Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

RegGuheert

Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare

Recommended Posts

Do you mind elaborating for us non-Canadians?

 

What's most talked about is the way they didn't allow scientists working for government to talk about their work, and destroyed quite a lot of scientific information.  (And this isn't at all controversial, there have been a number of public servants that have left and gone public, and the union actually spoke out against the policy which is really unprecedented as they are always very carefully neutral about policy issues.  Also, my dh is a government scientist.)

 

But it was wider than that - access to information requests were being poorly served, and even members of parliment who were part of the government party were not allowed to make statements without putting them through the prime ministers office first.  A lot of information was buried. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may seem off topic, but bear with me...

 

I listen to the NPR politics podcast regularly. (You can see the list of other podcasts I listen to here, just for context). The podcast is where the journalists discuss their work in a slightly more casual way, but the one they published today was especially personal and about themselves. One of the women on the team is a Muslim woman, and she published an article this week that they are talking about at the start ... and they veer into their individual experiences covering the campaign. These are people that have long experience covering politics. It struck me as honest and self-reflective, and thought it might be interesting to some people participating in this thread. I am (for sure!) not arguing that all of their opinions on every topic are spot on (after all, this is not a news story, but just relating their own experiences), or that I am just accepting everything they are saying point blank... but.... they seem genuine, and I think that's something for our country to re-consider... there are journalists that are self-reflective and really trying to do the right thing, whatever their personal political leanings, or mine. 

 

It seems important in light of this thread.

Click on Covering 2016 as a Muslim when you get to the page.

Edited by Jen in NY
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, this is because of irresponsible journalism by the people who get paid the big bucks.  What do people expect?

 

I'd love it if I could do my own investigating rather than have to figure out who is least likely to feed me BS today.  But that's not a possibility.

 

If I were a journalist, I'd be very sad that people feel unable to get the news despite so many active and highly paid journalists out working every day.

 

Honestly, do you think they collude to not expose each other's poor practices?  I mean if MSNBC commits bad journalism on an important news story, you would think CNN would see an opportunity, point it out, and report the truth.  I don't see that happening.  Sometimes the stories are not identical, but I never see them saying "what was reported over there is inaccurate."  Even when it would be important for Americans to know.

Several of them did repeat over and over that Obama was born in the US. People chose not to believe them.

 

Several did report that WMDs were not found, people chose not to believe them.

 

Several did report that Obama is not Muslim, people chose not to believe them.

 

They cover one another's mistakes all the time.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media is powerful and they have abused that power. The vast majority pushed agendas during the election when they should have simply been reporting. There is no more trust. Now we each need to decide who to believe or not to believe.

I have not read every post yet.

 

Honestly, I don't understand it when folks say they cannot trust the mainstream media. The past 16 years I have seen the so-called liberal mainstream media frequently give softball questions at critical junctures such as to Geroge W. Bush during the lead up to the Iraqi invasion. Also, during this campaign season, these news sources gave a lot more press to Hillary's emails than to Trump's scandals according to media matters and I can attest that it seemed that way to me since I read NYT and WP daily.

 

OTOH I think that that the NYT and WP still offer  for the most part great trustworthy news stories for the most part and host an variety of opinions.

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/21/video-how-false-equivalence-ruins-trump-clinton-news-coverage/214027

 

 

Also, Megyn Kelly supports the press and expresses a lot of concern over the bashing of the press:

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504622630/megyn-kelly-on-trump-and-the-media-were-in-a-dangerous-phase-right-now

Edited by NoPlaceLikeHome
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had heard that Clinton would have tried to bring it back if she got elected.

 

I don't know whether Obama has said that or not, but I know he often puts down certain information outlets by name.  And I'm not talking about Veritas.

Where did you hear that?

 

Only one of them is on video discussing it and that is Trump.

 

There is video in my links. He said it. He said it on video.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-donald-trump-wants-to-change-libel-laws/

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-ny-times-cant-be-sued-story-the/

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

 

 

Slartibartfast - who made that comment that you quoted?  It stripped the name & I can't trace back to the original post...

I wasn't quoting someone from the boards, I was quoting the link. :)

 

I wouldn't have been that snotty to someone here. :lol: I am a bit worried it seemed that way. Yikes!

 

ETA: here is the link http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151981022076/is-twitter-shadowbanning-me

Edited by Slartibartfast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Genuine comment: I would be interested to know which individual journalists you consider to be competent and reasonably reliable today.  I am sure there are many out there.

 

I respect the hell out of C.J Chivers (combat reporter) at the New York Times, although the first article of his that I read over a decade ago was not in the NYT, but in Esquire magazine which often features some amazing investigative journalism. If I am going to read about guns and war, I trust it with Chivers. Of course, I also think he writes about flyfishing. 

 

Sarah Stillman is a younger writer that I am watching who has covered human trafficking on American military bases in Iran and Afghanistan, what happens to police informants as well as more social issues like civil forfeiture. I think she's careful and thoughtful with her facts. New Yorker. I am looking forward to seeing more from her.

 

David Barstow is also one of my favorites and is a good one to look at in light of this discussion.  He won the 2009 Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting for "Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand." 

I believe he was also a contributing author for another Pulitzer on death and injury in the American workplace.

 

The Wall Street Journal's Pulitzer winning series on "Medicare Unmasked" was brilliant and well worth reading. I say that in all seriousness even though some of you know I have a special voodoo doll for Rupert Murdoch as the destroyer of quality journalism.

 

I respect, but don't always agree with Christiane Amanpour.

 

These are just one person's opinion and I am obviously a fan of long-form journalism.

 

SKL, who do you trust and why?  I think it's good when we all ask each other that question.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/03/how-do-we-democratize-our-media

 

This is by a progressive liberal who is in favor of bringing the Fairness Doctrine back. Warning-- he mentions Trump and Obama, but that is just a small part. Basically he claims that media outlets did NOT make profits off of their news shows, they presented news and let the entertainment programs make them money. When the FD was ended in 1987, corporations could turn their news shows into profit makers, thus birthing 24 hour " news" channels. Vying for ratings/profits led to polarization problems, extreme news websites, people like Limbaugh( is he a news reporter or journalist or entertainer?), and sites like infowars.

It's a good question-- what sells better? Just the facts, or sensationalism?

Edited by Dotwithaperiod
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/03/how-do-we-democratize-our-media

 

This is by a progressive liberal who is in favor of bringing the Fairness Doctrine back. Warning-- he mentions Trump and Obama, but that is just a small part. Basically he claims that media outlets did NOT make profits off of their news shows, they presented news and let the entertainment programs make them money. When the FD was ended in 1987, corporations could turn their news shows into profit makers, thus birthing 24 hour " news" channels. Vying for ratings/profits led to polarization problems.

It's a good question-- what sells better? Just the facts, or sensationalism?

Sensationalism does, that is why there is a saying, "If it bleeds, it leads."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensationalism does, that is why there is a saying, "If it bleeds, it leads."

Yep. That's why these 24 hour news channels do what they do. Sites with such blatant lies know that and are cashing in. Edited by Dotwithaperiod
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect the hell out of C.J Chivers (combat reporter) at the New York Times, although the first article of his that I read over a decade ago was not in the NYT, but in Esquire magazine which often features some amazing investigative journalism. If I am going to read about guns and war, I trust it with Chivers. Of course, I also think he writes about flyfishing. 

 

Sarah Stillman is a younger writer that I am watching who has covered human trafficking on American military bases in Iran and Afghanistan, what happens to police informants as well as more social issues like civil forfeiture. I think she's careful and thoughtful with her facts. New Yorker. I am looking forward to seeing more from her.

 

David Barstow is also one of my favorites and is a good one to look at in light of this discussion.  He won the 2009 Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting for "Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand." 

I believe he was also a contributing author for another Pulitzer on death and injury in the American workplace.

 

The Wall Street Journal's Pulitzer winning series on "Medicare Unmasked" was brilliant and well worth reading. I say that in all seriousness even though some of you know I have a special voodoo doll for Rupert Murdoch as the destroyer of quality journalism.

 

I respect, but don't always agree with Christiane Amanpour.

 

These are just one person's opinion and I am obviously a fan of long-form journalism.

 

SKL, who do you trust and why?  I think it's good when we all ask each other that question.

 

Thank you for this.

