Visit our Popular Forums

ptards · 13-01-2019, 07:53

I'm all in:
I once mis-read a catspaw and tacked onto a header.

Lake-Effect · 13-01-2019, 08:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

Interesting that when you plug in media sources to this website that are deemed to have either a left or right bias, the consistent explanation coming back is that "they often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor [liberal or conservative] causes."

It's little wonder why the more partisan/ideological amongst us who confine their reading to such sources often then use emotion & stereotypes to make their case. I don't think a lot of people fully understand the extent of their own bias, or the sources from which they're getting all of their information. Probably helps explain why so many seem genuinely shocked or angered when they encounter opinions contrary to what they're constantly surrounding themselves with.

Oh look - confirmation bias.

heron237 · 13-01-2019, 08:09

The rather humorous irony of your post is that FDR was exactly the sort of wealthy populist politician that had "about as much in common with the common man as I do to an alien."

Both FDR & Eleanor came from old, patrician families going back to the Dutch merchants who settled in NYC in the 1600's, and both lived off inherited family money with generous trust funds.

https://www.theclassroom.com/what-wa...-12078550.html

I don't think such factors necessarily qualify or disqualify people from high office, any more than gender, race or ethnicity. But then I also don't necessarily believe everything that comes out of politicians' mouths.

So whats your point? I address the issue of Roosevelt being a traitor to his class in the post-- everyone knows that, what does your comment add to the conversation? Who believes everything anybody says, if they are a unique identity? Apparently the point of my post is completely lost on you.
Let me repeat, we need reform minded populists now to shake things up-- because the present arrangements are not working! If not today, when?

Exile · 13-01-2019, 08:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh look - confirmation bias.

You're catching on!

Lake-Effect · 13-01-2019, 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by heron237

To properly gauge how far the mainstream media has changed lets look at history. For instance take FDR,

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt

More recent, I think, Eisenhower got it right. He just didn't think big enough.

Exile · 13-01-2019, 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by heron237

The rather humorous irony of your post is that FDR was exactly the sort of wealthy populist politician that had "about as much in common with the common man as I do to an alien."

Both FDR & Eleanor came from old, patrician families going back to the Dutch merchants who settled in NYC in the 1600's, and both lived off inherited family money with generous trust funds.

https://www.theclassroom.com/what-wa...-12078550.html

I don't think such factors necessarily qualify or disqualify people from high office, any more than gender, race or ethnicity. But then I also don't necessarily believe everything that comes out of politicians' mouths.

So whats your point? I address the issue of Roosevelt being a traitor to his class in the post-- everyone knows that, what does your comment add to the conversation? Who believes everything anybody says, if they are a unique identity? Apparently the point of my post is completely lost on you.
Let me repeat, we need reform minded populists now to shake things up-- because the present arrangements are not working! If not today, when?

Maybe Roosevelt had enough independence of thought to recognize that his class was not what defined him as an American citizen, and that any allegiance he felt towards it was therefore irrelevant. That doesn't make him a traitor but a patriot. We've never cared much about class here in the U.S., except recently as a political wedge issue in an attempt to divide us.

In the minds of many of his blue collar supporters, Trump is also a "reform minded populist," and it's probably fair to say most of the political class believes he's a traitor. So yes, whatever point you're trying to make is entirely lost on me, except an obvious effort to advocate your personal political views in transparently partisan fashion. Besides, different times present different problems and therefore call for different solutions. I enjoyed reading your FDR quotes from the 1930's & 40's but your attempt to apply them to modern day politics seems rather dated.

Mike OReilly · 13-01-2019, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

...It's little wonder why the more partisan/ideological amongst us who confine their reading to such sources often then use emotion & stereotypes to make their case. I don't think a lot of people fully understand the extent of their own bias, or the sources from which they're getting all of their information. Probably helps explain why so many seem genuinely shocked or angered when they encounter opinions contrary to what they're constantly surrounding themselves with.

It’s fairly well understood that emotion is a far more effective way of making a case vs the use of intellect and logic. And the stronger the emotion, the easier the message gets through. Marketers, advertisers, propagandists and politicians have all long understood this.

And now, finally, the logical side has caught up with current research in human psychology and behavioural economics showing just how easily manipulatable we all our via our emotions.

So it’s little wonder people use emotion when trying to convince others, or change people’s minds about a topic. As someone else wrote a ways back, logical scientific thinking does not come easy to us homo sapiens. Out default mode is emotion.

This raises another flag for those trying to discern news from editorial. If a piece is using emotion, especially strong ones like fear, unknown dangers, sex, or cute kittens, then it’s a good bet it’s not news. It’s some form of propaganda.

