I've been bothered for awhile now by how the media tends to report process issues in our government. It's no secret that the media is a big part of our problem right now. They aren't the problem because they favor one side over the other, but because they're drivers of creating the "them vs. us" mentality that makes the "sides" so divisive.
It seems almost every article that involves a Republican talking about a Democrat (or vice versa) is inevitably titles something like "Senator X slams the President" or "Obama rips Congressman Y." It doesn't particularly matter what they're saying, if it's any sort of criticism at all, it's usually a "slam," or some other charged and aggressive word.
An example from today is called: "Obama Caught Slamming GOP on Open Mic." View on HULU here. This is what Obama was "caught" saying.:
quote:Obama: "I said, 'you wanna repeal health care? Go at it. We'll have that debate, but you're not going to be able to do that by nickle and diming me in the budget. You think we're stupid?...[and then in reference to Paul Ryan]...'I mean this is the same guy who voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for..."
At the very least, the first half certainly isn't a slam. If anything, it's responsibly measured. As for the second half, all he's doing is repeating Ryan's record. I think it's a perfectly valid point to emphasize, that Ryan's throwing a hissy fit right now over a budget he had a hand in exploding over the last ten years, then cries foul on Democrats. But even if you don't think it's a good point, that doesn't make Obama's statement any less true. I don't think it's especially conducive to solving the problem, but I don't think it's a smear. And I don't think Obama was "caught" doing anything. The whole story strikes me as trumped up sensationalism.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
Yep. So what are we going to do about it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Suggest that Democrats and Republicans are almost or perhaps even exactly equal in frequency right now of this sort of baiting, as this sort of story will inevitably lead to (surprisingly having dragged its duration of marketability as news)?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around this sentence Rakeesh.
Lyr...but if they titled it "Obama responds reasonably" no one would read the story. Trumped up sensationalism is the name of the game for selling news articles.
Personally, I don't watch the news. I don't trust them to be accurate, they tend to focus on the negative, lots of trumped up sensationalism and anything that is important enough will penetrate into other mediums.
I had a roommate who would watch Fox News 12 hours a day, and Fox News looped every 4 hours. I rarely stayed in the room.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Suggest that Democrats and Republicans are almost or perhaps even exactly equal in frequency right now of this sort of baiting, as this sort of story will inevitably lead to (surprisingly having dragged its duration of marketability as news)?
Your side is just as bad as mine Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pick better news sources. There are news sources that (mostly) don't resort to that kind of baiting.
CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are out, obvs. Try The Atlantic, The Economist, NPR.com, The Washington Post (sans opinion page) and The New York Times (sans the opinion page), and Real Clear Politics (regular news sources, but they do a better job with the headlines).
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Katharina slams big-media news sources, dishes on viable competitors
Hobbes Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dishy headlines make my life sound so much more exciting.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Hobbes accuses Katharina of slamming big-media news sources. Katharina retaliates by questioning the lack of excitement in her life.
We contacted Katharina's life, who responded with "No comment."
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I didn't notice until recently how partisan the WSJ is. They've probably always been like that but it's much more obvious to me now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The opinion page is wildly partisan. The general news page is basically centrist. Same for the Washington Post.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I think the Atlantic and NY Times both lean left - and not just the opinion and/or comment sections (I generally read the Atlantic online and the Times in print. That could influence my conclusions). I don't say that because I've placed all-things-liberal high on my radar. I haven't. I don't care if a news source is biased as long as it's a recognized fact. I actually like knowing where I can go to find liberal takes on current issues without going to the well known online dives.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, they do. But all news sources - all of them - lean in a direction. It impossible to not lean. I'm less worried about biases than I am about honesty, method, and civilization. The NYT is often sketchy on that last bit, but they are good enough often enough to make weeding out the crap worth it. And The Atlantic is consistenly thorough and grown up.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
We need a new R.
In schools we need to add "Reality" to "Reading, Writing, and Rithmatic" the classic three R's we are supposed to be taught.
And that new R--Reality--should teach kids how to dissect a headline, a political argument, or any type of cheap advertising. They need to know that when it says in small print in the commercial "Toy robot does not actually fly" that if they buy that toy robot--it does not actually fly. They need to know that "Part of this complete breakfast" includes the 20 pounds of nutritional food surrounding the one bowl of sugar called cereal. And they need to know "Senator attacks Senator" means that they disagreed.
Of course, the people who make their money, or earn their votes on the common ignorance of the majority will refuse to allow classes that would remove that ignorance.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why call that Reality? It's already a thing - it's communication, rhetoric, critical thinking, reading comprehension, and media awareness.
[ April 19, 2011, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I was taught those skills in school. I do wonder how many schools teach them, however.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
In the past few weeks I have been making an effort to get out there and read news from other sources than Foxnews or Drudge. After reading certain stories on other websites I would go back to Fox to see how they reported it and it became clear they were spinning it. I know I have defended Fox in the past. I have to say that I now see more clearly what some of you have told me in the past.
So thank you Hatrack. I humbly admit I was wrong. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is hard to escape the spin. What I found really eye-opening was seeing how news sources from other countries report news. Check the BBC, for example.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How accurate/inaccurate/spun do you guys think the Daily Show is?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think the Daily Show is inaccurate, but I would say it's clearly biased. (I'm not sure whether "spun" is the right term.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: In the past few weeks I have been making an effort to get out there and read news from other sources than Foxnews or Drudge. After reading certain stories on other websites I would go back to Fox to see how they reported it and it became clear they were spinning it. I know I have defended Fox in the past. I have to say that I now see more clearly what some of you have told me in the past.
So thank you Hatrack. I humbly admit I was wrong.
And to be fair to you, some other sources tend to spin by omission/lack of quality (I haven't been impressed with CNN.com's level of reporting in ages) and some have their own spin (Huffington Post, etc.). I thing the NYT is in a gray area, in the sense that some feel it's actual reporting is biased (like it's Op-Ed's which obviously are biased), while other do not feel the same way, or at least to the extent of a Fox News.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Check the BBC, for example.
Plenty of bias and spin there too, though in somewhat different directions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
One issue that came up during the Wikileaks story with the NYT is that they ask the US military for permission and edits on their articles before publishing.
That introduces a level of systematic bias that has to be considered.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't think the Daily Show is inaccurate, but I would say it's clearly biased. (I'm not sure whether "spun" is the right term.)
Spun toward the funny.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...but I would say it's clearly biased.
To the left? Seems a bit lefty to me at times. What I really like about the Daily Show is that no matter who you are, if you say something stupid they will point it out in no uncertain terms.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:...but I would say it's clearly biased.
To the left? Seems a bit lefty to me at times. What I really like about the Daily Show is that no matter who you are, if you say something stupid they will point it out in no uncertain terms.
Stewart's a liberal, and he really doesn't hide his bias. He's almost always fair, though, just like you say.
I love The Daily Show, and I'm at least as far right as he is left.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: In the past few weeks I have been making an effort to get out there and read news from other sources than Foxnews or Drudge. After reading certain stories on other websites I would go back to Fox to see how they reported it and it became clear they were spinning it. I know I have defended Fox in the past. I have to say that I now see more clearly what some of you have told me in the past.
Last time I checked Fox (a couple of hours waiting at a terminal) I noticed it's gotten .... uh, easier to recognize. By an order of magnitude. I don't know precisely when, but at some point in the past few years they seem to have decided to just dive in whole-hog on the whole partisan pandering thing.
There's probably some strategy for market share behind it, even if it's just a concession that retreats from the effort they put behind trying to maintain 'fair and balanced' as a premise, but I have no idea what it is, or what changed.
I would imagine that misinformation from the channel is even higher now than it was in the past, even though they were pretty much topping the charts.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I think that has something to do with the general political atmosphere. Fox News' core viewership seems to be getting more radical, so Fox shifts to stay "relevant" to them. It's a moneymaking powerhouse.
I haven't seen much of it for several years, barring clips on Colbert/Daily Show/The Soup. Are the "Headline News-like" sections of the day as loathsome as the morning talkshow parts?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like Jon Stewart, but any show that refers to the Vice President only by comical, degrading nicknames is not even remotely close to being thorough or civilized. "Civilized" is not what people go to comedy for.
Enjoy watching it, but you can't pretend that it's giving you anything other than a one-sided, deliberiately edited, non-thorough version of the story.
------
Fox is not remotely alone in its naked plea for partisan eyeballs.
If you want actual, decent news, you're going to have to turn off the television altogether and discover some longer form, in depth reporting. You'll never, ever get away from bias (not even possible) but you can find some real sources of information instead the news equivelent of Saturday morning cartoons.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I like Jon Stewart, but any show that refers to the Vice President only by comical, degrading nicknames is not even remotely close to being thorough or civilized. "Civilized" is not what people go to comedy for.
Enjoy watching it, but you can't pretend that it's giving you anything other than a one-sided, deliberiately edited, non-thorough version of the story.
Thats definately not giving the Daily Show credit, for one thing its hardly degrading Biden has been on the Colbert Report and the nicknaming and teasing to me is rather playful.
As for editing I think you wouldn't be able to find a single bit they edited out of context unless they were obviously going for a joke, which they are very good at making sure people know "this is a joke, this part isn't".
As for one sided? Ha. Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation, reality is one sided if you think the daily show is one sided.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation
I hear this said over and over by Stewart and supporters of the show. Every time someone says it, it rings a little bit more hollow.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is hollow.
The Daily Show is funny, and piquant, and interesting. It is not unbiased, it isn't complete, it isn't thorough, and it picks favorites and enemies and beats a specific drum.
That doesn't mean it is bad. It does mean that if it is your only or even main source of news, then not only are you missing a lot, but you may not even know how much you don't know.
Blayne, your specific complaints make me think you don't know what "editing" actually is. I suggest some reading on communication and media awareness. Maybe this or this.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation
I hear this said over and over by Stewart and supporters of the show. Every time someone says it, it rings a little bit more hollow.
Care to substantiate it?
quote: It is hollow.
The Daily Show is funny, and piquant, and interesting. It is not unbiased, it isn't complete, it isn't thorough, and it picks favorites and enemies and beats a specific drum.
That doesn't mean it is bad. It does mean that if it is your only or even main source of news, then not only are you missing a lot, but you may not even know how much you don't know.
Blayne, your specific complaints make me think you don't know what "editing" actually is. I suggest some reading on communication and media awareness. Maybe this or this.
They are thorough, as thorough as 30 minutes can allow them to be thorough within, especially the interviews; yes hes read your book, hes know what you've said, hes also knows what you've said or done before that and after that.
However the question of bias is a weak criticism, yes they're liberal/progressive, but it doesn't mean they don't appreciate or understand the Conservative point of view whenever its logical. They don't make claims of unbias but they also don't favor a single ideology and aren't partisan.
