America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

WWE star Kane, aka Glenn Jacobs, elected mayor of Tennessee's Knox County

 

[BobK]

No media should be trusted implicitly.

The media is a means of spreading information, not fact, and is in a perfect position to spread information to capitalize on its impact either by giving people what they want in exchange for money (through the simple act of purchasing the actual media product and through advertising) or through deceitful, intentional misinformation and willing change that is largely one-sided and self-serving.

It's up to those on the receiving end of information to take it in from an array of sources and, through cognitive reasoning, determine what should be believed.

That's sort of my point, actually. There was a time in the not so remote past when you could assume the media was believable as a working hypothesis, but that's no longer true.

 

[Northstar]

WWE star Kane, aka Glenn Jacobs, elected mayor of Tennessee's Knox County

I’ve heard he had outside help from some pasty white guy holding an urn.

 

[TexRex]

That's sort of my point, actually. There was a time in the not so remote past when you could assume the media was believable as a working hypothesis, but that's no longer true.

Ah, see that wasn't apparent in the quoted remark, what with "mainstream media" being specified.

Also, I'm not sure just how recent the concept of using media as manipulation in service of bias and for personal gain really is. Can you imagine a founding father writing under a pseudonym for a major publication--indeed the first newspaper established outside of Boston--advocating the printing of money as economic stimulus, all the while hoping his own printing company would acquire the contract to do so?

Hell, if that's going a little too far back, Human Events was established in 1944 as a conservative counterpoint to existing liberal publications. What would be the point if existing content wasn't deemed to be biased?

 

[BobK]

Ah, see that wasn't apparent in the quoted remark, what with "mainstream media" being specified.

Also, I'm not sure just how recent the concept of using media as manipulation in service of bias and for personal gain really is. Can you imagine a founding father writing under a pseudonym for a major publication--indeed the first newspaper established outside of Boston--advocating the printing of money as economic stimulus, all the while hoping his own printing company would acquire the contract to do so?

Hell, if that's going a little too far back, Human Events was established in 1944 as a conservative counterpoint to existing liberal publications. What would be the point if existing content wasn't deemed to be biased?

The media has been used as "manipulation in service of bias and for personal gain" probably as long as there has been news media, I'm sure. But it's ubiquitous now, whereas it hasn't always been so.

 

[TexRex]

The media has been used as "manipulation in service of bias and for personal gain" probably as long as there has been news media, I'm sure. But it's ubiquitous now, whereas it hasn't always been so.

"The ocean's always been there but now I'm drowning in it"?

Again, if liberal-leaning media wasn't pervasive 74 years ago, why would an entity venture to offer its readership a more conservative narrative?

 

[ryzno]

"The ocean's always been there but now I'm drowning in it"?

Again, if liberal-leaning media wasn't pervasive 74 years ago, why would an entity venture to offer its readership a more conservative narrative?

They didn't have the reach back they do now. If you didn't have a radio or newspaper you were pretty much oblivious. Now all you have to do is look at your phone full of bias.

 

[TexRex]

They didn't have the reach back they do now. If you didn't have a radio or newspaper you were pretty much oblivious. Now all you have to do is look at your phone full of bias.

The other side of that coin is that what was printed and distributed then is what you got, without a readily available means to source additional narratives. Now you can (and should) use the information you get from a single source as a basis to seek additional information, context and perspectives.

It's a bit like that notion of Bernie Sanders being gifted a mansion in exchange for endorsing Hillary. You incredulously disregarded a source (Vanity Fair) that provided information with which to run and have remained steadfast in the belief that the narrative provided by it and countless other outlets (including the original source that it cited) is false, all while continually neglecting to offer a contradictory source.

 

[ryzno]

It's a bit like that notion of Bernie Sanders being gifted a mansion in exchange for endorsing Hillary. You incredulously disregarded a source (Vanity Fair) that provided information with which to run and have remained steadfast in the belief that the narrative provided by it and countless other outlets (including the original source that it cited) is false, all while continually neglecting to offer a contradictory source.

I know I did give a like a few hours ago at work but this paragraph bugged me a little. Especially the bold part. Within an hour I retracted the million dollar comment and a few hours later when I read your link, I admitted I was wrong. I also did admit I don't trust what they said but I pretty much bowed to you in the argument. I don't know what else you want from me.
I don't have a link for my opinion I don't know how many times I have to say that.
You want to trust the media, go ahead, I'll remain skeptical.