 

As for whom do I trust, nobody really.  I cross-check everything.  I read a wide variety of sources and basically look for patterns.  My 50 years and pretty good memory help. 

 

Things change over time - people who start out seeming objective gradually start using their positions to influence more than to inform.  I don't take anything for granted.

 

When I say "I have read / heard," it means exactly that.  I've read it or heard it.  It's out there.  It means I haven't verified it but I haven't debunked it either.  Over time, many of these things turn out to be true, and many false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And given quite a lot of us here are educating children, we'd better get our own critical thinking skills in order, so we can adequately inform our children.

 

It is disturbing to see home educators being manipulated into believing a bundle of out and out lies.

 

Perhaps we could drop these kinds of slams. They aren't really helpful to the dialogue and frankly, there are a few of us that should still be smarting from that damn Rolling Stone article. :tongue_smilie:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's most talked about is the way they didn't allow scientists working for government to talk about their work, and destroyed quite a lot of scientific information. (And this isn't at all controversial, there have been a number of public servants that have left and gone public, and the union actually spoke out against the policy which is really unprecedented as they are always very carefully neutral about policy issues. Also, my dh is a government scientist.)

 

But it was wider than that - access to information requests were being poorly served, and even members of parliment who were part of the government party were not allowed to make statements without putting them through the prime ministers office first. A lot of information was buried.

Trudeau has continued a lot of Harpers policies in regards to what scientists can publish. Sorry but I can't remember where I read it. It was a while ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - so do the good journalists push for improvements in the industry so that credibility can be salvaged?

 

 

Boy, that's a heck of a question. Some have been doing so. Let me do some digging and see what I come up with. I'd hope they would, but traditional journalism is under enormous market pressure.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I respectfully suggest something?  For those on the left, instead of just pronouncing that a news source is fake or Russian controlled, could we examine some individually with references to good sources.  The tone of condescension and impatience isn't helpful for any of us.  I'd like to see a break down on Zero Hedge and Project Veritas if possible as I am not familiar with them.  On the flip side, Vida Winter, what is it about these sites that make you trust them. Does it go beyond them saying only what you want to hear. I am assuming it does.

 

Maybe we should all be talking about what a good news source looks like.  I've done this with my kids for years and what I taught them was based on what I learned as a journalism undergraduate and then on staff at an alternative newsweekly.  We are shredding the mainstream media and lambasting individual journalists, but I still respect those who are competent at their jobs. What I remember from J school and the paper are people who were passionate about the truth. You can roll your eyes all you want, but at that point in time, it wasn't easy to make a living let alone make it big by being a journalist. People did so because of strongly held sense of justice and a belief in the public's right to know what was happening in their communities.

You are right, I have been arguing about some of these for months and so I habitually lash out and forget not everyone here has read 50,000 links about it.

 

My bad.

 

I did provide some links but could provide more.

 

Here is a link regarding the alt-right and Breitbart. One of the authors of this article was one of the people that twitter banned for hatespeech.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

 

Here is another link about it from the National Review (which is Conservative) this article tears into the above article

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433650/alt-rights-racism-moral-rot

 

Breitbart is not Conservative. Conservatives say it is not.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this.

 

As for whom do I trust, nobody really. I cross-check everything. I read a wide variety of sources and basically look for patterns. My 50 years and pretty good memory help.

 

Things change over time - people who start out seeming objective gradually start using their positions to influence more than to inform. I don't take anything for granted.

 

When I say "I have read / heard," it means exactly that. I've read it or heard it. It's out there. It means I haven't verified it but I haven't debunked it either. Over time, many of these things turn out to be true, and many false.

I turn first to independent media. Non corporate, investigative journalists who will dig into a story no matter what political persuasion it fits.

Amy Goodman has news on things days/weeks/months before MSM. She's investigated the past several administrations and gives no one a break. She's covered world events and U.S. for decades. One of the most brilliant people, IMO.

Glen Greenwald, Lee Fang, Mike Papantonio, Dar Jamal, Jeremy Scahill. Expert, bulldog investigative journalists who put their bodies literally into the world that they're writing about.

Really, it's mainly FSTV and Link TV here.

Edited by Dotwithaperiod
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I linked several artickes about Zero Hedge and Project Veritas a page or two back.

 

Thanks. I somehow missed it. Now I can search through your user name. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government must be restrained from interfering in our lives. But government also needs to restrain Corporations, something they do a shitty job of currently.

 

What we need is a Constitutional amendment to clarify that the Bill of Rights are human rights reserved for the people, and limiting how corporations can exercise those rights to the detriment of individual freedoms.

I could not agree more. It boggles my mind how often if I did something there's hellfire jail time, but a corporation? Oh well. That's different. Same goes for schools getting away with stuff that parents for sure wouldn't.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was never about "who".  It was only about "for what purpose".

 

Same reasoning that would allow one to decline baked goods with inappropriate images or slogans. 

 

It is about who IMO. Also, who is to say that a bakery owner or other business owner says that their religion does not allow then to do business with black people  and therefore they should not be required to do so. I believe in our history, religion was used as an excuse for slavery and for segregation so this is not far fetched. And for heaven's sake it is cake. It is not like they have to stay and give their blessing to the couple or that there cake has an advertisement on it.

 

This "it is against my religious beliefs" argument for denying business service is bogus and a  danger to our civil liberties.

 

Then there was the Hobby Lobby saying their religion did not allow then to offer insurance for birth control which was also ridiculous IMO since if we allow that then JW believers could say they do not want blood transfusions or organ transplantation covered or Christian Scientists could say they only want prayer covered and so and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, I have been arguing about some of these for months and so I habitually lash out and forget not everyone here has read 50,000 links about it.

 

My bad.

 

I did provide some links but could provide more.

 

Here is a link regarding the alt-right and Breitbart. One of the authors of this article was one of the people that twitter banned for hatespeech.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

 

Here is another link about it from the National Review (which is Conservative) this article tears into the above article

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433650/alt-rights-racism-moral-rot

Megyn Kelly on NPR today expressed shock at how bad Breitbart has become under Bannon.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504622630/megyn-kelly-on-trump-and-the-media-were-in-a-dangerous-phase-right-now

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's an article regarding that topic from the National Review (which is, like Megyn Kelly, Conservative)

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442189/steve-bannon-trump-administration-alt-right-breitbart-chief-strategist

 

People are not angry and picking on Conservatives. This isn't a Liberal v. Conservative thing, that might be the narrative that people see but that isn't it. The alt-right are not Conservative, they are not on your side.

 

The actual Conservative media is attacking them as well, that is my point.

 

Zero Hedge, Breitbart and Project Veritas are not Conservative. I wasn't attacking Conservatives, I was defending Conservatives.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to be over fond of the Christian Science Monitor but that is mostly because they don't tend towards hysterics.

 

During the 2012 election a good friend and I switched out our favorite media for a week to try and see the other's perspective. It was an abysmal failure.  I felt the exact same way I did on hormone therapy before surgery, like I was slamming back and forth between outrage and despair. I couldn't handle the constant emotional charge. To be fair, my friend loathed NPR and wanted no taxpayer dollars to go towards supporting it. Then of course we had to discuss that premise. We made a pact to only discuss kids and grandkids this election cycle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the 2012 election a good friend and I switched out our favorite media for a week to try and see the other's perspective. It was an abysmal failure.  I felt the exact same way I did on hormone therapy before surgery, like I was slamming back and forth between outrage and despair. I couldn't handle the constant emotional charge. To be fair, my friend loathed NPR and wanted no taxpayer dollars to go towards supporting it. Then of course we had to discuss that premise. We made a pact to only discuss kids and grandkids this election cycle.

:lol:

 

That would send me into a downspiral spiral of despair as well. I can't handle too much hysteria, I really don't like it, I *rarely* watch any news on television at all.

Edited by Slartibartfast
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we could drop these kinds of slams. They aren't really helpful to the dialogue and frankly, there are a few of us that should still be smarting from that damn Rolling Stone article. :tongue_smilie:

 

I dunno. I am with Sadie on this one. Sometimes you have to call a cat a cat.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's most talked about is the way they didn't allow scientists working for government to talk about their work, and destroyed quite a lot of scientific information.  (And this isn't at all controversial, there have been a number of public servants that have left and gone public, and the union actually spoke out against the policy which is really unprecedented as they are always very carefully neutral about policy issues.  Also, my dh is a government scientist.)