I'm fairly certain I do know what editing is, I think the onus is on you to find an edited segment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The Daily Show is not a news show, they are a satire of news shows, they do not generate sincere original reporting, they mock "sincere" reporting. I'm sure that Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert and staff would never suggest that people get their only source of news from their shows.
They seem a bit biased to the left, but, they do not claim to be anything but funny, which they are.
There is no question that they poke fun at right and left, at anyone who pokes their head up really.
But at the end of the day, they are trying to be funny, not unbiased.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation
I hear this said over and over by Stewart and supporters of the show. Every time someone says it, it rings a little bit more hollow.
I agree to the extent. The narrative of The Daily Show is that Republican politicians are tools, Republican politicians are jerks, Republican supports are crazy, and Democratic politicians are wusses.
Pretty much in that order.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm sure that Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert and staff would never suggest that people get their only source of news from their shows.
Stewart, in fact, repeatedly suggests the opposite. He's flabbergasted when people treat him like he's a news anchor. He's a comedian.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I'm fairly certain I do know what editing is, I think the onus is on you to find an edited segment. [/QB]
This means you don't.
Seriously, try one of the books I linked above. You can get a used copy of either for less than $10.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Laughable, to go after whoever is stupid regardless of political affiliation
I hear this said over and over by Stewart and supporters of the show. Every time someone says it, it rings a little bit more hollow.
I agree to the extent. The narrative of The Daily Show is that Republican politicians are tools, Republican politicians are jerks, Republican supporters are crazy, and Democratic politicians are wusses.
Pretty much in that order.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yet Daily Show viewers tend to be more informed than the average voter.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Bokonon: Kinda.
In fairness, he's also been on top of the 'Obama abusing executive power' issue and I have to give him props for consistently opposing and mocking the war in Libya.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yet Daily Show viewers tend to be more informed than the average voter.
Didn't say it was. Didn't say anything about causation at all. Try reading more carefully.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I read carefully. You wrote badly. Write better.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nope. No mention of why Daily Show viewers are more informed to be found in my post at all.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What was the point of your point, kmboots?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, please, do we really need to scrap over this? Because that would just be silly.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
High school gossipy silly?
Or grade school gossipy silly?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What was the point of your point, kmboots?
Just an observation. One could make any number of hypotheses regarding the nature of the Daily Show and its viewers; most of them make both look better than the average news program or voter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Usually, I'm the one that drops vacuous notes that have no interest or bearing in the discussion at hand.
I'm a bit startled by the sudden competition-- do you have a union card, perchance? I'm just asking.
Scabber.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: most of them make both look better than the average news program or voter.
But you're not implying any causation, natch.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:High school gossipy silly?
Or grade school gossipy silly?
Neither. "You people are being catty and dull" silly.
I mean, it's clear that Katie takes the whole "civilized news source" thing way too seriously, Kate hasn't thought out her point of view very well, and you and Rivka are inexplicably looking for a reason to argue with her about the journalistic bias of a professional comedian. Will just coming out and saying all these things short-circuit the bizarre sniping at each other that you're going to do otherwise?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, I did notice the...irony? (And are you sure you want to be on the record as pro-union?) Leaving it to the observer to draw their own conclusions, I could posit that at least the Daily Show bias isn't doing its watchers any harm or, if it is, then they are at an advantage to start with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
While we're at it, let's just settle the whole thread now:
Fox is absurdly biased. The Daily Show is only slightly less so, but doesn't have "news" in its name and thus believes -- rightly or wrongly -- that it gets a pass. The Wall Street Journal and the Times are very biased, not merely on their editorial page but in their selection of news, but are generally pretty good about providing facts; it's their analysis of those facts that is suspect. In fact, most of Katie's recommendations are pretty solid, although I don't think "civilized" is an adjective that's particularly useful when choosing information sources. Personally, I suspect that she would agree that we should seek out sources that try to be rigorously accurate, serious about issues that actually matter, and willing to at least acknowledge when they are engaging in speculation or opinion; I agree with these standards.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: most of them make both look better than the average news program or voter.
But you're not implying any causation, natch.
Nope. Could be, in fact, that Daily Show viewers were more informed to start with - as an example of other possibilities. I am sure there are others.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have to wonder how much of the criticism that gets tossed the way of the Daily Show has to do with people seeking equivalence for the sake of equivalence.
Does Stewart pick on the GOP more than the Democrats? Yes. I'd say that's a fair characterization. I've rarely seen him pull punches from Obama though, who Stewart seems to have an issue with on all sorts of things. And God knows he hammered away at Pelosi on a weekly basis, sometimes nightly basis, when the Dems had the House. It's more to me though that his complaints against Dems come down to "man up and grow a spine!" and his complaints against the GOP come down to "you people are morons."
How much of our complaining, though, is in demand of the sort of thing that CNN does? CNN, to me, is famous for attempting to present every story as balanced. They refuse to present one side as wrong. For a long time they even presented the "birther" nonsense neutrally, presenting both sides of the story with a sort of "you decide!" point of view, as if truth were relative as opposed to something that, as a news organization, they were personally allowed to seek out and present with their seal of approval. That's a big part of today's problem, if you ask me.
And it comes right back around to Stewart. Is anyone willing to give credence to the argument that Stewart spends more time making fun of the GOP because the GOP has a lot more material to work with at the moment? I think there's something to it, and I think people tend to say Stewart is a liberal mouthpiece because some greater sense of fairness in them balks at his lack of equivalence in the face time he gives each party.
As far as him being a news show, well, Stewart himself has said that if everyone who watches his show didn't watch OTHER news organizations, they wouldn't understand half his jokes. It's a show that you can often only gain maximum appreciation for if you're already aware of the news stories he's mocking. That's not always the case, since sometimes he sets them up for you, but many times it is. As often as not, he's making fun of news outlets as often as politicians.
One of my biggest problems with Stewart has long been his hiding behind the shield of being a comic. He wants to be taken seriously at times, and makes biting commentary, and then when someone hits back at him, he says, "but wait! I'm just a comedian!" It's the perfect shield to allow him to make political commentary and be taken seriously, but remove him from fear of actually being criticized in return. I don't care for that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, I think that post was exactly right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Me, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Stewart's awkward position. The man, if he is biased against anything (and he is), is biased strongly against the corporatization of politics and media, the remarkably cynical process by which everything -- from a political position to a presidential candidate to a point of view -- is turned into a product to be marketed, often with no more honesty or depth than you might see in a floor wax commercial; he very clearly loathes the way the press is used as just another way to "advertise" a talking point. And yet he's inherited a show that does celebrity interviews, press junkets, and movie tie-ins. He (and his predecessor, to be fair) occasionally subvert the extraordinary access afforded by those junkets in order to ask questions that I don't think a "traditional" journalist could (or would, often), but he's also bound by the need to produce a show that's as entertaining as he doesn't want the news to be.
But I can accept that from him, because it's clear that what he really wants -- and what he's been calling for for years -- is for an actual news organization to step up and perform that function. He recognizes that it's not in his remit, and I easily forgive him for occasionally demonstrating that it should be something that someone does, ideally someone who isn't a comedian.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:One of my biggest problems with Stewart has long been his hiding behind the shield of being a comic. He wants to be taken seriously at times, and makes biting commentary, and then when someone hits back at him, he says, "but wait! I'm just a comedian!" It's the perfect shield to allow him to make political commentary and be taken seriously, but remove him from fear of actually being criticized in return. I don't care for that.
+1
quote:are you sure you want to be on the record as pro-union?
What makes you think I'd have a problem with unions?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Being pro-union is a chancy position these days. They are coming under attack. The comment was less about you and more about current events.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
TomD, I think that post was exactly right.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: One of my biggest problems with Stewart has long been his hiding behind the shield of being a comic. He wants to be taken seriously at times, and makes biting commentary, and then when someone hits back at him, he says, "but wait! I'm just a comedian!" It's the perfect shield to allow him to make political commentary and be taken seriously, but remove him from fear of actually being criticized in return. I don't care for that.
I think this is valid as of a few years ago, especially considering what he said on his stint on Crossfire. But I wonder how much he actually does this anymore. He actually takes off the funny gloves occasionally and rallies against good causes, such as the September 11 first responder's bill in Congress. I think he might have recognized over the last few years that his voice is pretty powerful and tries to act accordingly. I thought his last interview with O'Reilly was pretty hard-hitting and serious.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Not to derail this thread, but...
A few years ago I would have cringed at the thought of being labeled "pro-Union." My father was a Union man who worked his way out of the union and into management. He then saw, and told us stories of, the over-reaching and self-destructive practices of the union he now faced.
But today, I am definitely pro-Union. As the corporations gain more and more power, more and more % of all wealth, there does need to be the voice for the workers.
Thirty years ago Labor was a commodity that companies bid for. Now Jobs are a commodity that companies use to bribe their way out of taxes and into power.
Twenty years ago when a large business moved into a town great public works were created by the new tax revenues that the business brought in. Now when a large company moves into town, public works take a cut as the tax breaks those companies demanded have to be paid for. Any new taxes come from the workers income tax and increases in sales taxes--so good paying manufacturing jobs aren't as hot a priority as low paying retail jobs--because the retail sales tax pays the city.
The power has shifted away from those working for a living and sits with those who invest in commodities and hedge-funds. Yeah, I'm pro-Union now, and proud of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Personally, I suspect that she would agree that we should seek out sources that try to be rigorously accurate, serious about issues that actually matter, and willing to at least acknowledge when they are engaging in speculation or opinion; I agree with these standards.
Yes, this is a good summary, except for the last point. I don't care if a source aknowledges they are biased are not; since they are, inevitably, I'd rather they not engage in mastubatory navel-gazing. Instead, they should devote themselves to better resarch, more background, better facts-reporting, and less axe grinding in general.
In other words, I'm not a fan of media that obsesses about the media. For that, there is "On the Media". Just get on with the story, please - all of the story.
The "civilized" refers to kindergarten behavior. If there is any "they started it" or "the other guy is worse" or "I know you are but what am I" detectable - and it happens all the time - then that source is too stupid to be worth the bother. I want news from grown ups. Considering the low pay of many journalism jobs, which means the grown ups tend to leave it once living off the parents isn't possible or cool anymore, this eliminates quite a number of enthusiastic but unseasoned sources. Good. All the better. ------
The "I was just saying - you took it wrong" defense is as lame here as it is on television. But that's obvious.
-------
For the record, I like the Daily Show. I like a lot of things. If it helps, my scorn is for all televised news. There are many, many things television is wonderful for, but explaining the complexities of modern issues isn't one of them. What Stewart is calling for exists, but not on television. I don't think it ever will, and I don't think it ever could. It's the wrong medium.
If you're serious about wanting to know the background, complexities, consequences of proposed issues, history of similar solutions to similar problems, and the various proposed solutions to current issues - in other words, if you want to know what you're talking about - you have to turn off the TV.
