Be Careful Out There:

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

It's Dave's assertion that we need to do illegal things to rectify some non-existent problem.


I think the characterization non-existent problem is incorrect. Otherwise I see it sorting itself out over time.

And funny thing is for all his Marxist upbringing and the socialist rhetoric he fobbed off on his south side constituents the new guy is looking more and more, in terms of policy, like a center right kind of guy.

He may turn out no worse than Bush. Which would be OK with me.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Mike Holmes wrote:
ravingdave wrote:Fox has some conservative commentators and Guests. ABC has John Stossel. CNN USED to have Glen Beck. That's about it.
You must be kidding.

Fox has "some" conservative commentators? But they're generally liberal?

As for CNN... Lou Dobbs? That's just off the top of my head.

Wall Street Journal? A ton of radio broadcasters? The internet (what, this forum isn't a form of media)?

You want to trade Rush Limbaugh on AM for ABC ? You do seem to have difficulty in perceiving quantitative differences.

Mike Holmes wrote: You're right... the media is entirely liberal... except for all of the conservatives...


Yeah, all four of em ! No, seriously, there are probably at least 6 or 7.
Mike Holmes wrote: Freedom of speech means that the liberals get to say what they want. You're saying there's no competition between stations? There's no anti-trust law being broken, no secret cabal that owns all of these outlets. Rupert Murdoch keeps trying to buy more and more, and you're not going to claim he's a liberal, are you?

Yup. Rupert Murdoch is reportedly Liberal.
Mike Holmes wrote: You want equal time for your views to be mandated by law? There are already a ton of FCC regulations on the books, but you can feel free to get your representative to put new laws in place.

Oh, that's right, the media has duped America out of letting you have any representatives. Except for the 42% in the Senate...

If what they put out on Fox is stuff you consider liberal, then I guess we have very different definitions for the terms. Yours being quite marginal. Sorry, it's a democracy, and you're in a very small minority. You'd have us set aside all our previous judgement because we should trust Dave's definitions? ?


Fox is conservative COMPARED to everyone else, but it is LIBERAL compared to an OBJECTIVE standard.
Mike Holmes wrote: What, there are more of your type? Well, go form a political party then or something. Shouting "we're not being heard" in a public forum, and getting responses is, well, quite absurd. Or are you only being heard if people agree with you? Ever consider you might be wrong? Nah, you're a conservative, you can't be wrong. Right? ?

You suffer from a severe form of the "Fallacy of false equivilancy. " The few people who read this forum are in no manner equal to the Millions of Daily viewers on every network News Channel.

Mike Holmes wrote: If there is a liberal bias in the media, it does not constitute a monopoply of any sort. If the media does push one candidate or another, people still have a free will, and minds. Bias has always existed in media, since the Romans came up with the term "graphiti." And somehow we've managed to get along with this problem for more than two centuries in this country.
?

This is another fallacy. The idea that because things worked out the way they have, then it MUST be the correct solution. I dare say there are over a hundred million dead people that might not have died, and I would count that as an IMPROVEMENT !
Mike Holmes wrote: Get a grip. Your screen identity, Ravingdave, is becoming more and more appropriate.

Mike

Geez... it took you long enough. I was wondering when you would get to this tactic.


Mike Holmes wrote: P.S. edited, because I cross-posted with MSimon... If your argument is that there's no issue, because it's correcting itself, then I'm in complete agreement with you. It's Dave's assertion that we need to do illegal things to rectify some non-existent problem. Mine is that he just needs to take a deep breath, and look around.

What, are you going to run the gamut of Fallacies? This is called the "Straw Man Tactic." Present a cropped or distorted view of someone's position, then proceed to beat it to death by showing how ridiculous it is.

ONE of the things I mentioned violates intellectual property law, and in any case appears to be perfectly acceptable to a large quantity of people nation wide if not world wide.

Hey, I just want to "Spread the Wealth around. " Especially the wealth of people who advocate "Spreading the Wealth around. " What was that you were saying about Hypocrisy ?


Mike Holmes wrote: To some extent, all I'm arguing is that I don't believe that the media has some inordinate ability to alter elections. I mean... are you going to tell me that you voted for Obama, only knowing all the glowing things that the media told you about him? No? You voted for the other guy? Well that must have been an informed decision, yes? Apparently it's not impossible to get the real picture then?

Then tell me what the Great ZERO has done ? WHY is this guy qualified to be President ? Other than the Media Saying so, what proof is there ? If you look at what he has accomplished for his constituents, it is not much and what there is of it is TERRIBLE. Why is his law license suspended ? Why does he hide every piece of paper that tells anything about him ? His college records, his birth certificate, his thesis, his finances, his work history... etc.

The media NEVER let a Republican get away with this !


Apart from that, Billions of dollars are spent putting stuff on TV because the people spending the money REALLY and TRULY believe that they can get the public to do what they want as a result of watching TV. It's called Advertising, and it works.

If it works for products, then it works for elections too. It also works for manipulating public opinion on issues as well. Ever hear of "The China Syndrome ? " or "To kill a mockingbird ?" How bout "Philadelphia" ? "Erin Brockovitch" ?

Even NEW movies. The remake of the "Day the Earth Stood still. " is Global Warming\Gai Worship propaganda. "Iron Man" is an assault on EVIL Corporate MILITARY companies.

Tip of the iceberg.



David

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

American Conservatism:

Government has certain limited functions (keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, limiting fraud, defending the nation, enhancing commerce by reducing impediments) that should be strictly limited in order to minimize the damage that government operatives operating under the power of the state can do.

By that definition there are very few conservatives in America. There were proportionately a lot more when the nation was founded.

America has devolved into two main camps - the moral socialists and the economic socialists.

The "leave us alone" camp - the true American Conservatives - are not well represented.

Even the moral socialists are not well represented in the media.

So who are the American Conservatives in the media? John Stossel, and Penn and Teller.

Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are in the moral socialist faction.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

alexjrgreen wrote:
ravingdave wrote:I will point out that the people of New York City are virtually guaranteed to vote left and Democrat.
Staten Island voted for McCain:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... 008/ny.htm (hold your mouse over the red dot)

I followed your link, and I looked up the vote tallies in the five Most Famous New York City suburbs. Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island. The total votes for these five counties was 2,329,153. The total for Obama was 1,846,336. Dividing Obama's Tally with the total votes = 1,846,336 / 2,329,153 = 0.792 or 79.2 % of the vote.


I stand corrected. People of New York City are only 80% likely to vote left and Democrat. I exagerated when I said "Virtually assured." I should have said " Highly Likely. "

Of course, I haven't looked at the Congresional, or Senate, or State or City races. They are also relevant to the voting patterns of the people of New York City.

I wonder if they will be more strongly Left/Democrat, or less strongly Left/Democrat ?


What percentage threshold should constitue "Virtually Assured" ? Any statisticians around ?



David

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

It doesn't matter if Murdoch is liberal or conservative or an agent of the devil or Gods very own angel.

What matters is how his media properties lean.

By that measure many of his properties are center-right (Fox). Many are liberal. I can't think of any that are conservative (leave us alone) or moral socialist.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

Fox News is center-right authoritarianist but will tend to throw anything out there that they think will rile people up. They are not generally conservative or libertarian by any stretch. O'Reilly is a centrist authoritarian demagog. The only conservatism you see at FOX is the christian sort, not the paleoconservative sort, or the Goldwater/Reagan sort. The only time I've seen FOX cover libertarians was when I helped Killington VT vote to secede to rejoin New Hampshire.

The media is generally Right Internationalist and Left Internationalist. The Left Internationalist types (i.e. Davos Man) generally despise the Right Internationalist only slightly less than Right Isolationists. 9/11 was committed generally to force Bush to shift from Right Isolationism to Internationalism. The Davos types hate that he didnt come over all the way but got sidetracked by the neocons, particularly the ex-trotskyists preaching a global war for democracy. Bush got elected on a generally right-libertarian platform, though its clear neocon Cheney was the real president after 9/11.

Right Internationalists are for internationalism for the sake of American interests, American corporate interests in particular. Left Internationalism is split between useful idiots like the World Federalist Society, Europhilic Club of Rome-ists, and fringe groups like communist and anarcho-socialist movements.

The Isolationists range from the right wing Buchananites and further right christian identity types, to the libertarians and bunkertarians who oppose the authoritarianism of the right wingers.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

ravingdave wrote:What percentage threshold should constitue "Virtually Assured" ? Any statisticians around ?
IPCC likelihood scale

Terminology.................Likelihood of the occurrence/outcome

Virtually certain............> 99% probability

Very likely...................> 90% probability

Likely..........................> 66% probability

About as likely as not....33% - 66% probability

Unlikely.......................< 33% probability

Very unlikely...............< 10% probability

Exceptionally unlikely...< 1% probability
Ars artis est celare artem.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

IntLibber wrote:Fox News is center-right authoritarianist but will tend to throw anything out there that they think will rile people up. They are not generally conservative or libertarian by any stretch. O'Reilly is a centrist authoritarian demagog. The only conservatism you see at FOX is the christian sort, not the paleoconservative sort, or the Goldwater/Reagan sort. The only time I've seen FOX cover libertarians was when I helped Killington VT vote to secede to rejoin New Hampshire.

The media is generally Right Internationalist and Left Internationalist. The Left Internationalist types (i.e. Davos Man) generally despise the Right Internationalist only slightly less than Right Isolationists. 9/11 was committed generally to force Bush to shift from Right Isolationism to Internationalism. The Davos types hate that he didnt come over all the way but got sidetracked by the neocons, particularly the ex-trotskyists preaching a global war for democracy. Bush got elected on a generally right-libertarian platform, though its clear neocon Cheney was the real president after 9/11.

Right Internationalists are for internationalism for the sake of American interests, American corporate interests in particular. Left Internationalism is split between useful idiots like the World Federalist Society, Europhilic Club of Rome-ists, and fringe groups like communist and anarcho-socialist movements.

The Isolationists range from the right wing Buchananites and further right christian identity types, to the libertarians and bunkertarians who oppose the authoritarianism of the right wingers.


Oooohhh... this stuff makes my head hurt. Some of what you say seems to make a sort of sense, and some of it I just can't quite grasp. In any case, it would take a great deal of analysis for me to make any sense of it.


David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

alexjrgreen wrote:
ravingdave wrote:What percentage threshold should constitue "Virtually Assured" ? Any statisticians around ?
IPCC likelihood scale

Terminology.................Likelihood of the occurrence/outcome

Virtually certain............> 99% probability

Very likely...................> 90% probability

Likely..........................> 66% probability

About as likely as not....33% - 66% probability

Unlikely.......................< 33% probability

Very unlikely...............< 10% probability

Exceptionally unlikely...< 1% probability

Thanks, although this list seems puzzling to me. I would have thought that 50/50 would be exactly the dividing line between as likely as not.


David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

MSimon wrote:American Conservatism:

Government has certain limited functions (keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, limiting fraud, defending the nation, enhancing commerce by reducing impediments) that should be strictly limited in order to minimize the damage that government operatives operating under the power of the state can do.

By that definition there are very few conservatives in America. There were proportionately a lot more when the nation was founded.

America has devolved into two main camps - the moral socialists and the economic socialists.

The "leave us alone" camp - the true American Conservatives - are not well represented.

Even the moral socialists are not well represented in the media.

So who are the American Conservatives in the media? John Stossel, and Penn and Teller.

Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are in the moral socialist faction.

This is my Token message of disagreement with your usage of the coined term "Moral Socialist".

But I know what you mean.

David

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

I think IntLibber's point, and yours, Dave, is that you have no media outlets that cater to your views very specifically.

Know what, neither do I. You can't call me a hypocrite for wanting to share the wealth, because I'm not a liberal. It's a very typical tactic of the conservative side to label anyone who opposes them as liberal. But the political spectrum is much more broad than just conservative and liberal. As the both of you argue. (I guess I'd label my self centrist, if I had to have a label at all, but then I'm sure that IntLibber would label me an Internationalist Centrist; though I think I'm quite moderate on that front, too. I'd prefer to think of myself as someone who, instead of following a philosophy tends to take each consideration on it's own).

So... the media represents none of us perfectly. But they are still purchased by those out there, and there are alternatives that are easy to get a hold of. I believe that people are not actively supporting the "liberal bias" or being forced to deal with it, so much as reading understanding that biases exist. I think Obama got elected *despite* the fact that he was supported by the media. People with your jaded attitude towards the media are common, to say nothing of the number of people with a healthy skepticism of what they read.

Why did Obama get elected? Mostly because people were fed up with Bush, and saw Obama as the alternative. It might be sad that credentials aren't what people vote for, but I frankly think that Obama will be as good as most politicians at being president. Better than most, because he's a bit smarter than most. If the presidency is a rarified seat, I think that to that extent that nobody is "ready" for being POTUS.

