Dumbed down Americans

[MaggieMae]

What do you expect? We have kids spending ten years in college, finally graduating with degrees in General Studies, Black Studies, Women's Studies and the like.

And then there are home-schooled bigots...

Just what is a "home-schooled bigot?" Do tell.

Soggy in NO. I've never once seen him post anything of value. Insults only, period, frequently racist.

 

[MaggieMae]

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

OUTFOXED: Clips & Trailer

When I want straight news, I go to one of the networks. They only have about 20 minutes out of their half-hour and don't have time to editorialize.

uhm what? they most certainly "editorialize" and in the worst way imaginable.

You'll have to provide examples, because I simply don't see it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well I'd love to stay and play today, but I have to dumb myself down this afternoon by watching a couple of movies. I haven't seen Gran Torino yet, which I understand has a strong political message. But then I'll watch Toy Story 3 just for a good contrast.

I trust the more intelligent will keep the conversation going for now.

 

[Foxfyre]

What do you expect? We have kids spending ten years in college, finally graduating with degrees in General Studies, Black Studies, Women's Studies and the like.

And then there are home-schooled bigots...

Just what is a "home-schooled bigot?" Do tell.

I sometimes am privileged to work with the AWANA group here in Albuquerque that provides extra curricular activities to almost all homeschooled kids. Four hundred of those kids participate at my church alone and there are groups all over town. You won't find a more mature, well rounded, well educated, and solidly grounded bunch of kids anywhere on the planet. They are all terrific.

I haven't noticed any bigots among any of them, I suspect though, if you looked hard enough, you might find a bigot somewhere.

Almost all of these kids do go on to college and they major in real subjects. They are my hope that we won't totally lose the country to a lost brainwashed or uneducated generation.

 

[Salt Jones]

And then there are home-schooled bigots...

Home schooled kids run rings around the gubmnt edumacated dolts.

What evidence do you have that they are bigots?

that's right . . . . none.

Isn't the definition of "bigotry" drawing conclusions about people based on their membership in some group without knowing a thing about them personally?

Most home schooled kids I ran into in the military were poorly equipped for the real world away from home. The two groups who turned out to be the wildest were home-schoolers and preacher's kids.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It isn't so much a dumbed down America as a dumbed down media. If we had a media more interested in presenting ALL SIDES of the news in an impartial and objective and competent manner, we would have a much better educated electorate. Unfortunately, many representatives of the 'press' are almost as dumb as the people interviewed in those You Tube videos.

That's mostly true about the media. However, I don't blame the media when the generations under 50 have cellphones glued to their ears, thumbs constantly texting, and whose knowledge of contestants on American Idol far exceeds their knowledge of American history, American economics, American geography. They get diverted only by sex scandals (Weiner) or potential scandals (Palin's emails). I won't be around long enough to see any serious repercussions that are surely imminent, but I hope parents and the educational communities wake up soon and deal with this massive problem of lack of basic knowledge.

Illiteracy - Major U.S. Problem

If Mommas little bastards are going to reach the stars, education is the key that starts the engine to 'Starship Earth'.

 

[Trajan]

CNN reported this morning that the most visited sites on the Internet were for information on:

1. Anthony Weiner

2. Sarah Palin's emails

I hope it's just because it's Sunday morning.

Anthony Weiner is our 1st national Pervert--so no surprise here-- If he wasn't in congress he would be one of those mall runners in a trench coat.

Sarah Palin can get the left wing media and liberals panties so tied up in a wad--that she can't sneeze without getting this type of attention. At least she did create 100 private sector jobs over this. Better than Barack Obama has done--LOL. The Washington Post is now looking for 100 deligent readers to go through these 22,000 emails.

Palin brings the attention to herself intentionally; she begs for the attention. Are you kidding?

how is that germane? she has not been in office for what, 2 years? has she declared herself as a candidate?

has anyone asked for say romneys and pawlentys e mails?
do you even know if anyone has?


and, where are then; obama's Illinois state rep. and senatorial emails?

and mm are you sure you are not being told what to watch ala palin by the nets?

 

[xsited1]

And then there are home-schooled bigots...

Just what is a "home-schooled bigot?" Do tell.

Soggy in NO. I've never once seen him post anything of value. Insults only, period, frequently racist.

Ah. Thanks for the reply. So he was home-schooled, eh? I was never home-schooled nor were/are my kids, but I know a few who are and they generally do very well academically and socially. And since Soggy has never rep'd me, please say whatever you want about him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The media could return to doing its intended job which is to inform and educate the American people without bias and without prejudice.

