By more than 4-1 Americans say US media more of a threat to clean elections than Russian hackers

320 Years of History

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
815
Points
255
Location
Washington, D.C.
"By more than 4-1 Americans say US media more of a threat to clean elections than Russian hackers"

Argumentum ad populum

Something approaching two billion people believe there is no God. That a lot of people believe something to be so has no bearing on whether it is so, or whether their belief reflects or issues from an existential truth.
 
OP
cnelsen

cnelsen

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
4,317
Reaction score
490
Points
160
Location
Washington, DC
"By more than 4-1 Americans say US media more of a threat to clean elections than Russian hackers"

Argumentum ad populum

Something approaching two billion people believe there is no God. That a lot of people believe something to be so has no bearing on whether it is so and whether their belief reflects or issues from an existential truth.
In a democracy, it matters.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
57,498
Reaction score
15,805
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
I think Republicans have rigged the election.....from the get go! :D
 

320 Years of History

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
815
Points
255
Location
Washington, D.C.
"By more than 4-1 Americans say US media more of a threat to clean elections than Russian hackers"

Argumentum ad populum

Something approaching two billion people believe there is no God. That a lot of people believe something to be so has no bearing on whether it is so and whether their belief reflects or issues from an existential truth.
In a democracy, it matters.
It matters in some ways, but one way in which it does not is that of establishing whether what people see as the cause of "something" is indeed the cause. I suspect that folks, many folks, can find a correlation between the press and compromised elections, but correlation does not equal causation. Additionally, one would need some sort of germanely objective measurement basis to credibly and cogently accept to the notion that the press' role is more detrimental than that of Russian hackers.
 
OP
cnelsen

cnelsen

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
4,317
Reaction score
490
Points
160
Location
Washington, DC
"By more than 4-1 Americans say US media more of a threat to clean elections than Russian hackers"

Argumentum ad populum

Something approaching two billion people believe there is no God. That a lot of people believe something to be so has no bearing on whether it is so and whether their belief reflects or issues from an existential truth.
In a democracy, it matters.
It matters in some ways, but one way in which it does not is that of establishing whether what people see as the cause of "something" is indeed the cause. I suspect that folks, many folks, can find a correlation between the press and compromised elections, but correlation does not equal causation. Additionally, one would need some sort of germanely objective measurement basis to credibly and cogently accept to the notion that the press' role is more detrimental than that of Russian hackers.
I'm not sure I agree there is no causation. If democracy depends for its success on public debate in the "marketplace of ideas" and if the media is how we debate, then the loss of public trust in the media will have far-reaching consequences--perhaps fatal to the democracy itself.

This election has been a game-changer, and I doubt we are ever going back. Look how monolithic the media coverage of this race has been. Everyone in the MSM was (and is) singing from the same hymnal, and the hymnal isn't even a real hymnal, it's the degraded world-view and fevered hatreds of the vile George Soros. Under such circumstances, the election couldn't be anything but compromised. Is it any wonder Americans hold the press in such contempt? CNN sucks! CNN sucks! And they really do.

 

320 Years of History

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
815
Points
255
Location
Washington, D.C.
"By more than 4-1 Americans say US media more of a threat to clean elections than Russian hackers"

Argumentum ad populum

Something approaching two billion people believe there is no God. That a lot of people believe something to be so has no bearing on whether it is so and whether their belief reflects or issues from an existential truth.
In a democracy, it matters.
It matters in some ways, but one way in which it does not is that of establishing whether what people see as the cause of "something" is indeed the cause. I suspect that folks, many folks, can find a correlation between the press and compromised elections, but correlation does not equal causation. Additionally, one would need some sort of germanely objective measurement basis to credibly and cogently accept to the notion that the press' role is more detrimental than that of Russian hackers.
I'm not sure I agree there is no causation. If democracy depends for its success on public debate in the "marketplace of ideas" and if the media is how we debate, then the loss of public trust in the media will have far-reaching consequences--perhaps fatal to the democracy itself.

This election has been a game-changer, and I doubt we are ever going back. Look how monolithic the media coverage of this race has been. Everyone in the MSM was (and is) singing from the same hymnal, and the hymnal isn't even a real hymnal, it's the degraded world-view and fevered hatreds of the vile George Soros. Under such circumstances, the election couldn't be anything but compromised. Is it any wonder Americans hold the press in such contempt? CNN sucks! CNN sucks! And they really do.

Red:
The only people debating via the media are the people who contribute content to the media. For everyone else, the media is how one obtains information about things, events and people.

About the photo:
Well, someone has to own and or be the CEO of media outlets. If it weren't the pictured men owning/managing what they do, it'd just be other individuals. Let's be real here. There are two choices about who controls media outlets: private individuals or the state. The U.S. government also owns and controls a media outlet, and that one is enough.

Other:
As goes the news programs that are available, my suggestion is that one watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox for entertainment's sake. PBS Newshour is far better for obtaining a comprehensive telling of news. At least it seems that way to me. The three major cable news channels have far too much editorializing for my taste; I don't even care what stance they take...Watching those programs/networks, one'd think there are only a tiny handful of things going on in the world.

I happen to see news and information as being of two major parts: general information about the world in which we live and how it works -- how humans work, how nature works, how money works, etc. -- and specific information about events that occur. I think that far too few people have a very good understanding of the general information and I think far too many people focus on specific event information while lacking the general information foundation needed to make complete sense of "what's what" re: those specific events. The result of that is that far too many people rely upon the news to "bring them up to speed" on the general stuff on an as needed basis when it's germane to do so based on an event that happened.

Well, for better or worse, like or not, that's not what news organizations see as their role. And since news outlets, media, is privately owned, the owners get to decide for themselves what their role is and how they want to exercise it. The fact that media owners and managers have that type of discretion is precisely why each of us must be very well informed as goes that general information. And how does one obtain the general info to which I refer? So far, the only good way I know of is to read a lot of the stuff one can find here and that often never appears here.
 

xyz

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
6,506
Reaction score
805
Points
195
I think home-grown terrorism is a much greater threat to the United States than Islamic terrorism.
 
OP
cnelsen

cnelsen

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
4,317
Reaction score
490
Points
160
Location
Washington, DC
"By more than 4-1 Americans say US media more of a threat to clean elections than Russian hackers"

Argumentum ad populum

Something approaching two billion people believe there is no God. That a lot of people believe something to be so has no bearing on whether it is so and whether their belief reflects or issues from an existential truth.
In a democracy, it matters.
It matters in some ways, but one way in which it does not is that of establishing whether what people see as the cause of "something" is indeed the cause. I suspect that folks, many folks, can find a correlation between the press and compromised elections, but correlation does not equal causation. Additionally, one would need some sort of germanely objective measurement basis to credibly and cogently accept to the notion that the press' role is more detrimental than that of Russian hackers.
I'm not sure I agree there is no causation. If democracy depends for its success on public debate in the "marketplace of ideas" and if the media is how we debate, then the loss of public trust in the media will have far-reaching consequences--perhaps fatal to the democracy itself.

This election has been a game-changer, and I doubt we are ever going back. Look how monolithic the media coverage of this race has been. Everyone in the MSM was (and is) singing from the same hymnal, and the hymnal isn't even a real hymnal, it's the degraded world-view and fevered hatreds of the vile George Soros. Under such circumstances, the election couldn't be anything but compromised. Is it any wonder Americans hold the press in such contempt? CNN sucks! CNN sucks! And they really do.

Red:
The only people debating via the media are the people who contribute content to the media. For everyone else, the media is how one obtains information about things, events and people.

About the photo:
Well, someone has to own and or be the CEO of media outlets. If it weren't the pictured men owning/managing what they do, it'd just be other individuals. Let's be real here. There are two choices about who controls media outlets: private individuals or the state. The U.S. government also owns and controls a media outlet, and that one is enough.

Other:
As goes the news programs that are available, my suggestion is that one watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox for entertainment's sake. PBS Newshour is far better for obtaining a comprehensive telling of news. At least it seems that way to me. The three major cable news channels have far too much editorializing for my taste; I don't even care what stance they take...Watching those programs/networks, one'd think there are only a tiny handful of things going on in the world.

I happen to see news and information as being of two major parts: general information about the world in which we live and how it works -- how humans work, how nature works, how money works, etc. -- and specific information about events that occur. I think that far too few people have a very good understanding of the general information and I think far too many people focus on specific event information while lacking the general information foundation needed to make complete sense of "what's what" re: those specific events. The result of that is that far too many people rely upon the news to "bring them up to speed" on the general stuff on an as needed basis when it's germane to do so based on an event that happened.

Well, for better or worse, like or not, that's not what news organizations see as their role. And since news outlets, media, is privately owned, the owners get to decide for themselves what their role is and how they want to exercise it. The fact that media owners and managers have that type of discretion is precisely why each of us must be very well informed as goes that general information. And how does one obtain the general info to which I refer? So far, the only good way I know of is to read a lot of the stuff one can find here and that often never appears here.
Imagine the world's richest diamond mine is opened in Bolivia but accessing the diamonds will utterly destroy the environment of the people living there. Imagine American companies control the mines. They also own all the media in the country. So, through a campaign of lies and propaganda, the American-controlled media succeeds in getting the natives to go to war against each other and in the ensuing slaughter they take the opportunity to grab all the diamonds, destroying the environment in the process. Then the Americans pull out, leaving the natives in a degraded and untenable position. What would you think of those American companies? What could have saved the natives?

We are in the position of those Bolivian natives vis-a-vis our media.
 

320 Years of History

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
815
Points
255
Location
Washington, D.C.
"By more than 4-1 Americans say US media more of a threat to clean elections than Russian hackers"

Argumentum ad populum

Something approaching two billion people believe there is no God. That a lot of people believe something to be so has no bearing on whether it is so and whether their belief reflects or issues from an existential truth.
In a democracy, it matters.
It matters in some ways, but one way in which it does not is that of establishing whether what people see as the cause of "something" is indeed the cause. I suspect that folks, many folks, can find a correlation between the press and compromised elections, but correlation does not equal causation. Additionally, one would need some sort of germanely objective measurement basis to credibly and cogently accept to the notion that the press' role is more detrimental than that of Russian hackers.
I'm not sure I agree there is no causation. If democracy depends for its success on public debate in the "marketplace of ideas" and if the media is how we debate, then the loss of public trust in the media will have far-reaching consequences--perhaps fatal to the democracy itself.

This election has been a game-changer, and I doubt we are ever going back. Look how monolithic the media coverage of this race has been. Everyone in the MSM was (and is) singing from the same hymnal, and the hymnal isn't even a real hymnal, it's the degraded world-view and fevered hatreds of the vile George Soros. Under such circumstances, the election couldn't be anything but compromised. Is it any wonder Americans hold the press in such contempt? CNN sucks! CNN sucks! And they really do.

Red:
The only people debating via the media are the people who contribute content to the media. For everyone else, the media is how one obtains information about things, events and people.

About the photo:
Well, someone has to own and or be the CEO of media outlets. If it weren't the pictured men owning/managing what they do, it'd just be other individuals. Let's be real here. There are two choices about who controls media outlets: private individuals or the state. The U.S. government also owns and controls a media outlet, and that one is enough.

Other:
As goes the news programs that are available, my suggestion is that one watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox for entertainment's sake. PBS Newshour is far better for obtaining a comprehensive telling of news. At least it seems that way to me. The three major cable news channels have far too much editorializing for my taste; I don't even care what stance they take...Watching those programs/networks, one'd think there are only a tiny handful of things going on in the world.

I happen to see news and information as being of two major parts: general information about the world in which we live and how it works -- how humans work, how nature works, how money works, etc. -- and specific information about events that occur. I think that far too few people have a very good understanding of the general information and I think far too many people focus on specific event information while lacking the general information foundation needed to make complete sense of "what's what" re: those specific events. The result of that is that far too many people rely upon the news to "bring them up to speed" on the general stuff on an as needed basis when it's germane to do so based on an event that happened.

Well, for better or worse, like or not, that's not what news organizations see as their role. And since news outlets, media, is privately owned, the owners get to decide for themselves what their role is and how they want to exercise it. The fact that media owners and managers have that type of discretion is precisely why each of us must be very well informed as goes that general information. And how does one obtain the general info to which I refer? So far, the only good way I know of is to read a lot of the stuff one can find here and that often never appears here.
Imagine the world's richest diamond mine is opened in Bolivia but accessing the diamonds will utterly destroy the environment of the people living there. Imagine American companies control the mines. They also own all the media in the country. So, through a campaign of lies and propaganda, the American-controlled media succeeds in getting the natives to go to war against each other and in the ensuing slaughter they take the opportunity to grab all the diamonds, destroying the environment in the process. Then the Americans pull out, leaving the natives in a degraded and untenable position. What would you think of those American companies? What could have saved the natives?

We are in the position of those Bolivian natives vis-a-vis our media.
The scenario you describe, were it in fact the nature of the ownership of a factor of production - land and the raw materials in it -- in the U.S., I'd cotton to the implied line of thought that drove you to present the analogy you did. But it isn't the nature of asset ownership in the U.S.

Green:
The abstraction you used necessarily carries in it at least one of two, perhaps three, assumed premises. Now, I'm not sure which of them you had in mind when you devised the analogy. Perhaps you had both the premises in mind? Perhaps you weren't specifically thinking of them and didn't consider whether the assumed (implied) premises are actually true? I don't know, but let's examine them.
  • Possible Premise/Assumption #1:
    • The owners/managers of the media, merely by dint of their being countrymen of the landowners of the mines -- which are one part of the nation's factor of production (see also: Why are the factors of production important to economic growth?) called land, and I realize (or hope for your argument's sake) you don't as much mean mines specifically, but rather material factors of production in general -- the media owners will act in allegiance with the landowners to foment civil war among the people, thereby allowing the "controversial" act of mining the diamonds with impunity, and in the process destroying the environment because the nation's attention is focused largely on the physical conflict and slaughter.

      By what stroke of your imagination do you come to think that war and its attendant slaughter constitutes an environment in which any business activities of foreign actors take place? Do you see foreign owned oil mining companies investing in Syria right now? Do you see McDonald's opening new restaurants in Syria?

      Come on! Business owners are not going to risk their resources by engaging in business expansion and development in the midst of a war. The cost of doing business in such situations is far higher and the profits to be obtained from doing business in a warzone are no more than they would be were there no war, unless one is a producer of the weapons of war.
  • Possible Premise/Assumption #2:
    • Oh, and BTW, did you not consider that war destroys the environment? This is the 21st century. Combatants don't battle by throwing spears, wielding swords and maces and riding horses into battle. Ecosystems don't recover faster from being ravaged by mining operations than they do from being blown up by bombs.

      The environment, however, is not the only thing that suffers in a state of war. During war, workers get retasked to fight or support the war. They won't be working in non-war-essential industries.
  • Possible Premise/Assumption #3:
    • The owners/managers of the media are also the owners of the mines.

      Well, media bosses and companies do not own the factors of production. They own commercial media, but there is plenty of non-commercial media they don't own, even though it may not be media published in the country in question. So while it's not as easy to come by information that isn't aired in a domestically produced television or radio program, the information is nonetheless readily available. (see my signature line quote) A lot of that information, furthermore, is presented sans the bias found in editorial content delivered by mainstream print and broadcast news and information outlets.
  • Possible Premise/Assumption #4:
    • Consumers of media content cannot distinguish between news and editorial content, or those consumers treat editorial content as news reporting rather than as commentary.
So you see, the big problem with your allegorical argument is that it has a flawed premise. War is not a state in which non-war related business thrives. The non-governmentally owned media don't create events; it talks about events and it talks about and shares what others say.

Red:
With regard to the specific scenario you described, nothing positive. The problem, as described above, is that the specific scenario isn't applicable to the state of affairs with the media and the captains of industry in the U.S.

Blue:
The obvious answer is that the people should rely on mainstream media to learn in general about the occurrence of events, and then use other sources of information, non-commercial media, to obtain the information needed to evaluate the significance of those events, as well as to assess the sufficiency of media personalities' editorials about the events' significance, impact, and so on. In other words, "trust, but verify."
 
OP
cnelsen

cnelsen

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
4,317
Reaction score
490
Points
160
Location
Washington, DC
We are waging multiple wars right now. War is the new normal. Meanwhile, we are being invaded as is Europe--an act of war our media will not cover. The media is run by by the same tribe as the instigators of war as the architects of the invasion. But "production" continues apace.

What could the "natives" have done? They could have shut down the foreign ownership of the media and organized themselves by nativity.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top