate doesn't change?), while masking the fact that in laboratories around the world, humans are being created for the explicit purpose of being torn apart and experimented upon.

"They have an engine called the Press, by which the people are deceived."
C.S. Lewis

EveningStar

05-15-2007, 08:04 AM

The media has stepped out of its role as an independent observer. It has ceased to become the eyes and ears of an informed electorate and mutated into yet another source of propaganda.

We are treated like children to be shaped and molded by an older mentor who knows what's good for us. Thing is, the "ideal world" that journalists want to build for us is by and large free of such "burdens" as sexual mores and religious convictions. Boiled down to the Reader's Digest version: "If everyone just did whatever came naturally and didn't worry about some old man in a nightgown in the sky, we'd all be better off..." Uh huh....

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is important to consider what will happen to this world in five million years, for that's how long it will take to straighten out the mess they're creating.

Copperfox

05-15-2007, 09:02 AM

As for the excesses of misguided pacifism:

One of the most terrible of all sensations is powerlessness--the inability to affect events that affect you. When you can't actually do something that makes a difference--or can't do it without risk and exertion that you're unwilling to take on--it's a temptation to deceive yourself that something easily within your power will make a difference. This is sometimes referred to as "neurotic magic." (Atheists would accuse Christians of practicing neurotic magic in every aspect of our faith.)

If we admit that the threat of terrorism and tyranny is the fault of terrorists and tyrants, then we have to face the grim reality of needing to fight those terrorists and tyrants (or at least, in the case of the better sort of pacifist, being prepared to be martyred by them). Therefore, a cowardly self-deceiver will choose to make himself believe that it's all the fault of the free nations...because, if it's all the fault of the free nations, those free nations will permit protest, and then the coward can convince himself that protest will solve everything. The self-deceiver then comes under the description offered by Mr. Lewis (from "The Abolition of Man") of those who think that "--peace matters more than honor, and is to be achieved by jeering at colonels and reading newspapers."

Parthian King

05-15-2007, 10:39 AM

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why it is important to consider what will happen to this world in five million years, for that's how long it will take to straighten out the mess they're creating.

Ahem, that's five billion (with a "b"), Magister. And aside from the eschaton, not even that long would be enough pull us from this sin-induced morass.

Olórin the Wise

05-15-2007, 11:19 AM

I was kinda hoping the End of Time would come before that... :rolleyes:

jesslaugh

05-15-2007, 12:50 PM

I guess it depends on what you see the role of the media as being. Ideally, it should be to spread the news about things that effect us. In reality, the media sees its own role as one of profit (like any business in a capitalist society). They push stories that sell subscriptions. And, honestly, our society doesn't care much about a liberal president in Ecuador. So, from a profit standpoint, the media is selling us garbage stories because we're all buying garbage stories. Supply and demand.

inkspot

05-15-2007, 01:01 PM

Welcome to the discussion, Jess. I didn't see you post before. I agree with you about supply and demand. The reason our news has become entertainment is that we are idiots who demand to be entertained.

In Miracles, I believe, CS Lewis talks of a society which rejects sages and seers (philsophers, statesmen and clergy). At that point, there are two directions the society can go: everyone can become a sage and a seer in his own right, or everyone can become a moron. It's clear which direction the USA, anyway, si going: we won't listen to the smart people and the spiritual people, and we won't become smart and spiritual ourselves, so we are becoming morons.

jesslaugh

05-15-2007, 01:21 PM

Hello inkspot! I agree with a lot of what you said, but I actually think that our society has become sages and seers. Most people in our society would say they are "spiritual" is some sense. Everyone thinks they are in touch with some spiritual part of nature/themselves/the world/the universe. We don't need religion because we are "spiritual" already.

I'm not sure how this effects the media. I guess it spurs lots of stories about yoga and exercise and eating right and being healthy. But, since spirituality is an individual thing, it's not something the media can push generally.

Parthian King

05-15-2007, 04:26 PM

I'm not sure I buy into the trend of the discussion. The media is a business, granted, and functions within a market like other businesses. However, other businesses do not generally feel they have a moral mandate to shape society like the modern media does. Starbucks, Shell Oil, and American Airlines all just do business to make money--and media is up to a whole lot more than that (as imprtant as that is). A review of trends and "groundbreaking" shows over the history of television alone will reveal that "trendsetters" (like those who created shows such as "All in the Family," "Three's Company," "Will and Grace," and a plethora of others) deliberately chose to sell something no one was buying because they felt the public should buy it. In other words, a very, very few made a moral choice for everyone else and built into their plan the storms they knew were inevitable. After the frog quit twitching over that rise in temperature, they set something else out, if you follow me.

So the modern, Western media has a bit of an identity crisis. It wants to be a business, yes. It wants to be entertainment (even the most "serious" outlets of it). It wants to play the classic historical role of the press, keeping the public informed and the powers that be responsible. And it actively wants change according to a less than transparent agenda pushed by its operators (even through the most frivolous of its outlets). That, friends, is a potent stew. It is also why we get almost no pertinent international information (I hear this complaint from anyone who has lived internationally, whatever their political leanings) while at the same time we deal with articles the lack of which would harm us not a whit (shucks, we can't tell the weather a week out, and they're telling us what'll go down in 5 billion years?).

The observation that most don't care about what a leftist (not just "liberal," Jess) president in a South American country does or says--though it will certainly affect our lives rather directly here--is a symptom of all this, a result of it and not merely a market reality that sets the trend.

Adanedhel

05-15-2007, 04:32 PM

PrinceOfTheWest

05-15-2007, 05:09 PM

If you want some really good thinking on this, pick up Amusing Ourselves to Death by the late Neal Postman. Great stuff.

Another interesting thing to notice: talk to anyone who's been close to some event reported in the media and ask what they thought of the coverage. Nine times out of ten you'll find that some important things were missed, or words got twisted, or somewhere along the line someone else's perspective slipped into the reporting. This happened to me just recently in a local paper article: I was interviewed about something and I gave careful details, but when the article showed up the next day, I wouldn't have known myself. The editors had twisted my words to give a totally different perspective - the one they wanted to push.

PK's dead right (as was Lewis). They're pushing an agenda and are not to be trusted.

inkspot

05-15-2007, 05:11 PM

What is Skype?

PK, I agree with you "the media" in general has an agenda; I was thinking only of the news. If you are talking TV in general and Hollywood and alll print media, then I agree there is an agenda.

But I also think important stories are not breached in the US news in particular because people are too ignorant or too shallow to care. The politics of another country is boring to us. We would rather see Britney's shaved head or another story on what killed Anna Nicole. I think our educational system has turned to mush, and we are just ignorant of what's really important.

Which is also my response to Jess ... some people say they are "spiritual without being religious," but that is nonsense. That kind of spirituality is rubbish and I would not count such people as seers or sages. If you embrace a faith with a real God and real actions required of Him, even if it isn't the God I serve, it's more authentic than embracing a soporific "spirituality" which can be anything you define it to be ...

I will stand by my first assertion: people have become idiots and are happy to stay that way. If it were not so, we would revolt against the media which continually shunts us down this tunnel to imbecility.

~Sunnyromance~

05-15-2007, 06:43 PM

I think the media is showing all the wrong news. As has been said before. I mean for an example: Here in my country they spent five minuets talking about the detah of US soldiers in Iraq and Prince Harry going there. Later on the mention for like 30 seconds that there had been a natural disaster in some country which caused harm to a lot of people. I mean ain´t that a bit weird?
Also in the media they only tlak about all the bad stuff teen´s do. There are not many times where I´ve seen articles about all the positive things teens do like sports, music, communtiy work or somehting like that. it´s all just drugs, alchohols and so on. I hate that cause it portrays teen´s badly when there are lots of teens that are doing great things.

jesslaugh

05-15-2007, 06:56 PM

I think the religion embraced, largely, is the religion of self. People worship their own spirituality. They feel connected to the universe, and see themselves as part of the universe; and when they appeal to the powers of the universe, they appeal to themselves. In their own unique and quirky way, they are their own sages. At the same time, I agree with you because I think those people are idiots. So, either way, it comes down to the same truth.

Maybe some media companies or powerful people in the media would like to see societal change, and they can influence our society because the nature of the media is to reach everyone. It's not "The Media". Like PK said, it's a few people in the media. I really do think that the media reflects our society. I don't think that the media is out to make society reflect the media.

When we look back at previous decades, we don't say "look at what the media did to the soiety", but we look at the media of the time to get a feel of what the society must've been like. At least, I do.:D

I just don't think you can show any intention by the media, in general, to change society. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

Doffen

05-15-2007, 07:03 PM

Skype is a free calling program where you can call people online who has the same program as you. You can also call directly to cell phones or house phones, though that costs money.

The one thing that strikes me when I watch American news (CNN and such) is how frightened some Americans must be. Atleast from what I've seen, the US has ALOT of war, murdering and crimes in their media. I just watched a documentary on guns and how possible it was to get them in the US ... They took up this with fear in the media, and how the press is trying to scare or intimidate Americans.

Parthian King

05-15-2007, 09:27 PM

I just don't think you can show any intention by the media, in general, to change society. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

What if they say it's their intention?

Olórin the Wise

05-15-2007, 09:37 PM

The one thing that strikes me when I watch American news (CNN and such) is how frightened some Americans must be. Atleast from what I've seen, the US has ALOT of war, murdering and crimes in their media. I just watched a documentary on guns and how possible it was to get them in the US ... They took up this with fear in the media, and how the press is trying to scare or intimidate Americans.

It would, but for the Internet. Since the Internet came into wide usage, the media became a much less potent evil. Granted, it's still pretty powerful, but now that you can go to your favorite news web site (which is usually one that shares your views), you don't have to bother with the junk on TV as much. Another thing is that the media - most of the media, anyway - tends to focus on the negative things in our society. Even if you look at the supermarket tabloid headlines (which I don't generally prefer to do) you see, "So-and-so is dumping such-and-such", or "Is So-and-so cheating on thus-and-such?" A few media channels have made an active effort to combat this negativity - Fox5, I believe, is one - but the majority remain focused on the murders, the horrendous catastrophes, the terrible crimes, but very few of the nicer stuff.

inkspot

05-15-2007, 10:38 PM

I just don't think you can show any intention by the media, in general, to change society. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

If the news media had no "intentions," their coverage would be, as much as possible, unbiased. But consider a couple things:

Example 1: On election night in Texas when voters overwhelmingly passed a law to protect traditional marriage, the TV news featured one family "frightened of what this could mean to their future ..." It was a beautiful lesbian woman (featured in the story) and her somewhat less beautiful partner (seen only briefly) and their two beautiful children. Their love and their family wasn't news, and the law had NOTHING to do with children of any marriage or any union. The whole gist of the story was, how mean of Texas to pass a marriage law when these lesbian moms are so nice.

Clearly it was a conscious effort to play up one viewpoint and discourage another.

Example #2: The Republican Congressman Mark Foley scandal late last year. In the first few days after the scandal about Foley broke, the three major network news outlets (ABC, NBC and CBS) ran 152 stories on the subject. Compare this with the paltry 19 stories the three combined ran on Democrat Conregssman Mel Reynolds who was arrested and convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault against a minor, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography.

(Stats courtesy of the Media Research Center.)

There's really hardly any way to explain the press' blasé overlooking of Reynolds compared to their mad dash to sully Foley's name, unless it is was some kind of agenda. (And as it broke days before national elections, the agenda is clear.)

I truly believe the media in the USA has an agenda. And I think because most people watching the TV news are gullible, the media gets away with it, because no one holds them accountable.

Olórin the Wise

05-15-2007, 11:47 PM

*nostalgic sigh* Ah, the beauty of a group of people who are all vehemently agreeing with one another...

Except for Jess. She's spoiling it all. :mad: *frowns at Jess*

(hehe only kidding Jess :D)

Parthian King

05-16-2007, 01:49 AM

Though some of this stuff has been mentioned before in another thread, somethings bear repeating. Here is a simple truth: There is no such thing as ideological objectivity. Even within secular philosophical circles, the very concept of objectivity in discussions is a dinosaur. The fact is, everyone is an interested party when it comes to matters of morality. Why? Because we are all moral (and, through sin, immoral) beings. There is no way to take such discussions lying down, as if we all didn't have some personal stake in the matter.

Now, I don't care if you went to journalism school, or have climbed the ladder at the Times, or cut a figure worthy of a pithy character in a black and white Hollywood flick. You have a chip in the game when it comes to the direction society takes. At the center of your (corrupt) heart, there is the bent to put a spin on things, to cover for yourself and make a way for more sinfulness.

On what basis do I say this? The Bible. Ah, you say, but that makes you interested too! Indeed, it does. As a Christian, I hold that the only cure for the deperately wicked heart of man is the grace of God through Christ (btw, Lewis thought so too, as is evident in his writings). The difference between the confessing Christian and their message and the faithless member of the media is just that: Confession. I admit that I am a man of faith. They pretend to be voices of cool objectivity--and through that Trojan Horse continue to push their agenda. Yet they have as much faith (or as I would say, anti-faith) as any Christian.

Bu my assertions aren't so much political as they are theological. Politics are also a Trojan Horse. I'm with POTW (surprise, surprise): The issue, the agenda is sin, which makes us criminals and victims at the same time. When a story pushes a sinful agenda to the destruction of a moral society, that's sinful man being a criminal. When it wastes resources on sheer idiocy (where it might have done real good) in the name of "wisdom," that shows how we've become victims of our own folly.

Charn_Tim

05-16-2007, 03:09 AM

ink, wow, those are a couple of ridiculous stories!...I definitely concur with the majority opinion here that the media unfortunately has an agenda they're trying to push as others have very eloquently argued.

jesslaugh

05-16-2007, 03:41 PM

EveningStar

05-16-2007, 03:54 PM

Yes, however you don't take into consideration that the sudden RISE in terrorist activity right before elections is an attempt to hijack our electoral process. The press becomes the unwitting tool of radical factions. Terrorists detonate the bomb, the media rubs our nose in it, then we have regime change in the world's remaining superpower while we spent billions trying to overthrow the government of a sand pile the size of Alabama?

In those circumstances, the media...especially with an agenda...becomes a subversive thing rather than the watchdog of democracy.

Parthian King

05-16-2007, 04:01 PM

I'm not sure that "The Media" can state their intentions. The problem is that we talk about "The Media" like it is one entity that has many heads, like the Hydra, but one mind. "The Media" doesn't issue statements or make announcements as a unified body. You might be able to find a news network that has stated intentions to make our society more socially liberal. And I might be able to find a statement from Fox News stating that they was to make our society more socially conservative. But "The Media" doesn't speak.

The last line is semantics, really. When Norman Lear sits down and consciously discusses what the American public is "ready for," and what words, phrases, and subject matter, in what order will be brought up with an end to breaking down social mores (or "hangups," as they would put it) so that at a macrolevel the show "All in the Family" can be a lever to push societal trends in a certain direction--well, that's "the Media" speaking as far as I am concerned. When Sam Donaldson says that Evangelical Christians are a malevolent and hostile force ina free society and all resources at hand should be used to marginalize them and limit their influence, that "the Media" talking as well. Frame it how you like it, but there it is. And poll after poll reveals that the Media (as long as we are using caps) is 90+% of a particular ideological bent. No wondering which one, eh?

Every story has two sides, but most news stories focus only on one side. When a law is passed in Texas to protect the sanctity of marriage, they interiew someone who could be effected by that law. That law has very little (if any) effect on heterosexuals, but heavily impacts homosexuals. That's normal. Not outrageous. And when terrorists blow-up a train in Spain, they don't interview terrorist sympathizers.

I wasn't aware that the framework for offering perspective on social matters was one size fits all (new math proponents/opponents; heterosexuals/homosexuals; terrorist sympathizers/slaughtered victims, etc.). Jess, the very fact that one-sided reporting (i.e., built-in editorial comment) is "normal" to you, a college educated young woman, is indicative of our dilemma and rather makes the point in the discussion that several of us are attempting. And as an aside, how do you conclude that a law protecting traditional marriage has no effect on those who choose one and desire one for their children?

Mark Foley got a lot more coverage than Mel Reynolds, but they were a dozen years apart and under different situations. The main reason Foley got so much attention was that it was around election time. It's about timing, and 99% of the timing is not the media's fault. When the Democratic Party has damaging information and leaks it to the press right before the elections, you can't blame the media. Also, look at how much coverage Gary Condit got, and he was a Democrat.

Yes, the different situations are that Reynolds was engaged in physical contact, while Foley was engaged in conversation via internet. Seriously, you act as if the Media has no choice in the matter--as if it's all gravity or something. The "scandal" is self-fulfilling. In my view, Foley was a schmuck and was given too much slack for too long. But the fact that you calmly accept the hypocrisy is, once again, symptomatic of the state of affairs we are discussing.

inkspot

05-16-2007, 04:17 PM

It's pretty clear the Media is prodding US society ever, socially and morally, in one direction ...

When a law is passed in Texas to protect the sanctity of marriage, they interiew someone who could be effected by that law. That law has very little (if any) effect on heterosexuals, but heavily impacts homosexuals.
Maybe I didn't make clear: the focus of the story was on these perfectly nice ladies' fear that their children would be taken from them. The law said nothing about children at all. The ladies were not, of course, married to one another, so they were not to be affected by the law any more than anyone else would. Their fears were in no way "news" as regards the law. If, for some reason, the news had wanted to fairly investigate how this law might possibly affect the children of homosexual couples, they could as reasonably have interviewed two gay men with a child and investigated the statistics which show almost all sexual abuse of boys is homosexual abuse. It would not have been any more relevant to the passage of the law than the lesbian story was, but it would have made as much sense, and it would have had at least a bit of newsworthiness in that it might somehow have been stretched to mean protection for boys at risk rather than the destruction of gay families.

But, it would not have reflected the ideology which the media constantly wants to put forth.

Another case in point: there is a ton of research which shows that abortion has disastrous effects on the expectant mom, physical and emotional, and which links things like depression and suicide to women who have had abortions. Yet in women's magazines like Marie Claire and others, you will find only articles telling women how to make sure to protect their right to an abortion and who is threatening their reproductive rights. Not a word will you find about the horrifying after-effects of abortion.

Clearly, the Mainstream Media (may I call it that?) has an agenda, and it is an anti-faith, anti-absolutes one.

~Grateful * Surrender~

05-16-2007, 04:35 PM

I won't say much but I must say that the Media is an hand pushing the agendas that it wants on our society instead of what our society needs to hear. Take the abortion "fight" for instance. I have talked personally to woman who have had abortions and they can't even begin to talk about it without tears rolling down their faces. “There is a place missing at our table. it will always be empty and I know that is my fault." that is a quote from a young woman that had an abortion that I had the privilege of talking to. That is only a fraction of the emotional side. Like inky said women fight suicide, depression, hysteria, and even mental breakdowns because of the choice to have an abortion. Does the news cover that? No. The only thing they cover is how radical fundamentalists are trying to stop the right for women to make their own choices and how women must stand by their rights. They cover a fraction of what is out there and I am waiting for the day that some reporter, some paper, some magazine out there stands up and writes the whole story.

jesslaugh

05-16-2007, 06:52 PM

Yes, however you don't take into consideration that the sudden RISE in terrorist activity right before elections is an attempt to hijack our electoral process. The press becomes the unwitting tool of radical factions.
Yes, the media is a tool for political parties and powerful people/groups with various ideologies. That tool can be used to promote liberal agendas or conservative agendas... and it is. But there's no conspiracy by the media to change society in one particular way.