And when the media do that, report actual, verified facts that the left or right don’t like, the accusations of ‘bias’ begin.

This whole FNC/MSNBC thing started when the facts weren’t to the liking of either side of the spectrum; their mission was to ‘re-report’ the news in the context of approved spin.

The internet has caused this process to spiral out of control.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It isn't so much a dumbed down America as a dumbed down media. If we had a media more interested in presenting ALL SIDES of the news in an impartial and objective and competent manner, we would have a much better educated electorate. Unfortunately, many representatives of the 'press' are almost as dumb as the people interviewed in those You Tube videos.

They're not dumb, they're well paid to present the information that their owners want presented, how their owners want it presented and limited to what their owners want presented.

Corporate owned media is no more a free press than is state owned media.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the internet.

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

Thanks Foxy Lady. That actually makes me feel a bit better. Not good enough to watch Fox News or the big 3 regularly... I'm still leery of news casts that are so heavily sponsored by drug companies - I'll still bet a dollar that the young reporter who brings to her editor a quality expose on a current sponsor gets a reassignment, whether its FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS or ABC.

Follow the money / Question authority.

 

[Trajan]

What do you expect? We have kids spending ten years in college, finally graduating with degrees in General Studies, Black Studies, Women's Studies and the like.

And then there are home-schooled bigots...

Just what is a "home-schooled bigot?" Do tell.

I am not sure either...???

 

[pete]

then the media should do the country a service and stop covering it........

It's the new cowbell

People want more weiner. Personally I think it's the usmb gals.

ooooh dude........you're

Yo ... is that jesus on that toast !?

 

[Douger]

GawdDamned home school BIGOTS .Them tharz B the cawz !
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R84a7njTd0]YouTube - ‪Miss Teen USA 2007 South Carolina answers question Subtitles‬‏[/ame]

 

[Douger]

OK. YES I'd love to fuck that idiot !
I'll trade her a 1970's Marlboro umbrella for a half hour in 69.
Her daddy would say HoooooDoggy Gow fer it !

 

[Flopper]

It isn't so much a dumbed down America as a dumbed down media. If we had a media more interested in presenting ALL SIDES of the news in an impartial and objective and competent manner, we would have a much better educated electorate. Unfortunately, many representatives of the 'press' are almost as dumb as the people interviewed in those You Tube videos.

They're not dumb, they're well paid to present the information that their owners want presented, how their owners want it presented and limited to what their owners want presented.

Corporate owned media is no more a free press than is state owned media.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the internet.

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

Having one media outlet serving as a counterbalance to another media outlet is not good journalism. One slants to the right and one slants left. Two lies do not make a truth. You cannot listen to the rants of Rachel Meadows and Glenn Beck on an issue and expect to come up with the truth. If you're looking for entertainment, well that's something quite different.

 

[Harry Dresden]

OK. YES I'd love to fuck that idiot !
I'll trade her a 1970's Marlboro umbrella for a half hour in 69.
Her daddy would say HoooooDoggy Gow fer it !

a little fat fuck like you?.............after she pukes from seeing you naked ....and than laughs her ass off......i doubt it......

 

[boedicca]

How touching.

Maggie Mae started an eponymous thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

They're not dumb, they're well paid to present the information that their owners want presented, how their owners want it presented and limited to what their owners want presented.

Corporate owned media is no more a free press than is state owned media.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the internet.

Speaking as a former but very active member of the media, I can assure you, however, that the corporate owners exercise very little editorial influence on the media outlets they own. When Rupert Murdoch for instance launched Fox News, he almost certainly hired a rightwing CEO who would provide an alternative to all the other television/cable media outlets that were all leftwing. And he set the standard that all newscasts would be balanced with perspective from all ideological sides. Fox has held to that standard pretty darn well. Editorially, more rightwing than leftwing. But in the newscasts, you'll get both sides (which most leftwingers then conclude is slanted rightwing. )

But Murdoch doesn't tell the news managers what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

The CEO of General Electric, when GE owned NBC and its affiliaites, at one point ordered the managers to say nothing negative about Barack Obama or his administration. Of course that drove NBC far left from where it had been but they obeyed the order. He didn't, however, tell them what stories to run or what slant to put on them.

Now that Comcast has taken over the NBC family, I've seen a decided editorial shift away from the far radical left. And their numbers are coming up as a result even though they still tilt left.

