CDZ Serious question for independents/moderates/centrists, etc.

[task0778]

Part of the problem might be that most of us were not taught critical thinking, as in how to separate the facts from the bullshit. How to recognize a cogent argument and do research to determine what's true and what isn't and to keep an open mind with a willingness to change your opinion when you learn something new. You have to learn all the time and that takes time and effort that too many people don't what to spend on arriving at the truth. Instead they vote for and support the party or person they've always voted for or supported int he past and turned on the TV.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label, I believe in equal rights for all citizens, equal opportunity for all citizens, and equal rights for all people.

Well, now there is an absolutely appropriate post for this thread.

Both ends of the spectrum will tell me that. Both ends will be absolutely serious and sincere when they say it. Both ends will be able to provide examples and various levels of "proof" to back it up. Both ends will claim that the examples and "proof" provided by the other are insufficient.

Opposite messages coming from opposing sources, each with their own absolute reality.

So, as a consumer, if I were trying to determine which was true and which was false, or which was MORE true, what they are "reporting" has value only in that it is a starting point.

Once objectivity is gone, the source cannot be trusted. And the point I'm making is that it is now essentially impossible to detect objectivity on its face. That, to me, is pretty damn dangerous.
.

Your bias is to protect your premise. There are credible comments from all sides, and incredulous comments from all sides - so let's look at the platforms which detail the parties most recent platforms, and which reflect an ideology which is reflected in my comment in bold above:

1. 2016 Platform | Libertarian Party
2. https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
   
3. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf
   
4. http://2016election.procon.org/sourcefiles/green-party-national-platform-2014.pdf

 

[Divine Wind]

I know not to accept anything in the news at face value. Both (all) sides spin facts to make their side look good and the other side look bad. It kind of makes me think of creative resume writing.

Agreed. Consider multiple sources. Heck, even the biased sources such as Fox News and MSNBC mix good facts with a lot of opinion. Compare the facts.

 

[Mac1958]

My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label, I believe in equal rights for all citizens, equal opportunity for all citizens, and equal rights for all people.

Well, now there is an absolutely appropriate post for this thread.

Both ends of the spectrum will tell me that. Both ends will be absolutely serious and sincere when they say it. Both ends will be able to provide examples and various levels of "proof" to back it up. Both ends will claim that the examples and "proof" provided by the other are insufficient.

Opposite messages coming from opposing sources, each with their own absolute reality.

So, as a consumer, if I were trying to determine which was true and which was false, or which was MORE true, what they are "reporting" has value only in that it is a starting point.

Once objectivity is gone, the source cannot be trusted. And the point I'm making is that it is now essentially impossible to detect objectivity on its face. That, to me, is pretty damn dangerous.
.

Your bias is to protect your premise. There are credible comments from all sides, and incredulous comments from all sides - so let's look at the platforms which detail the parties most recent platforms, and which reflect an ideology which is reflected in my comment in bold above:

1. 2016 Platform | Libertarian Party
2. https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
   
3. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf
   
4. http://2016election.procon.org/sourcefiles/green-party-national-platform-2014.pdf

This has nothing to do with the thread.

The point is that there are now (primarily) two completing alternate realities, and it appears that any common thread between them is getting thinner and less detectable by the day. The "news" as "reported" by CNN and FOX, for example, is becoming less and less similar. For those of us who don't subscribe to either ideology, making sense of what we now see and hear in the various "media" formats is becoming more and more difficult.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I know not to accept anything in the news at face value. Both (all) sides spin facts to make their side look good and the other side look bad. It kind of makes me think of creative resume writing.

Agreed. Consider multiple sources. Heck, even the biased sources such as Fox News and MSNBC mix good facts with a lot of opinion. Compare the facts.

Yes, BUT: The "facts" are now no longer really the same, and that's my problem.

A reasonable person would expect "facts" to be, at least, relatively consistent. But it's simply no longer that way.

When even FACTS are in competition with each other, I think there's a serious problem.
.

 

[Divine Wind]

My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label, I believe in equal rights for all citizens, equal opportunity for all citizens, and equal rights for all people.

Well, now there is an absolutely appropriate post for this thread.

Both ends of the spectrum will tell me that. Both ends will be absolutely serious and sincere when they say it. Both ends will be able to provide examples and various levels of "proof" to back it up. Both ends will claim that the examples and "proof" provided by the other are insufficient.

Opposite messages coming from opposing sources, each with their own absolute reality.

So, as a consumer, if I were trying to determine which was true and which was false, or which was MORE true, what they are "reporting" has value only in that it is a starting point.

Once objectivity is gone, the source cannot be trusted. And the point I'm making is that it is now essentially impossible to detect objectivity on its face. That, to me, is pretty damn dangerous.
.

Your bias is to protect your premise. There are credible comments from all sides, and incredulous comments from all sides - so let's look at the platforms which detail the parties most recent platforms, and which reflect an ideology which is reflected in my comment in bold above:

1. 2016 Platform | Libertarian Party
2. https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
   
3. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf
   
4. http://2016election.procon.org/sourcefiles/green-party-national-platform-2014.pdf

This has nothing to do with the thread.

The point is that there are now (primarily) two completing alternate realities, and it appears that any common thread between them is getting thinner and less detectable by the day. The "news" as "reported" by CNN and FOX, for example, is becoming less and less similar. For those of us who don't subscribe to either ideology, making sense of what we now see and hear in the various "media" formats is becoming more and more difficult.
.

There's news and then there's opinion.....and there's a shitload of opinion on both. Mostly the format is a legitimate reporter gives a 5 minute report then some talking head like Chris Cuomo gives his opinion on it for 10-15 minutes, usually with a guest who also gives their opinion on it.

The solution is critical thinking: the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I just try to read from a variety of sources and form an opinion from there. This election lowered the collective IQ of this country by about 30 points

 

[Divine Wind]

I know not to accept anything in the news at face value. Both (all) sides spin facts to make their side look good and the other side look bad. It kind of makes me think of creative resume writing.

Agreed. Consider multiple sources. Heck, even the biased sources such as Fox News and MSNBC mix good facts with a lot of opinion. Compare the facts.

Yes, BUT: The "facts" are now no longer really the same, and that's my problem.

A reasonable person would expect "facts" to be, at least, relatively consistent. But it's simply no longer that way.

When even FACTS are in competition with each other, I think there's a serious problem.
.

It comes down to citizens being able to separate fact from opinion. The days of Walter Cronkite or Huntley & Brinkley are gone. We don't have just 30 minutes of pure news. We have "infotainment" 24/7. Americans with an IQ of 100 or higher can figure it out. The dumbasses will suck up whatever shit they are fed. Nothing new there.

God Bless America!

 

[Mac1958]

Just to clarify...

My point is not that we're seeing a mixing of traditional reporting with opinion, and that we have to discern the difference. Of course. That's a given, it's been going on for a quite a while, and it's another serious problem.

It's more that the two ends of the spectrum, as represented by the various forms of media, are essentially now existing in two entirely separate worlds. Each is cherry-picking facts to match their ideology and presenting two entirely separate pictures of the world, and much more so when connected to politics in any way.

Facts being bent to match an agenda, yeah, that's old news. I'm talking about two entirely different sets of facts that create different worlds.
.

 

[2aguy]

The first step...never trust a left wing news source....CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS.......and then verify those that are balanced, like Fox....

 

[Divine Wind]

Just to clarify...

My point is not that we're seeing a mixing of traditional reporting with opinion, and that we have to discern the difference. Of course. That's a given, it's been going on for a quite a while, and it's another serious problem.

It's more that the two ends of the spectrum, as represented by the various forms of media, are essentially now existing in two entirely separate worlds. Each is cherry-picking facts to match their ideology and presenting two entirely separate pictures of the world, and much more so when connected to politics in any way.

Facts being bent to match an agenda, yeah, that's old news. I'm talking about two entirely different sets of facts that create different worlds.
.

It's because "newz" (note the "z") is a business. They go to extremes because that's what their niche viewers want to see.

 

[2aguy]

I know not to accept anything in the news at face value. Both (all) sides spin facts to make their side look good and the other side look bad. It kind of makes me think of creative resume writing.

Agreed. Consider multiple sources. Heck, even the biased sources such as Fox News and MSNBC mix good facts with a lot of opinion. Compare the facts.

Yes, BUT: The "facts" are now no longer really the same, and that's my problem.

A reasonable person would expect "facts" to be, at least, relatively consistent. But it's simply no longer that way.

When even FACTS are in competition with each other, I think there's a serious problem.
.

It comes down to citizens being able to separate fact from opinion. The days of Walter Cronkite or Huntley & Brinkley are gone. We don't have just 30 minutes of pure news. We have "infotainment" 24/7. Americans with an IQ of 100 or higher can figure it out. The dumbasses will suck up whatever shit they are fed. Nothing new there.

God Bless America!

Cronkite and the big 3 were left wingers...we just didn't have anything else to compare them too.......

 

[Divine Wind]

I know not to accept anything in the news at face value. Both (all) sides spin facts to make their side look good and the other side look bad. It kind of makes me think of creative resume writing.

Agreed. Consider multiple sources. Heck, even the biased sources such as Fox News and MSNBC mix good facts with a lot of opinion. Compare the facts.

Yes, BUT: The "facts" are now no longer really the same, and that's my problem.

A reasonable person would expect "facts" to be, at least, relatively consistent. But it's simply no longer that way.

When even FACTS are in competition with each other, I think there's a serious problem.
.

It comes down to citizens being able to separate fact from opinion. The days of Walter Cronkite or Huntley & Brinkley are gone. We don't have just 30 minutes of pure news. We have "infotainment" 24/7. Americans with an IQ of 100 or higher can figure it out. The dumbasses will suck up whatever shit they are fed. Nothing new there.

God Bless America!

Cronkite and the big 3 were left wingers...we just didn't have anything else to compare them too.......

.Anything to the Left of RWNJs is a "left winger" just like anything to the right of LWLs is a "right winger".

 

[Mac1958]

Just to clarify...

My point is not that we're seeing a mixing of traditional reporting with opinion, and that we have to discern the difference. Of course. That's a given, it's been going on for a quite a while, and it's another serious problem.

It's more that the two ends of the spectrum, as represented by the various forms of media, are essentially now existing in two entirely separate worlds. Each is cherry-picking facts to match their ideology and presenting two entirely separate pictures of the world, and much more so when connected to politics in any way.

Facts being bent to match an agenda, yeah, that's old news. I'm talking about two entirely different sets of facts that create different worlds.
.

It's because "newz" (note the "z") is a business. They go to extremes because that's what their niche viewers want to see.

Yeah, I think that's true. The problem, of course, is that we're no longer even operating from any fundamental starting point. So reading multiple sources probably won't even get you consistent "facts" on which to draw conclusions.
.

 

[Divine Wind]

Just to clarify...

My point is not that we're seeing a mixing of traditional reporting with opinion, and that we have to discern the difference. Of course. That's a given, it's been going on for a quite a while, and it's another serious problem.

It's more that the two ends of the spectrum, as represented by the various forms of media, are essentially now existing in two entirely separate worlds. Each is cherry-picking facts to match their ideology and presenting two entirely separate pictures of the world, and much more so when connected to politics in any way.

Facts being bent to match an agenda, yeah, that's old news. I'm talking about two entirely different sets of facts that create different worlds.
.

It's because "newz" (note the "z") is a business. They go to extremes because that's what their niche viewers want to see.

Yeah, I think that's true. The problem, of course, is that we're no longer even operating from any fundamental starting point. So reading multiple sources probably won't even get you consistent "facts" on which to draw conclusions.
.

There are so many competing sources, spin doctors, etc, that, yes, it's difficult for the average citizen to know the truth. Still, the truth is there and, over time, is revealed.

Just so we're clear, the politicians bullshit as much as the "newz" talking heads. How many times has the Trump administration changed their story on Comey's firing? 2? 3? Then the Asst. Director of the FBI shoots down every one of those stories. Same for the Asst. AG, albeit not as strongly.

Comey will not testify next week but Rosenstein to brief Senate on firing

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm boycotting news for now. There is nothing in any news that has a direct impact on my like right now nor can I do anything about what's being done in politics or the world for that matter so I figure if things get bad enough someone will tell me

 

[usmbguest5318]

When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?

• Traditional reporter --> Yes, I take it at face value.
• Traditional editorialist --> No, but then I never did. I can tell when I'm hearing/reading commentary (an argument) versus when I'm reading a communique of facts and objective information.
• Internet-only reporter --> In most cases, no, I don't take it at face value.
• Internet-only editorialist --> Same as for traditional editorialist.

As you can tell from the above, I recognize that individuals who in one story may be merely reporting events that occurred, in another instance may be editorializing about the events that happened.

 

[eagle1462010]

I no longer trust the media. I don't believe what they say anymore. So I look at and research topics I consider important and try to find the truth.

Our news is now PRAVDA.

 

[Mac1958]

When a media person (either the traditional "press" or a partisan advocate or someone on the internet) says or reports or claims something, do you take it at face value any more, to any degree?

• Traditional reporter --> Yes, I take it at face value.
• Traditional editorialist --> No, but then I never did. I can tell when I'm hearing/reading commentary (an argument) versus when I'm reading a communique of facts and objective information.
• Internet-only reporter --> In most cases, no, I don't take it at face value.
• Internet-only editorialist --> Same as for traditional editorialist.

As you can tell from the above, I recognize that individuals who in one story may be merely reporting events that occurred, in another instance may be editorializing about the events that happened.

Who would you consider to be "traditional reporters", people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"?
.

 

[rightwinger]

I no longer trust the media. I don't believe what they say anymore. So I look at and research topics I consider important and try to find the truth.

Our news is now PRAVDA.

Do you trust what Trump tells you?