How to spot a baby conservative.

[-Demosthenes-]

I don't know anybody who conforms completely to what the liberals or conservative' date=' right-wingers or left wingers are supposed to be all about. I'm pretty fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but there are certain social issues where I'm a bit more conservative than other social issues.

 

People want to classify things for simplicity, but people defy classification regularly.[/quote']

 

I think all too often people conform to be "Conservative" or "Liberal," or something else. Lots of people fall back on partisan beliefs that they have never really considered or thought about They just accepted those beliefs because it was what their party believed or it's conservative/liberal.

[Sisyphus]

This is probably still better than the nation gathering at the feet of Walter Cronkite at 6:00 p.m. every night.

 

Why?

[Phi for All]

Why?

Because one source of news is never good. Walter was king in his day and while he was the litmus test for trust in journalism, I still think it's better to have more input and judge for yourself.

[Sisyphus]

But there were still newspapers and such. I think a few trustworthy news sources is better than a few trustworthy news sources + hundreds of untrustworthy ones.

[Jim]

But there were still newspapers and such. I think a few trustworthy news sources is better than a few trustworthy news sources + hundreds of untrustworthy ones.

 

Cronkite was trusted but he wasn't always right. He was part of the media failure after the Tet offensive which turned public support after a major United States victory.

[john5746]

Cronkite was trusted but he wasn't always right. He was part of the media failure after the Tet offensive which turned public support after a major United States victory.

 

Oh yeah, blame it on the messenger. McNamara and the Johnson Admin had made the public think the end of the war was always just around the corner and then the enemy actually strikes an offensive. The Public still supported the war years after that report.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/mcnamara_4-17-95.html

 

I do think more choice in media is a good thing. Unfortunately, people seem to have poor taste. They want to watch Jerry Springer type news instead of informative broadcasts. But, it is a choice.

[swansont]

Because one source of news is never good. Walter was king in his day and while he was the litmus test for trust in journalism, I still think it's better to have more input and judge for yourself.

 

But what if you don't have the ability or desire to judge for yourself? It seems that every time I read a news story where I am actually familiar with the facts (and having nothing to do with political posturing) they get it wrong. So when two (or more) different sources report a story, and disagree, how are you to evaluate which one is correct? We go back to the problem of many people believing the one with which they agree, and dismissing the other(s).

[gcol]

In the UK, I attempt to resolve the media bias problem by reading two news papers. One unashamedly follows the Blairite mock-socialist establishment, the other bashes it mercilessly. The papers hate each other, their slant gives me a laugh, and I can steer my way between them. If anyone knows a truly objective source of news, please let us in on your secret.

[Jim]

Oh yeah' date=' blame it on the messenger. McNamara and the Johnson Admin had made the public think the end of the war was always just around the corner and then the enemy actually strikes an offensive. The Public still supported the war years after that report.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/vietnam/mcnamara_4-17-95.html

 

I do think more choice in media is a good thing. Unfortunately, people seem to have poor taste. They want to watch Jerry Springer type news instead of informative broadcasts. But, it is a choice.

 

You are disputing that Tet was an unmitigated disaster for the enemy in every military sense?

 

The media is just as capable as any other culture of group think. This was particularly dangerous when power was concentrated in the hands of a few networks.

[swansont]

The media is just as capable as any other culture of group think. This was particularly dangerous when power was concentrated in the hands of a few networks.

 

Back then there were other independent sources of news, though. Newspapers, for example, were much more prevalent, and not just extensions of one corporate mind. Nowadays the big news sources are owned by a few conglomerates: GE not only owns NBC, but also more than a dozen individual stations, in large cities. News Corp. owns FOX and about three dozen stations. Clear Channel owns a few hundred radio stations. Time Warner owns CNN and a bunch of magazines. Hearst Corp. owns a dozen newspapers, two dozen TV stations and almost 20 magizines.

 

More channels does not necessarily mean more independent sources.

 

Since the companies are now bigger, and news isn't the only business, are they going to be as likely to take on the government, and risk lesgislation that affects other parts of their corporations?

[Phi for All]

So when two (or more) different sources report a story, and disagree, how are you to evaluate which one is correct? We go back to the problem of many people believing the one with which they agree, and dismissing the other(s).

You make a great point and I guess sometimes it's not about which is correct but more that you have been exposed to differing POVs. Most stories have more than one side and I still maintain that it's best to have multiple sources. And when you know facts have been skewed then it's a red flag that someone is manipulating the press for their own purposes.

 

To underscore the importance of seeing all sides possible, I always like the story of the Baltimore Needle Exchange program. People who only hear that the city wants to give free needles to junkies are outraged. Then they find out how drastically AIDS and other diseases from shared-needle use are lowered and they think it's a good thing. Then they hear that, instead of all the junkies turning in a few needles for a few fresh ones, opportunistic addicts are collecting hundreds of needles, exchanging them and then selling them to the other junkies for $1 apiece and once again the citizens are outraged. Before the mayor is forced to dismantle the whole program, we then come to find out that the addicts who are selling the needles are a more effective distribution system than the city ever could have mounted on it's own, they know ALL the addicts and where they hang out, and they're being paid by the addicts instead of the city. Once again, everyone is happy, but where would Baltimore's Needle Exchange program be if the whole story hadn't been revealed?

[swansont]

You make a great point and I guess sometimes it's not about which is correct but more that you have been exposed to differing POVs. Most stories have more than one side and I still maintain that it's best to have multiple sources. And when you know facts have been skewed then it's a red flag that someone is manipulating the press for their own purposes.

 

To underscore the importance of seeing all sides possible' date=' I always like the story of the Baltimore Needle Exchange program. People who only hear that the city wants to give free needles to junkies are outraged. Then they find out how drastically AIDS and other diseases from shared-needle use are lowered and they think it's a good thing. Then they hear that, instead of all the junkies turning in a few needles for a few fresh ones, opportunistic addicts are collecting hundreds of needles, exchanging them and then selling them to the other junkies for $1 apiece and once again the citizens are outraged. Before the mayor is forced to dismantle the whole program, we then come to find out that the addicts who are selling the needles are a more effective distribution system than the city ever could have mounted on it's own, they know ALL the addicts and where they hang out, and they're being paid by the addicts instead of the city. Once again, everyone is happy, but where would Baltimore's Needle Exchange program be if the whole story hadn't been revealed?[/quote']

 

I guess there are (at least) two things to consider: one is factual reporting, and the other opinion/spin. So part of it depends on whether you're reading an editorial or an investigative story. Ideally you'd have journalists who held people's feet to the fire to get all the facts out, regardless of the politics, and point out when the editorial pieces are conveniently dismissing facts when they take a side.

[john5746]

You are disputing that Tet was an unmitigated disaster for the enemy in every military sense?

 

The media is just as capable as any other culture of group think. This was particularly dangerous when power was concentrated in the hands of a few networks.

 

No, I am disputing your general conclusions from that. The military has to say and believe they will win. His conclusion was that we could not win militarily - the same conclusion McNamara has now and said he had before the war.

 

So, the media apparently isn't as susceptible to group think now. Well, the military is the very definition of group think. So, I guess you believe the media is no longer a problem in the Iraq war, correct?

[JohnB]

Swanont, single out my post if you wish.

 

Like you I'm not a fan of "The other side thinks....." club. You will perhaps notice that most of my comments contained a temporizing word. My use of "seem to", "appear" and "tend to" was quite deliberate.

 

By this usage I meant that certain ideas would appear to be more likely to be associated with the "Left" than the "Right". It is not meant to state or imply that all people from the "Left" share these views.

 

Similarly it is untrue to say that "The Right value Economic Programs over Social Justice Programs" but it would be fair to say that "The Right appear to put more emphasis on Economic programs rather than Social Justice Programs".

 

There is also the fact that the Left/Right divide is different for differing nations. The major "Left" party in Australia is "The Australian Labour Party" which until rather recently was controlled by the Union movement. So politically, our Left is probably far more left than yours. I sincerely doubt that Democrats in the US call each other "Comrade".

 

Consequently a statement of "The Left (or Right) thinks....." may be true for one nation but not another or may be more true in one nation over another. Which of course brings me back to my opening comment and why I try to avoid such definitive statements.

 

I hope this clears up the intent of my comments.

 

Cheers.

[Jim]

No' date=' I am disputing your general conclusions from that. The military has to say and believe they will win. His conclusion was that we could not win militarily - the same conclusion McNamara has now and said he had before the war.

 

So, the media apparently isn't as susceptible to group think now. Well, the military is the very definition of group think. So, I guess you believe the media is no longer a problem in the Iraq war, correct?[/quote']

 

 

2% of the Iraqi public found terrorist attacks to be the most pressing problem in the country yet that is all you hear about these days.

 

Let's face it - our enemies in Iraq are feeding the media what they want - blood. This episode is worse than Vietnam. Did you see Condi on Meet the Press this morning?