The Dis-information age

[Vanquish]

Assume 70% of Americans have a television set with a listing for different sources of internet blogs and news broadcast in video. It can be browsed using your remote control and your provider (DirectTV or Cable Company) will throw it up on a screen for you to choose from.

A several questions come to mind:

* Will providers have a virtually UNLIMITED list for you to pick from (like say anyone who posts on YouTube) or will they simply provide an expanded, but limited list (maybe a hundred sources that they choose by their own criteria)


* How will YOU personally decide which one to watch?


* Will you take the time to search their credentials on the net? Will they be part of a bio page you can browse on screen?


* How many people will just lock into all (liberal/conservative) stations and believe what they hear?


* To what extent will this further and further solidify the extreme positions of either side? Will it mean that political groups will stop trying to be bi-partisan?


* Will this lead to more passionate political involvement or more people just giving up because "their side" wont be heard?


See folks, this is why you need to go talk to old people. I mean REALLY old people. Get up from your computer....go find the oldest person you can ...and ask them about what they think the world was like in the past.

An 80 year old could tell you about what the birth of radio was like. A 70 year old could tell you about what television started out doing. Yes, they'll have their own political views and they won't always be 100% right, but I'm betting they wont bend the truth as much as the trusty, dusty internet search will.

There's no way for me to know if the news I'm getting now is "fair and balanced". When ABC shows me people protesting at town halls, how can figure out whether the people in the video are being taken in context or out of context? How do I know if these are isolated incidents or if there's wide-spread panic across the country like Fox News says.

We're at a complete breakdown of our sources of information gathering. I'm hoping it brings us back to real, human contact.

 

[Oldandtired]

If someone commits fraud and robs you of your money, is it your fault or the guy who robbed you?

If someone produces a valid ID claiming to be of legal drinking age and that person is allowed in the bar, and the bartender is attracted to that patron and takes her home that night....and has sex with her....and then it is found out she used a fake ID....is the bartender liable?

There is a reason I ask it this way...I will explain when you answer....but it is not a set up...it will simply helpo me make my point.

Are underage people EVER allowed into the bar? Did the bartender have any reason to expect that underage people would have already been weeded out? Is the bartender himself expected to check ID's too? Did he check THIS one? Was the phoney ID amatuerish enough to expect that a person whose job it is to verify ID's to recognize it as a forgery? Would the average person look at the girl and have any reason to suspect she may be underage no matter what her ID said?

There are a lot of variables. But I'll agree this may be a tough call.

But didn't you "answer" my question with a question?
I asked mine first - so I'll answer yours AFTER you answer mine (nanny nanny boo boo)
Nah, if the bartender had every reason to expect underage folks would have already been weeded out, if he re-checked her ID and it was very convincing and if there was no other reason for a reasonable person to suspect she might be underage, I'd have a very tough time holding him responsible.

I hate it when someone answers a question with a question.....my mistake.

If someone commits fraud and I lose money....he broke the law and will be punished for it. I did not do my research properly and I paid for my laziness.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If someone commits fraud and I lose money....he broke the law and will be punished for it. I did not do my research properly and I paid for my laziness.

Well, that is assuming that there was some information out there available for you to ferret out that would have warned you. That might not always be the case.

 

[nodoginnafight]

* How will YOU personally decide which one to watch?

(I didn't pull the whole text, but it does contain some solid points.)

MY criteria is that I can just tell when I am only getting one side of the story MOST of the time. There are "markers" a lot of the time. That's not to say, they can't pull one over on me from time to time, but I play "devil's advocate" a lot. If I can think of several potential rebuttals (whether I actually believe them or not) and this "source" doesn't present ANY of them - Red Flag. Once or twice might not ruin the source for me - but if it's a habit, then I quit trusting them to give me balanced information.

 

[nodoginnafight]

For example - who you choose to quote is a big marker imho. If you're reading the ticker across the bottom of the screen and it is a non-stop litany of critical - like: "Shelby says Obama full of crap; Palin says Obama full of crap; Cheney says Obama full of crap;" common sense will tell you that there are some folks out there who would say "Obama NOT full of crap" If the 'source is only quoting one side, they aren't credible imho.

 

[Oldandtired]

If someone commits fraud and I lose money....he broke the law and will be punished for it. I did not do my research properly and I paid for my laziness.

