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

[OldLady]

Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? 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?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I take the facts and note the spin tactics. It's not really that hard, is it, Mac?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

too cryptic.

In what way?

The leftist partisan hacks in this forum spend their time pointing fingers at real or imagined righties with no criticism of their own, while the righty partisan hacks do the same thing in regards to the left.

It's nothing more than a game of cowboys and Indians.

In every way.

If something is too cryptic it means nobody can understand it except you.

So try again.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, you are just one poster here rather than everybody.

That you failed to comprehend the written word does not mean all others did as well.

 

[Mac1958]

Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? 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?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I take the facts and note the spin tactics. It's not really that hard, is it, Mac?

I've tried to keep this thread on track, but I'm not having much luck.

I'm not saying it's difficult to detect spin and partisan slant. That's no big deal at this point, sadly.

I'm saying that the two ends of the spectrum, more and more, are essentially operating in two universes when it comes to "news" and "facts", so much so that there is less and less overlap in pretty much everything they "report".

I'm not sure if I'm putting it well - does that make more sense?
.

 

[iceberg]

I've tried to keep this thread on track, but I'm not having much luck.

I'm not saying it's difficult to detect spin and partisan slant. That's no big deal at this point, sadly.

I'm saying that the two ends of the spectrum, more and more, are essentially operating in two universes when it comes to "news" and "facts", so much so that there is less and less overlap in pretty much everything they "report".

I'm not sure if I'm putting it well - does that make more sense?

putting it fine to me.

kinda like a bell curve. we have 5% extreme liberal, 5% extreme conservative and it works it's way to say like 70% who just try to get by the best we can.

the 5%'s are driving and demanding a "normalization" of the extreme. simply impossible as that would break the definition OF extreme.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label

Of course it does. You are a leftist.

The question was posed for those who AREN'T like you in terms of complete conformity.

There are Leftists and there are Rightists.

And as left is left and right is right, n'ary the twain shall meet.

N'est pas?

But for the incongruity of the two, a lack of definition for each is missing. And, since your final comment is in French, one might infer you do know the etymology of the two. Which does not explain what is meant when a post accuses someone of being left, as if those on the left all agree everything. Something which seems to be more likely for those on the right who favor our current "king".

Face it, calling someone a leftist is no different than other uses of pejoratives by echo chamber members; words are used incorrectly by that set and their posts are generally emotional and rarely original or thoughtful.

 

[OldLady]

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.
.

I'm not seeing that. The facts are still in there.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? 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?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I take the facts and note the spin tactics. It's not really that hard, is it, Mac?

I've tried to keep this thread on track, but I'm not having much luck.

I'm not saying it's difficult to detect spin and partisan slant. That's no big deal at this point, sadly.

I'm saying that the two ends of the spectrum, more and more, are essentially operating in two universes when it comes to "news" and "facts", so much so that there is less and less overlap in pretty much everything they "report".

I'm not sure if I'm putting it well - does that make more sense?
.

Examples would help. BTW, meme's are not facts!

 

[OldLady]

The major problem with today's media is that the news cycle is instantaneous. Rather than waiting to update by tomorrow's paper, it needs to be updated immediately or you missed the story
The result is news being released before it is fully vetted and sources are checked

Agreed it's one major problem.

Another major problem is confirmation bias. People have so many media choices today and not just the 3 major networks. Media corporations are in intense competition for viewers and modify their content to attract viewers. This is why "The History Channel" became the Nazi and Ancient Aliens channel while "The Discovery Channel" became a pseudoscience goofball channel. Because of the multiplex of viewing choices people have, they tend to watch only those news/infotainment channels which reinforce their own views. RWers don't watch MSNBC to openly learn opposing views and LWers don't watch Fox News for the same reason.

Another major problem is, as Toffler popularized, "Information Overload". There's so much information being spewed out that even people with higher education or average or better IQs have a difficult time processing it all much less the half of society that has less education and/or IQs.