And don't even try the structure of your thoughts like Famine in the White Privilege thread with PZ. I'd rather be happy in my incorrect thoughts then grilled by y'all and pissed at the truth and y'all.
Regardless, however he got the house or sold it has zero effect on me and I could really careless about him or the houses. He bowed out of an nomination he had in the bag. He should have ran, I wouldn't have voted for him, but at least he isn't Hillary...

I know you aren't going to believe this but I actually was going to vote for her cause of Bill but then more dirt than 20 dump trucks hit the fan and Trump started speaking things I wanted to hear. I'll say it again, I HAD ALWAYS VOTED DEM.

 

[TexRex]

Within an hour I retracted the million dollar comment and a few hours later when I read your link, I admitted I was wrong.

You indeed rejected the earlier claim that a house recently acquired by Sanders is worth a million dollars, however it's comments in a subsequent post ("And I just read the VF artical, it has as much proof he actually paid for it as I do it was given to him...") that suggest it's only the value of the home that you were taking back and not the notion that it was some sort of payoff.

I also did admit I don't trust what they said but I pretty much bowed to you in the argument.

Yes, I saw that. It looks to be a response to a response to the notion that the Clinton Foundation was shuttered as a result of...something. Nowhere in your post or the one you quoted was the Sanders' new home mentioned.

I don't have a link for my opinion I don't know how many times I have to say that.

Nor do I, as it's what's informing these opinions that is pertinent and not so much the opinions themselves. Where do these notions come from if you have no source?

You want to trust the media, go ahead, I'll remain skeptical.

You keep saying that as if you don't think conservative media is media.

And don't even try the structure of your thoughts like Famine in the White Privilege thread with PZ.

I'm afraid I don't have the slightest idea what you're referring to, as I'm not following along in that thread. Just for ****s and giggles, I gave it a click and my most recent unread post was on page 14. The only times I've even posted there were in response to you having tagged me for comments made in an entirely different thread.

I'd rather be happy in my incorrect thoughts then grilled by y'all and pissed at the truth and y'all.

Then keep them to yourself instead of making outlandish claims with nothing to support them. Surely you've noticed a correlation between these notions and others asking you to cite your sources.

Regardless, however he got the house or sold it has zero effect on me and I could really careless about him or the houses.

You having brought it up seems to contradict that.

 

[BobK]

"The ocean's always been there but now I'm drowning in it"?

Again, if liberal-leaning media wasn't pervasive 74 years ago, why would an entity venture to offer its readership a more conservative narrative?

I haven't a clue, nor do I have any idea why you're asking it of me. I'm thinking here that you're being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

 

[TexRex]

I haven't a clue, nor do I have any idea why you're asking it of me.

I asked you because you presented the notion of biased media being relatively new (the Clinton/Bush era being when you stopped trusting mainstream media implicitly), and I just can't fathom how it can be thought of as being as recent as that.

There are, however, things as recent as that, indeed much more recent than that, that have changed the way society takes in information. The internet and social media have been both boon and bust in this regard. Having so much information so readily available is great, but we still have to sift through it and determine what of it actually makes sense. Having expansive circles of acquaintances with whom we share beliefs has also left us less likely to be critical of the information we get through them.

I'm thinking here that you're being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative.

Then you probably shouldn't have responded, but I assure you that I asked what I did in an effort to gain insight into your original statement and not merely for argument's sake.

If a source of information is founded on the basis of certain narratives being underrepresented, it's safe to assume that the underrepresentation of such narratives is pervasive enough to do so.

 

[LeMansAid]

The media has been used as "manipulation in service of bias and for personal gain" probably as long as there has been news media, I'm sure. But it's ubiquitous now, whereas it hasn't always been so.

Read: "It's likely always been at least a bit suspect, but now it appears all-pervasively-so" - ie. "It has changed, they've become worse".

"The ocean's always been there but now I'm drowning in it"?

Read: "It hasn't changed, but my situation has become worse".

Then you probably shouldn't have responded.....

Read: "Don"t feed the troll. I am the troll".



*Last one is mainly meant as a bit of fun as I'm well aware of you having continued the sentence.

 

[TexRex]

Read: "Don"t feed the troll. I am the troll".



*Last one is mainly meant as a bit of fun as I'm well aware of you having continued the sentence.

Okay, I'll take that hit...even if it wasn't meant to be taken entirely at face value.

While there is a bit of condescension in the bit that was quoted, it's only a result of what it was in response to because up the that point I was only probing for perspective, and the notion that anything else was at play irritated me.

 

[BobK]

I asked you because you presented the notion of biased media being relatively new (the Clinton/Bush era being when you stopped trusting mainstream media implicitly), and I just can't fathom how it can be thought of as being as recent as that.

My contention is that the media bias has become much worse, not that it's a new phenomenon. Perhaps "implicitly" was the wrong word to use in my original statement. Or as @LeMansAid so aptly rephrased it:

Read: "It's likely always been at least a bit suspect, but now it appears all-pervasively-so" - ie. "It has changed, they've become worse".

 

[Joey D]

I'm not sure media bias is any worse now than it was 100-200 years ago in America. It's just more sensationalized now since the media has access to more interviews, more "experts", and has a 24-hour news cycle. Back in the day, there was sensationalization, but it was less so since it was just in print and not on TV or the internet. Also, anyone can write and publish today. All you need is a blog and social media.

One example is William Randolph Hearst who was the king of yellow journalism (actual fake news). His papers fabricated stories to the point he was probably responsible for the Spanish-America War.

Going even further back, Ben Franklin wrote under a pseudonym in an attempt to convince the public more paper money was needed. Nevermind Franklin's company would probably get the contract so he was using the media to essentially bring him more money.

 

[TexRex]

Perhaps "implicitly" was the wrong word to use in my original statement.

Fair enough, and I will say that the rest of my side of the discussion is less [for lack of a better word] argumentative with that off the table.

I would also note [without trying to pick a fight or call anyone out on anything] that a part of me interpreted the notion of not trusting mainstream media implicitly as not trusting liberal media--that conservative media is inherently more trustworthy--and that that interpretation influenced the way I responded, therefor likely making my response come off as [and I mean it this time] argumentative. For that I apologize.

I'm not sure media bias is any worse now than it was 100-200 years ago in America. It's just more sensationalized now since the media has access to more interviews, more "experts", and has a 24-hour news cycle. Back in the day, there was sensationalization, but it was less so since it was just in print and not on TV or the internet. Also, anyone can write and publish today. All you need is a blog and social media.

This. Every danged bit of it.

I will say, however, that not all outlets--of any bent--sensationalize to the degree that some do. Needless to say I don't take Fox News seriously, not only due to the sensationalism employed but because of the base that it's meant to serve, but I don't take CNN seriously either despite it probably serving my own bias. I had a child screaming for attention constantly twenty years ago and I don't need another one now.

Going even further back, Ben Franklin wrote under a pseudonym in an attempt to convince the public more paper money was needed. Nevermind Franklin's company would probably get the contract so he was using the media to essentially bring him more money.

That, uh...that sounds familiar...

Can you imagine a founding father writing under a pseudonym for a major publication--indeed the first newspaper established outside of Boston--advocating the printing of money as economic stimulus, all the while hoping his own printing company would acquire the contract to do so?

 

[ryzno]

You indeed rejected the earlier claim that a house recently acquired by Sanders is worth a million dollars, however it's comments in a subsequent post ("And I just read the VF artical, it has as much proof he actually paid for it as I do it was given to him...") that suggest it's only the value of the home that you were taking back and not the notion that it was some sort of payoff.


Yes, I saw that. It looks to be a response to a response to the notion that the Clinton Foundation was shuttered as a result of...something. Nowhere in your post or the one you quoted was the Sanders' new home mentioned.


Nor do I, as it's what's informing these opinions that is pertinent and not so much the opinions themselves. Where do these notions come from if you have no source?


You keep saying that as if you don't think conservative media is media.


I'm afraid I don't have the slightest idea what you're referring to, as I'm not following along in that thread. Just for ****s and giggles, I gave it a click and my most recent unread post was on page 14. The only times I've even posted there were in response to you having tagged me for comments made in an entirely different thread.


Then keep them to yourself instead of making outlandish claims with nothing to support them. Surely you've noticed a correlation between these notions and others asking you to cite your sources.


You having brought it up seems to contradict that.

Well take this time to accept my retraction of the entire statement.
Now, you know all I listen to for news is the radio. If you have a problem with my opinions or posts, I'll say it again, put me on ignore and leave me alone.
Cause that's what I'm doing to you now.
I'm tired of your essay posts breaking down my posts and over reading my posts for the sake of argument.
I was starting to like you too. Oh well. Have a good GTP life.

 

[Joey D]

Forgoing the standard political post, can we talk about the wildfires for a second?

The Ranch Fire and River Fire in California are now combined to make the Mendocino Complex Fire. It's not burned 283,800 acres and is continuing to grow. It's also now the largest fire in the state's history beating out last year's Thomas Fire that burned 281,000 acres.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/06/us/california-fires/index.html

Really the whole western US is burning right now: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/PublicInformation/index.html?appid=4ae7c683b9574856a3d3b7f75162b3f4

Here in SLC, it looks like a thick fog has descended on the city. I can typically see the mountains from my townhouse, but they're completely obscured by the smoke blowing it. The air quality is also fairly crap too and even for a healthy person, it's hard to breathe. The sunsets are killer though, so I guess I got that going for me. It also smells like a campfire mixed with smog, which is a bit better than the standard smog and lake stink stench that covers the city.

I think these fires continue to be real evidence toward climate change. Between hotter temperatures, drier conditions, and severe drought the likelihood for fires increases and they tend to spread quicker. It definitely makes me believe the studying of climate change is incredibly important from a scientific standpoint so we can figure out the cause of it and whether or not we can address is.

Oh, I also think people who start these, whether intentional or by accident, need to be shot into the sun for being stupid...especially if you shoot off fireworks anywhere in the west. It's not hard to avoid starting a wildfire. Sure there will be lightning strikes and other natural causes, but I believe most fires are caused by humans being dumb.

 

[Danoff]

I think these fires continue to be real evidence toward climate change. Between hotter temperatures, drier conditions, and severe drought the likelihood for fires increases and they tend to spread quicker. It definitely makes me believe the studying of climate change is incredibly important from a scientific standpoint so we can figure out the cause of it and whether or not we can address is.

If that's true, we won't have to worry about forest fires for very long - because the fuel will be gone. I think one of the biggest reasons we have such large forest fires is because we fight them so hard. Eventually enough growth builds up that they become unstoppable (but we still give it our best effort).

It's very smokey here in CO too. The hot dry climate this summer seems to have mixed nicely with the backlog of brush that we constantly (even now) strive to cultivate.

 

[TexRex]

Oh, I also think people who start these, whether intentional or by accident, need to be shot into the sun for being stupid...especially if you shoot off fireworks anywhere in the west. It's not hard to avoid starting a wildfire. Sure there will be lightning strikes and other natural causes, but I believe most fires are caused by humans being dumb.

 

[PocketZeven]

When did the mainstream news being "fake News" narrative begin? I havent seen anything that warrants that monicker. Journalist do make mistakes, because they are so in a hurry these days to put out a story for the ratings. They just forget to do proper due diligence. But that doesnt mean they are "fake news". Didnt it al start with the russians spreading actual "fake news" to influence the election?

Somehow shows like Hannity, Fox and friends , Tucker Carlson are viewed as being news, but are actually opiniated talkshows. Yet , to my understanding, a lot of viewers see them as the "real" news. Even on the left people should not view real time with Bill maher and the View as being "news". Somehow people seem to fail to differentiate journalists with talkshowhosts. Is Fox news and CNN purposely trying to erase that fine line between news and talkshows? It is almost like reading only the opinion columns in the paper and totally ignoring the "neutral"articles.

 

[Rallywagon]

I think the fake news narrative started with Trump. As already said, there has always been an unease with news, especially if it is counter to your ideals, cognitive dissonance and all that. I think you are right that the "opinion talk shows" are gaining more and more traction. But, since they cater specifically to the group they are speaking too, be it left, right, liberal conservative, and are under no obligation to tell unbiased truth (see my video a page or two back on Hannity /Smith for a prime example) they feed that cognitive dissonance. People see it on fox news, or CNN, or MSNBC and think, "hey it's coming from this source I trust, it must be accurate" rather than hold a bit of skepticism and do some research.

 

[TexRex]

I think you are right that the "opinion talk shows" are gaining more and more traction. But, since they cater specifically to the group they are speaking too, be it left, right, liberal conservative, and are under no obligation to tell unbiased truth (see my video a page or two back on Hannity /Smith for a prime example) they feed that cognitive dissonance.

I think they provide some much-needed levity (the late-night political satire comedy/variety shows anyway), and I view them for exactly that, but I fear too many people take them too seriously and as a result they can feed a negative narrative.

I think the fake news narrative started with Trump.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...dit-for-inventing-the-word-fake-a7989221.html

“I think one of the greatest of all terms I’ve come up with is ‘fake'," he said.

“I guess other people have used it, perhaps, over the years, but I’ve never noticed it."

 

[PocketZeven]

I think they provide some much-needed levity (the late-night political satire comedy/variety shows anyway), and I view them for exactly that, but I fear too many people take them too seriously and as a result they can feed a negative narrative.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...dit-for-inventing-the-word-fake-a7989221.html

I dont even mind tucker carlson. Hannity is much more like a Alex Jones (without the drug fueled rants). Tucker Carlson likes to spin and has a certain "gotcha" style that can be appealing. He is a smart guy and seems to do his homework.
Hannity on the other hand just spreads too much "real" fake news and conspiracies to take him serious. Yet apparantly he is nr 1 in network TV, which worries me. Am i correct in this observation?

 

[Tornado]

Does Tucker Carlson still wear those ridiculous bow ties?

 

[eran0004]

When did the mainstream news being "fake News" narrative begin? I havent seen anything that warrants that monicker. Journalist do make mistakes, because they are so in a hurry these days to put out a story for the ratings. They just forget to do proper due diligence. But that doesnt mean they are "fake news".

Didnt it al start with the russians spreading actual "fake news" to influence the election?

I don’t know who started it, but I do know that during the election there were some kids in Veles, Macedonia, who started their own fake news websites to profit from the ad revenues. They posted a lot of controversial stuff that they knew people would share on social media, so they made a lot of money.

 

[UKMikey]

I don’t know who started it

Me neither, but I do know it's been around since at least The Great War.

https://greatwarcentre.com/2017/05/19/fake-news-a-world-war-i-phenomenon/

Something about the first casualty of war being the truth or something.

 

[Dotini]

When did the mainstream news being "fake News" narrative begin? I havent seen anything that warrants that monicker. Journalist do make mistakes, because they are so in a hurry these days to put out a story for the ratings. They just forget to do proper due diligence. But that doesnt mean they are "fake news". Didnt it al start with the russians spreading actual "fake news" to influence the election?

Great questions!

I consider all news to be fake news which overtly purports to be neutral, accurate reportage, but which nevertheless conveys a mild or strong bias of editorial flavoring, or point of view. This started when the political atmosphere in the US became so polarized that there is little or no objective, neutral, middle-ground left. Many or most all news organizations now see themselves as active players, with an active mission or agenda to accomplish. This can be extreme or it can be subtle. But, IMHO, it is there and detectable.

As I hinted, this accelerated and took off recently. I have been diligently watching and reading the daily and periodical news since the early '60's. I had a newspaper subscription when I was 12 years old! Back then most all news came from the center, and America was mostly homogenous and uniform in its view, with surprisingly little difference between right and left, Democrat and Republican. Yes, it was biased. Biased toward American exceptionalism, winning the global war on communism, etc. All important reporters were watched or minded by the CIA or FBI, and there was an atmosphere of extreme conformism. Gradually various liberation movements changed this, but slowly. Very slowly. It became totally open information/propaganda wars with the campaign of Trump.

As for the Russians, well, they have their wet dreams, just like us. It is well known that Russia has influenced some 45 elections around the world, but equally that the US has influenced over 80. The pen has always been a weapon. Now it is an arsenal.

IMHO, the prognosis is very dim. Big money, sophisticated technology and psychology, identity politics and groupthink are rapidly overcoming a nation of formerly self-supposed reasoned and broadly informed individuals thinking and acting individually. We are like a bunch of frogs in a boiling pot we once thought was tepid.

 

[Rage Racer]

When the Russians use Facebook, Twitter and TV to present their news to English speakers, this is fake news, disinformation and elections meddling.
When the USA, Britain and Germany spread their propaganda in the Russian media space, this is their exercise of freedom of speech.

Remember!