Are we media zombies?

[Pogo]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

Looong winded. But accurate. For me I look back th election 2000. Fox News, Hannith and Colmbs, CNN, MSNBC and the election. I recall it as a time where the Media rallied around their preferred side and had it out. Then the recount of the recount, and then counting that. During the Booooosh years is when it seemed that the political operatives, the Roves and Carvells and so on. Then 9/11. Right after that is when media and polititions lost all shame. You asked how it would be if we all stopped watching news. We would likely go back to not giving two shits who is affiliated with whatever political party. Used to be republicans and Democrats were of the same mind as far as the country went. Basically, keep America awesome. Where they differed was how we all got there. Now? It’s all about power, for both parties. They won’t argue ideas, only hurl accusations at each other. Meh, the media ain’t to blame for all this. We are because we are to lazy to demand more from our polititions. Look at Trump and Clinton. Both reprobate piles of shit. Even more sad, Trump beat Hillary by showing up at a debate or rally and doing arm pit farts. Hillary showed up with nothing to offer. This is only going to get worse unless we demand more from our politicians. That, and stop watching the opinion shows on cable news.

Yeah, long as hell, but I’m REALLY fucked up. Also, sorry for being all over the place.

No, you are absolutely correct. We do need to require more from our politicians. I am of the mind that all politicians are guilty of not enacting the peoples will. I do think, however, this is amplified by the media, as they spin every decision a politician makes into their own narrative.

This is why I think the media is largely responsible for the division we have in the country. If opinion talk radio simply reported things verbatim and as they happened, it would be very dry and sometimes boring. They have to spice it up to keep people emotions high, and that keeps them glued to the program. Because they play on people's emotions, it gives them the ability to manipulate things, and I wonder if the end goal is to make you think a certain way, and then reinforce that thinking, e.g....programming.

The issue with that is, over time, a person begins to have that kind of mindset, that they feel a certain way about a particular topic, when in fact, it is that media manipulation that caused you to think that way. In other words, these talk show hosts are programming the way you think, and programming what you believe. Over a long time of constant barrage of reinforcing programming, the listener begins to think those views are their own, when in fact, they may not be, but rather the views of the talk host, projected onto the listener.

Definitely on the right track. Emotion sells, dry facts do not. Fear and loathing sell best, and they also bring loyalty (after this message for foam rubber face lacerations you can paste on we'll tell you which asteroid is going to kill you) which keeps them sitting ducks for the commercial.

Next big town over there are multiple radio stations owned by ClearChannel. One of them has right-wing talk radio all day, another has left-wing talk all day. Clearly they don't care which side a listener takes because they make money from both, and that's all they do care about. The listener is just a pawn to that end.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, but why does that emotion peddling only apply to conservatives and not liberals?

Who said it does? Mining the emotions is a human thing, not a political thing. It's been known and exploited for literally centuries. When the Weather Channel spends its prime time breathlessly spinning tales of tornadoes and people trapped in floods it's not mining "conservatives" or "liberals" --- it's mining eyeballs.

This is a known phenomenon applied to whatever topic including politics. Rupert Murdoch is largely responsible for the latter (on TV) -- he had run a global "empire" of trashy gossip tabloid papers and took that mentality to the boob tube; instead of gossip about celebrities it was gossip about politicians. Again, salacious mining of human fears. And Lush Rimjob did it for radio. Neither one dealt in facts, because facts don't amass ears and eyeballs. They deal in innuendo and drama and subterfuge.

But the same principle applies to watching a stage full of people you and I have never met and never will meet finding out who da baby daddy is. Just another branch of the same sewer.

 

[EL Rich]

One thing I've learned over the years is that partisanship is clear and obvious, and seems to be ever increasing.

The thing that perplexes me, however, is that the divide is distinct and very tangible. Has anyone not ever noticed how very clearly the line between right and left is laid out?

Look at our politicians, for example. When it comes to guns and abortion, they will almost always vote right down the party line. The thing is, I have a hard time believing that all Democrats are pro choice and anti gun, and that all Republicans are pro life and pro gun. I think most members of our legislative body fall somewhere in the middle point, but vote the party line because they are expected to do so.

