Why Facts No Longer Matter
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Sunday, June 16, 2024 02:43
VIEWED: 4546
PAGE 2 of 6
Least biased between PARTIES, maybe, but a problem will inevitably crop up if your government wants something reported a certain way. This happens across the pond too, BTW. Even though our news agencies are "officially" unaffiliated, which is pretty much a load of horseshit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Least biased between PARTIES, maybe, but a problem will inevitably crop up if your government wants something reported a certain way. This happens across the pond too, BTW. Even though our news agencies are "officially" unaffiliated, which is pretty much a load of horseshit.
It doesn't happen, Byte. The ABC has programs that are highly critical of the government, probably more so than other stations and shows some of the most cutting edge and controversial documentary. Although its funded by taxes, it's an independant body.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Least biased between PARTIES, maybe, but a problem will inevitably crop up if your government wants something reported a certain way. This happens across the pond too, BTW. Even though our news agencies are "officially" unaffiliated, which is pretty much a load of horseshit.
It doesn't happen, Byte. The ABC has programs that are highly critical of the government, probably more so than other stations and shows some of the most cutting edge and controversial documentary. Although its funded by taxes, it's an independant body.
...This is highly unlikely. Sorry. I think you're being over-optimistic here. You even just said that the money is coming FROM your government.
Covering criticism from the other wing opposite to the party in power really doesn't count, it's all wedge issue crap while both sides pursue similar agendas in the background. How often does your news criticize policy supported by BOTH sides? That's a true measure of how "independent" your news is, and most aren't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well it's not perfect, but it's not a mouth piece of the government, I can tell you that. Definitely not. The ABC still has the best investigative journalists, perhaps the only true investigative journalists in the country and are more likely to break a story relating to some misdeed of the government and often do.
I know that people think government station = voice of the government and that is how it happens where the government run all the media. This is an independant funded station that has a strong charter to prevent bias. In fact, the bias that it most often gets accused of is being left winged, and given that we have had more years of right winged government in the past 15 years, I think that kind of speaks for itself.
But I speak as a loyal fan. If it wasn't for the ABC I wouldn't watch TV at all, as the commercial networks seem to pitch to an intelligence level somewhere just below 'moron'.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
well it's not perfect, but it's not a mouth piece of the government, I can tell you that. Definitely not. The ABC still has the best investigative journalists, perhaps the only true investigative journalists in the country and are more likely to break a story relating to some misdeed of the government and often do.
I know that people think government station = voice of the government and that is how it happens where the government run all the media. This is an independant funded station that has a strong charter to prevent bias.
I'm confused whether the station is funded by taxes or independently funded. It has to be one or the other.
Quote:
In fact, the bias that it most often gets accused of is being left winged, and given that we have had more years of right winged government in the past 15 years, I think that kind of speaks for itself.
I just said that it doesn't. What good is a biased newstation that exists only to attack the other side over wedge issues? It's a distraction from more important issues, still serves the government agenda by intentionally polarizing sides instead of people coming together to question both sides. It is manipulating you and yours, the side that is not in power, via their take on the facts and most likely emotionally.
But I think, by your admission, that I'm not going to be able to convince you that your preferred newstation doesn't have the exact same problems that plague every other newstation. So happy watching and good viewing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To get back to the topic, this is something I've been thinking about for quite some time. I've tentatively concluded that people are not rational, given that we are driven by emotions, learning, perceptual biases and other factors of which we are not even aware.
FWIW I also think that's what makes people susceptible to religion as well as to sociopaths. Because we people are looking (in general) to satisfy emotions rather than address reality. And anything which plays on those emotions will gain power over us.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What good is a biased newstation that exists only to attack the other side over wedge issues?
Except that it doesn't just attack the other side, it presents different viewpoints.
Quote:
It's a distraction from more important issues, still serves the government agenda by intentionally polarizing sides instead of people coming together to question both sides.
That's what politics has become in general, and that is how it often gets reported. I'm not sure that that constitutes the 'governements agenda' but rather keeps the status quo, but I get what you mean. I find that the ABC does more than just present two opposing viewpoints, it actually oaccasionally presents some pretty good analysis, something that never happens on commercial tv here.
Quote:
It is manipulating you and yours, the side that is not in power, via their take on the facts and most likely emotionally.
What do you suggest then? That they only present one view. I kind of think that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't/
Quote:
But I think, by your admission, that I'm not going to be able to convince you that your preferred newstation doesn't have the exact same problems that plague every other newstation. So happy watching and good viewing.
And ditto. You're arguing vehemently about something that you have no knowledge of, so trying to convince that our tax funded network is not a puppet of the government is clearly a waste of time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What good is a biased newstation that exists only to attack the other side over wedge issues?
Except that it doesn't just attack the other side, it presents different viewpoints.
Quote:
It's a distraction from more important issues, still serves the government agenda by intentionally polarizing sides instead of people coming together to question both sides.
That's what politics has become in general, and that is how it often gets reported. I'm not sure that that constitutes the 'governements agenda' but rather keeps the status quo, but I get what you mean. I find that the ABC does more than just present two opposing viewpoints, it actually oaccasionally presents some pretty good analysis, something that never happens on commercial tv here.
Quote:
It is manipulating you and yours, the side that is not in power, via their take on the facts and most likely emotionally.
What do you suggest then? That they only present one view. I kind of think that they're damned if they do and damned if they don't/
Quote:
But I think, by your admission, that I'm not going to be able to convince you that your preferred newstation doesn't have the exact same problems that plague every other newstation. So happy watching and good viewing.
And ditto. You're arguing vehemently about something that you have no knowledge of, so trying to convince that our tax funded network is not a puppet of the government is clearly a waste of time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well it's not perfect, but it's not a mouth piece of the government, I can tell you that. Definitely not. The ABC still has the best investigative journalists, perhaps the only true investigative journalists in the country and are more likely to break a story relating to some misdeed of the government and often do.
I know that people think government station = voice of the government and that is how it happens where the government run all the media. This is an independant funded station that has a strong charter to prevent bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm confused whether the station is funded by taxes or independently funded. It has to be one or the other.
I think she meant independent run government funded.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I tend to agree with that article, tho' it makes me sad to think about it.Quote:
So THAT’S why FauxNews is so popular!
If we believe something about the world, we are more likely to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively dismiss information that doesn’t.
Seriously; some will be offended, but that article confirms something from a source I quote a lot in describing the inability to get through to some people:Quote:
The place that quote comes from has been repeatedly called slanted, but the concept here is the same as the article’s point.
By dogmatism I mean relatively unchangeable, unjustified certainty. And I’m certain that is right, beyond a doubt. It’s easy to see why followers would be dogmatic, isn’t it? When you haven’t figured out your beliefs, but instead absorbed them from other people, you’re really in no position to defend them from attack. Simply put, you don’t know why the things you believe are true. Somebody else decided they were, and you’re taking their word for it. So what do you do when challenged?
You’ll probably defend your ideas as best you can, parrying thrusts with whatever answers your authorities have pre-loaded into your head. If these defenses crumble, you may go back to the trusted sources. They probably don’t have to give you a convincing refutation of the anxiety-producing argument that breached your defenses, just the assurance that you nonetheless are right. But if the arguments against you become overwhelming and persistent, you either concede the point--which may put the whole lot at risk--or you simply insist you are right and walk away, clutching your beliefs more tightly than ever.Quote:
Gee, I wish there were more of that! Of course, it doesn't really do much good since slanted media from one side or the other is all people of the already-existing persuasion watch, so a critical take-down on the facts won't get covered.
“So if you go on ‘Meet the Press’ and you get hammered for saying something misleading,” he says, “you’d think twice before you go and do it again.”Quote:
There’s the entire explanation of Birthers; they get fed a concept, believe it, latch onto it becaue of whatever beliefs they already hold (or whatever subconscious bias makes them WANT to believe it), and will defend it to the death.
Fast-talking political pundits have ascended to the realm of highly lucrative popular entertainment, while professional fact-checking operations languish in the dungeons of wonkery. Getting a politician or pundit to argue straight-faced that George W. Bush ordered 9/11, or that Barack Obama is the culmination of a five-decade plot by the government of Kenya to destroy the United States — that’s easy. Getting him to register shame? That isn’t.
Cav, how can people believing the wrong things and making decisions that affect the country (and thus their lives) be right “for them”? I don’t get that. I understand that in one’s personal life that could easily be true, but when it comes to deciding the rulers and policies of our country, that just seems potentially disastrous to me, and can/will eventually turn out to be against the person's very self-interest. Can you expound on that?
I agree with the paragraph about fear-mongering 100%. Again from the same source, I quote:Quote:
Authoritarian followers score highly on the Dangerous World scale, and it’s not just because some of the items have a religious context. High RWAs are, in general, more afraid than most people are. They got a “2 for 1 Special Deal” on fear somehow. Maybe they’ve inherited genes that incline them to fret and tremble.
Events like the attacks of 9/11 can drive large parts of a population to being as frightened as authoritarian followers are day after day. In calm, peaceful times as well as in genuinely dangerous ones, they feel threatened.
There’s always a national crisis looming ahead. All times are troubled times that require drastic action. Things are so bad that many
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME