Why Facts No Longer Matter by Magonsdaughter

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Wow, good article.

I agree with HK about the one point of hope.

If there is a solution, who implements it? The government? Politically affiliated groups? Or would it just be in some form of free, publicly available resource?

I have a pet theory that the BBC keeps UK political opinion less partisan and wild than in the U.S... (not saying the BBC's perfect but it's a trusted, moderate voice, mandated to be neutral, and is accountable to the people)

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 4:00 PM

KLESST

The fact that facts don't matter means that facts never did matter. That this is a surprise to anyone just demonstrates how naive people can be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 4:17 PM

Yanno, maybe that whole being treated as subhuman for eighteen straight years thing might have something to do with the whole self-contempt problem, mighten it ?

Just sayin.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 4:24 PM

KLESST

Do you really think that the neocons were born in a vacuum. They are a direct result of the win at all cost Clinton democrats. In the end there can be only one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Wow, good article.

I agree with HK about the one point of hope.

If there is a solution, who implements it? The government? Politically affiliated groups? Or would it just be in some form of free, publicly available resource?

I have a pet theory that the BBC keeps UK political opinion less partisan and wild than in the U.S... (not saying the BBC's perfect but it's a trusted, moderate voice, mandated to be neutral, and is accountable to the people)

It's not personal. It's just war.

I feel the same with the ABC here, who really have to implement impartiality in their coverage of politics, down the the same amount of airspace and type if questioning that the different sides all get.

And people in the US worry about 'government control'. Actually the government run news agencies are the least biased of any here. Some of the private ones just run with the blatant agenda of the powerful owners.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 5:37 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 5:42 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 6:00 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 6:29 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 7:22 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 7:46 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 9:31 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 7, 2010 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What good is a biased newstation that exists only to attack the other side over wedge issues?

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 3:42 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 5:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I tend to agree with that article, tho' it makes me sad to think about it.

Quote:
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.

So THAT’S why FauxNews is so popular!

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:
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.

The place that quote comes from has been repeatedly called slanted, but the concept here is the same as the article’s point.

Quote:
“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.”

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

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 high RWAs believe the world (or government) will end soon. I found many authoritarian followers agreed with the statement, “The ‘end times’ are going to begin at the start of (date) ,” and “Floods, famines, wars and other disasters are occurring so often now, the world is going to end in (date) .” After passing whatever date, it didn’t end. But I suspect this failed prediction has not changed their beliefs one bit, and this year’s floods, famines, and other disasters will clearly signal (to them) the end of this dangerous, wicked world.

I would add that their fear is also manifested by such things as “the government is so corrupt, a revolution is coming” or “we must take up arms to defend our way of life, or all is lost”. Also that the quantity of fear they possess is part of what makes them so easily manipulated.

The bit you wrote about self-delusion, Serge, it made me smile. I’m responding as I go down, so haven’t gotten to what I imagine will be the predictable response to your third paragraph. What I think you’re not taking into account is that CONSCIOUSLY, those of whom you speak DO feel...well, if not “better” about them selves, but a sense of self-righteousness and some kind of pleasure. Yes, SUBCONSCIOUSLY they hate themselves and don’t feel better, but the barriers between conscious and subconscious are so strong (fear works good for that too) that they can’t consciously see themselves. Their unhappiness comes out in other ways; i.e., anger, disrespect, etc.

Quote:
But in point of "fact", differences of opinion, especially political opinion, hardly ever rely on facts.

On some level I instinctively feel you have a good point, but something seems wrong with it s a blank statement. Sure political opinion is often not based in “fact”...it’s often an extrapolation: “If so-and-so is doing THIS, imagine if he/she gets in power!” But I believe that if we dig deep enough, and some things are solid enough, to be actual facts. I can’t accept that there are no facts supporting that peace is better than war. I will cheerfully give you the other two, that freedom isn’t necessarily better than security or democracy better than socialism...it’s all in how they manifest, that’s easy. But the last I can’t accept. It does give me an insight into what you’re saying, and I agree.

I think it’s on things like...wow, trying to come up with an example shows me just how correct your theory is, and that it can be extrapolated even further than just politics. I can’t say “overpopulation and overconsumption is bad”—who knows that it wouldn’t kill off enough humans to make the world better for the rest?” Nor does “there were no WMDs” work...we can’t utterly, absolutely, positively prove there never WERE some kind of WMDs running around? “It’s better to be rich than poor”, “Corrupt politicians are bad”, and on and on—given one can only know if that’s true given the outcome, and the outcome may be true or not depending on the situation and people involved.

So you make an even better point than I assumed at first. Can’t even say we can know what was true or not after the fact, because a) history is written by people, and b) it’s an ever-evolving world, so who knows what one pebble thrown in it results in down the line? Wow...that’s one to think about. Can anyone (sensible) come up with a real FACT...science doesn’t work because we’re still evolving where that’s concerned too, so we can’t be absolutely positive about much of anything! Something to think on, thank you.

Hee, hee, hee...unless he’s joking, Klest just gave us a perfect example of the article. Funny.

Magons:

Quote:
Some of the private ones just run with the blatant agenda of the powerful owners.

Gee, y’think? Also a giggle, because we can’t truly know what facts ANYONE presents are completely true. I think of the Bible...a bunch of guys got together and decided which parts they’d put in and which parts they’d leave out, then the religious among us have been interpreting those parts ever since. And those who believe (someone’s interpretation of it) believe it staunchly, no facts will get in the way.

Byte, I agree. But I do think some media does better than others. I’ll have to pay more attention to the BBC; I read them on line, but usually when hunting something specific, and what I’ve read that they write about America sounds just like what the American media says, for the most part. I’ll start paying attention to ABC too, and see how that goes. I also read them on line, but don’t watch. I’m sick of “talking heads”. But it might be worth an effort in both cases. And I definitely agree with what most media is aimed at...the fact that so many eat it up is a sad statement on our society!

IkIkI, I sadly agree:

Quote:
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.

It’s why visceral material affects people so much more than material which causes them to think, learn, etc., in my opinion. And sociopaths, among others, appeal to the visceral, the emotions, to gain power.

Really interesting discussion, folks, thanks. I hope we keep going, I’m learning a lot.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 5:45 AM

The one place were the BBC does deviate from stories the American media presents is on Israel, so there's that. They're still probably slightly more positive than a Palestinian source. The truth is somewhere between the extremes, or possibly none of the above, as reported "news" tends to be only what furthers a political agenda.

The point I'm basically trying to make here, with you, and with Magons, is that no news station is without it's biases, because no HUMAN is without their biases. Whether or not you accept their stories and accept the news station as a legitimate source of information is relative to whether you agree with their slant.

As such, the only way to get NEWS is to watch different sources, and do your own analysis on what is true and what isn't. If you only watch one news station, you will only get one side of the story.

Which is how extremists are born on either side of the political spectrum, because the networks convince them that theirs is the only "non-biased" or "fair and balanced" news station, and therefore the only legitimate source of news. Once their watchers believe this, they never accept the other side of the story, it's "lies" or "cultish delusion" rather than just a different perspective from their own.

And technically, all American news stations are "independently" funded news corporations. Doesn't make them any less government puppets. I can't imagine that being funded by tax dollars improves the situation.

it's not damned if you do damned if you don't, because there is a work around. Take everything with a grain of salt, have multiple sources, and research everything for confirmation. Research with only one source is garbage. Garbage. And if you want reporting on your own country, and want to make sure it's clear of government influence, look outside. Any news you'll find will still have it's agenda, which may be pro-your-government, but it's better than meekly accepting government approved news.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 6:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The point I'm basically trying to make here, with you, and with Magons, is that no news station is without it's biases, because no HUMAN is without their biases. Whether or not you accept their stories and accept the news station as a legitimate source of information is relative to whether you agree with their slant.

You said that's a point you're trying to make with us is the above, but that's confusing. I've said many times that I recognize bias in everything I watch/read, and DO investigate further to determine (as best I can) whether what I hear/read is valid, slanted, or just plain garbage. I get IDEAS from MSNBC, CNN, BBC, and if I haven't gotten enough ideas in the day, ABC, CBS and NBC. Also Yahoo news. Then I check them out before putting them up here.

So the (what feels like) lecture? Maybe it's not intended as one, but it kinda felt like it, and like you were advising me to do what I already do. Hence, I'm confused.

Oh, and yes, I have DEFINITELY learned more about a different perspective on Israel from the BBC and other European news. I found out that would be the case when a Brit friend on line carefully explained why a large part of the world dislikes us, dislikes us more, or speficially is angered about that situation. I never knew it before (which shows the quality of our manipulation!) but have been paying attention ever since.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 8:56 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
it's not damned if you do damned if you don't, because there is a work around. Take everything with a grain of salt, have multiple sources, and research everything for confirmation. Research with only one source is garbage. Garbage. And if you want reporting on your own country, and want to make sure it's clear of government influence, look outside. Any news you'll find will still have it's agenda, which may be pro-your-government, but it's better than meekly accepting government approved news.

Byte, if this article teaches us anything, it's that people need to have a handle on their own biases - and if they don't, it doesn't matter how widely they research (though I'm all for that). For example in your post above:

Quote:
but it's better than meekly accepting government approved news.

It's an unsubstantiated claim to say the BBC is 'government approved', and it's contrary to what people here have told you. You appear to have jumped to a conclusion based not on facts, but a worldview that government input in anything is to be deemed malign and towards the goal of controlling people.

Government funding is not sufficient proof of government control, or even influence. So I dispute the evidence (currently lacking) that the British government controls the BBC - I also dispute the theory that it could, if it tried. There are historical examples of the BBC coming into conflict with the sitting government.

Wikipedia calls the BBC an 'autonomous public service broadcaster': http://www.fireflyfans.net/replymsg.asp?b=18&t=44729&m=797119

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by KLESST:
Do you really think that the neocons were born in a vacuum. They are a direct result of the win at all cost Clinton democrats. In the end there can be only one.

BZZZZZT, Wrong Answer.

The NeoCons did start as Democrats, true, but long before Clinton, dude - that shit started with Scoop Jackson, and he had it all laid out, but for reasons unknown chose to abandon that path, and because his own documents were so terribly incriminating as potential evidence of pre-meditation, when those fuckheads rose to power they had the alphabet goons seize and retroactively classify all of his papers related to that.

Kind of silly, since you cannot make people UN-see something they've already read, but they damn sure didn't want to leave evidence that there was a longstanding plan to do everything they did - especially when they never got to finish it, and the next steps were some really horrific shit, but then, Ollie North spilled those beans (Rex-84) anyway, so it's not any great secret they were planning to turn our country into a militarized facism from the very start, and didn't much care which party they used to do it.

And if you REALLY wanna trace it back, and to the same people, or rather the same families, that hearkens all the way back to The Business Plot and the idea amongst the financial and corporate elite that fascism is the greatest thing since sliced bread, an idea that had a hell of a lot more traction back in 1933 when the inevitable results of it weren't as clear as they are now.

And you can keep right on goin all the back to Alexander Hamilton and his little pack of cronies pining for a New American Aristocracy....

As a rule, politicians, they just wanna change which hand holds the leash (to their own), and not a one of em ever wants to cut it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 12:23 PM

Quote:
It's an unsubstantiated claim to say the BBC is 'government approved', and it's contrary to what people here have told you.

Contrary to what YOU have told me, and only just now. No one else here has been discussing the BBC in this sense, I just mentioned them in the sense that they don't have American propaganda over Israel. But they more than likely are a source of British propaganda.

Quote:
You appear to have jumped to a conclusion based not on facts, but a worldview that government input in anything is to be deemed malign and towards the goal of controlling people.

Automatically malignant? No. Intended to control people and what information they receive? Um, that's what propaganda IS. And how else is propaganda delivered, if not via the news to the public that the government, special interests, and industry is attempting to target? This isn't a jump to a conclusion, this is pretty well established with historical precedence.

Quote:
Government funding is not sufficient proof of government control, or even influence. So I dispute the evidence (currently lacking) that the British government controls the BBC - I also dispute the theory that it could, if it tried. There are historical examples of the BBC coming into conflict with the sitting government.

...Uh... You don't think government funding anything doesn't give the government input in the end product? When that funding could be shut off at any time if something is reported that the government doesn't like? If an entity has money invested, they're a stakeholder. If they're a stakeholder, it's actually illegal to ignore the input from your stakeholder.

There is no good reason to be loyal to just one news station, and plenty of consequences. Heck, I'd even be wary of your own local news and your national news. Like I said, it's probably best to get that from an outside source.

The BBC may not have government funding like the ABC Magon's talking about, but even then there are other ways to control the media. used to be journalists generate the news. Now it's the government generates the news, and the journalists play nice or get cut off. That is if they aren't interested in furthering whatever agenda the government puts out, which, if they are, then they become pretty blatant mouthpieces for the government.

There is absolutely government influence in news media, and you can trace it through money paid and stories broken. It doesn't matter if they "come into conflict with the sitting government" or "represent opposing viewpoints SOMETIMES," if they weren't useful to people with money and power, they wouldn't get near the investment they do, and they wouldn't stay in business.

Like I've been saying, take everything with a grain of salt. And follow the money, know who's funding the message.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 1:40 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Byte, you're speaking from a very biased American perspective, and applying American cultural mores and views to others who don't necessarily share them.

An institution CAN be both independent and have government funding. PBS and NPR come to mind. They get government funds AND they have pledge drives. And at times they can be downright antagonistic towards whoever is in power, regardless of where the money is, where it comes from, or where it's going.

Also, there are two sides to the "access" game as well. Sure, if you don't play ball, you don't get invited to the parties and the press conferences. That doesn't mean you can't report on them, though, but it DOES mean you're not beholden to anyone about HOW you report on those things, or what issues you pursue. Sometimes there's perceived legitimacy just in being "the outsider" at the insiders' party.

Quote:
There is no good reason to be loyal to just one news station, and plenty of consequences. Heck, I'd even be wary of your own local news and your national news. Like I said, it's probably best to get that from an outside source.

Very true. As I've been pointing out for years, you have to get your "news" from all over, and you have to pay particular attention to what they AREN'T saying, not just what they ARE saying. Look for the stuff that barely gets a mention, and then only in one small story, and that nobody else even takes notice of, and you've probably got the loose thread of the real story. Remember, Watergate didn't get broken because someone saw Nixon break into the DNC HQ!

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 2:33 PM

I think there are some big problems with news and how news is reported. I'll speak from my own perspective from my part of the world, although I have seen some bits of American news channels in the past.

There are several issues - firstly that most news is sourced from one or two international news agencies. Investigative journalism a la Watergate is almost a dying art. I say almost because there are some around but not many. None that I can see on commercial networks here and a few on ABC and SBS ( both receive tax funding to one degree or another). Basically a lot of news comes from media releases, often unsubstantiated and unchecked. What we see is another form of advertising - be it for some new wonder drug or the lastest political policy. It can get even worse on some of the commercial channels where basically we served up infortainment - and it's all designed to sell us something in the end.

The second is the sound bytes. I think this leads to a lot of ignorance and misconceptions about events. That's what you get when you sum things up in a sentence or two, what is a very complex situation. Without an understanding of some context - and you usually don't get context in news reporting - you get something quite meaningless, or downright misleading.

As news programs rely on ratings they also choose the most shocking and alarming stories, the ones that hit people betweent he eyes. As such we are treated to a nightly carnage of car accidents, child murders, and natural disasters. No wonder we are all paranoid and think the end is nigh.

The other thing I hate is the adsm slowly wearing away your brain, playing on every fear and anxiety, and repeated over and over again. I swear I can feel my IQ dropping every time I watch commercial tv.

Makes up for a stupid electorate that believes what is sees, cannot annalyse facts, cannot annalyse their own beliefs in any meaningful way. Ah democracy, you gotta love it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 2:50 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You appear to have jumped to a conclusion based not on facts, but a worldview that government input in anything is to be deemed malign and towards the goal of controlling people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatically malignant? No. Intended to control people and what information they receive? Um, that's what propaganda IS.

Right, here is your jump to a conclusion. When did we establish that the BBC is a propaganda outlet of the British government?

You've made some arguments why you think it likely to be the case, and I've made some arguments why I think it's unlikely to be the case (and I have more). But crucially you have given ZERO evidence of this alleged day-to-day governmental control... (I'd guess you'd have to go back to the 1950s and the Suez crisis to find anything at all)

Quote:
There is absolutely government influence in news media, and you can trace it through money paid and stories broken. It doesn't matter if they "come into conflict with the sitting government" or "represent opposing viewpoints SOMETIMES," if they weren't useful to people with money and power, they wouldn't get near the investment they do, and they wouldn't stay in business.

If you have some evidence or analysis of pervasive government influence over the news media I'd be interested to read it. I imagine there would be some receptiveness on this site. And then we could have a discussion. But until then to me these are just wild conspiratorial claims.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 3:57 PM

Quote:
I think there are some big problems with news and how news is reported. I'll speak from my own perspective from my part of the world, although I have seen some bits of American news channels in the past.