Well, that is assuming that there was some information out there available for you to ferret out that would have warned you. That might not always be the case.

Actually, I see it differently....If there is no infomation to be found, then do not go along with the deal.

If a deal seems too good to be true...it most likely is.

Those that got burnt by Madoff let their guard down. The returns were too good to be true and they simply ignoired this.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If someone commits fraud and I lose money....he broke the law and will be punished for it. I did not do my research properly and I paid for my laziness.

Well, that is assuming that there was some information out there available for you to ferret out that would have warned you. That might not always be the case.

Actually, I see it differently....If there is no infomation to be found, then do not go along with the deal.

If a deal seems too good to be true...it most likely is.

Those that got burnt by Madoff let their guard down. The returns were too good to be true and they simply ignoired this.

You are right, we disagree about this. I think your investment advice is very sound, but it also excludes the possiblity that legitimate investments sometimes produce HUGE returns too.

I think when people lie, they lose any opportunity to lay some of the blame on someone else.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I gotta fly. And I have to say I appreciate how respectfully folks have disagreed here. (Maggie: My earlier whine notwithstanding).

I suspect we may hold some strong differences of opinion - but the ability to talk about them without flameouts and name-calling is terrific. I think it reflects what I like best about the boards and what so often disappoints me so often when it fails to achieve that.

Props to all. Have a great evening.

 

[Oldandtired]

Well, that is assuming that there was some information out there available for you to ferret out that would have warned you. That might not always be the case.

Actually, I see it differently....If there is no infomation to be found, then do not go along with the deal.

If a deal seems too good to be true...it most likely is.

Those that got burnt by Madoff let their guard down. The returns were too good to be true and they simply ignoired this.

You are right, we disagree about this. I think your investment advice is very sound, but it also excludes the possiblity that legitimate investments sometimes produce HUGE returns too.

I think when people lie, they lose any opportunity to lay some of the blame on someone else.

I am a holder of Davis funds...B shares... a big holder of these funds. The first year I had them, my return was over 25%. I called my attorney and had him meet with my CFA to ensure all was legit.

6 years later, I had nearly a 30% return....and we did the same thing.

If the return is too good to believe....LOOK INTO IT. I sold some of the shares both times to pay for my attorneys work....afterall, I made a mint on it.

Alas....I lost some last year....but it was my choice to stay in.

 

[Christopher]

The explosion of hyper-partisan internet and cable TV "news" outlets has not (IMHO) produced a more informed electorate. On the contrary, I think it has allowed people to cloister themselves into little knots of like-minded individuals who will only trust those sources that tend to confirm their own preconceived notions.

A lot more "information", but a lot less balance and a lot less accountability for the "information" presented. And it appears to me that the result is a less informed electorate.

I completely agree, this is what I have seen.

 

[tigerbob]

Unfortunately, I can see this quickly degenerating into "MY hyper-partisan new source is better than YOUR hyper-partisan newsource."

That may be an interesting line of debate for you guys, but not for me. So you guys go ahead and take my thread and turn it into what you all love to turn EVERY OTHER thread into - a hyper-partisan shouting match.

Just do it without me.

With your OP, I really don't know what you expected. There are Fox-watchers and there's everybody else. Maybe next time you should close it by saying "no comments, please."

Perhaps he expected one thread, just one, where it might not happen. I don't think that's too much to ask for. Maybe next time if you don't feel you can live up to such lofty ideals you should refrain from commenting.

It really would have been nice to see a poster who generally leans to the left support the position of the OP by posting something that illustrates the duplicitousness of the likes of CNN or MSNBC. Or one who leans to the right cite an example where Fox have been guilty of scurrilous rumor-mongering. Or, heaven forbid, using the 'other side's media' as a positive example of what journalistic integrity really means.

Instead we have almost total agreement with the OP, but them some posters go on to cite the sources they always cite as a feeble example of how the media they consume is fair and unbiased (and therefore how the 'other side' is the one telling all the lies).

What a crock of shit, and a damn shame to boot.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Have you noticed how Gibbs ridicules those few that ask him tough questions?

Did you EVER see Tony Snow show such disrespect for his questioners?

The media is not only soft on him....but they are noticeably afraid of him.

How does it go?....when the government is afraid of the people, that is liberty....when the press is afraid of the Press Secretary, that is tyranny....

Or something like that.

Tony Snow has more "class" and "dignity" being dead than Gibbs has being alive.

 

[Oldandtired]

Have you noticed how Gibbs ridicules those few that ask him tough questions?

Did you EVER see Tony Snow show such disrespect for his questioners?

The media is not only soft on him....but they are noticeably afraid of him.

How does it go?....when the government is afraid of the people, that is liberty....when the press is afraid of the Press Secretary, that is tyranny....

Or something like that.

Tony Snow has more "class" and "dignity" being dead than Gibbs has being alive.

Tony Snow took a difficult question from just about every reporter...and did his best to either answer it or defelct it without ridiculing the queswtioner.

Robert Gibbs not only deflects the VERY FEW difficult questions...but he also feels the need to isolate the questioner.

You know...the Alinsky thing....

A sad pattern in this administration.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wondered who would be first to slant this against their partisan opposites.
Maggie May wins again, in her own one sided mind at least.
idiot

It was going pretty good, now I'll skip to the last page.

Try backtracking all the way to #6, posted by OldandTired. Then apologize.

 

[MaggieMae]

Assume 70% of Americans have a television set with a listing for different sources of internet blogs and news broadcast in video. It can be browsed using your remote control and your provider (DirectTV or Cable Company) will throw it up on a screen for you to choose from.

A several questions come to mind:

* Will providers have a virtually UNLIMITED list for you to pick from (like say anyone who posts on YouTube) or will they simply provide an expanded, but limited list (maybe a hundred sources that they choose by their own criteria)


* How will YOU personally decide which one to watch?


* Will you take the time to search their credentials on the net? Will they be part of a bio page you can browse on screen?


* How many people will just lock into all (liberal/conservative) stations and believe what they hear?


* To what extent will this further and further solidify the extreme positions of either side? Will it mean that political groups will stop trying to be bi-partisan?


* Will this lead to more passionate political involvement or more people just giving up because "their side" wont be heard?


See folks, this is why you need to go talk to old people. I mean REALLY old people. Get up from your computer....go find the oldest person you can ...and ask them about what they think the world was like in the past.

An 80 year old could tell you about what the birth of radio was like. A 70 year old could tell you about what television started out doing. Yes, they'll have their own political views and they won't always be 100% right, but I'm betting they wont bend the truth as much as the trusty, dusty internet search will.

There's no way for me to know if the news I'm getting now is "fair and balanced". When ABC shows me people protesting at town halls, how can figure out whether the people in the video are being taken in context or out of context? How do I know if these are isolated incidents or if there's wide-spread panic across the country like Fox News says.

We're at a complete breakdown of our sources of information gathering. I'm hoping it brings us back to real, human contact.

Unfortunately, isolation from human contact keeps getting more extreme. Kids in the same lunch room at school will text each other, rather than get up and move to another table for a face to face. In five years, how will those kids be discussing politics on message boards? Will they have so much information swirling around brains not meant to hold it all and analyse it in nanoseconds that they make reckless decisions? Will the expression "having a meltdown" actually become a reality on a grand scale?

Yes, I'm glad I'm getting older (not quite "elderly" yet, however), because I do still enjoy print magazines and newspapers and curling up with a good book on Saturday afternoons. BUT--I'm also glad that when something piques my interest in a newspaper, I can get the full story and background, plus a wide variety of opinions from the Internet (which I was never able to do 'back in the day').

 

[MaggieMae]

I gotta fly. And I have to say I appreciate how respectfully folks have disagreed here. (Maggie: My earlier whine notwithstanding).

I suspect we may hold some strong differences of opinion - but the ability to talk about them without flameouts and name-calling is terrific. I think it reflects what I like best about the boards and what so often disappoints me so often when it fails to achieve that.

Props to all. Have a great evening.

'Twas a good thread, Nodog. You dun good at refereeing.

 

[MaggieMae]

Unfortunately, I can see this quickly degenerating into "MY hyper-partisan new source is better than YOUR hyper-partisan newsource."

That may be an interesting line of debate for you guys, but not for me. So you guys go ahead and take my thread and turn it into what you all love to turn EVERY OTHER thread into - a hyper-partisan shouting match.

Just do it without me.

With your OP, I really don't know what you expected. There are Fox-watchers and there's everybody else. Maybe next time you should close it by saying "no comments, please."