[ April 21, 2011, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For that, there is "On the Media".
But who will report on "On the Media," to serve as a watchdog against its bias?
quote:What Stewart is calling for exists, but not on television.
I'm not sure that's true. I know of many consumer watchdog groups that fill that sort of function for commercial products and advertisers, but I can't think of many news outlets that are dedicated to reporting on important sociopolitical issues without capitulating to a given viewpoint's sponsored take on them. I don't know of many -- if any -- news organizations that avoid the temptation to create "narrative", except possibly the AP (in rare cases).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
>If you're serious about wanting to know the background, complexities, consequences of proposed issues
This issue is that most people are NOT serious about, but they want to have opinions anyway. And they vote, so their opinions matter whether we like it or not. So whether television is the right medium, I think there should be SOME format that manages to appeal to the masses, delivering as much accurate content as possible in the face of economic forces that drive us towards the lowest common denominator.
(I think the internet is capable of delivering on all those ends. And I think it's set to replace TV completely within another few decades, so that's fine.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But who will report on "On the Media," to serve as a watchdog against its bias?
Gloriously, it doesn't matter much. The media isn't nearly as fascinating a subject as the media thinks it is. I am SO TIRED of listening to navel-gazing. The front page headlines of the Pulitzer prize winners this week made me extra cranky. I think "We Are Not The Story" should be emblazoned on the wall of every media office.
------
RA: I agree that the Internet is more than capable of it.
Maybe I'm a cynic, but I doubt people are going to vote "better" based on nuanced, thorough portrayals of information. I think people vote based on demographics, their peers, their pocketbook, and politicians' personal lives, and all the great news in the world won't change that.
Of course people want to have opinions even when they don't know what they are talking about, and they always will. I don't worry much about what random others are consuming and thinking - that way madness lies.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I think people vote based on demographics, their peers, their pocketbook, and politicians' personal lives, and all the great news in the world won't change that.
For the most part I think this is true. 90% of political views I inherited from my parents, and while I think they stand up to rational scrutiny it's rather convenient that I haven't actually had to change my mind yet.
But the areas where I have actually changed my mind (or come close) were in areas where I was exposed to continuous streams of media. Jon Stewart's lambasting of "Democratic Wusses" has made me more critical of the democratic party than I otherwise would be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And it comes right back around to Stewart. Is anyone willing to give credence to the argument that Stewart spends more time making fun of the GOP because the GOP has a lot more material to work with at the moment?
to quote Stewart himself: "I have no obligation to the Democrats or progressives or liberals or unions. Our feeling is: corruption is corruption. If a union is corrupt, you can't leave it alone because it's a union, and they help so that 8-year-olds don't work in factories anymore. You know, you have to go where you feel like the absurdity is. So we're not anybody's - we're not warriors in their cause. And if they're upset, they should have thought of that, you know, the past couple of years, before they lost, you know, the momentum that they had gained."
quote:One of my biggest problems with Stewart has long been his hiding behind the shield of being a comic. He wants to be taken seriously at times, and makes biting commentary, and then when someone hits back at him, he says, "but wait! I'm just a comedian!" It's the perfect shield to allow him to make political commentary and be taken seriously, but remove him from fear of actually being criticized in return. I don't care for that.
He talked about this to some extent in (I think) his last interview with Fresh Air. I think he actually is welcome to the criticism, but what he hates is when it comes from the people who should actually be reporting the real news, who are pointing fingers at him and making arguments predicated on his responsibility to journalistic integrity and he has to turn around and point out that this is a wonderful construct used to shift attention and heat off of the core responsibility of the accuser's essential abdication of their own (and real) responsibilities to journalism.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But the areas where I have actually changed my mind (or come close) were in areas where I was exposed to continuous streams of media. Jon Stewart's lambasting of "Democratic Wusses" has made me more critical of the democratic party than I otherwise would be.
But you haven't switched parties. You're less enchanted, but as far as I can tell from your account, your voting patterns haven't changed.
I'm not criticizing you - I don't believe that people do change their voting patterns based on news or even criticism. I'd honestly be surprised if they did. I'm not even sure if I wish for it - might as well wish for a fundamental change in human nature. I'm all for that kind of transformation, but it doesn't happen through politics.
quote: I think he actually is welcome to the criticism, but what he hates is when it comes from the people who should actually be reporting the real news, who are pointing fingers at him and making arguments predicated on his responsibility to journalistic integrity and he has to turn around and point out that this is a wonderful construct used to shift attention and heat off of the core responsibility of the accuser's essential abdication of their own (and real) responsibilities to journalism.
See, I read that, and it sounds a lot like "Hey, they're worse." Which is one of the kindergarten behaviors that make me discount someone as a news source.
[ April 22, 2011, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I believe Stewart would be fine with you discounting him as a news source, since he repeatedly says he shouldn't be considered one in the first place.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: I think he actually is welcome to the criticism, but what he hates is when it comes from the people who should actually be reporting the real news, who are pointing fingers at him and making arguments predicated on his responsibility to journalistic integrity and he has to turn around and point out that this is a wonderful construct used to shift attention and heat off of the core responsibility of the accuser's essential abdication of their own (and real) responsibilities to journalism.
See, I read that, and it sounds a lot like "Hey, they're worse." Which is one of the kindergarten behaviors that make me discount someone as a news source.
