The Dis-information age

[nodoginnafight]

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.

 

[tigerbob]

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.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Who you really choose to believe for your news is basically how you view most things going on in and around America. You have the very left leaning liberal media who slants every fact into that direction and then you have Fox News which often slants the news towards the views of the people of the right. I see the problem as this. In this day and age, when there is news to be put out on the air waves there is always some talking head telling us what we should believe about the particular news story. I long for the old days when all you heard on the news were the facts and you had to come up with your own conclussion about what you just heard. Guess the news channels don't believe we can think for ourselves any more. As a result, the news channels are what they are, which in my opinion is pretty sad. If I want somebody to tell me what I think about a particular subject, I ask the wife. Otherwise, I would rather make up my own mind.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If I want somebody to tell me what I think about a particular subject, I ask the wife. Otherwise, I would rather make up my own mind.

Pretty funny - and a kernel of truth always makes something funnier.

I think what so many have done - is to trade the the non-biased observer/reporter for a panel. Because the panel may represent diverse views, they claim "fairness" But the panel just tries to scream the other side into submission.

IMHO - It was a very poor deal.

(thanks tigerbob)

 

[editec]

Yes!


That is exactly what this age has become, I quite agree.

There was a time, ya know, when Pols that were absolutely CAUGHT IN A LIE went down in disgrace.

Those days are done.

this truly is the age of politics by propaganda.

Why?

Because the propagandists are paid by people who truly do not give a shit about this nation or its people.

 

[Oldandtired]

Who you really choose to believe for your news is basically how you view most things going on in and around America. You have the very left leaning liberal media who slants every fact into that direction and then you have Fox News which often slants the news towards the views of the people of the right. I see the problem as this. In this day and age, when there is news to be put out on the air waves there is always some talking head telling us what we should believe about the particular news story. I long for the old days when all you heard on the news were the facts and you had to come up with your own conclussion about what you just heard. Guess the news channels don't believe we can think for ourselves any more. As a result, the news channels are what they are, which in my opinion is pretty sad. If I want somebody to tell me what I think about a particular subject, I ask the wife. Otherwise, I would rather make up my own mind.

The day Obama offered his third explanation for his relationship with Ayers..... and all three were conflicting with each other.,,,,and the media said "OK, that explains it"....was the day, in my eyes, the media was not to be trusted to be what they were designed to be...informative....

I will never forget Meredith on the NBC morning show saying:

"We at NBC will no longer report on the Ayers/Obama relationship as it is not what the American People need to hear about. There are more pressing issues like the economy that we will dedicate our time to".....and in the VERY NEXT BREATH she said..."and coming up after the break, more details on Madonna's pending divorce..."

Both quotes were paraphrased....but you get the irony I am sure.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yes!


That is exactly what this age has become, I quite agree.

There was a time, ya know, when Pols that were absolutely CAUGHT IN A LIE went down in disgrace.

Those days are done.

this truly is the age of politics by propaganda.

Why?

Because the propagandists are paid by people who truly do not give a shit about this nation or its people.

The loss of accountability WITHIN the media/information sources has also resulted (imho) in exactly what you describe - a loss of accountability among those the media was supposed to be holding accountable.

Can you imagine a real newsman interupting, yelling, and not allowing his "source" to be heard because the source was answering a question in a way that the "newsman" disagrees with?????????????

Folks like that cannot hold ANYONE accountable for their actions.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Can't argue with that

 

[tigerbob]

Who you really choose to believe for your news is basically how you view most things going on in and around America. You have the very left leaning liberal media who slants every fact into that direction and then you have Fox News which often slants the news towards the views of the people of the right. I see the problem as this. In this day and age, when there is news to be put out on the air waves there is always some talking head telling us what we should believe about the particular news story. I long for the old days when all you heard on the news were the facts and you had to come up with your own conclussion about what you just heard. Guess the news channels don't believe we can think for ourselves any more. As a result, the news channels are what they are, which in my opinion is pretty sad. If I want somebody to tell me what I think about a particular subject, I ask the wife. Otherwise, I would rather make up my own mind.

I think it all comes down to money.

Networks want to sell more advertising. To do this they need higher ratings. They achieve higher ratings by pandering to one wing or another, frequently sensationalizing stories to jack up the number of viewers.

Most people tend to watch news shows they agree with. Thus the network maintains or increases its audience share and its revenues, and the public has no balance unless it chooses to flip back and forth between channels to see what the other side says on the same subject. All to often the views are so far apart you wouldn't know it was the same news story. All too often, it isn't a news story at all.

That said, too many people (this board is a good example) consume news only from sources that they can use as 'evidence' in support of their own existing views. The networks know this. So do the likes of The Huffington Post et al.

Never in the field of human conversation have so many dogs been wagged so much by so few tails.

 

[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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Yet another effect (imho - a very bad one) of the loss of credibility among news sources. It makes it way too easy for someone to duck legitimate inquiry but claiming it's a hyper-partisan, ax grinding question - when many times it is a loaded question that is worded in a way that does grind a hyper-partisan ax.

Maybe newsmen (and newswomen) used to be treated with more respect because they had EARNED that respect.

 

[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.

Instead, we have Rush Limbaugh darkly informing his listeners that Obama's real intention is to impose "government control of life and death." (Limbaugh, of course, never had to worry about whether his prescription drug plan covered Vicodin or OxyContin, or whether his health insurer would pay for rehab.)

A commentator on one of the major conservative political websites told his readers Tuesday that the plan the president and congressional Democrats are proposing will require mandatory nutritional counseling for obese Americans. According to this person, "Obama-care" would send those who disregard the advice to "re-education" camps.

You can't make this stuff up -- but lots of people are, and they're being encouraged to do so by those in the Republican Party who think that defeat of the president's healthcare reform initiative at any cost is the GOP's only hope of substantial recovery in the midterms.

 

[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.

When you have a press corps that is basically paying homage to the President and not reporting accurate and truthful facts to begin with and if following the lead of a guy like Gibbs almost word for word, how can you not get a slant on the news that directs you away from both the issues and the facts? Gibbs is a liar. Most of the news media are liars. How can you expect to get honest accurate news stories? Forget the newspapers. They aren't even worth laying on the bottoms of bird cages and a waste of trees and ink. Most news stories aren't worth the electricity it took to air them regardless of which channel.

 

[MaggieMae]

Who you really choose to believe for your news is basically how you view most things going on in and around America. You have the very left leaning liberal media who slants every fact into that direction and then you have Fox News which often slants the news towards the views of the people of the right. I see the problem as this. In this day and age, when there is news to be put out on the air waves there is always some talking head telling us what we should believe about the particular news story. I long for the old days when all you heard on the news were the facts and you had to come up with your own conclussion about what you just heard. Guess the news channels don't believe we can think for ourselves any more. As a result, the news channels are what they are, which in my opinion is pretty sad. If I want somebody to tell me what I think about a particular subject, I ask the wife. Otherwise, I would rather make up my own mind.

The day Obama offered his third explanation for his relationship with Ayers..... and all three were conflicting with each other.,,,,and the media said "OK, that explains it"....was the day, in my eyes, the media was not to be trusted to be what they were designed to be...informative....

I will never forget Meredith on the NBC morning show saying:

"We at NBC will no longer report on the Ayers/Obama relationship as it is not what the American People need to hear about. There are more pressing issues like the economy that we will dedicate our time to".....and in the VERY NEXT BREATH she said..."and coming up after the break, more details on Madonna's pending divorce..."

Both quotes were paraphrased....but you get the irony I am sure.

Of course it could be that repeating the Ayers "story" line for line, word for word, day in and day out was getting a little tedius. Ya think? There reaches a point when there are no further developments to a story--any story--at which time it is ignorant to keep playing it again like a broken record.

 

[Vanquish]

I agree with the OP.

What's funny is both sides claim to be objective journalists. Wanna know how they get to say that? Because they add up the time given to partisan comments on both sides and get them within a football field's proximity...then say they've "given equal time."

But like many of you have said...when you put up two extremist guests, people are just going to gravitate towards the extreme they like and not listen to the other side.

That's why I'm calling for all of us to stop using words like "liberals" "conservatives" and even "democrat" and "republican" when referring to what those groups think. It's as precise as a rusty spork!