And that is the entire reason I view WikiLeaks as a good thing. I see WL as a kind of bulletin board, a "job posting" board where Assange and his people can toss up what they've got, and anyone else can then take the info and run with it, investigate it in any way they can, vet the intel, do deep background on the stories. One HOPES for responsible reporting, but really, if we could hope for that, we wouldn't need something like WikiLeaks, would we?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 4:00 PM

http://emediavitals.com/blog/417/worst-idea-rescuing-journalism-rises-
dead

Quote:
The basis for his argument that Federal funding is the way to go rests on the idea that government regulation has helped media businesses in the past and the examples of NPR and the BBC. The first point is easily the weakest. He tries to draw a link (or at least mentions sequentially) between newspapers developing geographic monopolies and the Federal regulation of broadcasters. Read for yourself and see if it makes any more sense to you, because I really didn’t get that part. (“The broadcast news industry was deliberately designed to have private owners operating within an elaborate system of public regulation, including requirements that stations cover public issues and expand the range of voices that could be heard.” Yeah, like that’s worked out really well.)

Bollinger then points to NPR and the BBC as success stories of the state-sponsored model. The reason those two models worked is that they were designed to be independent from the start. The BBC actually has its own funding stream and, as anyone who has listened to a pledge drive knows, NPR now gets a very small amount of its funding from the Feds.

Of course, this is just a blog, commenting on comments made by the President of Columbia University, but he's not wrong a bout the BBC getting government funding.

Here's one from the Times, again, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so grain of salt again, HE has an agenda as well...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/
article6814178.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

It's an independently funded corporation...

Yet it's board of governors is appointed by ministers of the government and the queen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Finance

Household licenses are still the largest financer of the BBC, but government financing and Corporate financing of course play their role. The average household has less capita than governments or corporations, so much like in America it's not unreasonable for me to say that these probably get a large say so in the BBC, as compared to the public, which doesn't have the money to throw at anything or the organization to be particularly outspoken. The public tends to be a sponge, accepting what they are told, rather than researching inaccuracies or mistruths and speaking out against them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You appear to have jumped to a conclusion based not on facts, but a worldview that government input in anything is to be deemed malign and towards the goal of controlling people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatically malignant? No. Intended to control people and what information they receive? Um, that's what propaganda IS.

Right, here is your jump to a conclusion. When did we establish that the BBC is a propaganda outlet of the British government?

You've made some arguments why you think it likely to be the case, and I've made some arguments why I think it's unlikely to be the case (and I have more). But crucially you have given ZERO evidence of this alleged day-to-day governmental control... (I'd guess you'd have to go back to the 1950s and the Suez crisis to find anything at all)

Quote:
There is absolutely government influence in news media, and you can trace it through money paid and stories broken. It doesn't matter if they "come into conflict with the sitting government" or "represent opposing viewpoints SOMETIMES," if they weren't useful to people with money and power, they wouldn't get near the investment they do, and they wouldn't stay in business.

If you have some evidence or analysis of pervasive government influence over the news media I'd be interested to read it. I imagine there would be some receptiveness on this site. And then we could have a discussion. But until then to me these are just wild conspiratorial claims.

It's not personal. It's just war.

As to that, I'd strongly suggest looking up Bill Moyers's "Selling the War" documentary.

There definitely has been government influence, at least here in the U.S.; the troubling thing is, the media were largely complicit in it. Byte may seem a bit conspiracy-minded, but if so, it's only by a matter of degrees. She may be exaggerating the threat and influence, but it IS there, at least in this country.

Do I think it's *IMPOSSIBLE* to get balanced new coverage? Not exactly. But I do think it's becoming harder and harder, and it's becoming IMPROBABLE to get such coverage, especially on any of the main network newscasts.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 4:27 PM

Kwicko: yes. And I think this is true in all other nations, whether capitalist or communist, both will exert some degree of influence over the media.

America has one of the more untrustworthy newsmedia for a capitalist nations, it's possible others aren't quite as bad (yet). But this probably DOES exist in other nations, as they DO have the same causative factors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Kwicko: yes. And I think this is true in all other nations, whether capitalist or communist, both will exert some degree of influence over the media.

America has one of the more untrustworthy newsmedia for a capitalist nations, it's possible others aren't quite as bad (yet). But this probably DOES exist in other nations, as they DO have the same causative factors.