 

But it was wider than that - access to information requests were being poorly served, and even members of parliment who were part of the government party were not allowed to make statements without putting them through the prime ministers office first.  A lot of information was buried. 

 

Also, our PM stopped doing press conferences, essentially stopped taking questions from media. Turned out the media scrum was something we've all been used to but there was no way to force it to happen.  It's these old "gentlemen's agreements" which underpin much of our democracies which we have to insist on for them to be preserved. They're not codified, they're not enacted. They rely on the essential decency & goodness & ethics of people - & that is a giant vulnerability. 

 

I've already read that your daily White House press briefings are not mandated anywhere.  A president can just stop doing them. And I doubt you'll see many press conference with open questions from reporters. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So this article is not correct? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. I am with Sadie on this one. Sometimes you have to call a cat a cat.

 

Yeah, but there were several of us, myself included that were a bit ratcheted up over that RS article and it was BS, so I don't feel quite as quick to comment on other homeschoolers' "stupidity." There were some naysayers and some of us were fairly condescending. You all may not feel it, but like I said, I still smart from it. So yeah, a cat is a cat - on both sides of the fence. We can probably still be polite about it and not give SWB an opportunity to get "salty." :D

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this.

 

As for whom do I trust, nobody really.  I cross-check everything.  I read a wide variety of sources and basically look for patterns.  My 50 years and pretty good memory help. 

 

Things change over time - people who start out seeming objective gradually start using their positions to influence more than to inform.  I don't take anything for granted.

 

When I say "I have read / heard," it means exactly that.  I've read it or heard it.  It's out there.  It means I haven't verified it but I haven't debunked it either.  Over time, many of these things turn out to be true, and many false.

 

So...

 

Every single story you read, you cross check.  You don't trust anyone.  Do you accept scientific studies?  Or do you replicate the experiements?  Do you read non-fiction?  Do you accept general versions of history? Economics?  How do you function if you don't ever allow trust to develop over time?

 

Either you aren't telling the whole truth here or you are exceptionally paranoid. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is about who IMO. Also, who is to say that a bakery owner or other business owner says that their religion does not allow then to do business with black people  and therefore they should not be required to do so. I believe in our history, religion was used as an excuse for slavery and for segregation so this is not far fetched. And for heaven's sake it is cake. It is not like they have to stay and give their blessing to the couple or that there cake has an advertisement on it.

 

This "it is against my religious beliefs" argument for denying business service is bogus and a  danger to our civil liberties.

 

Then there was the Hobby Lobby saying their religion did not allow then to offer insurance for birth control which was also ridiculous IMO since if we allow that then JW believers could say they do not want blood transfusions or organ transplantation covered or Christian Scientists could say they only want prayer covered and so and so forth.

 

No, had a baker refused to sell to someone based on color, it IS about who, not about for what purpose. 

 

It is completely valid, the same as "I don't sell to people who want a pornographic cake" is, for example.

Some people do not wish to discuss this on this thread, as has been mentioned a few times when the first person brought it up(which was not me).  I will be happy to discuss it in Current Events.  It will get political, no doubt. 

 

You are incorrect about Hobby Lobby.  There was no blanket refusal to pay for birth control for employees.  Hobby Lobby's owners  objected to paying for IUDs and morning-after pills as required under the ACA mandate.  It did NOT object to paying for all contraceptives, but merely those which can interfere with the creation of life once an egg is fertilized.  All methods were still available to all employees and all other methods were covered, courtesy of the ACA.   The Court found in favor of Hobby Lobby, rightly so. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, had a baker refused to sell to someone based on color, it IS about who, not about for what purpose.

 

It is completely valid, the same as "I don't sell to people who want a pornographic cake" is, for example.

Some people do not wish to discuss this on this thread, as has been mentioned a few times when the first person brought it up(which was not me). I will be happy to discuss it in Current Events. It will get political, no doubt.

 

You are incorrect about Hobby Lobby. There was no blanket refusal to pay for birth control for employees. Hobby Lobby's owners objected to paying for IUDs and morning-after pills as required under the ACA mandate. It did NOT object to paying for all contraceptives, but merely those which can interfere with the creation of life once an egg is fertilized. All methods were still available to all employees and all other methods were covered, courtesy of the ACA. The Court found in favor of Hobby Lobby, rightly so.