And, lo, as MSimon points out, much of Obama's plan for the economic bailout is a tax cut. Perhaps to appease the Repubs. But, well, I guess that his claim of being one to reach across the aisles was actually honest. This was part of what sold people on Obama, too. A trustable charisma. We'll see if he merits the trust in the long-run.

In any case is Bush conservative by your estimations? I mean he got elected twice, despite what must have been a massive attempt by the media to stop him (or did the liberal bias show up just this election)? So apparently the media's ability to cause people to vote for this or that candidate is pretty... unreliable?

But, oh yes, they're both Harvard, Skull and Bones conspiracy, New-World-Order Internationalists. Well, I'd argue, again, that those who are anti-Internationalists are, in fact, a small minority. Or, rather, they don't seem to have organized themselves well, and don't seem to have much of a voice in democracy. Again, if you want that viewpoint upheld in government, what you need first is a party. Not that the party system is great, but it seems to dominate at the moment. If you have a proposal for getting rid of the two party system, I'm willing to hear that, so more opinions get heard in the public arena.

Somehow the greens manage to have a (small) voice each election with Nader as their candidate. And, in fact, the Libertarians do as well - Barr was a fairly credible candidate. At least as third parties tend to go.

The media loves to give voice to these smaller parties, because it breaks up the monotony of talking about the daily news cycle involved with the major candidates. Is it "enough?" I don't know, but you can certainly find out everything you need to about these parties, at the very least through the internet (which, taken site by site does not compare to mass-media, no, but taken as a whole is rapidly taking over, as MSimon points out).

Lyndon LaRouche had to purchase air time... should the media have given him more attention for free?

"The Media" is a number of varying organizations that have to make lots of decisions every day as to what they put out. They are biased, because we all are. A very intelligent person I know once said to me, "Mike, the idea of unbiased reporting is ridiculous. Even Murrow was biased. In fact, the best reporting that has existed has always been very, very biased."

We'd like for the media to be some fair arbiter of the political scene, giving "just the facts." But presentation is everything, and a fair balance is not possible. Sure, there may be less outlets giving the conservative POV, but they exist. The diversity of outlets is, in fact, astounding, compared to, oh, say, China. Or most other nations, for that matter.

Backhanded compliment? I guess I'll take mediocre over bad. Just as I'll support capitalism, because at least it works, even if it has it's own inequities.

If you believe that we can do better with the mass-media, making it somehow less unbiased, I propose that you're more of a Pollyanna than how the conservatives paint the liberals. Oh, sure, perhaps we could swing the bias to a conservative one (or in Isolationist one), but that would just serve the purposes of some other small part of the populace. Let's all hearken back to the days of a man named Hearst. Now *there* was a monopoly.

Again, the way out of the "problem" of mass-media bias is the democritization of the news process. And that's what we're doing right here, right now. We've once again become Athens, with every citizen with the ability to shout out their view at the forum. Can we all get everyone's attention? No, how could we all process millions of voices? Instead we get the voices of those who we interact with because of common interests. Like Polywell. That's not so bad, as long as you don't solely stick to one forum.

Mike

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Mike Holmes wrote:I think IntLibber's point, and yours, Dave, is that you have no media outlets that cater to your views very specifically.


My point is that they only cater to one specific view point, and that is Left-wing Progressive\Liberal. I don't know how much you've looked into this, but I have been keeping tabs on it since 1992. Various studies have shown that Journalism Majors tend to be very liberal, and tend to go into Journalism as a career. They want to "Change the World" in their idealistic naievity, and so they pursue careers where they believe they can modify people's opinion, and change people's mind.

Conservatives go into buisness to make money for themselves and their family. They aren't trying to change the world, they are simply trying to make a better life for themselves.

Liberals pursue careers in Government and Media, and Conservatives follow them there not because Conservatives want to be in either Government or Media, but because they often perceive they must do so out of Self Defense.

Most journalists are very liberal, and their reporting reflects it whether they even realize it or not.
Mike Holmes wrote: Know what, neither do I. You can't call me a hypocrite for wanting to share the wealth, because I'm not a liberal. It's a very typical tactic of the conservative side to label anyone who opposes them as liberal. But the political spectrum is much more broad than just conservative and liberal. As the both of you argue. (I guess I'd label my self centrist, if I had to have a label at all, but then I'm sure that IntLibber would label me an Internationalist Centrist; though I think I'm quite moderate on that front, too. I'd prefer to think of myself as someone who, instead of following a philosophy tends to take each consideration on it's own).