It really would be nice if the journalists were running the news biz, wouldn't it? Somewhere along the line, the networks decided that the news divisions should be profit centers instead of loss leaders, and the newspapers decided that if they could put everything into getting one Pulitzer prize, they could sell the paper for a fat profit and let someone else worry about the fallout in the offing.

Certainly every government will TRY to exert influence on its media, to varying degrees of success. The old Soviet Union did it with brute force, threats, and bullets. The U.S. does it with money and access, but the goals are the same.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You appear to have jumped to a conclusion based not on facts, but a worldview that government input in anything is to be deemed malign and towards the goal of controlling people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatically malignant? No. Intended to control people and what information they receive? Um, that's what propaganda IS.

Right, here is your jump to a conclusion. When did we establish that the BBC is a propaganda outlet of the British government?

You've made some arguments why you think it likely to be the case, and I've made some arguments why I think it's unlikely to be the case (and I have more). But crucially you have given ZERO evidence of this alleged day-to-day governmental control... (I'd guess you'd have to go back to the 1950s and the Suez crisis to find anything at all)

Quote:
There is absolutely government influence in news media, and you can trace it through money paid and stories broken. It doesn't matter if they "come into conflict with the sitting government" or "represent opposing viewpoints SOMETIMES," if they weren't useful to people with money and power, they wouldn't get near the investment they do, and they wouldn't stay in business.

If you have some evidence or analysis of pervasive government influence over the news media I'd be interested to read it. I imagine there would be some receptiveness on this site. And then we could have a discussion. But until then to me these are just wild conspiratorial claims.

It's not personal. It's just war.

It seems hard to persuade some in the States that government funding does not automatically equal some sort of insidious mind control over the population. You hear the same sort of misconcieved and often paranoid arguments regarding public funded health care - that obviously government will have a nasty hidden agenda to provision of services - hence the 'death panels' that Palin has been bleating about.

I guess I don't have the same paranoia, which is not to say that I don't think governments don't try to push their agenda - which generally is to be re-elected and nothing more insidious than that. I think governments deserved to be scrutinised more by the media, i think they are liable to wastefulness and experience corruption like otger organisations, but my experience is that the ABC is the station that provides better analysis and scrutiny of our political system than the commercial ones which show reality tv crap and cooking shows as far as I can see. I agree that no bias is impossible and I never claimed that it was, I think the ABC is more balanced, but it probably does have more of a left winged slant, mostly because of the type of people that are attracted to working there, and that is also why I prefer to watch it.

I'm sure if you were a bible bashing neo con you would hate it, another good reason for watching.

One of the best programs for investigative reporting used ve BBC"s Panorama http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/default.stm. I'm not sure if it is still as good as it was, but it was an edgy, risky kind of program.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 6:47 PM

Quote:
It seems hard to persuade some in the States that government funding does not automatically equal some sort of insidious mind control over the population. You hear the same sort of misconcieved and often paranoid arguments regarding public funded health care - that obviously government will have a nasty hidden agenda to provision of services - hence the 'death panels' that Palin has been bleating about.

This has no bearing on the conversation at hand. I am not one of these people concerned about death panels. I am also not a bible bashing neo con.

Government funding in the media is government influence. Government influence wants one thing: it wants public support. This might be innocuous, like trying to get reelected, but it might also be abused by extremist agendas, say, warmongers (which paradoxically often improves reelection chances), or by elements wanting to cover-up information that would change public support.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 8, 2010 8:00 PM

It might be, but it also doesn't have to be. You can put in mechanisms into such agencies to ensure that the government does not use it as a mouth piece for re-election. I never said you were a bible bashing neo con, but I think you do seem to suggest that public funding = public brainwashing into a government agenda, which I dispute.
Are there mechanisms in place to monitor the above - yes, the media here has a number of regulatory bodies that they answer to that you lodge complaints, including the commonwealth ombudsmen.

But I guess you'll say that I;m too thick to see when the wool has been pulled over my eyes. Well back I go to my propaganda station where all is rosy and nice.
The long and the short of it is -

does it allow critism of government, including that which may bring down a government? (yes)
Does it present more than one political viewpoint? (Yes)
Does it give roughly equal airspace to major parties? (yes, almost neurotically so.)
Does it present a variety of viewpoints, including social and religious ones (yes).
Might there be a possibility that the government stacks the board to represent its own views - yes, but it would be met with howls of protest from those that value the service as it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 3:57 AM

Quote:
Suggest that public funding = public brainwashing into a government agenda

Suggest? I'm doing a bit more than suggesting. I'm outright accusing all governments of doing this.

Quote:
You can put in mechanisms into such agencies to ensure that the government does not use it as a mouth piece for re-election.

In America, such regulatory mechanisms are often corrupt. No regulatory body is immune to bribery, and I find it counter-intuitive to propose government should monitor government. It's probably better than contracting out to private business to do this monitoring, but there's still the basic problem that you're hiring jewelry thieves as security for your jewelry store. Probably the best possible monitoring system would be an elected, independent board... Which also isn't immune, but makes more sense than letting crooks regulate themselves.

However, I find it interesting that you at least have organization in place for public input. I'm not sure about over there, maybe it makes some difference, but over here it wouldn't because over here people tend to just accept whatever they're told.

If you are willing to concede that news agencies may perpetuate a status quo, then this implies the news source in question supports the re-election of incumbents.

As such:
does it allow critism of government, including that which may bring down a government? (Clearly it hasn't, because you still have the same government structure and arguably the same government after a shake up. You might shift power via news reports, but IMO that makes little difference long term)

Does it present more than one political viewpoint? (You said it was slanted left wing. Unfavourable coverage of one side doesn't particularly suggest representing more than one political viewpoint. And I would even argue that this whole dichotomy of choosing one side or another, right wing or left, is a false dilemma, which, again, ties into preserving the status quo)

Does it give roughly equal airspace to major parties? (Talking heads arguing about short term problems, never looking outside the box or offering long term solutions, only what pleases the constituency and keeps one or the other in power).

Does it present a variety of viewpoints, including social and religious ones (= Special Interests paying money to influence the public as well).

Might there be a possibility that the government stacks the board to represent its own views - yes, but it would be met with howls of protest from those that value the service as it. (Doesn't happen here. Has it happened there?)

Now, I'm willing to concede your ABC news may be less biased and slanted than other news sources over there. Doesn't mean there aren't serious problems in how the world of journalism is run.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 11:13 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

It's an independently funded corporation...

It's primarily funded by government - the government decides the level of the license fee that each household pays.

Quote:
Yet it's board of governors is appointed by ministers of the government and the queen.

Yes - understand the BBC does more than just news reporting, it does all sorts of television/radio programming. Since the purpose of all this is public service, government appoints the board of governors. But each new government does not appoint its own news editors, or anything like that. I made a mistake before by linking the BBC Wiki page - I should've posted the BBC News one, since that's more relevant to this debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News#Political_and_commercial_indepen
dence

"The BBC is required by its charter to be free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners."

That section of the Wiki page is worth reading.

Quote:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/
article6814178.ece

That's a Times report of a speech by James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch... Yes Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation will often criticise the role of the BBC - it's a rival broadcaster to them. And in some instances I'm sure they have a point. But again, this is dealing with all other aspects of BBC's operation, not specifically BBC News. But this bit is interesting:

Quote:
Mr Murdoch, who is also the chief executive of BSkyB, 39.1 per cent owned by News Corp, made clear that he believed that broadcasters such as Sky should be freed from the long-standing requirement to produce impartial news.

He argued that “the mere selection of stories and their place in the running order is itself a process full of unacknowledged partiality”. The impartiality rule was “an impingement on the freedom of speech”.

UK regulation of the major news broadcasters ensures impartiality of news services... Huh. I didn't know that... (though I'm not surprised to hear Rupert Murdoch's against it). Here's info about the regulatory laws:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1067401.stm

" All (major) broadcasters will be subject to a basic rule on quality, the impartiality of news services, the protection of minors and a commitment to access to programmes for people with disabilities. This will be regulated by Ofcom (regulatory body)."

Hmm. What do people think of that?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 11:56 AM

These are good points.

I don't really trust that a legal requirement for impartiality is particularly enforceable, however. Impartial relative to what? How do they prove when a station is not being impartial? Clearly there are some statements under British Law which would not be impartial (and would also be offensive), like statements about the Holocaust. But what else?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Suggest that public funding = public brainwashing into a government agenda

Suggest? I'm doing a bit more than suggesting. I'm outright accusing all governments of doing this.