Please can we give the wedding baker and the hobby lobby a nice little double funeral and bury the discussion right here? Please?

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we could drop these kinds of slams. They aren't really helpful to the dialogue and frankly, there are a few of us that should still be smarting from that damn Rolling Stone article. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

It's not remotely a slam. It is disturbing. 

 

Media literacy is an important skill to teach our children, and this thread is full of examples of media illiteracy. I expect more from my fellow homeschoolers, I truly do.

 

I'm not going to pretend that teaching your kids that the media lies to you and can't be trusted, at the same time as you model credulous belief in conspiracy theories, is somehow OK for homeschooling as a whole, or for individual children. They deserve better than that.

 

It's got nothing to do with anyone's political leanings. There are smart, media literate conservatives out there in the world. Being conservative doesn't equal being media illiterate. Whatever our leanings, we all can and should do better.

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but there were several of us, myself included that were a bit ratcheted up over that RS article and it was BS, so I don't feel quite as quick to comment on other homeschoolers' "stupidity." There were some naysayers and some of us were fairly condescending. You all may not feel it, but like I said, I still smart from it. So yeah, a cat is a cat - on both sides of the fence. We can probably still be polite about it and not give SWB an opportunity to get "salty." :D

 

It's like science - when new evidence emerges, a literate person shifts with that evidence. Same with media. That's the crucial difference, not liberal or conservative, but who clings on to lies and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

That would send me into a downspiral spiral of despair as well. I can't handle too much hysteria, I really don't like it, I *rarely* watch any news on television at all.

I never watch TV news, I absolutely despise the sound bite nature of most of it. We don't own a TV, but I can't even bear to watch it in waiting rooms or at airports.
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never watch TV news, I absolutely despise the sound bite nature of most of it. We don't own a TV, but I can't even bear to watch it in waiting rooms or at airports.

 

Me either. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interview with Edgar Welch, the Ping Pong Pizza shooter. He isn't crazy. Tragically misled, yes. But IMO as lucid as anyone else on this thread. His poor children.

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/edgar-welch-comet-pizza-fake-news.html

 

That's also disturbing, and, tbh, paints a picture of how quite sane people become radicalized ( and yes, turning into a literal gun toting vigilante is quite radical) by misinformation online. 

 

I do wonder at the role certain talk show hosts play in preying on people.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, I have been arguing about some of these for months and so I habitually lash out and forget not everyone here has read 50,000 links about it.

 

My bad.

 

I did provide some links but could provide more.

 

Here is a link regarding the alt-right and Breitbart. One of the authors of this article was one of the people that twitter banned for hatespeech.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

 

Here is another link about it from the National Review (which is Conservative) this article tears into the above article

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433650/alt-rights-racism-moral-rot

 

Breitbart is not Conservative. Conservatives say it is not.

 

Slarti, I am going to have to reread both of those tomorrow with fresh eyes, because forgive me for saying so, but there are some things in the Breitbart article that kind of make sense to me.  Ds and I had a long and heavy discussion about trying to eliminate "dead, white guys" from the Western Literary Canon out of PC. Can't be done. Shouldn't be done. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to balance a reading list so that it includes people of color, women, the working class etc isn't remotely the same as trying to 'get rid of white male authors'.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...

 

Every single story you read, you cross check.  You don't trust anyone.  Do you accept scientific studies?  Or do you replicate the experiements?  Do you read non-fiction?  Do you accept general versions of history? Economics?  How do you function if you don't ever allow trust to develop over time?

 

Either you aren't telling the whole truth here or you are exceptionally paranoid. 

 

I thought we were talking about news stories here.

 

I mean sure, there are many that don't raise skepticism in any sane person.  Like, "Castro is dead."  "Princess Kate gives birth."  "It snowed in Hawaii."  Unlikely to be fake.  No point faking it, plus they would be too easy to prove wrong.

 

But in this thread, we're talking about stories that require some amount of faith / trust to believe them.  Obviously that is what my comment was about.  There is no news outlet I really trust when it comes to those kinds of stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to balance a reading list so that it includes people of color, women, the working class etc isn't remotely the same as trying to 'get rid of white male authors'.

 

Sadie, I understand this, but pretending that the Canon has always included people of color, women, etc. isn't the truth.  Please trust me when I say I am not advocating for only white male authors, but sometimes you can't change history or literature to reflect something that did not exist at the time to suit a political agenda.  There can be a fine line between expanding and rewriting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were talking about news stories here.

 

I mean sure, there are many that don't raise skepticism in any sane person.  Like, "Castro is dead."  "Princess Kate gives birth."  "It snowed in Hawaii."  Unlikely to be fake.  No point faking it, plus they would be too easy to prove wrong.

 

But in this thread, we're talking about stories that require some amount of faith / trust to believe them.  Obviously that is what my comment was about.  There is no news outlet I really trust when it comes to those kinds of stories.

 

I don't really believe anything either, except the obvious stuff, like you said.

 

Mostly, I just think, "Well, that's interesting."  And then I wait and see.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Megyn Kelly on NPR today expressed shock at how bad Breitbart has become under Bannon.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504622630/megyn-kelly-on-trump-and-the-media-were-in-a-dangerous-phase-right-now

It didn't used to be like that, it got more clickbaity. The tricky part is that they are not always wrong or always working a false angle, neither is Zero Hedge, or even Vox or Huffpo. And the NYT absolutely has editorialized in news coverage, from headlines on down. It's not a clear cut and dry issue as it is often painted, with some sources being consistently reliable and others being consistently wrong or untrustworthy. That's where examining ourselves for bias and the quality of a given story without de facto agreeing or disagreeing based on *who* is presenting the story is critical.

 

My main contention with the media is their seemingly complete unawareness of their own blind spots, preferences, and outright bias in reporting. There is a ton of echo chamber groupthink going on and ridiculous volumes of smugness to go with it. And yet is there self examination in the wake of this being demonstrated, or more finger pointing and bias? From the vast majority of columnists and reporters I read the latter. Blameshifting and increasingly, embarrassingly wild eyed cognitive dissonance.

 

It would be funny if it wasn't quite so pathetic and the consequences of a largely homogenous, self deceived press weren't so grave.

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadie, I understand this, but pretending that the Canon has always included people of color, women, etc. isn't the truth.  Please trust me when I say I am not advocating for only white male authors, but sometimes you can't change history or literature to reflect something that did not exist at the time to suit a political agenda.  There can be a fine line between expanding and rewriting.

 

Who's pretending it used to include any diversity ? Not me. If it did, there wouldn't be any need to expand it. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by StellaM
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not remotely a slam. It is disturbing. 

 

Media literacy is an important skill to teach our children, and this thread is full of examples of media illiteracy. I expect more from my fellow homeschoolers, I truly do.

 

I'm not going to pretend that teaching your kids that the media lies to you and can't be trusted, at the same time as you model credulous belief in conspiracy theories, is somehow OK for homeschooling as a whole, or for individual children. They deserve better than that.

 

It's got nothing to do with anyone's political leanings. There are smart, media literate conservatives out there in the world. Being conservative doesn't equal being media illiterate. Whatever our leanings, we all can and should do better.

 

But that is not what everyone who has been summarily dismissed on this thread by those of us who are left leaning has put forth. People have been mocked for questioning that our government would manipulate the press.  One of the writers that I cited for SKL, David Barstow, won a Pulitzer for writing about just such an instance.

 

"Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand"

 

In 2005, in response to criticism over Guantanomo Bay, a plane load of military analysts were sent over to investigate. These were men (military) that the majority of Americans trusted.

 

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

 

Would this not be an example of government manipulation?

 

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

 

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

 

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

 

I am not sure that it is fair to say that those who don't trust the mainstream media are wrong or ignorant.  Maybe I am playing devil's advocate and I'd be the first one to acknowledge that I really stink at it.

 

Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said. And whatever the contributions of military analysts, they also noted the many network journalists who have covered the war for years in all its complexity.

 

I'm sorry, but I do see this as mainstream media failure  --------as reported by mainstream media.   Media can be manipulated and hopefully there is a good journalist out there willing to take that issue on. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...