I'm not sure I understand how that is supposed to make sense. It looks like you're just slapping a convenient label on it to dismiss it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Read it again, and then if it still doesn't make sense, don't worry about it. I don't care what you think.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ah, my cup of unacknowledged irony runneths (how do you spell that, anyway?) over, yet again.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Read it again, and then if it still doesn't make sense, don't worry about it. I don't care what you think.
Harsh.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...runneths (how do you spell that, anyway?)
Runneth...no "s".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The "s" is there to denote present immediate. That is, my cup is currently runnething over. Doesn't runneth (no "s") denote...what the heck is the word for this...a continuing state?
My desire for unacknowledged irony is not continually fulfilled. At that point, it was, but the supply will wane. Thus, I think runneths is more correct than runneth. But I could be gravely mistaken.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*shrug* Hard to find grammatical rules for old English.
And while you may be mistaken, I surely hope it would not be a grave mistake.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The "s" is there to denote present immediate. That is, my cup is currently runnething over. Doesn't runneth (no "s") denote...what the heck is the word for this...a continuing state?
-eth is an archaic version of the third-person simple present ending. In modern English it has been replaced with -s. You don't need both.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
This article has to be the most ironic I've seen in a long time.
quote: Sean Hannity’s Hour on Liberal Media Bias is topped… by a Liberal Media Host
Friday night at 9pmET, Fox News aired a Sean Hannity special called “Behind the Bias: the History of Liberal Media.” It was billed as a “close-up look at the Obama-mania media’s liberal bias.”
Hannity’s hour, as it always does, came in first in Total Viewers averaging 1.4 million. But it trailed MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” in younger viewers: TRMS averaged 348K to Hannity’s special with 344K. This is a rare demo win for Maddow’s show. The last time was Keith Olbermann‘s final night on MSNBC in January, which gave the 9pm hour a healthy lead-in.
Hannity’s hour did not perform well against other Fox News shows. The normally #2 show on the channel, came in 5th after O’Reilly, Beck, Baier and Shep Smith.
The title made me think "Oh wow Maddow beat Hannity? That's news!"
Then you learn that Maddow beat Hannity in only one demographic, and only by 4 thousand viewers.
Oh the irony Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I was taught those skills in school. I do wonder how many schools teach them, however.
I actually wonder if the way we teach those skills is a major contributor to the problem... In high school, we were taught an "There's no wrong answer, as long as you can come up with a well-written argument to justify it" approach. I'd think that lends itself to the mentality of approaching news as something with multiple equally valid truths that contradict and do battle with one another.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think what would be extremely excellent is a "science" course. (Not a "biology" or a "chemistry" course. A course where students come up with their own hypothesis about something they personally care about, then devise an experiment and test it. Then randomly assign everyone a classmate's experiment and have them peer-review each other.
On top of getting people to understand why science works and is useful, I think that would also help with political discourse (as long as you're talking about actual factual things instead of moral disagreements.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think what would be extremely excellent is a "science" course. (Not a "biology" or a "chemistry" course. A course where students come up with their own hypothesis about something they personally care about, then devise an experiment and test it. Then randomly assign everyone a classmate's experiment and have them peer-review each other.
This isn't a new idea. It is actually done a lot and it generally works pathetically. It's what science fair projects are supposed to be about. I've seen a number of liberal education scieces classes try it. Any class lower than the graduate level that does this ends up being mickey mouse.
The first part of any real science experiment is to find out what other people have already learned about the problem of interest and how they learned it. You can't even begin to form a reasonable hypothesis until you've done that. For most non-scientists that first step is going to literally require years of study. This means that most classes that try to teach the scientific method (at lower than graduate level) have to omit that first and critically important step of doing science.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
> It's what science fair projects are supposed to be about.
My impression was that science fair projects were often more about "following the instructions" than actually generating ideas and testing them.
I'd be hypocritical not to be open to it being a bad idea, but I'm curious exactly how these programs went about it and why they failed.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:My impression was that science fair projects were often more about "following the instructions" than actually generating ideas and testing them.
I think this is part of the problem that Rabbit is talking about. The intent is to develop and test ideas - the curriculum discusses the scientific method and each project is supposed to follow a process from hypothesis through testing through conclusions. The result, unfortunately, is usually a grade based on following instructions.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Also:
There's two different things I'd hope it could accomplish. One is to understand how "real" science is done and learn how to distinguish between good science and bad. The other is to drive home the notion that ideas are *testable*, period. Not necessarily foundation-of-reality level ideas, but simple things like "does pressing the button on sidewalk-corner actually make the light change faster?" or a more complicated "What clothes do cool people wear? Do all cool people wear those clothes? Are all people who wear those clothes cool? What do I mean by "cool?" (The latter might be hard to implement publicly and still be useful, but I'd have certainly appreciated knowing the answers)
At the elementary/middle school levels, I'd focus mostly on the latter type issues, to sell the idea that science is something that can be useful, rather than some weird thing you do to get good grades via mysterious processes. In high school you could incorporate research into part of the curriculum. (For middle and high school I'm imagining full year programs, not a project you do for a week then forget about it)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
>I think this is part of the problem that Rabbit is talking about.
Well absolutely. That's what *I* thought the problem was in the first place, and the "scientific method class" was intended to be the solution, not more of the same.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This article has to be the most ironic I've seen in a long time.
quote: Sean Hannity’s Hour on Liberal Media Bias is topped… by a Liberal Media Host
Friday night at 9pmET, Fox News aired a Sean Hannity special called “Behind the Bias: the History of Liberal Media.” It was billed as a “close-up look at the Obama-mania media’s liberal bias.”
Hannity’s hour, as it always does, came in first in Total Viewers averaging 1.4 million. But it trailed MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” in younger viewers: TRMS averaged 348K to Hannity’s special with 344K. This is a rare demo win for Maddow’s show. The last time was Keith Olbermann‘s final night on MSNBC in January, which gave the 9pm hour a healthy lead-in.
Hannity’s hour did not perform well against other Fox News shows. The normally #2 show on the channel, came in 5th after O’Reilly, Beck, Baier and Shep Smith.
The title made me think "Oh wow Maddow beat Hannity? That's news!"
Then you learn that Maddow beat Hannity in only one demographic, and only by 4 thousand viewers.
Oh the irony
My biggest problem with this article is that it isn't about politics at all. It isn't even about the political parties. It is an article on the media, by the media, about the media, ultimately about eyeballs, and the only connection to politics in the entire article is a reference to the "teams" each player is supposed to be playing on.
It is as much about actual politics as the lead story on the Sports page. This belongs on the sports page.
In sum: 1. On the media. There should be a sign in their office saying "We Are Not the Story". It isn't just that stupid articles like this distort the important things, but it takes the place of an actual, maybe researched article about ANYTHING important in politics. I guess it is on a mediawatch web site, which slightly redeems it from this point. Not from the others.
2. One upsmanship and team playing. That's not about the issues - that's sports. I fully support this behavior when we are talking about high school football. Anything else and adults should be ashamed to take part in it.
3. Distorted headline, like you said. The article itself doesn't support the headline, and even the little bit that is true in it has a skewed perspective.
It is an excellent example of amazingly crappy reporting. Bad editor, for publishing this.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
*agrees with Katherina*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Kat, I think that you may be missing the real consequences of the "game" you are talking about. It matters which "team" "wins" because, rather than getting a trophy, the team that wins gets the power to drastically impact the lives of real people. The teams represent political ideologies that determine the direction of that impact.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nope. Elections matter. This kind of crappy reporting doesn't change voting patterns, so the prize is nothing but... no, the prize is nothing. The only reward is the game itself, which is absolute crap.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This kind of crappy reporting doesn't change voting patterns...
To be fair, I think crappy reporting changes voting patterns more than solid reporting does.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Comparing The Daily Show to Fox News is ridiculous from the get go. Fox News is supposed to be "News". The "Daily Show" is supposed to be "entertainment". The fact that people do compare the two highlights a central part of the problem. The distinction between what is "news" and what is "entertainment" has become so blurred that many people can't tell the difference.
If one is going to make a comparison, it should be between Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh both of whom claim to be entertainers not reporters. Reporters have an ethical obligation to present the facts in an accurate and objective manner. Entertainers do not. This is not to say that entertainers have no ethical obligation to their audience, they are just different than those of reporters. Entertainers and political pundits have every right to be biased, but bias is different from deception. Even entertainers and political pundits have an ethical obligation to make a clear distinction between what is fact and what is fiction. I think Rush Limbaugh and and other conservative talk show hosts cross that line. I don't think Stewart does.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
>The "Daily Show" is supposed to be "entertainment". The fact that people do compare the two highlights a central part of the problem.
I think both Rush and Jon Stewart need to be own up to the fact that regardless of their intentions, people DO treat them as sources of information. "Entertainer" and "Reporters" are arbitrary words we made up, not unchanging vows woven into the fabric of the universe.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I could see it with Rush, but Jon Stewart is on Comedy Central and is a stand up comic. If people are silly enough not to try and balance out his show with some research, then they deserve to have the wrong idea about some things, and it is hardly his fault.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I just compiled some numbers from PolitiFact.com on pundits associated with purported liberal and conservative news agencies. I limited my tally to mainstream media personalities (no bloggers). Here are the totals
Liberal Media (MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Comedy Central) (includes Maher, Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz and others). Out of a total of 68 statements evaluated by PolitiFact,
Summary: Statements evaluated from pundits in the liberal media were half true or better 67% of the time.
Statements evaluated from pundits in the conservative media were barely true or worse 62% of the time. Statements from the conservative media pundits were found to be outright false or "pants on fire" twice as often as those from the liberal media.
In the liberal media, the biggest liars were Ed Schultz and Bill Maher, and Rachel Maddow (all MSNBC).
In the conservative media, the biggest liars are Beck, O'Reily and Limbaugh.
There was only one statement evaluated from Jon Stewart. It was determined to be mostly true.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Goooooo team! Rah rah rah!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I think both Rush and Jon Stewart need to be own up to the fact that regardless of their intentions, people DO treat them as sources of information. "Entertainer" and "Reporters" are arbitrary words we made up, not unchanging vows woven into the fabric of the universe.
Why? Do you think there is no room in civil society for biased entertainment? Is it uncivilized or irrational to laugh at jokes that reinforce your world view? I agree that it is a problem that people can't distinguish entertainment from objective news reporting, but I don't think the solution is to ask that all jokes to be fair and balanced.
I think the preferable option is to ask that entertainment be honest. That entertainers make the distinction between fact and fantasy clear. In that regards, I think there is a world of difference between Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh. I don't follow either of them very closely so I could be wrong, but I haven't found any examples where Jon Stewart made claims of fact that have been proven to be outright false. There are hundreds of such examples for Rush Limbaugh.
[ April 26, 2011, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Oh, I should add to my statistics above that MSNBC has a pretty deplorable truth rating. It's not as bad as Fox (60% lies), but its close (50% lies). On both sides of the fence it appears that news paper pundits are more honest than broadcast news.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QB] Also:
There's two different things I'd hope it could accomplish. One is to understand how "real" science is done
This is the part that is really difficult to accomplish because the first step in any "real" science is to find out what others already know about the subject. I don't mean to pick on you, but your proposal is a classic example of the mistake. If you want to act like a real scientist, your first step should have been to research what's already been done in this area and how its worked before forming a hypothesis about how to improve the situation. It frustrates me as an educator because people keep trying the same failed things over and over again.
quote:and learn how to distinguish between good science and bad.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I've been doing "real" scientific research for over two decades. I frequently review papers and proposals from other scientists, but outside my narrow field of specialization I really can't distinguish good science and bad science. It isn't realistic to think that the average citizen with no science training to speak of would ever be able to critically evaluate something that had passed peer review.
quote:The other is to drive home the notion that ideas are *testable*, period. Not necessarily foundation-of-reality level ideas, but simple things like "does pressing the button on sidewalk-corner actually make the light change faster?"
If you want to mimic real science here, the first step would not be to go and time the lights. It would be to go to the traffic department and ask what the buttons at different cross-walks are designed to do or perhaps to the library to look for books on cross-walk lights. With that information, you would be prepared to form a hypothesis and design some decent experiments to determine whether the buttons do what they are designed to do.
quote:or a more complicated "What clothes do cool people wear? Do all cool people wear those clothes? Are all people who wear those clothes cool? What do I mean by "cool?" (The latter might be hard to implement publicly and still be useful, but I'd have certainly appreciated knowing the answers)
When you ask the question "What do I mean by "cool"?", you are now veering into a territory where testability (in the sense I think of as a scientist) becomes questionable.
I think what you are really aiming for is "scientific" thinking, but better education in critical thinking, which can be taught in any discipline from the study of poetry to the study of muons. In education circles its commonly referred to as the ability to deal with ill-structured problems. Most people are pretty pathetically bad at it. Since it's a subject that obviously interests you, I recommend you look into the reflective judgement model.
[ April 26, 2011, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
katharina: You are doing a lot of good posting, don't sully the good stuff with posts like your last.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
One more interest statistic I gleaned from politifact.com. Comments that they find to be egregious lies, they rank as "pants on fire". I clicked on truthometer and looked at the 8 pages (160 statements) they ranked as "pants on fire". I counted 25 made by democrats or liberals, the remaining 135 came from conservative or republican sources.
I suspect there is all kinds of sampling bias here, but 5+ times as many egregious lies is pretty enormous.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Can you give us an example of what qualifies as "pants on fire"?
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Can you give us an example of what qualifies as "pants on fire"?
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: katharina: You are doing a lot of good posting,
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There all over the map. I think you'd get a better idea if go to their website and browse through.
They have detailed reports of their analysis. They seem to be pretty thorough and put in a good effort to chase down the facts.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: Can you give us an example of what qualifies as "pants on fire"?
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: katharina: You are doing a lot of good posting,
Wow, that was helpful.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: Can you give us an example of what qualifies as "pants on fire"?
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: katharina: You are doing a lot of good posting,
I'm not sure whether you are accusing JB of telling an egregious lie, or demonstrating how to tell an egregious lie by strip quoting.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
What's strip quoting?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It involves removing your clothing and taking what people have said out of context...it's all the rage at college parties!
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It involves...rage...!
Why so angry?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Because George RR Martin's Russian accent may be as fake as the college transcripts that Jon Stewart is biased about in a tornado which is racist for not making jobs for teaparties.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
All of my posting is excellent. Only some is easier to hear than others.
It's no surprise rage is a consequence. It's hard to hear about the ways you might suck.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When it comes to choosing excellent sources, starting first with noting the bias guaruntees that you'll fail. Humans are absolutely crap at seeing their own motes. You'll give a pass to whomever agrees with you.
Pick level of detail, method, and lack of kindergarten behavior and navel-gazing. Ignore the slant. You'll be better for it all around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
When someone says they're always awesome, it's always true.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Humans are absolutely crap at seeing their own motes.
[ April 28, 2011, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Please don't Rabbit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It involves removing your clothing and taking what people have said out of context...it's all the rage at college parties!
If Model UN had been more like that, I might have continued with it in college.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The guilty take the truth to be hard. It's not a surprise people get mad when they hear it. Sometimes really, really mad.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would consider the kindergarten baloney promulgated on television to not even be in the realm of political discourse. Political theatre, maybe. Political pantomime, definitely. Deciding which is "better" is just arguing the merits of various clowns.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The guilty take the truth to be hard. It's not a surprise people get mad when they hear it. Sometimes really, really mad.
The innocent also take lies to be hard. Distinguishing between the two situations can require some effort.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The guilty take the truth to be hard. It's not a surprise people get mad when they hear it. Sometimes really, really mad.
I don't think I've ever heard that bit from Nephi stated by anybody who wasn't trying to also excuse their bad behavior.
You aren't surrounded by the guilty, please stop assuming that that is the case.
Are there folks who are more liable to turn a blind eye to bad behavior on the left rather than the right, sure, I'll grant that. We certainly have people where the opposite is also true. Why do you keep baiting people into not acting like adults? Why do you want them to get angry and explode? Does it make you feel better to see others stripped down to bare emotion, blathering like animals?
I certainly don't enjoy it, and I don't think deep down you want that either.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's no surprise rage is a consequence. It's hard to hear about the ways you might suck.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(And are you sure you want to be on the record as pro-union?)