When Norman Lear sits down and consciously discusses what the American public is "ready for," and what words, phrases, and subject matter, in what order will be brought up with an end to breaking down social mores (or "hangups," as they would put it) so that at a macrolevel the show "All in the Family" can be a lever to push societal trends in a certain direction--well, that's "the Media" speaking as far as I am concerned.
You see that as "The Media" pushing an agenda and trying to change our society. I see that as Norman Lear (one man) using his company as a means to push his own agenda and shape our society.

We see the same thing, but you (most of you, it seems) are willing to generalize it and attribute it to "The Media". I use the capitals and the quotes to show that you are generalizing and taking a conglomeration of things and making them one big bad entity that we can blame, like "The Boogeyman". It would be the same as me saying that the teachers of America are pushing a liberal political agenda, just because some (and some teacher associations) do.

The thing about reporting is that the story itself gives us one side. For example, when a marriage protection law is passed, the law itself is a reflection of one side of the story. The other side, the side primarily effected by the law, gets interviewed. If it was the opposite, and a law was passed forbidding the "protection of marriage", the law would reflect one side and the interview would be given to those who want to protect marriage.

And as an aside, how do you conclude that a law protecting traditional marriage has no effect on those who choose one and desire one for their children?
Because that is a law protecting the status quo. It doesn't change things any more than passing a law saying that we'll keep doing what we've been doing.

But the fact that you calmly accept the hypocrisy is, once again, symptomatic of the state of affairs we are discussing.
Since I evidently missed the hypocrisy, maybe you couple point me in the right direction? A Democrat does something bad in 1994 and it gets covered, but not much. A Republican does something bad 12 years later and it gets covered, a lot. I don't think this has to do with Republicans and Democrats. I think it shows a shift in our society toward caring more about these issues. Why do I think that? Because Gary Condit was a Democrat and got a lot of coverage for his actions, in 2001, also. And, like I said before, the Mark Foley scandal came out at a sensitive political time. Around the election, people want to hear about politics, and people wanted to hear about Mark Foley. The people demanded it, so the media supplied it. The media didn't supply it, hoping the market would buy it. That's not how business works; and, like you said, the media is a business.

]It's pretty clear the Media is prodding US society ever, socially and morally, in one direction ... and Jess' inability to see it, as PK says, is perjorative edited out!.
I think that my age provides me a somewhat unique perspective around here. I don't know for sure, but it seems like the people who are strongly disagreeing are... large, rooted, grand-ole oak trees. Those roots make it hard to see what things are like on the other side of the farm. As a "seedling" (which comes across pejorative, with the rest of it), I am not stuck in one position to watch life race by while I scoff at how things have changed. Not only can I see the forest, but I can go over to the forest and see what it's like. If I've been spoon-fed a certain ideology full of propaganda from the media, what things would I believe and how should I be living my life? That is an honest question that I hope to have answered, friend.

Whoa. That is a long posting. :rolleyes: I hope not to offend anyone, and I don't mean to be a pain. I think the hub of the issue is that you can't show some intention on behalf of the media (as a whole) to change society one particular way. I think the media reflects society's changes. Media stories focus on garbage because society wants garbage. I don't think society wants garbage because the media has been pushing a covert agenda to brainwash us into liking garbage. I think they call it Ockham's Razor. The simplest theory that explains things is probably right. I think a media conspiracy is kinda complicated. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, but calling me a seedling and saying that I can't see what's all around me and stuff like that isn't necessary or constructive... even though I am sure you are all very nice. :)

Parthian King

05-16-2007, 07:49 PM

You see that as "The Media" pushing an agenda and trying to change our society. I see that as Norman Lear (one man) using his company as a means to push his own agenda and shape our society.

Jess, Norman Lear was a producer who worked in conjunction with a broadcasting network. Do you really think they didn't know what he was up to, that they weren't in on it? That is hardly "one man," though this individual gave vision and voice to the very agenda we are speaking of (which you so eloquently admit with the words "push his own agenda and shape our society"). If television isn't media, what is? I am not sure what your point is here. You said there is no proof the media has an agenda. When I give proof of it, you say that wasn't the media, but a man in the media. What do you think we mean when we say "the Media"?

We see the same thing, but you (most of you, it seems) are willing to generalize it and attribute it to "The Media". I use the capitals and the quotes to show that you are generalizing and taking a conglomeration of things and making them one big bad entity that we can blame, like "The Boogeyman". It would be the same as me saying that the teachers of America are pushing a liberal political agenda, just because some (and some teacher associations) do.

Now, when you use the "Boogeyman" illustration, you caricature your opposition and muddy the rhetorical waters. From what I can see, it is rather you who are generalizing, and we (or most of us, it seems) who see these as a group of fallen individuals with specific ideologies, preconceptions, and personal agendas who are no longer even attempting to separate their own personal views from the task of informing the public. Now, if you want to say, "Don't say 'The Media', because that is unfairly generalizing. Use statistics and/or adjectives to define the matter," I would reply and say, "Alright, I refer to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, MTV, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Fransisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, the Louisville Courier-Journal, the Springfield News-Leader (a liberal newspaper in arguably the most Republican county in the country), Newsweek, Time, and any number of others--these have a liberal, anti-faith, anti-traditional family, anti-absolutes agenda. On the other side, you have Fox (which is politically conservative but whose entertainment network dishes out some of the most virulently anti-family stuff going) and some talk radio shows. There, I've been specific."

The thing about reporting is that the story itself gives us one side. For example, when a marriage protection law is passed, the law itself is a reflection of one side of the story. The other side, the side primarily effected by the law, gets interviewed. If it was the opposite, and a law was passed forbidding the "protection of marriage", the law would reflect one side and the interview would be given to those who want to protect marriage.

Because that is a law protecting the status quo. It doesn't change things any more than passing a law saying that we'll keep doing what we've been doing.

This, I simply don't buy. First, it doesn't play out. If it did, when the Supreme Court and various appellate courts have consistently upheld abortion rights, you would have had TV spots about women who have been devastated by abortion, or highlights on social ills that might have been solved by children that are unfortunately too dead to help, or how Social Security is going bankrupt because we have slaughtered our future donors. Do we get those spots showing "the other side of the story" when the "status quo" that is maintained is part of the liberal platform? Nice try...

Furthermore, I don't get what you are saying here in regard to the example Ink gave about the "sanctity of marriage" law. First you say that the lesbian couple will be "affected"--indicating change. Then you say the law is merely maintaining the status quo--indicating absence of change. Which is it? Does the media tell the story when change is affected, or when it is not affected? In other words, following your paradigm, when does the media step up and tell a story?

Since I evidently missed the hypocrisy, maybe you couple point me in the right direction? A Democrat does something bad in 1994 and it gets covered, but not much. A Republican does something bad 12 years later and it gets covered, a lot. I don't think this has to do with Republicans and Democrats. I think it shows a shift in our society toward caring more about these issues. Why do I think that? Because Gary Condit was a Democrat and got a lot of coverage for his actions, in 2001, also. And, like I said before, the Mark Foley scandal came out at a sensitive political time. Around the election, people want to hear about politics, and people wanted to hear about Mark Foley. The people demanded it, so the media supplied it. The media didn't supply it, hoping the market would buy it. That's not how business works; and, like you said, the media is a business.

Now, this would be a fairly legitimate argument on purely conceptual grounds (i.e., people care more about morality now than they did then), except for a couple of items. First, will you seriously argue that the country is more sensitive about homosexual freedom now than then--so much so that dirty talk over the internet with a minor is seen as exponentially (if we count news coverage) more egregious than sexual acts with a minor? Even in philosophy, there comes a point where the participants may say, "Well, that argument kind of works in a technical way, but it simply isn't believable. Period." That's where I am on that one, Jess.

Next, by pure happenstance, the Democrat in question died right in the middel of the Foley scandal. Yet all he got was pure eulogy from the media (via quotes of prominent Dems), even though he was a felon. Now, you might say, "Well, come on, he's dead..." Right. He's also a sex predator and a felon.

But I guess it's my old age that makes me so sensitive to those things...;)

inkspot

05-16-2007, 08:10 PM

I think that my age provides me a somewhat unique perspective around here. I don't know for sure, but it seems like the people who are strongly disagreeing are... large, rooted, grand-ole oak trees. Those roots make it hard to see what things are like on the other side of the farm. As a "seedling" (which comes across pejorative, with the rest of it), I am not stuck in one position to watch life race by while I scoff at how things have changed.LOL, never been called anything as grand as an oak before. I fixed the seedling thing, didn't mean it to be a swipe at you, darlin'. And you haven't offended anyone at all. We are all used to robust debate and take it in stride unless someone starts with the name-calling. Once EveningStar smacked PK with a mackerel.

Anyway, I'm not scoffing about how things have changed, I am sick about how things have changed! And I don't think I'm letting life race by, but it does have a way of doing it, no matter how many rings in your trunk ...

So, how would your perceptions be different if you had not grown up with a media which is radically left-swinging? For one, you would not be denying that they are radically left-swinging.

A Republican does something bad 12 years later and it gets covered, a lot. I don't think this has to do with Republicans and Democrats. I think it shows a shift in our society toward caring more about these issues.

You say the difference between Foley and Reynolds is that in the intervening decade, the public's attitude changed so they are apt to get much more worked up about a scandal like that. But if you will ... In that intervening decade, a left-swinging president was caught in a similar scandal, lied about it to the Grand Jury which would land any of us in deep trouble, and the public could barely manage a yawn at his impeachment hearings and have encapsulated the whole silly episode into a couple of pithy catch-phrases which rather champion the scandal than demand a reckoning for it: Clinton lied, and no one died, etc.

So, are you saying the public's attitude changed in the intervening decade so that they are more focused only on the scandals of conservatives in the public eye? Because that's just silly. And yet, if you are saying the public's attitude changed so that they are focused more on scandals now than back in Reynolds' day, the Clinton tempest in a teapot proves the fallacy of that.