Exile · 13-01-2019, 09:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It’s fairly well understood that emotion is a far more effective way of making a case vs the use of intellect and logic. And the stronger the emotion, the easier the message gets through. Marketers, advertisers, propagandists and politicians have all long understood this.

And now, finally, the logical side has caught up with current research in human psychology and behavioural economics showing just how easily manipulatable we all our via our emotions.

So it’s little wonder people use emotion when trying to convince others, or change people’s minds about a topic. As someone else wrote a ways back, logical scientific thinking does not come easy to us homo sapiens. Out default mode is emotion.

This raises another flag for those trying to discern news from editorial. If a piece is using emotion, especially strong ones like fear, unknown dangers, sex, or cute kittens, then it’s a good bet it’s not news. It’s some form of propaganda.

Totally agree, but so wish it wasn't so. And whether the MSM is exacerbating the problem or merely responding to what viewers want, they longer seem viewed as an institution making a positive contribution. At least not to national unity here in the US. It's really just become yet another source of entertainment, along with a mouthpiece for the respective political parties.

Exile · 13-01-2019, 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

More recent, I think, Eisenhower got it right. He just didn't think big enough.

But the question is whether he would now, in hindsight, believe he was wrong or instead feel vindicated?

Lake-Effect · 13-01-2019, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

But the question is whether he would now, in hindsight, believe he was wrong or instead feel vindicated?

He would, I believe, feel disappointed and sad at where things have gone.

Mike OReilly · 13-01-2019, 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

Totally agree, but so wish it wasn't so. And whether the MSM is exacerbating the problem or merely responding to what viewers want, they longer seem viewed as an institution making a positive contribution. At least not to national unity here in the US. It's really just become yet another source of entertainment, along with a mouthpiece for the respective political parties.

If so called MSM is exacerbating the problem (which I think they are), then the non-MSM is mostly much worse. The vast majority of those sources are mostly 100% editorial that act as parasites to the actual news producers, who are still mostly so-called MSM.

Again, I try and focus on what I can do. Ultimately we are the problem. If we reward editorial-masquerading-as-news, then this is what media businesses will give us. If we keep watching the Tuckers or the Maddows, then Fox and MSNBC will give us more of this. If we give our time and eyeballs to the news shows (of which both networks still have good examples of), then that’s what business will focus on.

transmitterdan · 13-01-2019, 10:30

So what have we learned?

1) people don't like to admit they are wrong either privately or publicly.
2) people generally self rate their competence opposite reality.
3) politicians, marketers, media and a host of others know and use that knowledge to promote their view/product.
4) social media and now media/communication hardware vendors surreptitiously find out the real you and sell the data to politicians and marketers.

So Facebook is the only entity that truly knows who we are. Yes, I think anyone who died more than 50 years ago and magically came alive today would find the current society appalling.

Exile · 13-01-2019, 11:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

If so called MSM is exacerbating the problem (which I think they are), then the non-MSM is mostly much worse. The vast majority of those sources are mostly 100% editorial that act as parasites to the actual news producers, who are still mostly so-called MSM.

Again, I try and focus on what I can do. Ultimately we are the problem. If we reward editorial-masquerading-as-news, then this is what media businesses will give us. If we keep watching the Tuckers or the Maddows, then Fox and MSNBC will give us more of this. If we give our time and eyeballs to the news shows (of which both networks still have good examples of), then that’s what business will focus on.

Given that humans are mostly influenced by emotion as you've pointed out, and given our herd-like, tribal tendencies, I don't see much hope in the way of positive change. In other words, I don't see enough people doing what you (correctly) suggest they do, namely stop "consuming" the nonsense to effect any change in media practices. If anything, it seems to be going the other way.

Your comment about MSM just made me realize I could be defining it (in my mind at least) incorrectly. I was correlating it with the three major network news stations and the two major cable outlets, namely CNN & Fox. In other words, all of TV (and corresponding websites). I figure many more people get their news from TV than from print or even internet, but maybe that's incorrect.

This discussion about media bias begs the question of what media sources, if any, do people think are truly "fair & balanced," i.e. as close to politically neutral as is possible these days. This is likely impossible for most to answer since it's all too often dependent on a person's own political orientation, but what the heck. I once suggested The Economist as "slightly left of center" (where Cyan's media bias check site has it) but it got jumped (by more leftward leaning people) as a right-wing publication! Maybe we should also rule out the NYT, WaP, BBC, NPR, PBS, and of course all TV media since there will never be agreement.

Uh-Oh . . . I may have just answered my own question.

Errr, never mind??