That's where you and I differ. I don't see governments as necessarily so corrupt/so evil that everything they do has a undercurrent of mind control. For one, I don't think they are that cohesive or organised to do as such. I've worked in government here, and just don't think they have the will or capacity to do this on any national level. I also think that most people in government actually want the best for their country, it's just that often them and I disagree on what's best.

Sorry Byte gotta run. I 'll reply to the rest later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 12:31 PM

Quote:
For one, I don't think they are that cohesive or organised to do as such.

Remove the government. Would you call the results organized? A government of any particular region is the most organized... organization of that state, and is definitely going to be more organized than any public that might oppose them argument wise or warfare.

Whether your government is organized ENOUGH, I can't say, but the American government is, and if you have military like we do (you do) and counterintelligence like we do (you probably do) then you have the organization and the same two groups with the strongest motivation to control access to facts and information.

Quote:
I've worked in government here, and just don't think they have the will or capacity to do this on any national level.

Were you a policy-maker? If you weren't a policy maker, I don't expect anyone else working in a government to have any say in how that government is run. If you were a policy maker, congratulations, you might have been one of the rare honest ones.

Quote:
I also think that most people in government actually want the best for their country, it's just that often them and I disagree on what's best.

I'm half here, thinking policy makers are just well-intentioned extremists, and half thinking they're all just out for themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 5:45 PM

Well, shit, anywhere you got humans, you got bias, but still...

Compared to american "news", most foreign broadcasters are fairly impartial, the beeb and others are in fact a pretty good external source for stuff which'd never pass the filters of american media - which isn't to say there's no bias, but at least there's the pretense, while we don't even really pretend any more.

Kind of like how having a fat, lazy security gaurd in a little office at the front of an apartment complex actually DOES deter creepers a little bit, even though everyone knows his chances of catching any of em are about zilch - sometimes having the pretense is important.

So I don't think you two are actually in disagreement about the matter so much as simply having different perspectives about it cause of where your viewpoint is coming from.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 6:28 PM

But a pretense is still kind of a lie, isn't it? The appearance of effort without a result.

I'm not sure a lie which is just harder to see through is better than a blatant lie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 7:58 PM

This will explain it to you much better than I ever could, Byte.

-Frem

ETA: Will transcript, later - if I have time and you can't load the vid.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 8:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Klesst... and you're a perfect example of how it is that facts don't matter.

Because the fact is that the neocons were around long before the Clintons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 9, 2010 8:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The problem is that human tendency to cling to old opinion in times of stress is one of those situations of "positive feedback"... like gravity and money, the more you have the more you have. People in power are able to manipulate by frightening their followers and thus gaining even more power. (Are you paying attention, Rappy? 'Cause you're a perfect example of someone who was frightened into supporting something you prolly wouldn't have otherwise.)

Quote:
Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell), and that the Bush administration imposed a total ban on stem cell research (only certain federal funding was restricted). Nyhan inserted a clear, direct correction after each piece of misinformation, and then measured the study participants to see if the correction took.

For the most part, it didn’t. The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

HOW do you break that cycle? One person at a time... waaaay too slow.

But as a matter of fact... facts DO matter. Being in denial about something (like global climate change or the frightening power of corporations) doesn't make it go away. In the end, facts will have their way. The fact that we have our collective heads stuck really far up our collective asses spells doom for this economy and this culture. When people get so far removed from real life they don't even see it anymore... well, they deserve what they get.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 4:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HOW do you break that cycle?

By not teaching children that this is the way things were, are, and will always be.

Remember, in the end, Crazy Eddie always wins.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 12:28 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
These are good points.

I don't really trust that a legal requirement for impartiality is particularly enforceable, however. Impartial relative to what? How do they prove when a station is not being impartial? Clearly there are some statements under British Law which would not be impartial (and would also be offensive), like statements about the Holocaust. But what else?

I started a new thread to discuss this issue, but you can access the full broadcasting code (or just view the bullet point summary) here: http://www.independentproducerhandbook.co.uk/232/4f-due-impartiality/k
ey-points.html

As far as I can tell OFCOM responds to viewer complaints, and the requirements of 'impartiality' seem to be outlined in great detail, like other grey-area legal terms. I guess each broadcaster needs a lawyer to consult.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 7:14 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

People are stupid. But that's Ok, 'cause nature will bitchslap 'em back to reality. Or, into the grave. Whichever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:31 PM