I also think that most citizens are also somewhere in the middle.

I often wonder if media, both opinion talk radio and other forms of "news" play a major role in this.

Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day. Over time, you begin to get ingrained to their way of thinking, and it comes to the point when they say something, you automatically believe it, because you've become so programmed to that type of thinking that when they say something, you think that what they are saying aligns with your way of thinking, when in fact, it's their programming that got you to thinking that way.

Most people have no idea of what is going on in the world, other than what is told to them from their favorite talk show hosts. Is it too far fetched to believe that those hosts know this, and they tailor their shows to reinforce your programming to think a certain way?

Again, I don't believe most of these talk show hosts believe everything they are reporting, but they report it none the less because either they are trying to program you to a certain way of thinking, or they are trying to cater to what they think you want to hear, and drive ratings, which in turn also reinforces the programming.

I just wonder what would happen if everyone stopped listening to opinion talk radio for a year. Would things stay the same, or would we all gravitate to the same way of thinking? I surmise that we would at least get closer together because we are not being constantly fed a stream of directed, partisan information.

Anyway, I was just thinking, and thought I'd ask.

Looong winded. But accurate. For me I look back th election 2000. Fox News, Hannith and Colmbs, CNN, MSNBC and the election. I recall it as a time where the Media rallied around their preferred side and had it out. Then the recount of the recount, and then counting that. During the Booooosh years is when it seemed that the political operatives, the Roves and Carvells and so on. Then 9/11. Right after that is when media and polititions lost all shame. You asked how it would be if we all stopped watching news. We would likely go back to not giving two shits who is affiliated with whatever political party. Used to be republicans and Democrats were of the same mind as far as the country went. Basically, keep America awesome. Where they differed was how we all got there. Now? It’s all about power, for both parties. They won’t argue ideas, only hurl accusations at each other. Meh, the media ain’t to blame for all this. We are because we are to lazy to demand more from our polititions. Look at Trump and Clinton. Both reprobate piles of shit. Even more sad, Trump beat Hillary by showing up at a debate or rally and doing arm pit farts. Hillary showed up with nothing to offer. This is only going to get worse unless we demand more from our politicians. That, and stop watching the opinion shows on cable news.

Yeah, long as hell, but I’m REALLY fucked up. Also, sorry for being all over the place.

No, you are absolutely correct. We do need to require more from our politicians. I am of the mind that all politicians are guilty of not enacting the peoples will. I do think, however, this is amplified by the media, as they spin every decision a politician makes into their own narrative.

This is why I think the media is largely responsible for the division we have in the country. If opinion talk radio simply reported things verbatim and as they happened, it would be very dry and sometimes boring. They have to spice it up to keep people emotions high, and that keeps them glued to the program. Because they play on people's emotions, it gives them the ability to manipulate things, and I wonder if the end goal is to make you think a certain way, and then reinforce that thinking, e.g....programming.

The issue with that is, over time, a person begins to have that kind of mindset, that they feel a certain way about a particular topic, when in fact, it is that media manipulation that caused you to think that way. In other words, these talk show hosts are programming the way you think, and programming what you believe. Over a long time of constant barrage of reinforcing programming, the listener begins to think those views are their own, when in fact, they may not be, but rather the views of the talk host, projected onto the listener.

Definitely on the right track. Emotion sells, dry facts do not. Fear and loathing sell best, and they also bring loyalty (after this message for foam rubber face lacerations you can paste on we'll tell you which asteroid is going to kill you) which keeps them sitting ducks for the commercial.

Next big town over there are multiple radio stations owned by ClearChannel. One of them has right-wing talk radio all day, another has left-wing talk all day. Clearly they don't care which side a listener takes because they make money from both, and that's all they do care about. The listener is just a pawn to that end.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, but why does that emotion peddling only apply to conservatives and not liberals?