The last national elections give their own evidence of this. The Bogeyman Media rushed to air all the scandal they could about President Bush's military career without ever documenting the facts; the bloggers pointed out the documents were faked long before the mainstream media ever did ... and at the same time the mainstream media by and large ignored the seemingly legitimate facts of John Kerry's military career and characterize the vets who brought up the facts as wackos. Is it, again, that the public is only interested in scandals about Republicans?

The public is not clamoring for the Media to keep championing the left. The public, in fact, is clamoring for more objectivity, which is why news sites like World Net Daily on the web have become some of the internet's most visited sites. So, this is not case of giving the public what they want. It's the case of an industry (The Bogeyman Media) dominated by people with a certain ideology and presenting, as much as they can, only their side to the public.

Even an aging oak like me can see it from where I'm planted!
:)

EveningStar

05-16-2007, 08:32 PM

Jesslaugh, I say this as kindly as I can... You're telling us oldsters that because you have not experienced history, you are best equipped to take a fresh look....

If you were a doctor or computer scientist, I'd say yes. You wouldn't have to unlearn the old habits to adopt the new. But this isn't medical science or PC Repair.

We all need to step away from "conventional wisdom" which I always admit is more conventional than wise. I try not to pay much heed to the timeworn pat answers of either side in a debate. Even so, it's easy to underestimate the power of the media to give us "what's good for us" rather than the simple truth and to do it in the guise of "reporting".

William Randolph Hearst owned most of the big newspapers in the United States during the early 20th century. With a nasty crisis in Cuba due after the mysterious destruction of the USS Maine, he once quipped to someone, "You supply the newsprint, I'LL supply the war." Thereafter his vehemient articles about how the Maine was destroyed deliberately by a mine convicted the Spanish in the American court of public opinion and Congress was forced to declare war or tender a resignation. Ironically the latest reviews of the wreckage suggest there was a fire that led to detonation of explosives inside the ship.

Thomas Nast was the most influential editorial cartoonist of the late 19th century. He almost singlehandedly took down the Tammany Hall political machine that dominated New York politics with his constant portrayal of "Boss" Tweed as a Caesar that fed Lady Liberty to the tigers in the Colosseum. Problem is he was not content to root out corruption in government. His unbelievably vituperous anti-catholic beliefs led him to do a number of cartoons depicting the Pope on the roof of St. Peter's with a telescope trying to take over the world, or bishops in mitre hats looking like snapping crocodiles crawling out of the river Ganges to snatch away innocent children to Catholic schools. He helped fuel the ugliest forms of anti-Catholic movements in 19th century America, and found no anti-Irish cartoon too low a blow.

For you to deny that the press has an axe to grind is, as politely as I can put it, a sign that a little more history and a little less naivete might sharpen your perception.

Jesslaugh, you have a very clever and cogent way of expressing yourself. For your own sake (since posts in this forum don't really change the world) I hope you will be a wise consumer in your choices of news and entertainment and not be lulled into a conventional wisdom packaged in a veneer of "enlightenment."

PrinceOfTheWest

05-17-2007, 10:33 AM

Magister, your post illustrates beautifully one of the biggest problems with having a de facto monolithic media: what I call "the illusion of importance". One of the biggest powers the media has is that by playing up or playing down (or ignoring) certain stories, it can effectively influence what the public thinks important. This is the elusive and undefinable concept of "newsworthiness", which is a critical aspect of how the media deceives the people. I run into it in the pro-life movement all the time. For example, the number of AIDS deaths each year pales in comparison to the number of abortions - but what gets more coverage? For that matter, the number of people who attack abortionists and abortion facilities is trivial compared to the number of women maimed and killed by "safe, legal" abortion - but what gets the press? And therefore which does the public deem the more urgent issue?

To dismiss the idea of concerted effort by scoffing at the suggestion of an active, conscious conspiracy (what I call the "smoke-filled room" image) is overly simplistic. There need be no clandestine meetings or secret handshakes for there to be a climate that promotes certain outlooks while discouraging others. It need merely be understood that to "get ahead" in this field, one must adopt certain attitudes and support certain stands on things. This is by no means restricted to the media (how many pro-life tenured public university professors have you met?), but it is certainly prevalent there. In fact, I have a friend who for many years was involved in an organization of Christian journalists. By itself this is nothing remarkable - various fields are full of people who band together under many banners - but what's telling about this organization is that it is effectively underground. Conferences dates and locations are not published, people who attend are known by their first names only and do not tell where they work, and if members run into each other outside the conferences, they do not acknowledge the fact that they belong to this group. The reason for all these precautions? Because for many journalists, it could mean their job if it were to become known that they were practicing Christian believers.

That's the working environment of the Western media. If you've got a situation like that, you don't need conspiracies in smoke-filled rooms. You own the environment and dictate the terms - which includes what you report and how you report it.

inkspot

05-17-2007, 11:31 AM

Very true. You can see this in the AIDS debate, too, where the media is concerned that people embrace safe sex rather than abstinence. Everyone acknowledges Africa has the worst AIDS problem, and in Uganda, they were moving up toward 20% HIV positive population. Then the nation began to promote abstinence on a large scale, and the AIDS rate has fallen to below 4%. This is one of the few places in the world where AIDS rates have been so dramatically reduced, and certainly far the best success of AIDS reduction in Africa ... but the media is very ho-hum about it, because they don't want anyone to know that the abstinence thing is a real, possible solution. They've made everyone believe abstinence is just not a plausible plan, so they won't show anyone a real success story. If they had seen this kind of success with condom use in Africa, you can believe the media would be trumpeting it from the tree-tops. As it were.
:)

~Grateful * Surrender~

05-17-2007, 12:05 PM

jesslaugh

05-17-2007, 01:25 PM

I'm not a fan of arguments. I like discussions. I like conversations. Debates are healthy. Arguments... not so much. And when people start pointing to something I'm doing and say "look at the argument", I know it's time to stop.

But before I do, I just have a couple things to say.

Jess, Norman Lear was a producer who worked in conjunction with a broadcasting network. Do you really think they didn't know what he was up to, that they weren't in on it? That is hardly "one man," though this individual gave vision and voice to the very agenda we are speaking of (which you so eloquently admit with the words "push his own agenda and shape our society"). If television isn't media, what is?
Television is media. Newspapers are media. Radio is media. But the idea that you can generalize all the different media outlets and organizations by saying "The Media", is wrong. Like saying "The Teachers are against conservatives", is wrong because of the generalization. My point is that "The Media" isn't one thing, it's a combination of many things (newspapers, radio stations, TV networks, internet sites, etc... and all the individual outlets within those groups); and to say that "The Media" has an agenda (a single agenda shared by it's members) would have to be a conspiracy due to the necessary cooperation of so many individuals and competing companies. And I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy.

Jesslaugh, I say this as kindly as I can... You're telling us oldsters that because you have not experienced history, you are best equipped to take a fresh look....
Yes, and even though you say it as if it is ridiculous, it still rings true. A fresh view is hard to achieve when you've been looking at something from the same position for a long time. Wouldn't you agree? We don't invade countries without going over there and having a look around, even though we could simply use satellites. Mobility is an added bonus of being a seedling. And, for clarification, this tangent happened purely in response to being criticized for being young.

In summary, I'm very sorry this turned out the way it did. I'm sure you all are used to this kind of arguing, even though it's a family oriented site, but I'm not. I know I'm the lone sheep, so I blame myself for what happened. And we've long overlooked the fact that we generally agree about something pretty powerful: we're being fed garbage by the media, and we (as a society) like garbage. We disagree because I think the media feeds us garbage because we like garbage; and you think we like garbage because the media tells us to. My explanation matches supply and demand, Ockham's razor, and avoids a conspiracy theory... but won't convince any of you, which is how I know to stop (even if it hadn't escalated into an argument).

Parthian King

05-17-2007, 01:46 PM

Oh, come, come, Jess. As POTW has pointed out many times, many who love Lewis (and Tolkien) but contend that arguments are somehow out of bounds don't know the men. Lewis was brutally argumentative, often mercilessly shredding his counterpart's views. He might, in fact, be chided by we mods were he to somehow, across the ages through a portal of his own imagining, manifest himself here under pseudonym.

Now, as for your substance, you say you don't like argument, but you have admirably engaged in it. Some of what you say is legitimate, while some of it is downright silly. You were doing pretty well until you hopped in with this "fresh outlook of youth" balderdash. Arguments (and I use the word in the forensic and academic sense) stand on their merits, and the relative youth of the proponent is ancillary (though as ES has pointed, knowledge is not). How old or young the participants in a discussion is really off the subject, pace both you and Inkspot. There are posters younger still than you that do in fact hold that the media is by and large biased and abusive. Is their view fresher still than yours, and therefore more legitimate? Or do you somehow hold that your view with its "fresh wisdom" somehow materialized ontologically out the mere essence of your age--meaning without external influences no older than yourself? Are you suggesting your education had nothing to do with how you formed your views--and education facilitated by people older than you? The entire proposition is patently untenable. Not only so, it is a claim to high ground based on something entirely off subject.

As for the matter itself, I must discard your recent rebuttal because you simply brand my position as "wrong" without answering specifics. You did nothing to reply to POTW's excellent post, which essentially cuts the feet out from under the caricature you made by implication, i.e., that by suggesting that the media has an agenda there must therefore be a "smoke filled room"--something no one at any point stated.

