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

[yiostheoy]

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 am registered to vote as nonpartisan / unaffiliated.

I trust PBS on The News Hour, Frontline, and American Experience.

I don't trust anybody else.

I like CBS but more Charlie Rose than Scott Pelly.

Pelly hates DJ Trump.

Rose is merely concerned about Trump. And justifiably so.

 

[yiostheoy]

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?

Then what did you do to get a real job afterwards ??

Law school ??

 

[yiostheoy]

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.
.

and intrinsic to these two completely different worlds is a focus on the other one with no examination of one's own.

too cryptic.

 

[yiostheoy]

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?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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

I always know I'm doing my job if I get called both in the same thread.

Nice siggy, btw. I was lucky enough to hear those words in a small club during his first American tour.

 

[yiostheoy]

headlines, for me.

headlines are a summary of the story in a big bold statement to let you know what is in the story. i've got zero use for emotional tirades on either side where opinion is quickly replacing news and we no longer link to news to support our views, but someone else who agrees with us.

so when a headline tells me how to feel about a story, i blow off the story. when the first few paragraphs in a story include insults to the other side or name calling to the people they don't like, it's emotional, an opinion hit piece, and i ignore it.

Loaded titles are a good clue that partisan content is coming up -- yes.

But if I were you would also avoid CNN, MSNBC, and Fox like the plague as well.

 

[yiostheoy]

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

I always know I'm doing my job if I get called both in the same thread.

Nice siggy, btw. I was lucky enough to hear those words in a small club during his first American tour.

Me too. Good point.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.
.

For me it was a long boring book. Not sure why. Maybe because I was not up to speed and the author was too cryptic.

 

[yiostheoy]

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 ???

 

[yiostheoy]

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"?
.

people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"

That is certainly an aspect of an apt description for them, and I suppose it'd be useful to include in a general description of what "traditional reporters" means. Right now, I think the only way I could accurately define that term would be to use the approach dictionaries must use to define the the word "the" -- list every applicable instance -- and I really have neither the time nor will to do that. If you care to ask me about specific reporters or press outlets, I will answer "yes," "sometimes" or "no."

dictionaries are not sacrosanct.

 

[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.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

 

[yiostheoy]

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"?
.

people who are "merely reporting events that occurred"

That is certainly an aspect of an apt description for them, and I suppose it'd be useful to include in a general description of what "traditional reporters" means. Right now, I think the only way I could accurately define that term would be to use the approach dictionaries must use to define the the word "the" -- list every applicable instance -- and I really have neither the time nor will to do that. If you care to ask me about specific reporters or press outlets, I will answer "yes," "sometimes" or "no."

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

Well, I agree that the idea of near instantaneous dissemination of news and information is part of the problem. I think another part of the problem is "news maker's" feeling compelled to respond to inquiries quickly rather than after having given careful deliberation to what they should and want to say. Often a simple qualification such as "what we know right now is..." or "our current thinking is....but we are still evaluating 'such and such'" would suffice to communicate that there is an element of uncertainty over their current position/thinking.

Quite simply, there will always be instances and situations of which one does not know "everything" one would want to know, yet one feels obliged to reply to an inquiry. In such situations, some sort of qualification that conveys the "I/we don't know yet" aspect of one's remarks is what's called for. Too few people these days are okay with not knowing something about which they are asked.

As a young person (sometime in my teens), I learned to the value to admitting that one does not know "whatever" when one simply does not. It's a lesson we stress as part of our onboarding process for new hires. One'd think that it'd be unnecessary to tell people to just be truthful in their answers to concerned stakeholders, but strangely that is something that one must not only instruct people to do, but also reinforce that dictum by indirectly threatening harsh consequences for not doing so. I cannot explain what that's so, but I can say that it has been so in my observation of more than a handful (but not most) new consulting professionals' behavior.

In my teens I mostly learned by rote.

Mostly math, chemistry, physics, biology, history, civics, government, and or course reading and writing, and foreign languages (English, German, and Latin).