So... the media represents none of us perfectly. But they are still purchased by those out there, and there are alternatives that are easy to get a hold of. I believe that people are not actively supporting the "liberal bias" or being forced to deal with it, so much as reading understanding that biases exist. I think Obama got elected *despite* the fact that he was supported by the media. People with your jaded attitude towards the media are common, to say nothing of the number of people with a healthy skepticism of what they read.

Why did Obama get elected? Mostly because people were fed up with Bush, and saw Obama as the alternative. It might be sad that credentials aren't what people vote for, but I frankly think that Obama will be as good as most politicians at being president. Better than most, because he's a bit smarter than most. If the presidency is a rarified seat, I think that to that extent that nobody is "ready" for being POTUS.

And, lo, as MSimon points out, much of Obama's plan for the economic bailout is a tax cut. Perhaps to appease the Repubs. But, well, I guess that his claim of being one to reach across the aisles was actually honest. This was part of what sold people on Obama, too. A trustable charisma. We'll see if he merits the trust in the long-run.

In any case is Bush conservative by your estimations? I mean he got elected twice, despite what must have been a massive attempt by the media to stop him (or did the liberal bias show up just this election)? So apparently the media's ability to cause people to vote for this or that candidate is pretty... unreliable?


HELL NO ! Bush is, and appears to always have been, a Big Government Republican. He has been consistent in supporting the base on Social issues, but Fiscally, and in terms of expanding the Government, he has been a FIASCO !

And yes, the Media DID try to screw him over ( remeber Dan Rather and the forged Documents ? THAT BACKFIRED ) but the other various factors were simply against them.

The media always push the same direction. Sometimes the Swing is going with them, and Sometimes the swing is going against them. In the case of the last election, they started earlier and pushed a lot harder.


Mike Holmes wrote: But, oh yes, they're both Harvard, Skull and Bones conspiracy, New-World-Order Internationalists. Well, I'd argue, again, that those who are anti-Internationalists are, in fact, a small minority. Or, rather, they don't seem to have organized themselves well, and don't seem to have much of a voice in democracy. Again, if you want that viewpoint upheld in government, what you need first is a party. Not that the party system is great, but it seems to dominate at the moment. If you have a proposal for getting rid of the two party system, I'm willing to hear that, so more opinions get heard in the public arena.

Somehow the greens manage to have a (small) voice each election with Nader as their candidate. And, in fact, the Libertarians do as well - Barr was a fairly credible candidate. At least as third parties tend to go.

The media loves to give voice to these smaller parties, because it breaks up the monotony of talking about the daily news cycle involved with the major candidates. Is it "enough?" I don't know, but you can certainly find out everything you need to about these parties, at the very least through the internet (which, taken site by site does not compare to mass-media, no, but taken as a whole is rapidly taking over, as MSimon points out).

Lyndon LaRouche had to purchase air time... should the media have given him more attention for free?

"The Media" is a number of varying organizations that have to make lots of decisions every day as to what they put out. They are biased, because we all are. A very intelligent person I know once said to me, "Mike, the idea of unbiased reporting is ridiculous. Even Murrow was biased. In fact, the best reporting that has existed has always been very, very biased."

We'd like for the media to be some fair arbiter of the political scene, giving "just the facts." But presentation is everything, and a fair balance is not possible. Sure, there may be less outlets giving the conservative POV, but they exist. The diversity of outlets is, in fact, astounding, compared to, oh, say, China. Or most other nations, for that matter.

Backhanded compliment? I guess I'll take mediocre over bad. Just as I'll support capitalism, because at least it works, even if it has it's own inequities.

If you believe that we can do better with the mass-media, making it somehow less unbiased, I propose that you're more of a Pollyanna than how the conservatives paint the liberals. Oh, sure, perhaps we could swing the bias to a conservative one (or in Isolationist one), but that would just serve the purposes of some other small part of the populace. Let's all hearken back to the days of a man named Hearst. Now *there* was a monopoly.

Again, the way out of the "problem" of mass-media bias is the democritization of the news process. And that's what we're doing right here, right now. We've once again become Athens, with every citizen with the ability to shout out their view at the forum. Can we all get everyone's attention? No, how could we all process millions of voices? Instead we get the voices of those who we interact with because of common interests. Like Polywell. That's not so bad, as long as you don't solely stick to one forum.

Mike



I have toyed with the idea of calling for an "Affirmative Action program for conservatives in Media. " Demanding that the punative force of Government be applied to force Media companies to hire Minorities. (conservatives.)