And, on that note, I'd like the gently remind concerning the nature of this thread. POTW, in fact, brought the matter back on target: The question is, does the media (even motives aside, if you will) grossly underinform the public is claims to serve on critical issues, while overinforming on others that are comically absurd? A corollary question would be, if yes, what might be the motives behind such a tendency, or are such motives quite nearly self-evident?

inkspot

05-17-2007, 02:10 PM

I'm very sorry this turned out the way it did. I'm sure you all are used to this kind of arguing, even though it's a family oriented site, but I'm not. I know I'm the lone sheep, so I blame myself for what happened.
It hasn't turned out any way at all. What awful thing do you think has come of this discussion? All I can see is that we've been having a rigorous debate, alá the Inklings at the Eagle & Child ... what is there to apologize for, or reason to leave the debate? I'm not clear on what you think has gone so wrong?
nd when people start pointing to something I'm doing and say "look at the argument", I know it's time to stop.
I don't know what you are talking about here. If you are referring to the way we quote each other in our responses, that is just a way to show what specifically we are responding to. No one is holding anyone else's opinion up for ridicule. But if you wade into these debates, you have to be ready to defend your position and accept that someone might disagree, point out what they see are the deficiencies, and then ask you to respond.

You seem to be responding to the idea of a conspiracy theory, as if we are saying a bunch of people got together and decided to send the media spiraling away to the left.

But I think you misunderstood. PK said polls say 90%, and I said that "most" of the people at work in the news media, have values far left of mainstream America and therefore present positive stories about left-leaning events and issues and negative ones about right-leaning events and issues.

This in no way implies any conspiracy at all; it implies the media people are not objective but are putting forth their own agenda.

Anyway, you don't have to be sorry, or blame yourself, Jess, for anything. You've not done anything offensive in the least, and if you're just sorry that this is an issue on which we all don't agree, well, that's rather the point. If we alll agree, then there's very little to say ... like the Duffers.

What you should do, rather than withdrawing, is address the substance of some of the posts with which you disagree, rather than tilting at a straw man such as there being a conspiracy or the idea that the Media is too vague a term to use ... Here are some idea starters...

one of the biggest problems with having a de facto monolithic media: what I call "the illusion of importance". One of the biggest powers the media has is that by playing up or playing down (or ignoring) certain stories, it can effectively influence what the public thinks important. This is the elusive and undefinable concept of "newsworthiness", which is a critical aspect of how the media deceives the people.

You said there is no proof the media has an agenda. When I give proof of it, you say that wasn't the media, but a man in the media. What do you think we mean when we say "the Media"?

Now, if you want to say, "Don't say 'The Media', because that is unfairly generalizing. Use statistics and/or adjectives to define the matter," I would reply and say, "Alright, I refer to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, MTV, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the San Fransisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, the Louisville Courier-Journal, the Springfield News-Leader (a liberal newspaper in arguably the most Republican county in the country), Newsweek, Time, and any number of others--these have a liberal, anti-faith, anti-traditional family, anti-absolutes agenda. On the other side, you have Fox (which is politically conservative but whose entertainment network dishes out some of the most virulently anti-family stuff going) and some talk radio shows. There, I've been specific."

The question is, does the media (even motives aside, if you will) grossly underinform the public is claims to serve on critical issues, while overinforming on others that are comically absurd? A corollary question would be, if yes, what might be the motives behind such a tendency, or are such motives quite nearly self-evident?

What say?
:)

EveningStar

05-17-2007, 02:19 PM

Gang, the question is a bit too simple to take in the evidence.

SOME of the media is taste driven. They give people what they want, for money.

SOME of the media seeks to drive taste, much the way fashion designers invent new fashions simply to keep eager consumers one step behind being "with it" and part fools and their money.

In this sense the media, taste wise, is both proactive and reactive, playing us at both ends.

I think a great deal of our discomfort with the media these days is not a new trend to stir the pot but rather the direction its being stirred.

Look at late 18th century American newspapers. They were bully pulpits to stir up people. At first the American colonists just wanted the same rights that other Englishmen enjoyed. The Crown felt that after the major expense of the French and Indian War that Americans should consider living in the wilderness an expensive privilege rather than a free right and decided to raise taxes. No one griped when the Crown spent millions to drive off the French and their Indian allies. They only griped when they had to pay the money back. Once it was clear the new taxes were not going to go away, suddenly nobody wanted to be an Englishman anymore because the English were BAD people and Americans were SONS OF LIBERTY. They didn't want to be LIKE other Englishmen, they wanted to be BETTER. The newspapers really keyed into this and ran with it.

Now rather than defending the traditional American viewpoint, the media defend the weakening of tradition.

Perhaps we should have become angry at the press back when it began targeting people in general, not when it began targeting the "wrong people." Thing is now Christian conservatives are finding out how King George III felt because THEY are on the getting end.

John

jesslaugh

05-17-2007, 02:35 PM

I'm no CS Lewis, and I don't pretend to be. I wouldn't fit in at the Eagle &Child. I'm not comfortable with the agressive posturing and arguing. I'm just not. And I don't think it's fair of you to criticize me for it.

Some of what you say is legitimate, while some of it is downright silly. You were doing pretty well until you hopped in with this "fresh outlook of youth" balderdash.
If you need an example of the aggression that I don't like, here it is. But thx for the back-handed compliment. The age thing was a tangent is response to being criticized for my youth. Nothing more. I was defending myself against what I saw as an attack. And now I'm criticized for my defense. Sorry.

As for the matter itself, I must discard your recent rebuttal because you simply brand my position as "wrong" without answering specifics. You did nothing to reply to POTW's excellent post, which essentially cuts the feet out from under the caricature you made by implication, i.e., that by suggesting that the media has an agenda there must therefore be a "smoke filled room"--something no one at any point stated.
I didn't think I needed to point out (again:rolleyes: ) that Norman Lear is one man using the media as a tool. You're blaming the tool. And I responded to POTW by explaining that the nature of a media agenda would require a conspiracy that I don't see proof of.

Like I said before, I don't have a desire to argue. I don't think any of you intend on being hostile, but it still comes across. Discussions and debates are more productive than arguing, anyway. :D

You are all used to this kind of arguing. You think it's normal. I'm not used to it. It makes me uncomfortable. :( You all seem to have forgotten that I agree that we are underinformed about critical issues and overinformed about garbage. The question is why, and I'll leave that to you.

Parthian King

05-17-2007, 02:57 PM

You are indeed young, Jess. And you are indeed unused to discussion of this kind, which is evident in your misinterpretation of a term like "argument" and thinking that robust analysis of your line of reasoning (or ours) is evidence of hostile aggression. And my compliment was genuine, not backhanded. Perhaps this is another case of the standards of the postmodern age cropping up: Many simply cannot separate critique of their position and their person. For what it's worth, I regret that you have taken any of this personally, because in a forum where words are the order of the day (especially strong words when it comes to strong themes), offense is not intended.

Back to substance, I am genuinely surprised that you continue to identify Norman Lear not only as an individual man (which he was) but also as a sort of Lone Ranger who manipulated television to his own ends (by your implication) in some sort of bubble whereby, after the fact, it is only legitimate to hold him responsible for his actions instead of the network that aired his show for years. This reasoning alone is so completely untenable that I find it indicative of how you unpack data and form an understanding of reality--severely compromising your otherwise engaging stance and interesting writing style.

And on a final point, my redirect was meant to elicit the clarification you gave, i.e., that we are under- and over-informed. Now, if you don't feel that it has to do with an ideological agenda, what do you feel it has to do with? Before you seemed to state that it had to do with money (business). Is that what you still hold? I consider that to be an entirely legitmate stand (I'd better, because I think that's in the mix as well--in a big way).

inkspot

05-17-2007, 03:00 PM

Discussions and debates are more productive than arguing, anyway
I guess I'm not getting how this is "an argument" instead of a discussion or debate? What would be said differently if we were debating instead of arguing?

And honestly, "posturing" is not something I've ever been accused of before, either. :(

Oh well, if you are uncomfortable, of course you can't stay. But it's a shame, because I would like to see your actual response to the substance of some of the ideas.

Again you say there can be no agenda without a conspiracy, but what it your basis for that? If 90% of the people in the Media believe a certain way, and the Media tends to reflect that as the right way, there needs no conspiracy to make it so. Each person with an agenda can carry out their part of it without ever consulting with anyone else ... why do you believe this is not possible?

Oh, of course, if you're not comfortable here, you can't answer, so I guess we'll never know.

But honestly, we're not picking on you, and as a delicate flower myself, I can speak for each of the fellows here, I know, they would never want to hurt your feelings or scare you. They are true gentlemen and brothers in Christ. :)

If you can face intellectual honesty and criticism of faulty logic, you can play here, no problems. You're welcome to stay. :)

~Grateful * Surrender~

05-17-2007, 04:11 PM

Like I said before, I don't have a desire to argue. I don't think any of you intend on being hostile, but it still comes across. Discussions and debates are more productive than arguing, anyway. :D

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems that you’re defining line between arguing and debate is only the matter of being apposed. I don't see this turning into an argument at all but you are bowing out because others are calling you on what may turn to be faulty logic. I am saying this not as a slight , Jess, so please don't take it as one. To you what is the difference between arguing and debate? Because I am failing to see the cross over.

EveningStar

05-17-2007, 04:18 PM

In debate you get a nifty podium with a picture of Aslan on it and you have to say "Thank you Mr. Speaker" before you yak.... :D

The impression I get is that she doesn't like sentences with "you", "your" or "her" in it. She'd rather talk about "it", "them", and "those people". And I can see the subtle but important difference in telling someone in a library, "people may not chew gum in the reading area" and "you aren't allowed to chew gum here."

Maybe I just stuck my paw on it...the problem, not the wad of gum. I HATE those things...ugh....

inkspot

05-17-2007, 04:54 PM

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As has been clearly demonstrated, when one places their paw in a wad of gum, the only acceptable response is dippping said paw in mineral spirits.

** red light flashes **

Opposing side may now respond.

Olórin the Wise

05-17-2007, 04:58 PM

~Grateful * Surrender~

05-17-2007, 05:39 PM

If ya go back to the first page, Jess, you'll see that my opions match those of the 'old oak trees'... not being an old oak tree myself, mind you. :D

Actually as I stated before there are a few of us here that agree with the "Oaks" that are actually young sprouts ourselves. But let us not belabor that point for it has been made and now honestly I that horse had been beet to death.

Parthian King

05-17-2007, 06:53 PM

Oh, if only we hadn't lost the Entwives, then there'd be more of these saplings running about!:( :D

jesslaugh

05-17-2007, 07:12 PM

It's better when you are polite. Thx!:)

I believe the media is mostly reactive because that's how economics works. Pushing a supply when there's no demand doesn't work.

Norman Lear was an individual man with an agenda. He is rsponsible for his agenda. His network is responsible for the shows they play, but they are not responsible for Norman Lear's agenda. It's like saying "America is conservative" because President Bush is conservative.

I always question statistics because I heard that 80% of statistics are wrong. ;) I'd like to see this 90% poll. And I bet I can find a poll that says about 90% of Americans are liberal. Maybe. But polls don't mean much to me. And I don't consider them enough to base a position on.

Who has accused me of having faulty logic? I've taken courses in rhetorical and symbolic logic so, if anything is wrong, it's not my logic.:) But, since we're talking about faulty logic, I never said that only oak trees have those opinions. I didn't even say that all oak trees have those opinions. The oak tree vs seedling stuff was just illustrating the lack of mobility some people have due to their roots.

And I don't have a problem with being opposed. It's the way I'm opposed that matters.

I think that hostile aggression is evidence of an argument, not the other way around, David. :) And I know the difference between having my position attacked and being personally attacked. It's a "you" vs "your" thing.

The media is a business. They do what businesses do: make money. If we want garbage information, they give it to us. If we want to hear about the poor lesbians who are afraid of losing their kids, they tell us about it. You tell me to look at MSNBC, and I tell you to look at Fox News. Both have agendas, it seems, but not the same agenda. You tell me to look at Air America, and I tell you to look at Clear Channel. By saying that "The Media" has an agenda to change society you do three things:
1. Ignore the rules of supply and demand economics.
2. Over-generalize.
3. Appeal to a conspiracy theory that Ockham's razor would slice apart.

Into the Wardrobe

05-17-2007, 07:23 PM

PrinceOfTheWest

05-17-2007, 07:23 PM

As both a student of philosophy and of C.S. Lewis, I'd submit that the following statement:
I've taken courses in rhetorical and symbolic logic so, if anything is wrong, it's not my logic.is a textbook example of a logic flaw. In what way does it follow that taking courses eliminates flaws, whether you're talking about logic or anything else? Does the fact that I've taken calculus classes mean I can no longer make mathematical errors? Or that because I've taken English classes, my grammar is consequently flawless? I sure wish that because I've taken programming classes, my code would therefore be bug-free!

Also, the old oak/sapling metaphor seems to be of very limited value in this case. Though it could be argued that younger people are more capable of learning than older ones, and thus seem more "flexible" in that regard, it has been my experience that younger people tend to be more dogmatic and swift to jump to conclusions. In this regard that are more "rigid" than people who've had more life experience and have seen things from more perspectives. (Think about it - if you were involved in a lawsuit that involved several complex and nuanced circumstances, who would you like on the jury? A bunch of highly intelligent twenty-somethings? Or less intelligent but more seasoned fifty-somethings?) I remember when I was young - I was much more dogmatic and adamant about things, and I couldn't understand why all these old folk were saying things like "give it time" and "you might want to think on that for a while". I've seen this pattern repeated through my entire life with most young people I've dealt with, including my own children.

jesslaugh

05-17-2007, 07:56 PM

As both a student of philosophy and of C.S. Lewis, I'd submit that the following statement:
is a textbook example of a logic flaw. In what way does it follow that taking courses eliminates flaws, whether you're talking about logic or anything else? Does the fact that I've taken calculus classes mean I can no longer make mathematical errors?
You can consider this a classic piece of irony. I was simply pointing out that what people often mistakenly call "logic" (like, I think you're wrong, so you have faulty logic) isn't really logic at all. And I was saying that what I had said is most likely free of logical errors. :) Beautiful irony. But I still hold that I haven't made any logical errors in my explanation of the media situation.

Also, the old oak/sapling metaphor seems to be of very limited value in this case.
Yes, and I've said that it was simply a defense of my youth. It was never meant to be something discussed so much. If felt criticized for my youth, so I wanted to show that youth can be beneficial.

Question...when you give the oak/seedling analogy...are you talking merely about the perspectives/opinions being set vs mobile, or are you talking about the idea of older people being ingraned in a job, house, and the like as opposed to young people traveling, going elsewhere for college and thus supposedly seeing more of the world...just wanted clarification on that one a bit more.
Neither. Older people have deeper roots, it seems. That makes them less able to chane their ideological and philosophical positions, even if they're wrong (see: grandmas and grandpa who are still racist). It has nothing to do with actual physical movement. It's called an analogy. I'm also not saying that older people have branches and leaves.:)

EveningStar

05-17-2007, 08:27 PM

I don't know but I think she just accused me of having root rot. Last guy that did that ended up a weeping willow. :D

Parthian King

05-17-2007, 08:36 PM

:p :p :p

As Ink would say, "Yah..."

I have (as an old oak ;)) been around the block with various threads on this forum before to know when I'll be beating my head against the wall. The last two posts by Jess (particularly the penultimate) pretty much lets me know that will be the case. I (and, it seems, a fair number of others) are on one wavelength of reasoning and discussion protocol, while Jess is on another.

Not only, Jess, do you consistently not respond to your counterparts' reasonings with much more than a repetition of the antecedent statement that they have taken apart (if that), but you, if effect, confirm them by your continued inconsistencies.

What is most interesting to me is that this experience mirrors what I have experienced on many previous occasions: People of a basically conservative bent say the media has a liberal agenda. People with a basically liberal worldview say, "That's ridiculous! The media doesn't have an agenda!" Now, why does it always play that way?

Copperfox

05-17-2007, 08:48 PM

PK, the reason they deny having an agenda is that they sort of carry their own perceived ideal point around with them--like a baseball player picking up home plate and carrying it with him as soon as he hits the ball, so that he can claim at any time to have completed a home run.

What I mean is that the hard left, having a dogma of denying dogmas, refuses to recognize any eternal standards; their standard, accordingly, is WHATEVER their glands are feeling at the moment. They are the norm in their own minds, and thus do not consider themselves to be trying to REACH the norm. Anything they do is, in their view, the natural, obvious, logical, centerline thing to do. They can claim to be centrists because they move the center as they please.

Parthian King

05-17-2007, 08:56 PM

There you are, CF! Como uno dice, a los tiempos que te veo, amigo!

Copperfox

05-17-2007, 09:03 PM

And greetings back to you, PK.

The left wing's disregard for objective truth has been displayed by Geraldo Rivera just this week. In his crusade to eliminate ALL control over immigration, he was championing the cause of a Haitian man who was about to be deported from the United States. The Haitian man himself HAD JUST ADMITTED IN GERALDO'S HEARING that the reason he was being deported was that he had spent eleven years in prison for drug dealing. But Geraldo, going into willful-cognitive-dissonance mode, acted as if the man had not just admitted being an ex-convict, and spoke of him as having done "nothing but good" in America!

Into the Wardrobe

05-17-2007, 09:04 PM

Question...when you give the oak/seedling analogy...are you talking merely about the perspectives/opinions being set vs mobile, or are you talking about the idea of older people being ingraned in a job, house, and the like as opposed to young people traveling, going elsewhere for college and thus supposedly seeing more of the world...just wanted clarification on that one a bit more.

Neither. Older people have deeper roots, it seems. That makes them less able to chane their ideological and philosophical positions, even if they're wrong (see: grandmas and grandpa who are still racist). It has nothing to do with actual physical movement. It's called an analogy. I'm also not saying that older people have branches and leaves.:)

I got that....

I'd say you're right PK.

Parthian King

05-17-2007, 09:45 PM

[EDIT: Jess' deletion of her post makes what had been my introductory paragraph unnecessary. I allow what follows to remain as it is still germane to the subject.]

I guess what makes this all the more moot is that you have essentially said in reference to the aforementioned sex scandals that "media is business," and in the case of Mark Foley the election year context set the stage for the frenzy. Though no one has ever adequately explained how "supply and demand" works in such a case (as if people wouldn't watch the news if the Foley case would have been covered, say, half as much), even so this makes my original point in another way. The media over- and under-informs us, and in spite of all the soapboxing it does about itself as an agent for change, for responsible government, and for public accountability, that's all a bunch of hooey. By your own admission, it isn't about any of that--it's about money. So the Mark Foley thing is not evidence (as you said elsewhere) of a "deeper concern" over moral issues, or even what is best for our government. It was about money. So, um, at the end of the day how is that so different from what I am arguing? In a way, for me to brand the media as out of control ideologues is to place them on a higher pedestal than you afford these people. For you, they are unprincipled, money grubbing monsters. (OK, OK, I guess I'm a "both/and" kinda guy on this one...)

Charn_Tim

05-18-2007, 03:06 AM

I've been following this discussion pretty closely over the last couple days, but have refrained from posting, largely because it seems like most of you all on here know a lot more about this subject than I do. Having said that, I did want to make a couple comments.

1) Regarding the sapling/oak tree thing: I guess I qualify as a sapling myself, but (at the risk of coming across like I'm trying to kiss up) I am honestly unequivocally grateful for the wisdom and intellectual stimulation, and spiritual insights I have received on this site from PK, inkspot, POTW, EveningStar, and others even though I do not always 100 % agree with their thoughts on all subjects.

Jess, I definitely feel where you're coming from with your example of grandparents' racism and bigotry, and I have seen that from certain great aunts and uncles and grandparents at times as well, but I have honestly never felt like the perspective of any of these particular "oak trees" resembles the prejudice and cynicism that you probably have in mind. :)

2) As far as the present discussion is concerned, it seems like there is more agreement on both sides of the debate than it appears at first glance. I think a big reason for this is how we define "The Media." It seems to me like PK (and others) are using "The Media" to refer to the majority of people in the media, and attributing motivations and actions to the majority view (probably vast majority) in the Media. And it seems like Jess is saying wait, but that's not how everyone in the media acts. It seems like she would be more confortable saying "Most people in the Media" are pushing an agenda or have a certain slant they want to put on reporting, etc. Whereas it seems like PK, inkspot, POTW, ES, and others are willing to generalize the opinion of the majority in the media to the media as a whole, by just referring to it as "The Media." However, I will say that they have been very clear that when they refer to the Media, they are referring to the majority view of individuals in the media, not literally everyone in the media.

Furthermore, Jess (very correctly to a large extent I believe) points out that a big part of the reason that the media reports on what it does is because we want to hear the given stories (supply and demand), and at least PK agreed that it was part of the issue.

Does my synopsis make any sense? Please correct me if I've incorrectly attributed a belief that you do not espouse, or have put words in your mouth.

3) Now judging from the way the media (generally speaking) handles one subject that I do know a little about and follow in great detail-science-it seems to me that the media does a pretty lousy job at objective reporting of true scientific discoveries. And I do feel that there is an agenda (materialist or at least anti-christian) being pushed here as a whole as well. You can't read a popular science magazine without them bringing up "parallel universes", "multi-universes", etc. How are these philosophical, speculative, metaphysical ideas anything resembling science? But that's what is heard more than almost anything. Why? To a large extent, things like the anthropic principle (the many ways in which the universe must be fine tuned in order to support life in any conceivable way*) and other scientific discoveries are being ignored. For example, quick, what was the last nobel prize handed out for? How about any noble prize in the last 10 years? It kind of bothers me that parallel universes (which are completely metaphysical to the highest degree possible) get FAR more press in the "scientific media outlets" than nobel prize winning work. And I could also go on and on about the over-reporting of speculative scientific research that has to do with evolution or any theological implications rather than the legitimate scientific discoveries that are taking place.

So I guess I also agree that to a large extent the Media pushes an agenda although there is definitely an element of giving us what we want to hear (supply and demand) mixed in.

*If you have no idea what I'm talking about, check out Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator, or parts of The Case For Faith, or almost any of Hugh Ross' books.

Parthian King

05-18-2007, 04:12 AM

Thanks, Tim. Un voix de raison, as always.

As a quick follow up, I wanted to provide some links regarding the polls I cited. It appears I have indeed overstated, or rather misstated an important statistic. I earlier wrote that the media were some 90% admittedly liberal. That cipher applies to a number of issues (certain election results, key issues like abortion and gay rights, etc.), but cannot be universally applied (as in some cases the percentage actually exceeds 90%!). My apologies.

These articles, one from mediaresearch.org (http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2004/report063004_p1.asp) and another from the weekly standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp) statisticaly confirm the overall thesis that those who provide the American people with their news are indeed much further to the left than the rest of the populace (left and right being, of course, relative terms that describe core beliefs, etc.). The media research article is more expansive and contains many more data, much collected by the very media outlets we have referred to here. It is a most enlightening article, and I highly recommend it.

So, Jess rightly questioned the willy-nilly use of percentages, at least in the manner that I used them. However, a skirmish does not a war win, and in this case the evidence is overwhelming that, by their own admission, those who control and embody the media are liberal ideologues. And to repeat Ink's point, any reference to a conspiracy theory is a strawman, a caricature of what many are saying here. There need be no coordinated conspiracy, but rather simply a culture that arises out of an overwhelming majority.

jesslaugh

05-18-2007, 01:44 PM

I'm sorry, Into the Wardrobe. I was getting used to posts that ignored what I had said, so when I got to your post I went by it too quickly and must've skipped a line... I had very little time, so I rushed. The answer is (as you guessed) that the analogy described ideologies, not physical movement.

And, thank you, Tim. I do think that many people in the media have ideologies that lean to the left. And many of those people would like to use their positions in the media to effect social change. But I just feel like it's a giant leap to go from there to saying that the media (as a general whole) is pushing a single agenda to make our society more liberal. In fact, I think the most obvious cases of the media pushing an agenda can be found in Fox News and Clear Channel... and they push a hardline conservative agenda. But, I also agree that we're all agreeing on more than we might think. I just don't think there's a singular media agenda against conservativism.

I had posted a reply to David regarding the accusation that I've been dodging issues and simply repeating myself. It was a little snotty, and I'm sorry about that. I sometimes repeat myself because the same answer can answer the latest question/concern.

The thing about polls and things of that nature is that they can be manipulated to get specific desired responses. Mediaresearch.org is a conservative non-profit organization. The University of North Carolina annually publishes reports that say cigarette smoke is not dangerous to your health. Really? Yes, and they still do. Because those research studies are funded by the cigarette companies. You have to look at the source, and in this case, I'd suggest looking at the mediaresearch.org homepage before you believe anything they say. But, even so, the report seems to indicate that about 70% of media workers are somewhat liberal. And the reports says that in 2001 about 35% of the public identifies itself as conservative, which leaves 65% of the population to be "leaning left". Can there be an agenda to change society if the media and public numbers are so close?

I still contend that there are three reasons (previously stated, so I won't repeat myself ;) ) why the media agenda idea doesn't make sense.

Olórin the Wise

05-18-2007, 02:06 PM

Jess, are 'conservative' and 'leaning left' the only options available to the public? After all, it is possible (however unlikely) that there are some people who are evenly balanced as regards conservative and liberal.

EveningStar

05-18-2007, 02:26 PM

Olorin, I would take that a step further. There are literally thousands of things we have opinions about, from how we dress ourselves to how much risk we take in extreme sports. In each and every one of those things we could grade ourselves on degrees of liberal/conservative leanings. And in each and every one of those things is a middle ground. Such as someone who does not support abortion on demand or after the first trimester. Such as someone who believes the only gambling that is OK is a state lottery to fund higher education. They don't mind profanity in a movie as long as it doesn't involve bodily functions..or particularly sexual functions. Or they don't support gun ban laws but think it's ok to ban all weapons from a national park.

Copperfox

05-18-2007, 03:22 PM

Or they strongly defend the normal family, but at the same time advocate a welfare state which they don't realize is hurtful to the family. The lefts and rights can be compartmentalized within one person.

jesslaugh

05-18-2007, 03:28 PM

Yes, I agree. There are options other than liberal and conservative. What I was saying is that if you start with conservatives, on the political spectrum, most positions are to the left of conservativism. Therefore, almost all the non-conservatives can be said to be "leaning left", that is, to the left of being conservative.

Maybe an illustration would help (this may turn out looking horrible, but let's hope not).

Political spectrum:

|-------Liberalism-------------------------------------Conservativism----------|

If you say that 35% of the public is conservative, then chances are pretty good that almost all of the remaining 65% are "to the left" of the conservatives. That includes moderates. And conservatives often see people with moderate positions as being "liberal".

And, I just want to say that I hope it's clear how important it is to actually read the report/poll and look into who wrote/funded the thing. We end up talking about the report instead of just taking it as truth. Yay for us!:D

Parthian King

05-18-2007, 03:31 PM

Here's the problem with your response, Jess. You obviously did not read the entire Media Research report, or you read it but don't want to address the specifics in it. Furthermore, statements like this:

And the reports says that in 2001 about 35% of the public identifies itself as conservative, which leaves 65% of the population to be "leaning left".

...show that to the extent you did read it, you didn't understand it (which is a more courteous assertion than that you understood it but deliberately chose to distort it.) Now, not only does you statement not address the point of this thread (media bias and misinformation), instead chasing the rabbit of what the makeup of the population is, it actually distorts the data itself. Your analysis shows how completely flawed your thinking is, since those statistical percentages never added up to 100%--there is a core "middle ground" which was assumed. Now, this is not only blatant error (i.e., just plain shoddy handling of the data), but it betrays your mindset as one that is willing to throw out whatever comes to mind to keep your stand alive for the moment.

The original quote was as follows:

“Only a tiny fraction of the media identifies itself as either Republican (4 percent) or conservative (6 percent). This is in direct contrast to the public, which identifies itself as 28 percent Republican and 35 percent conservative.”

Now, the other percentages of the overall populace were never given, and were irrelevant for the writer's point. His point was to compare how many identify themselves as conservative in the populace v. how many do so in the media. The statement above speaks for itself as to what the writer was truly asserting.

Of course, the most egregious flaw is the overall logic here vis-a-vis the "source" of this information. You cannot simply say, "Consider the source," because in philosophy that is a logical error known as the "genetic fallacy." Those who commit the genetic fallacy disregard something based on its origins, not on the merit of the data itself. It is the flip side of the erroneous statement "I have taken classes in rhetoric and logic, so the problem doesn't lie with me," or, "I am younger (or older), so I have a clearer vision on this score." Until you grapple with the information proper, and demonstrate why it is flawed, skewed, or otherwise false, it stands like an oak (sorry) in your rhetorical path.

Now, to explain why I think you are not responding to what is being put to you, let me say this:

*Although you have asserted that your youth gives you a special vantage point, you have entirely ignored the rebuttals of those your age and younger who disagree with you.

*You have not adequately explained why you felt at any point that this was an argument rather than a debate (the former being something you abhor, the latter something you relish), in spite of the repeated bewilderment of several posters.

*You have never responded to the retort to your caricature of our position (i.e., "conspiracy theory") made by Inkspot, POTW, and myself that no coordinated conspiracy is necessary, but rather merely a tendency based on the ideological constitution of the media elite.

*Although POTW has pointedly stated that your training gives no points to your stance, you make a statement about irony and saying it applied to what you had said (though I am at a loss as to what you think we concluded you applied that assertion to) then reaffirm that declaration--missing his point entirely.

*You have not addressed the point I raised concerning the influence of money in the media, which (by your own admission) also distorts how we get news, sustain gthe opening thesis of the thread.

That's enough for now.

jesslaugh

05-18-2007, 06:58 PM

Here's the problem with your response, Jess. You obviously did not read the entire Media Research report, or you read it but don't want to address the specifics in it.
Here's the problem, David, you like to ignore the force of what I say and focus on some insignificant part. And it's not just you, it's just about everyone that I've noticed. That's why the "oak tree" stuff has lasted so long, even though I kept saying that it wasn't important.

Now, not only does you statement not address the point of this thread (media bias and misinformation), instead chasing the rabbit of what the makeup of the population is, it actually distorts the data itself.
And your statement all address the point of this thread. I'll try to be more like you, David. And, the make-up of the population is crucial to the idea that the media is pushing a liberal agenda to change society. Because if the media's liberal-to-conservative ratio is proportional to that of the population, the idea of a liberal agenda to change us is a simulacrum.

Your analysis shows how completely flawed your thinking is, since those statistical percentages never added up to 100%--there is a core "middle ground" which was assumed.
Where does the report say that there is an assumed middle ground? Please support this.

Of course, the most egregious flaw is the overall logic here vis-a-vis the "source" of this information. You cannot simply say, "Consider the source," because in philosophy that is a logical error known as the "genetic fallacy." Those who commit the genetic fallacy disregard something based on its origins, not on the merit of the data itself.
Ah, but I didn't say that we should disregard the report because of its source. I said that we have to be critical of any report or poll that is produced or funded by a highly biased source. The report is certainly not "wrong" simply because mediaresearch.org did it. But that report does not provide links or access to the actual polls used, so the only response is to question the reports based on it's source. They have something to gain, which means they lose some credibility.

Here's my least favorite part:
*Although you have asserted that your youth gives you a special vantage point, you have entirely ignored the rebuttals of those your age and younger who disagree with you.
I wish there were I nicer way to say this, but... you're wrong. You could try to show me one or two instances where I've ignored someone my age. I don't think you can, but even if you do, you've only gone a fraction of the way to being right since your statement is so sweeping.

*You have not adequately explained why you felt at any point that this was an argument rather than a debate (the former being something you abhor, the latter something you relish), in spite of the repeated bewilderment of several posters.
Again, I want this to come across as kindly as possible... the "repeated bewilderment of several posters"? I tried to make it clear that the difference between an argument and a debate is largely subjective, and in my mind, this was an argument. And I let John's explanation of the difference do most of the talking, only referring to it briefly by saying "it's the difference between 'you' and 'your'". Is that not good enough for you? Does this line of thought even matter to the point of the topic, which you seem very concerned about (see above)?

*You have never responded to the retort to your caricature of our position (i.e., "conspiracy theory") made by Inkspot, POTW, and myself that no coordinated conspiracy is necessary, but rather merely a tendency based on the ideological constitution of the media elite.
I am responding to that by adjusting to the change in the discussion. I agree that if an overwhelming majority of the media has their own individual agendas to change society, then you could say there is a media agenda. That's why I asked for the poll information, which turned out to be not true. But I still think that there are enough conservatives (with agendas) in the media to make the idea of a singular "media agenda" empty. And, moreover, I think there are a significant number of liberals in the media who try to be objective and not push an agenda. Polls won't show you this.

*Although POTW has pointedly stated that your training gives no points to your stance, you make a statement about irony and saying it applied to what you had said (though I am at a loss as to what you think we concluded you applied that assertion to) then reaffirm that declaration--missing his point entirely.
Huh? Irony, in this case, was demonstrating something by doing the opposite. I was saying that I'm fairly certain that I have not made any logical errors. I still hold this to be true, and you haven't shown me to be wrong about that, other than grasping into the wind.

*You have not addressed the point I raised concerning the influence of money in the media, which (by your own admission) also distorts how we get news, sustain gthe opening thesis of the thread.
That's funny considering I'm pretty sure that I raised the point about money and the media. Anyway, I have addressed the issue. Many times (where have you been?). The media is money driven, and they sell subscriptions and get views and listeners by giving people what they want.

I've been defending my stance a lot, and often against empty concerns like "you never..." that could be answered by reading. There is only one of me, and I do the best I can to defend myself and my position, but there are many of you and a lot of my more thoughtful points are never mentioned. I say that your explanation has three faults, and I list the faults, a defense has only been attempted on one of them. But then you'll criticize me for not answering all your questions. I refuse to play that game. So I'd like some answers, if it's not too much to ask.

How do you reconcile your explanation with the two remaining faults I listed?
If I have been spoon-fed ideological propaganda my whole life (as you claim), what should my life look like right now?
How is saying "Norman Lear is the media" different from saying "President Bush is America"?
Do you recognize the obvious logical flaw by even saying that "Norman Lear is the media", and how do you explain that?
Do you agree that the statement "Teachers are against conservatives", is flawed because it over-generalizes?
Where have I made a logical flaw in supporting my explanation that a socio-political agenda can't be attributed to "The Media"?
What evidence do you have that I am "liberal" (since one of you has more-or-less stated that I'm liberal)?
What proof/evidence do you have that the media has an agenda to change society a certain way?
Do you have any evidence that the liberal members of the media are not trying to report the news without pushing a liberal agenda?
Do you believe the media deliberately hides truth from us?

Doffen

05-18-2007, 07:16 PM

What proof/evidence do you have that the media has an agenda to change society a certain way?

The second world war? I mean.. Why did Germans start hating Jews in the national scale as they did? I would most likely say the media, which was controled by the Nazi regime. In a few years, the nazi regime had a whole nation crawling before them because of the media and the speculations on the jews. Media made Germans literally hate jews. Isn't that a power? Didn't they change the German people somehow? Hitler didn't do this all by himself. He used the media as a tool to apeal to the whole nation. True? Do you really speculate on that?

EveningStar

05-18-2007, 07:44 PM

News journalists and newspaper editors are usually not the Mom and Pop operation with a dream and a GI Loan. These days big conglomerates own media outlets and they manage them closely.

When CBS News makes a statement, you'd better believe if it's harmful to CBS, Inc., it won't get prime coverage.

Ultimately big news conglomerates will cooperate even with cutthroat competitors if they feel a lack of discression by one will harm the whole industry.

jesslaugh

05-18-2007, 07:54 PM

The second world war? I mean.. Why did Germans start hating Jews in the national scale as they did? I would most likely say the media, which was controled by the Nazi regime. In a few years, the nazi regime had a whole nation crawling before them because of the media and the speculations on the jews. Media made Germans literally hate jews. Isn't that a power? Didn't they change the German people somehow? Hitler didn't do this all by himself. He used the media as a tool to apeal to the whole nation. True? Do you really speculate on that?
Hi, Doffen! First, I'm pretty sure we've been talking about the current American media. Anyway, you said yourself that Hitler was using the media as a tool. If that's true, is it the media's fault, or Hitler's fault? Do you blame the tool or the user?

PrinceOfTheWest

05-18-2007, 07:57 PM

In answer to the question of "where's the proof", there was at least one instance where one outlet of the mainstream media flat out admitted it. It was on the ABC News website, and it was quickly yanked, but not before I made a copy. Here's the entire piece:

(verbatim excerpt from http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html, Tue 10 Feb 2004)
Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."
They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.
More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.
The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.
It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.
It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.
It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base."
It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.
Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!).
The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.

Parthian King

05-18-2007, 10:41 PM

Remarkable stuff, POTW. Amazing.

Jess: The “force of what you say” rather than some “insignificant part”? In spite of your stated preference for debate, you seem unfamiliar with its protocols. Words are the warp and the woof of rhetoric, the DNA of the matter. For you, after the fact, to say, “You’re taking issue with ‘insignificant parts’ of what I say; the real stuff still stands on the ‘force’ with which I stated it” is sheer nonsense. It is indicative of the near total void in your posts of any true critical thought. Your answers to my queries are further evidence (*long, low whistle*), but in order to avoid the tit for tat I will focus on what to you was the most egregious of my offenses:

Here's my least favorite part:

*Although you have asserted that your youth gives you a special vantage point, you have entirely ignored the rebuttals of those your age and younger who disagree with you.
I wish there were I nicer way to say this, but... you're wrong. You could try to show me one or two instances where I've ignored someone my age. I don't think you can, but even if you do, you've only gone a fraction of the way to being right since your statement is so sweeping.

Read what I said, Jess. I NEVER said you ignored someone your age. I said “you have entirely ignored the rebuttals of those your age and younger who disagree with you.”

Now, it is a tricky thing indeed to do what you have asked, i.e., demonstrate a void—show where you didn’t write something. But I can show where they wrote things, and I rather challenge you to show me at which point you responded to them and admitted that being young means a whole lot of nothing in this debate:

If ya go back to the first page, Jess, you'll see that my opions match those of the 'old oak trees'... not being an old oak tree myself, mind you.

Actually as I stated before there are a few of us here that agree with the "Oaks" that are actually young sprouts ourselves.

Your posts following these assertions (esp. post 49, the first post of yours following these statements) never refer to them in the least.

Now, since you said this bothered you the most, I’ll use it as a test case to point out why discussing matters critically with you is approaching the farcical. Your analysis of my statement does two things:

First, it accuses me of accusing you of being rude—of simply ignoring your peers outright. Basically you are accusing me of slandering your manners, of being obnoxious. I never said this.

Second, in so doing you duck the real issue, which is indeed found in my words. I said you ignored their rebuttal of your point about your youth somehow qualifying you for clear thought beyond the thinking of people older than you. In fact, to this point all you have said is, “I never meant for such a big deal to be made of that statement”—yet you still hold to it, in contradiction to what they are saying. Their very presence and stance here makes that assertion of yours de