Perhaps he expected one thread, just one, where it might not happen. I don't think that's too much to ask for. Maybe next time if you don't feel you can live up to such lofty ideals you should refrain from commenting.

It really would have been nice to see a poster who generally leans to the left support the position of the OP by posting something that illustrates the duplicitousness of the likes of CNN or MSNBC. Or one who leans to the right cite an example where Fox have been guilty of scurrilous rumor-mongering. Or, heaven forbid, using the 'other side's media' as a positive example of what journalistic integrity really means.

Instead we have almost total agreement with the OP, but them some posters go on to cite the sources they always cite as a feeble example of how the media they consume is fair and unbiased (and therefore how the 'other side' is the one telling all the lies).

What a crock of shit, and a damn shame to boot.

I think I've been consistent in many threads by saying that MSNBC is obviously left leaning (and I don't think they even deny that). I think Chris Matthews is as guilty as Bill O'Reilly for talking over their guests and making themselves the focal point when I want to hear what the other person has to say. MSNBC's best mix of left and right is Morning Joe, after which I'm strictly a C-Span junkie until 7PM when I watch Katie Couric (I figure somebody's got to watch her! And by then, I just want news, not noise).

 

[MaggieMae]

Have you noticed how Gibbs ridicules those few that ask him tough questions?

Did you EVER see Tony Snow show such disrespect for his questioners?

The media is not only soft on him....but they are noticeably afraid of him.

How does it go?....when the government is afraid of the people, that is liberty....when the press is afraid of the Press Secretary, that is tyranny....

Or something like that.

Tony Snow has more "class" and "dignity" being dead than Gibbs has being alive.

Well...Tony outshined Ari Fleischer, Scott McClellan and his successor, Dana Perino, too. He was one of a kind.

 

[Ringel05]

The explosion of hyper-partisan internet and cable TV "news" outlets has not (IMHO) produced a more informed electorate. On the contrary, I think it has allowed people to cloister themselves into little knots of like-minded individuals who will only trust those sources that tend to confirm their own preconceived notions.

A lot more "information", but a lot less balance and a lot less accountability for the "information" presented. And it appears to me that the result is a less informed electorate.

Add to that the fact that so many people seem to be more intellectually deficient, lacking even basic curiosity to educate themselves, and you have a nation suddenly breeding dunderheads. This guy says it beautifully:

America the delusional -- latimes.com
Excerpt:

Somehow all of this anxious animosity has become the background noise crowding out nearly all substantive and realistic discussion of the critical issues surrounding healthcare reform. This is one of the most complex and consequential initiatives of our time, over which even the most serious-minded people of goodwill are bound to have real differences. The stakes are immense, and the discussion, insofar as the reality of partisan politics permits, ought to reflect that.


I agree but you'll notice I didn't quote the obviously partisan end of the LATimes opinion you posted. Isn't that some of what we are discussing here?

(What was that you said? What? Don't bother me now, the game's on.)

 

[MaggieMae]

The explosion of hyper-partisan internet and cable TV "news" outlets has not (IMHO) produced a more informed electorate. On the contrary, I think it has allowed people to cloister themselves into little knots of like-minded individuals who will only trust those sources that tend to confirm their own preconceived notions.

A lot more "information", but a lot less balance and a lot less accountability for the "information" presented. And it appears to me that the result is a less informed electorate.

Add to that the fact that so many people seem to be more intellectually deficient, lacking even basic curiosity to educate themselves, and you have a nation suddenly breeding dunderheads. This guy says it beautifully:

America the delusional -- latimes.com
Excerpt:

Somehow all of this anxious animosity has become the background noise crowding out nearly all substantive and realistic discussion of the critical issues surrounding healthcare reform. This is one of the most complex and consequential initiatives of our time, over which even the most serious-minded people of goodwill are bound to have real differences. The stakes are immense, and the discussion, insofar as the reality of partisan politics permits, ought to reflect that.


I agree but you'll notice I didn't quote the obviously partisan end of the LATimes opinion you posted. Isn't that some of what we are discussing here?

(What was that you said? What? Don't bother me now, the game's on.)

Yes, it is what's being discussed. Partisan DISinformation, which is a very lucrative business for Limbaugh & Company (the part you dropped). I rest my case.