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Well, maybe some of these folks THINK that they are educating themselves. They're watching TV news and calling up websites ......

I'm not just chiding those "information" sources that do not support my own preferences. That's just all too easy - Call the sources you agree with credible and call those you disagree with "trash."

That's part of the problem that I am talking about. It is just so easy to retreat to a source that you agree with, and declare that source the "only credible" one.

Common practices today (IMHO) don't lend anymore credence to one side or another.

 

[MaggieMae]

We can blame media all we want, but I still maintain that people are dumbing themselves down. Every day of my life, I run across some news item where I ask myself "Is that true?" and then I launch a search to find out. I don't sit here and believe the first thing out of someone's mouth or what some op-ed wants me to believe. Yet, according to the latest NBC poll on the health care issue, the results are positively shocking that so few people are actually looking for the truth but would rather simply believe the blatant lies that have been concocted.

NBC poll: Doubts over Obama health plan
NBC poll: Misperceptions abound on president's health overhaul initiative
Tues., Aug 18, 2009
[excerpt]

Damaging misperceptions

One of the reasons why it has become tougher is due to misperceptions about the president’s plans for reform.

Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants; would lead to a government takeover of the health system; and would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue about the legislation that has emerged so far from Congress.

Forty-five percent think the reform proposals would allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care for the elderly.

That also is untrue: The provision in the House legislation that critics have seized on — raising the specter of “death panels” or euthanasia — would simply allow Medicare to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling, if the patient wishes.

URL: NBC poll: Doubts over Obama health plan - White House- msnbc.com

 

[nodoginnafight]

That's why I'm calling for all of us to stop using words like "liberals" "conservatives" and even "democrat" and "republican" when referring to what those groups think. It's as precise as a rusty spork!

Yes, I agree. The success of hyper-partisans in re-defining terms has rendered the terms useless.

It's that effort to define someone with a label (rather than actually finding out what that person is REALLY about). It might be easier and quicker to just attach a label and respond to the label rather than the person, but it is very inaccurate and hinders good public debate. And without good public debate, good government is just an accident IF it happens.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Maggie, I'll agree that many are willing participants. But most people aren't going to take as much time and effort as you do. And I don't think they HAD to in the past. I think the flood of propaganda that is drowning out non-partisan information is what is making it so much harder.

 

[Oldandtired]

Who you really choose to believe for your news is basically how you view most things going on in and around America. You have the very left leaning liberal media who slants every fact into that direction and then you have Fox News which often slants the news towards the views of the people of the right. I see the problem as this. In this day and age, when there is news to be put out on the air waves there is always some talking head telling us what we should believe about the particular news story. I long for the old days when all you heard on the news were the facts and you had to come up with your own conclussion about what you just heard. Guess the news channels don't believe we can think for ourselves any more. As a result, the news channels are what they are, which in my opinion is pretty sad. If I want somebody to tell me what I think about a particular subject, I ask the wife. Otherwise, I would rather make up my own mind.

The day Obama offered his third explanation for his relationship with Ayers..... and all three were conflicting with each other.,,,,and the media said "OK, that explains it"....was the day, in my eyes, the media was not to be trusted to be what they were designed to be...informative....

I will never forget Meredith on the NBC morning show saying:

"We at NBC will no longer report on the Ayers/Obama relationship as it is not what the American People need to hear about. There are more pressing issues like the economy that we will dedicate our time to".....and in the VERY NEXT BREATH she said..."and coming up after the break, more details on Madonna's pending divorce..."

Both quotes were paraphrased....but you get the irony I am sure.

Of course it could be that repeating the Ayers "story" line for line, word for word, day in and day out was getting a little tedius. Ya think? There reaches a point when there are no further developments to a story--any story--at which time it is ignorant to keep playing it again like a broken record.

You see? That is exactly what I mean. A REAL media would have been asking questions...not simply repeating the story.

WHat happened to
"Mr. Obama, you gavce us three conflicting asnwers...why is that

Or

Mr. Obama,last week you said you didnt kmow him but this week it was discovered that you knew him well. Please explain

But you see...it was attitudes like yours that allowed the press to simply "report the story" yet not research into why the discrepencies.