 

[iceberg]

headlines, for me.

headlines are a summary of the story in a big bold statement to let you know what is in the story. i've got zero use for emotional tirades on either side where opinion is quickly replacing news and we no longer link to news to support our views, but someone else who agrees with us.

so when a headline tells me how to feel about a story, i blow off the story. when the first few paragraphs in a story include insults to the other side or name calling to the people they don't like, it's emotional, an opinion hit piece, and i ignore it.

Loaded titles are a good clue that partisan content is coming up -- yes.

But if I were you would also avoid CNN, MSNBC, and Fox like the plague as well.

they're all bad about that and i may run through them quickly - but i don't stop and pretend any is real. just who's angry at what today.

emotional states are not news.
news anchor opinions on current events isn't news

given that most *news* sources have shifted to glorified blogs, i tend to just scattershoot and look for elements of what seems likely in many sources.

sharyl attkisson - i do like her work and believe she tries to be objective. the few writers on either side that do that, i value like gold.

 

[yiostheoy]

headlines, for me.

headlines are a summary of the story in a big bold statement to let you know what is in the story. i've got zero use for emotional tirades on either side where opinion is quickly replacing news and we no longer link to news to support our views, but someone else who agrees with us.

so when a headline tells me how to feel about a story, i blow off the story. when the first few paragraphs in a story include insults to the other side or name calling to the people they don't like, it's emotional, an opinion hit piece, and i ignore it.

Loaded titles are a good clue that partisan content is coming up -- yes.

But if I were you would also avoid CNN, MSNBC, and Fox like the plague as well.

they're all bad about that and i may run through them quickly - but i don't stop and pretend any is real. just who's angry at what today.

emotional states are not news.
news anchor opinions on current events isn't news

given that most *news* sources have shifted to glorified blogs, i tend to just scattershoot and look for elements of what seems likely in many sources.

sharyl attkisson - i do like her work and believe she tries to be objective. the few writers on either side that do that, i value like gold.

Who is Sharyl Attkinsson ??? What network ???

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

 

[iceberg]

Who is Sharyl Attkinsson ??? What network ???

she's the one who broke fast n furious and then found herself in obama's "gun sights" and told to shut up.
Fast and Furious Story Links | Sharyl Attkisson

her show "full measure" is out there also. i think she was on CBS but i don't follow a lot of the networks much anymore so can't tell you all that much.
Home

 

[yiostheoy]

Who is Sharyl Attkinsson ??? What network ???

she's the one who broke fast n furious and then found herself in obama's "gun sights" and told to shut up.
Fast and Furious Story Links | Sharyl Attkisson

her show "full measure" is out there also. i think she was on CBS but i don't follow a lot of the networks much anymore so can't tell you all that much.
Home

so she is a freelancer then ??

 

[yiostheoy]

What is F&F ??

I thought that was a Dubya program to begin with and BHO simply failed to shut it down because it never got onto his radar ??

Give me an exec summary.

Since I don't read crap nor watch crap on tv I really have no idea what F&F is.

 

[iceberg]

Who is Sharyl Attkinsson ??? What network ???

she's the one who broke fast n furious and then found herself in obama's "gun sights" and told to shut up.
Fast and Furious Story Links | Sharyl Attkisson

her show "full measure" is out there also. i think she was on CBS but i don't follow a lot of the networks much anymore so can't tell you all that much.
Home

so she is a freelancer then ??

i believe she's with the sinclair broadcasting network - but not done a whole lot of research. i just know i trust her quite a bit on at least trying to be objective. i don't always agree with her, but i can see an honest effort on her part to be "old school".

Sharyl Attkisson (born January 26, 1961)[1] is an American author and host of the weekly Sunday public affairs program Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson, which airs on television stations operated by the Sinclair Broadcast Group.[2] She was formerly an investigative correspondent in the Washington bureau for CBS News. She had also substituted as anchor for the CBS Evening News. She resigned from CBS News on March 10, 2014 after 21 years with the network. Her book Stonewalled reached number 3 on New York Times e-book non-fiction best seller list in November 2014[3] and number 5 on The New York Times combined print and e-book non-fiction best-seller list the same week.[4]