The problem with Fox, CNN, and all the alphabet networks is that they no longer do much of anything really in depth. They give the public 30 second soundbites of this and that and the public has learned to prefer to get information in that way and as a result is a far less well educated public. As polarizing and sometimes despised figure as Glenn Beck is, he was the one exception. He did some deep research and provided competent, in depth perspective on a lot of stuff. But he's leaving. And there will be nobody to do that anywhere except the occasional documentary program that most people no longer take time to watch.

Having one media outlet serving as a counterbalance to another media outlet is not good journalism. One slants to the right and one slants left. Two lies do not make a truth. You cannot listen to the rants of Rachel Meadows and Glenn Beck on an issue and expect to come up with the truth. If you're looking for entertainment, well that's something quite different.

Sure it is. The Washington Times is a good counter balance to the WAPO. From one you'll get the leftist editorial slant; from the other the conservative editorial slant. An educated person is very clear on where each stands and will draw much better informed opinions hearing both sides of a debate.

I do have a huge problem with news reporting being so slanted as to intentionally create a particular impression or conclusion rather than just presenting the who, what, when, where, why, and how and letting the reading draw his own impression and conclusion. It is a corrupt and dishonest media that does that.

In editorial opinion or commentary, only honest verifiable facts and data should be used, but the writer is otherwise free to argue a particular position. To deliberately use skewed or cherry picked data and facts and intentionally omit qualifying data and facts is just as corrupt and dishonest as skewed news reporting.

You often see a provocative headline and perhaps accompanying photo obviously intended to give a certain impression. The opening paragraphs of the story seem to confirm the impression in the headline and/or photo. But then somewhere around paragraph 10 or 15--paragraphs the average reader never gets to--the facts that mitigate and qualify those opening statements are given. The newspaper or whatever smugly says they reported ALL the facts which they did. But they intentionally skewed the story. And that is about as dishonest and unethical as it gets in journalism.

\

 

[candycorn]

I disagree. The media could return to doing its intended job which is to inform and educate the American people without bias and without prejudice.

I wish that were the case; it isn't. John Quinones went to the Columbia School of Media (double check that from Wikipedia if you want). Do you think he went there to do "What Would You Do?" What Would You Do? - ABC News

He does that and it is on the air because that is what we want to see.

Jane Pauley is a Hoosier; she spent her 30th year in broadcasting doing Dateline NBC where they cover pillow-soft news stories and that is using the word "news" in it's broadest possible context. Think that is how she wanted to spend #30? No...it was what we wanted to see.

The news is on right now; in the lead story they're taking about Gabby Gifford's rehabilitation. Is that the most important story in the country right now?

Quick; what is the channel number on your TV for CSPAN? Quick; name a show on CSPAN.


The cable (defacto) companies fund CSPAN. The ratings are rock bottom low compared to some other networks (Wiki said that a recent poll had 79 million Americans having watched the network during a calendar year. That doesn't mean they are scholars on CSPAN, just saw something on the network. Americans know it's there; they just don't tune it.

If it would be that, unscrupulous politicians would be far less able to deceive and manipulate the people and we would again start electing people who would be far less likely to expect to be able to do that.

Boo hoo, the poor American voter...where or where does one look for actual information when the bad ol' media won't tell them?

C'mon...I can call up a speech Carter gave in 1978 if I wanted to read it. I don't.

I googled the following words: "President Carter 1978 Speech"
Moments later, I had this and a bunch of other links: 193 Speeches by President Carter- President Sadat

People have more access than ever to precisely what their elected officials and candidates are doing and saying. John McCain is one of my state Senators; I can look up every vote the man has ever taken with just a little effort. I am as informed as I want to be. And you can be too; and anybody reading this can be as well. The supposedly biased media can't sway anything.

When most of the mainstream media sets itself up as the promotion agent for the left, and when there is dedicated effort to destroy or demonize the one prominent media outlet that does not do that, we will not have a well informed electorate.

That proves my point; we get the media we want and the partisan nature of Fox and MSNBC reflects the partisan nature of the country. MSNBC only recently started giving a voice to such schmucks as Olberman, and Maddow because Fox gave voice to schmucks as Hannity and other losers. Frankly, I'd like to see the CSPAN model paying the salaries of the nightly news people and their staffs, reporters, etc... Jack Welch (former head of GE) famously said that NBC News had to be profitable. So presto...you have news that has a focus group in mind. The focus group is made of people like you and me (hopefully not bigreb) and we say what we like and what we don't like. So Katie Couric and Ann Curry wear dark colors, no eye glasses, short hair, etc...

 

[candycorn]

CNN reported this morning that the most visited sites on the Internet were for information on:

1. Anthony Weiner

2. Sarah Palin's emails

I hope it's just because it's Sunday morning.

cto

ols-master