Well I didn't waste a vote on either of those two. My top two priorities in who I vote for: do they have integrity and will they make the government smaller.
Well I didn't waste a vote on either of those two. My top two priorities in who I vote for: do they have integrity and will they make the government smaller.
So you wasted a vote somewhere else. No matter the warm feeling it gave you, the consequences are now here with us. Anything that aided the election of the incoming administration has furthered their goals. The effects of this are already being felt far and wide, and will likely have ramifications for decades to come, with the probability that a nation has been diminished, if not ruined.
That's just my take on it all.
"When Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick;
and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter."
~ Benjamin Franklin
Well Jon this at least gives a name to it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/201...ef=au-homepage
dneal (November 16th, 2016), Jon Szanto (November 17th, 2016)
The definition of “post-truth” (adj.) is: “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
This notion applies to much more than Trump or Brexit. The "professional" media only advances their viewpoint, and other sources consist of little more than click-bait. It doesn't matter what your political viewpoint is, there's a source to oblige the confirmation of your bias.
Rational discourse has been replaced by hyperbole. Competing viewpoints are ridiculed, discounted or shouted down. One person's "free speech" is another's "hateful rhetoric". Both sides are guilty.
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
CaptainRon (November 17th, 2016), duckmcf (November 17th, 2016), HughC (November 17th, 2016)
[QUOTE=dneal;189173]Unfortunately, starting with this premise already stacks the argument. The best newspapers rely on traditional journalist ethics and do their fact-checking, and they print their corrections regularly. Departure from those traditions can have serious consequences (e.g., Rolling Stone and U. of Va.). When reporters cheat and are caught making things up, out they go with their careers impacted accordingly (e.g., New York Times and Jayson Blair). If one buys into the broad brush that the media is corrupt and can never be trusted, then I cannot imagine where we are supposed to get our information. Online rumor? Blog posts? The government? FPN? As for me, I rely on some research, but chiefly on the traditional press and my common sense.
Fred
Last edited by FredRydr; November 17th, 2016 at 10:00 AM.
Freddie (November 17th, 2016), HughC (November 17th, 2016), jar (November 17th, 2016), Jon Szanto (November 17th, 2016)
It's not a premise, it's an assertion.
I'm not just talking about blatant lies. I'm talking about inclusion or omission of facts, and/or word choices designed to shape an opinion; or "editorializing". That has migrated from the editorial page to the front page.
As to "where do we get our information", you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You just have to be able to recognize bias, or assess credibility and then make a decision. We used to call this "critical thinking", although I'm happy with your use of "common sense". I'm naturally skeptic.
I didn't sacrifice journalistic integrity at the altar of the ratings or circulation. They did.
Last edited by dneal; November 17th, 2016 at 11:29 AM.
Beowulf50 (November 18th, 2016)
I am well aware of inherent biases and agendas in virtually all traditional media. As such, I tend to get my information through aggregate reading, and combining a number of sources and delivery systems to ascertain for myself, as best I can, what the actuality is.
The problem these days is that there is literally no systematic way to consider the veracity of the alternative media, be they left or right oriented. There is no long-standing tradition of accuracy in reporting, and no means of holding them accountable. Beyond that... 20, 30, 50 years ago, it would have been literally impossible to create, on the fly, fake newspapers of large dissemination. Traditional news sources - newspapers, radio networks, etc - required resources and personnel to make it all happen. Today, there is no barrier to entry at all. An unknown person can put up a 'news' site on the net and start broadcasting 'news', and all lines between coherent, verifiable, and accountable journalism has been lost. It is next to impossible to judge, among the universe of data flowing at us, 24/7, what is the reality of the world anymore.
I still believe, because of investment and infrastructure, that many of the older media outlets in broadcast and print media continue to have a lot more to lose if they play too fast and loose with the truth, with the facts. As such, I will continue to rely on them with the caveat that I apply my critical thinking and filters. I will continue to do my research and due diligence. However, the results of the election show a vast sea of people who are under-educated and all too susceptible to flat-out distortion of reality, fake news, lies, and worse. Between that and the normalization of repellent behaviors and actions, I have a great concern that we may never be able to return to a more intelligent electorate and considerate populace. An even greater concern will be that our situation will become far worse before it ever, if at all, starts to heal.
Sobering times. NOT normal.
Last edited by Jon Szanto; November 17th, 2016 at 07:42 PM. Reason: Typo
"When Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick;
and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter."
~ Benjamin Franklin
dneal (November 17th, 2016), fountainpenkid (November 18th, 2016), HughC (November 17th, 2016)
Food for thought on media and politics:
Edward Snowden: Falling For Facebook Fake News Is A ‘Sad Indictment Of Our Democracy’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b099512f812d34
“People are definitely dumber”: Thanks to Facebook, a viral fake-news writer is making $10,000 a month
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/peop...10000-a-month/
Last edited by Jon Szanto; November 17th, 2016 at 01:23 PM.
"When Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick;
and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter."
~ Benjamin Franklin
Freddie (November 17th, 2016)
Democrats and republican today are practically the same group working together to stay in power and line their own pockets. Big government, socialism and the destruction of decency.
Third party has won in the past...
Smart people without integreity take advantage of foolish people
Jon Szanto (November 18th, 2016)
"When Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick;
and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter."
~ Benjamin Franklin
"When Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick;
and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter."
~ Benjamin Franklin
Last edited by FredRydr; November 18th, 2016 at 11:44 AM.
I agree that this is often the case. The liberal cries foul with "Faux News" and the conservative cries foul with the "Clinton News Network", and both claim their source is unbiased.
I think it's pretty obvious that Fox News, National Review and the New York Post, for example lean right; and CNN, Salon and the New York Times leans left. I think it's also obvious that the majority of outlets sensationalize their articles in order to increase ratings and circulation.
Are you trying to say none of that is self-evident, or obvious?
Bookmarks