Who said it does? Mining the emotions is a human thing, not a political thing. It's been known and exploited for literally centuries. When the Weather Channel spends its prime time breathlessly spinning tales of tornadoes and people trapped in floods it's not mining "conservatives" or "liberals" --- it's mining eyeballs.

This is a known phenomenon applied to whatever topic including politics. Rupert Murdoch is largely responsible for the latter (on TV) -- he had run a global "empire" of trashy gossip tabloid papers and took that mentality to the boob tube; instead of gossip about celebrities it was gossip about politicians. Again, salacious mining of human fears. And Lush Rimjob did it for radio. Neither one dealt in facts, because facts don't amass ears and eyeballs. They deal in innuendo and drama and subterfuge.

But the same principle applies to watching a stage full of people you and I have never met and never will meet finding out who da baby daddy is. Just another branch of the same sewer.

I agree with everything you just said, and I suspect we are actually saying basically the same thing. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that you seem to be giving public broadcasting a pass (from my understanding of what you’ve said) and I believe that all media outlets have to some degree adopted Murdoch’s model. Hey, why wouldn’t they? It works.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Some salient points. Yes it's a product of a Duopoly that draws such lines of dichotomy and steamrolls everybody (or nearly everybody) in a given political party to take a position they may or may not be comfortable with. Political parties exist for the purpose of consolidating power; unfortunately they operate by lumping some of the grand questions you bring up into a hive mentality thereby completely neglecting the actual intention of Congress, which is to represent constituents and not to represent a political party.

I totally disagree though that "Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day". That's a pathetic existence. If I ever found myself living like that I'd just frickin' shoot myself on the spot. However your point is well taken that such squawk shows exist to polarize and are a major reason for that dynamic's proliferation.

Well, perhaps not most people, but, many do, and even if they dont wake up and start listening, most people who do listen, tend to listen to only one type of opinion talk radio, well, at least I would think they do.

I tend to listen to both. I listen to a lot of Sirius xm, so, I'll listen to Breitbart in the morning, then glen beck, and then Andrew wilkow. I'll also listen to signoreli, and obeidallah, as well as thom hartman, and sometimes I'll switch to hannity.

The thing that really strikes me is the complete and utter opposite way of thinking between each side. It's almost hard to fathom that there could be such a concrete divide in the way of thinking between the left and the right, but if you listen to both left and right leaning talk radio, there it is.

You can listen to hannity talk about a topic, and then switch to obeidallah and he will talk about the same thing, and each will come to a complete opposite conclusion. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around how two people can see the same information, and come to two completely different conclusions. Hence why I wonder if this is by design.

Which side is using actual FACTS. Which means irrefutable. You know, facts.

Which side is doing that and can you give some examples.

For instance, has anyone as of yet presented facts about Trump colluding with Russia and stealing the election? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that hillary deleted 30k emails that were subpoenaed? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that Kavanaugh gang raped this woman? Is, that a fact?

Is it a fact that the dems said they would do everything they could to obstruct the nomination? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that the democrats sat on this letter until all of their efforts failed to obstruct and one week before the confirmation vote? Is that a fact?

Which are facts? Provable and irrefutable.

I will be waiting for the answers from you and will decide accordingly.

It seems to me when a left winger is EVER confronted with truth, that it causes a cognitive dissonance, which then causes the left winger to claim BOTH SIDES are to blame.


That, is a defense mechanism. I will be waiting for those facts.

Good point, but how do you determine facts? If media is biased, and ALL media is, the facts are merely just a representation of what a particular media outlet reports, with their own spin on it.

The problem with facts is, if a person has been acclimated to a particular side, and has been watching a particular talk show for many years, their way of thinking gets melded into the way of thinking that they have been exposed to for all of those years.

So, if a story breaks, and a person runs to their favorite talk show, they get a point of view. If they listen to another talk show if the same ideology, that point of view is reinforced. After a few days of listening to those opinions, a person will understand THAT point of view to be fact, when in reality, it may not actually be factual.

I promise, in not trying to run in circles here. What I'm getting at is, we all generally get our news from these talking heads, and along with that news comes commentary, which I wonder if that commentary isn't specifically designed to program you to a certain way of thinking.

If you think about it, all the news you hear comes from a media source. All media is biased, so, whether it be omission of information, or embellishment in certain things, the news you get is almost always, in some way, skewed.

 

[Pogo]

Looong winded. But accurate. For me I look back th election 2000. Fox News, Hannith and Colmbs, CNN, MSNBC and the election. I recall it as a time where the Media rallied around their preferred side and had it out. Then the recount of the recount, and then counting that. During the Booooosh years is when it seemed that the political operatives, the Roves and Carvells and so on. Then 9/11. Right after that is when media and polititions lost all shame. You asked how it would be if we all stopped watching news. We would likely go back to not giving two shits who is affiliated with whatever political party. Used to be republicans and Democrats were of the same mind as far as the country went. Basically, keep America awesome. Where they differed was how we all got there. Now? It’s all about power, for both parties. They won’t argue ideas, only hurl accusations at each other. Meh, the media ain’t to blame for all this. We are because we are to lazy to demand more from our polititions. Look at Trump and Clinton. Both reprobate piles of shit. Even more sad, Trump beat Hillary by showing up at a debate or rally and doing arm pit farts. Hillary showed up with nothing to offer. This is only going to get worse unless we demand more from our politicians. That, and stop watching the opinion shows on cable news.

Yeah, long as hell, but I’m REALLY fucked up. Also, sorry for being all over the place.

No, you are absolutely correct. We do need to require more from our politicians. I am of the mind that all politicians are guilty of not enacting the peoples will. I do think, however, this is amplified by the media, as they spin every decision a politician makes into their own narrative.

This is why I think the media is largely responsible for the division we have in the country. If opinion talk radio simply reported things verbatim and as they happened, it would be very dry and sometimes boring. They have to spice it up to keep people emotions high, and that keeps them glued to the program. Because they play on people's emotions, it gives them the ability to manipulate things, and I wonder if the end goal is to make you think a certain way, and then reinforce that thinking, e.g....programming.

The issue with that is, over time, a person begins to have that kind of mindset, that they feel a certain way about a particular topic, when in fact, it is that media manipulation that caused you to think that way. In other words, these talk show hosts are programming the way you think, and programming what you believe. Over a long time of constant barrage of reinforcing programming, the listener begins to think those views are their own, when in fact, they may not be, but rather the views of the talk host, projected onto the listener.

Definitely on the right track. Emotion sells, dry facts do not. Fear and loathing sell best, and they also bring loyalty (after this message for foam rubber face lacerations you can paste on we'll tell you which asteroid is going to kill you) which keeps them sitting ducks for the commercial.

Next big town over there are multiple radio stations owned by ClearChannel. One of them has right-wing talk radio all day, another has left-wing talk all day. Clearly they don't care which side a listener takes because they make money from both, and that's all they do care about. The listener is just a pawn to that end.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly, but why does that emotion peddling only apply to conservatives and not liberals?

Who said it does? Mining the emotions is a human thing, not a political thing. It's been known and exploited for literally centuries. When the Weather Channel spends its prime time breathlessly spinning tales of tornadoes and people trapped in floods it's not mining "conservatives" or "liberals" --- it's mining eyeballs.

This is a known phenomenon applied to whatever topic including politics. Rupert Murdoch is largely responsible for the latter (on TV) -- he had run a global "empire" of trashy gossip tabloid papers and took that mentality to the boob tube; instead of gossip about celebrities it was gossip about politicians. Again, salacious mining of human fears. And Lush Rimjob did it for radio. Neither one dealt in facts, because facts don't amass ears and eyeballs. They deal in innuendo and drama and subterfuge.

But the same principle applies to watching a stage full of people you and I have never met and never will meet finding out who da baby daddy is. Just another branch of the same sewer.

I agree with everything you just said, and I suspect we are actually saying basically the same thing. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that you seem to be giving public broadcasting a pass (from my understanding of what you’ve said) and I believe that all media outlets have to some degree adopted Murdoch’s model. Hey, why wouldn’t they? It works.

Simply because noncommercial ("public") broadcasting isn't selling anything.

And because it's not selling anything it doesn't need to whore itself out to deliver ears or eyeballs to an advertiser. Therefore its content is not driven by that pandering since its ratings are for practical purposes irrelevant.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Some salient points. Yes it's a product of a Duopoly that draws such lines of dichotomy and steamrolls everybody (or nearly everybody) in a given political party to take a position they may or may not be comfortable with. Political parties exist for the purpose of consolidating power; unfortunately they operate by lumping some of the grand questions you bring up into a hive mentality thereby completely neglecting the actual intention of Congress, which is to represent constituents and not to represent a political party.

I totally disagree though that "Most people, who pay attention to politics, wake up in the morning and start their day off with their favorite talk show, and they continue with that through the day". That's a pathetic existence. If I ever found myself living like that I'd just frickin' shoot myself on the spot. However your point is well taken that such squawk shows exist to polarize and are a major reason for that dynamic's proliferation.

Well, perhaps not most people, but, many do, and even if they dont wake up and start listening, most people who do listen, tend to listen to only one type of opinion talk radio, well, at least I would think they do.

I tend to listen to both. I listen to a lot of Sirius xm, so, I'll listen to Breitbart in the morning, then glen beck, and then Andrew wilkow. I'll also listen to signoreli, and obeidallah, as well as thom hartman, and sometimes I'll switch to hannity.

The thing that really strikes me is the complete and utter opposite way of thinking between each side. It's almost hard to fathom that there could be such a concrete divide in the way of thinking between the left and the right, but if you listen to both left and right leaning talk radio, there it is.

You can listen to hannity talk about a topic, and then switch to obeidallah and he will talk about the same thing, and each will come to a complete opposite conclusion. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around how two people can see the same information, and come to two completely different conclusions. Hence why I wonder if this is by design.

Which side is using actual FACTS. Which means irrefutable. You know, facts.

Which side is doing that and can you give some examples.

For instance, has anyone as of yet presented facts about Trump colluding with Russia and stealing the election? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that hillary deleted 30k emails that were subpoenaed? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that Kavanaugh gang raped this woman? Is, that a fact?

Is it a fact that the dems said they would do everything they could to obstruct the nomination? Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that the democrats sat on this letter until all of their efforts failed to obstruct and one week before the confirmation vote? Is that a fact?

Which are facts? Provable and irrefutable.

I will be waiting for the answers from you and will decide accordingly.

It seems to me when a left winger is EVER confronted with truth, that it causes a cognitive dissonance, which then causes the left winger to claim BOTH SIDES are to blame.


That, is a defense mechanism. I will be waiting for those facts.

I have a fact for you, Republicans claim to be economically responsible, why has the national debt risen under every Republican administration since Reagan? And why aren’t “conservative” media outlets howling about it?
Does President Trump always say things that truthful? No, he makes up data on the spur of the moment that fit the narrative he is presenting. I do not begrudge him that, it seems to be working quite well.
I think the point that you are missing here is that our political discourse has become partisan and divided. In response to that, folks here are making the point that the partisanship being viewed in the media is perhaps, being mirrored in the electorate. When Fox News, CNN, Breitbart, the NYT, the Drudge Report and (sorry lefty-college grads) NPR present a predictable narrative based on clear tribal alliances, a thinking person must question what is happening. In the end, we tend to believe what we are told and when your preferred source of news is of a particular bent it reinforces what you believe and entrenches you deeper into your tribe. For a democracy that is reliant on a informed electorate that is dangerous ground.

Exactly. In this political climate, where each side vehemently opposes the other, we can never be sure if what we are being told is truth. Even for those of us who try to listen to both sides, all we are getting is a biased representation of what narrative they are pushing.

Unfortunately, this has been going on for so long, that truth seems like a distant and almost impossible thing to acquire, short of actually witnessing the event for yourself, or finding a truly and utterly unbiased reporting agency, which I currently think does not exist.