I watch Fox news. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Not that they're really enemies, just the "other side."

 

[Dogmaphobe]

But for the incongruity of the two, a lack of definition for each is missing. And, since your final comment is in French, one might infer you do know the etymology of the two. Which does not explain what is meant when a post accuses someone of being left, as if those on the left all agree everything. Something which seems to be more likely for those on the right who favor our current "king".

Face it, calling someone a leftist is no different than other uses of pejoratives by echo chamber members; words are used incorrectly by that set and their posts are generally emotional and rarely original or thoughtful.

Or, you could be honest, instead.

Your choice.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The major problem with today's media is that the news cycle is instantaneous. Rather than waiting to update by tomorrow's paper, it needs to be updated immediately or you missed the story
The result is news being released before it is fully vetted and sources are checked

Agreed it's one major problem.

Another major problem is confirmation bias. People have so many media choices today and not just the 3 major networks. Media corporations are in intense competition for viewers and modify their content to attract viewers. This is why "The History Channel" became the Nazi and Ancient Aliens channel while "The Discovery Channel" became a pseudoscience goofball channel. Because of the multiplex of viewing choices people have, they tend to watch only those news/infotainment channels which reinforce their own views. RWers don't watch MSNBC to openly learn opposing views and LWers don't watch Fox News for the same reason.

Another major problem is, as Toffler popularized, "Information Overload". There's so much information being spewed out that even people with higher education or average or better IQs have a difficult time processing it all much less the half of society that has less education and/or IQs.

I watch Fox news. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Not that they're really enemies, just the "other side."

The question was posed to those who are NOT like you and Wry Catcher in terms of your cowboys and Indians approach to politics, however.

 

[Chuz Life]

I very seldom watch any news at all. But then, I am not a moderate. My principles have long been established. News has no effect on my political leanings as a result.

 

[OldLady]

The major problem with today's media is that the news cycle is instantaneous. Rather than waiting to update by tomorrow's paper, it needs to be updated immediately or you missed the story
The result is news being released before it is fully vetted and sources are checked

Agreed it's one major problem.

Another major problem is confirmation bias. People have so many media choices today and not just the 3 major networks. Media corporations are in intense competition for viewers and modify their content to attract viewers. This is why "The History Channel" became the Nazi and Ancient Aliens channel while "The Discovery Channel" became a pseudoscience goofball channel. Because of the multiplex of viewing choices people have, they tend to watch only those news/infotainment channels which reinforce their own views. RWers don't watch MSNBC to openly learn opposing views and LWers don't watch Fox News for the same reason.

Another major problem is, as Toffler popularized, "Information Overload". There's so much information being spewed out that even people with higher education or average or better IQs have a difficult time processing it all much less the half of society that has less education and/or IQs.

I watch Fox news. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer. Not that they're really enemies, just the "other side."

The question was posed to those who are NOT like you and Wry Catcher in terms of your cowboys and Indians approach to politics, however.

Okay. I'll shut up then. I don't think things are in as bad shape as Mac thinks, that was my point.

 

[Moonglow]

“Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.”― Benjamin Franklin

You know, when I was a kid, the old timers never stopped repeating this old phrase...

 

[Wry Catcher]

My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label

Of course it does. You are a leftist.

The question was posed for those who AREN'T like you in terms of complete conformity.

You echo other fools who have yet to define the word "leftist", which you & other fools use as a pejorative. I'd bet you have no clues as to the etymology of the "Left" and the "Right" and your set (fools) echo many things of which you have no clue.

Actually, I studied political science when I was at Stanford.

How about you?

Did you learn anything? BTW, "Go Bears"

 

[Dogmaphobe]

My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label

Of course it does. You are a leftist.

The question was posed for those who AREN'T like you in terms of complete conformity.

You echo other fools who have yet to define the word "leftist", which you & other fools use as a pejorative. I'd bet you have no clues as to the etymology of the "Left" and the "Right" and your set (fools) echo many things of which you have no clue.

Actually, I studied political science when I was at Stanford.

How about you?

Did you learn anything? BTW, "Go Bears"

Yes, of course.

I added to my existing knowledge, having read Rawl's theories of social justice while a senior in high school when I was 16.

Of course, that was most likely well before you were born. You sound very young.

 

[Divine Wind]

Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? 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?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I reached that point in mid-1980's; it's just more blatant now. real journalism died off by the early 1990's, as far as our universities are concerned. they were no longer even pretending to teach Journalism or Media Studies majors the concept of 'the fourth estate' and and the responsibility of objective reporting required of free press. Most of the 'students didn't care about it either, they just wanted to be 'pundits' and 'stars', not actual journalists.

Interesting that you would say that. I majored in broadcast journalism, was in the business nearly 20 years.

The first assignment on my first day in my first journalism class was to read All The President's Men. I've often thought that, as important and powerful and inspiring as that book was, it may have ultimately done more harm than good. It made national celebrities out of reporters, not just anchors. Seems to me the last thing a reporter should be is a celebrity; it changes the person.

When you add that to the massive explosion of competing media sources brought on by the internet, you change the very nature of reporting. You get people who should be "reporting" what happened as completely as accurately as possible, looking to push the journalistic envelope by blending in opinion and conjecture.

But as bad as THAT is, we now have (and this is the point of the thread) two entirely separate and competing worldviews being represented, and they appear to be pulling in opposite directions, leaving fewer and fewer points of agreement on FACTS. I honestly don't know how a constitutional republic is supposed to function in that environment.
.

It's as bad or worse in the History and Economics fields; even the empirical sciences are now less and less credible, being warped by ideological narratives.

Yikes, hadn't thought of that, but I could see it.
.

A slight disagreement here. First, science is science. It either is or it isn't. Politically-driven science often isn't.

Politicians often control money, science is funded by money. Even Galileo depended upon patrons, patrons who often had to bow to the will of government. In their case, a theocratic government. Still, no matter how much government desires to sway or stop scientific inquiry, as Galileo proved, the truth always wins in the end.

 

[Mac1958]

Here's a serious question for posters here who don't identify with either side of the political spectrum (a limited audience here, but worth a shot):

It really seems like we've moved beyond "fake news" and have have literally reached a point where there are two separate realities. Listen to a lefty, and they're 100% convinced that the other "side" is in abject meltdown and about to collapse at any moment. Listen to a righty and you get the same. So:

How are you consuming the news right now? 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?

I've literally reached a point it's impossible for me to trust pretty much any input. And honestly, because I am curious about what's happening around me, that's troubling.

How about you?
.

I reached that point in mid-1980's; it's just more blatant now. real journalism died off by the early 1990's, as far as our universities are concerned. they were no longer even pretending to teach Journalism or Media Studies majors the concept of 'the fourth estate' and and the responsibility of objective reporting required of free press. Most of the 'students didn't care about it either, they just wanted to be 'pundits' and 'stars', not actual journalists.

Interesting that you would say that. I majored in broadcast journalism, was in the business nearly 20 years.

The first assignment on my first day in my first journalism class was to read All The President's Men. I've often thought that, as important and powerful and inspiring as that book was, it may have ultimately done more harm than good. It made national celebrities out of reporters, not just anchors. Seems to me the last thing a reporter should be is a celebrity; it changes the person.

When you add that to the massive explosion of competing media sources brought on by the internet, you change the very nature of reporting. You get people who should be "reporting" what happened as completely as accurately as possible, looking to push the journalistic envelope by blending in opinion and conjecture.

But as bad as THAT is, we now have (and this is the point of the thread) two entirely separate and competing worldviews being represented, and they appear to be pulling in opposite directions, leaving fewer and fewer points of agreement on FACTS. I honestly don't know how a constitutional republic is supposed to function in that environment.
.

It's as bad or worse in the History and Economics fields; even the empirical sciences are now less and less credible, being warped by ideological narratives.

Yikes, hadn't thought of that, but I could see it.
.

A slight disagreement here. First, science is science. It either is or it isn't. Politically-driven science often isn't.

Politicians often control money, science is funded by money. Even Galileo depended upon patrons, patrons who often had to bow to the will of government. In their case, a theocratic government. Still, no matter how much government desires to sway or stop scientific inquiry, as Galileo proved, the truth always wins in the end.

But look at the climate change debate. I'll hear from one "source" that temperatures are increasing pretty much every year, then from another that they haven't increased in 15.

I'm not saying that one side is right and the other is wrong, I don't want to move this to that topic, but I'm saying that each side of the argument views their data as "factual", which essentially kills the debate right out of the gate. You can't have any kind of conversation, let alone a constructive conversation, when the participants can't even agree on FACTS.

So one "news" source pushes one side, and another pushes the other. People VOTE for people who agree with THEIR "facts". That's where we are right now, and it's only getting worse.
.

 

[Divine Wind]

I just wait and let Sean Spicer explain it for me

I like Melissa McCarthy. She's funnier.

The fact remains "media" is a business and businesses cater to their clients to maximize revenue. To say there is "fake news" or "media bias" is to fail to understand the dynamics of 21st Century American media businesses. This doesn't even touch upon PACs funding "Blogs", Internet Trolls with websites, etc.

Still, the bottom line is to work smarter not harder; focus upon using critical thinking as a triage tool when dissecting the "Newz".

Examples for learning/reinforcing critical thinking skills:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition/study-skills-resources/critical_and_analytical_thinking.pdf

http://lifehacker.com/how-to-train-your-mind-to-think-critically-and-form-you-1516998286

Critical Thinking and Problem-solving

https://www.lynda.com/Business-Skills-tutorials/Critical-Thinking/424116-2.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=l1-US-Search-Biz-Critical+Thinking-XCT&cid=xct-learn_critical_thinking&utm_content=191387980753&utm_term=learn critical thinking&src=go-pa&veh=skwd-300445938178_pcrid_191387980753_pkw_learn critical thinking_pmt_e_pdv_c_ext__plc__trg__agid_45385731527_cmid_805998174_adp_1t1_net_g&lpk35=9137

How to Study and Learn (Part One)

Never heard of her.

Which network ???

Comedic actress. Lately, a guest on SNL, but she's made several funny movies such as Bridesmaids (her breakout movie), Spy and the Heat.

 

[Wry Catcher]

My tribe, if I adhere to your assessment, hasn't a label

Of course it does. You are a leftist.

The question was posed for those who AREN'T like you in terms of complete conformity.

You echo other fools who have yet to define the word "leftist", which you & other fools use as a pejorative. I'd bet you have no clues as to the etymology of the "Left" and the "Right" and your set (fools) echo many things of which you have no clue.

Actually, I studied political science when I was at Stanford.

How about you?

Did you learn anything? BTW, "Go Bears"

Yes, of course.

I added to my existing knowledge, having read Rawl's theories of social justice while a senior in high school when I was 16.

Of course, that was most likely well before you were born. You sound very young.

I "sound"? Your reading skill are exceptional, if you can hear my age by the written word. Actually, I studied Poli Sci at CAL, along with US History. But who cares, you will probably dismiss it as all fake facts, given that CAL is a public U. and not a private one.

Q. Did you enjoy the pubs in East Palo Alto during your matriculation on the farm?

BTW: I was at CAL '65 - '67 (Active Duty USNR, 2/67 to 1/69) & '69 - '72. When did you attend Stanford?

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Russian Television is the official news outlet for Trump supporters.

The actually do a better job than CNN, MSNBC or Fox.

Disagreed. They are strongly biased toward Russia and, unlike the "capitalist pig" American networks, they are a direct arm of government. No better than Pravda or the People's Daily.