The idea is appealing because it is "hoisting them with their own petard !"

Unfortunately it violates the conservative principle of free association, but it would still be amusing to see liberals SCREEEEECH about being forced to swallow their own medicine, and their horror at the stories the conservatives would air.


David

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

I've seen lots of studies about the liberal bias, too (I actually got into debates about it starting just before you started studying the phenomenon when I was in college). I am not, nor have I once so far, denied that there is a liberal bias.

I once argued that there was such a bias in media, and academia, both, to which a friend cagily replied, "You mean all the smart people?"

A clever ploy, but as you point out, and as I did to him at that time, too, many smart people go into business. And, given the tendency for people to want to associate with like people, it's no surprise that this is reinforced, too, at every level.

Still, there are exceptions to these generalities. There are liberal businessmen, and conservative journalists.

I'm not arguing that a preponderance of the news isn't biased in one direction, merely that there are enough exceptions that anyone who wants an alternate view can get one. If, in fact, there were zero outlets with the conservative POV, I'd be just as up in arms against the phenomenon as you. But, fact is, I watch both CNN and Fox, and I see the dichotomy quite clearly.

Is this 100% of the viewpoints? Well, I also watch MacNeil, and read papers, and have lots of outlets on the internet (I tend to hit http://www.newsdaily.com a lot becaue it co-exists with http://www.sciencedaily.com which I read rabidly). This combination seems pretty good to me, but I can assure you I'm under no delusions that I'm getting 100% of the POVs. Occasionally I'll even read Asia Times, or even Al Jazeera, just to get some very alternative POVs. Even that's not 100%.

I'm only human, and will never get 100% of the POVs available. At some point you have to take what you absorb from the sources at hand, filter it through the biases that you know to be there, and come up with an assessment of the events going on in the world. I'm sure I do that with a lot of error, too, what with having my own biases. But I'm only human.

One could vacillate all their lives, knowing that there's always another POV to consider. As William F Buckley Jr once said, "The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think." You have to assume that, at some point, you can make a reasonable conclusion from the information you have in front of you, including the biases of it's sources.

Sure, lots of people get their news from only one source, and it's likely to be liberal. Even more people, however, don't have any news source at all. None. There are quite a lot of people who just don't pay any attention to the media at all. My wife, for one. She voted for Obama because she's a peacenik, and figured McCain would be the more hawkish of the two.

So you basically have four categories of people, for the sake of this discussion:

1. Party Liners - Those who are already convinced to vote party line. For these people, the media doesn't matter, because what they read or see either goes against what they believe (cons rail then against the media), or the media is preaching to the choir.

2. Media Insensitive - Those who don't pay any attention to the media, and who, therefore, aren't affected by it.

3. Intelligent Swayable - Those people who might go either way, who could be swayed by the media in theory. These people who are willing to think through issues are also smart enough to understand the media bias, and include it in their analysis of which candidate for which to vote.

4. Dumb Swayable - those who are on the fence, and who the media can sway with their biased arguments.


It's this last category that are the ones who are affected by the media bias. My supposition is that this represents a relatively small proportion of the voting populace. Enough to sway an election? Well, sure, in the right circumstances, where things are close enough.

But that's the media's right. Free speech and all. We as the populace are free to reject a media outlet if it lies or otherwise prevaricates. As many have done with the NYT, for instance. An outlet who would argue that they should not be unseated by a few bad acts. But the fact that they are being unseated gives me confidence that, in fact, the public has very high standards for truth.

Bias, we accept, including sins of omission. Because, again, that's unavoidable. But we are, generally, smart enough to see through the media. Trained as dilligently as we are from an early age by Madison Avenue to see through BS.

If those dumb swayable people weren't swayed by the media, they'd be swayed by something else as insidious. Call that the "slop" in democracy. Alongisde the relatively uninformed voter. If you want to regulate that only informed people get to vote... well... who decides what informed means? That's going to be subject to a lot of bias as well.

I think it's unavoidable. And, yet, survivable.

Mike

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Mike,

I have looked into the Skull and Bones Conspiracy. It is a rather specific targeted conspiracy. But let me know what you think it is and then I'll have at it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Mike,

I have seen what happened in the '08 election happen before.

In Illinois we went nuts to elect the first black female Senator. She was a fiasco.

So far - other than hiring a bunch of crooks - the new guy seems to be doing OK.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply