Phi for All Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 Then you would likely appreciate the coverage of US news in the Economist. Many decades ago I gave up Time and Newsweek for as sources on the US when I realised The Economist did it so much better. Thanks, Ophiolite. I missed this the first time round, but I'm registered now and look forward to the added perspective. And thanks to CaptainPanic for the bump that helped.
iNow Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Interesting review of how Fox skews stats or biases how they're perceived by their audience: http://simplystatistics.org/2012/11/26/the-statisticians-at-fox-news-use-classic-and-novel-graphical-techniques-to-lead-with-data/ One could argue these are mistakes, but based on the consistent displays of data supporting one viewpoint, I think these are likely the result of someone with real statistical training who is using data in a very specific way to make a point. Obviously, Fox News isn’t the only organization that does this sort of thing, but it is interesting to see how much effort they put into statistical graphics. 1
imatfaal Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Interesting review of how Fox skews stats or biases how they're perceived by their audience: http://simplystatist...lead-with-data/ Some of the rabid defending of Fox in the comments section is really quite disturbing; my country right or wrong I can understand (even tho I disagree) but my news station right or wrong is just plain stupid! 2
Phi for All Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Some of the rabid defending of Fox in the comments section is really quite disturbing; my country right or wrong I can understand (even tho I disagree) but my news station right or wrong is just plain stupid! Every news outlet that relies on advertisers has certain unethical practices or tricks that are not aimed at informing so much as aimed at intriguing the viewer to keep them from going elsewhere. FOX News viewers are probably the ones that set the tone of those practices and tricks, and I've noticed a disturbing trend towards appealing to isolationism and distrust of science that most other outlets don't share. They're very subtle, and I mentioned one in another thread that bears repeating. The link read something like, "The REAL reason this German manufacturer won't sell to the US". When I clicked the link, the story was about an appliance manufacturer that was discontinuing a certain model worldwide. This German manufacturer wasn't going to be selling that model to ANYONE ANYWHERE ANYMORE, but the link played on the typical FOX News viewer's belief that other countries don't really like the US so it's us vs them. I'm still unsure whether or not FOX News is trying to foster this kind of thinking in it's viewers as a wing of the US Republican party or if that's just a sentiment already espoused by their viewers that they're just trying to play upon. Either way, I think this view is strengthened by the use of this tactic, and FOX News seems to use it more often and much more insidiously than any other outlet. 1
imatfaal Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 /.... interesting stuff snipped I'm still unsure whether or not FOX News is trying to foster this kind of thinking in it's viewers as a wing of the US Republican party or if that's just a sentiment already espoused by their viewers that they're just trying to play upon. Either way, I think this view is strengthened by the use of this tactic, and FOX News seems to use it more often and much more insidiously than any other outlet. I will try and dig out a link for an article (somewhat prescient) which argued many years ago that our society is so complex and each decision must be so contextualised that it is difficult to arrive at absolutes, political touchstones have all but disappeared; we are left with directions and tendencies. All political judgments have become relative; Obama is a left-leaning socialist - compared to Romney, sure he is - compared to Reagan, not so sure - compared to Mitterand and Callaghan, he is very right of centre. Very few politicians, in this age of 24/7 media scrutiny, will admit to any steadfast principles; they will wish to reform that, repeal this, abolish the other. Politicians now define themselves with reference to a moveable centre, rather than in terms of deeply held beliefs. Fox, as a quasi-political entity, are embroiled in this mess; they must constantly be seen as distancing themselves from liberal majority - and this has manifested itself in the viewers as well. You have people who identify with being to the right of "the average joe" - who seem to be content and determined to be on the right wing no matter how far right that is! It's a kind of self-ghettoisation - "we insist on being apart and fighting against the mainstream". As the parties nominally of the left (although not politically left) are in the ascendant, we are mainly seeing this happen on the right; however even in the UK with a conservative/liberal coalition government we are witnessing the growing power of right wing splinter parties (UKIP, BNP, EDL) 2
Moontanman Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 What really worries me is this tendency for people to not only listen to what they want to hear but for "what they want to hear" to trend toward more and more extreme view points. From my point of view the trend seems to be toward something vaguely resembling conservatism as the person gets older... I am getting older, is this something that that occurs naturally to people as they get older? Does it mean that the view points I had when I was younger will slowly tend to trend toward this vaguely conservative point of view or will my younger self's point of view slowly become written in stone and I will only listen to more extreme versions of my younger self's point of view? How do I continue to adapt my point of view as conditions change and avoid the trap of only paying attention to what I want to hear?
imatfaal Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 There is always the famous Churchill quote “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” As he served in a liberal, a coalition, and a conservative government we can guess he was being honest about changing one's mind (although I am not sure about the order - I htink it was Conservative->Liberal->Coalition->Conserative). I think we all do get a bit less liberal and bit more conservative as we age - I was a member of RCP and SWP at various stages of University, so there was a lot of room to move rihghtwards; but, now I cannot but help laugh at some of their policies. But that passion of youth also meant I was a member of the Anti-Nazi League when we marched against the British National Party - damn proud of that, but I would be too scared to do that now (think artist and hippies going up against football hooligans). As a teenager and at University I was on the wrong end of at least half a dozen baton charges by mounted police, and I kept on going back to march; now I let the protest go past my office window and just moan about the closed roads. You move on and tell yourself you are fighting the fight in different ways; but in reality when you open a newspaper you go straight for the sports' results. We realise that we are not going to turn the world upside down, that the downtrodden masses aren't all honest sons and daughter of the soil, that the wage-slaves aren't slaves but actually enjoy their 9 till 5, that public servants are vocationally trying to do a good job, that Italian philosophers maybe don't know anything ... and we become old and conservative. I rage against my own path down this route, and I still find myself taking it; every milestone I swear I will not pass I find that I have accepted without noticing. Maybe I will go on that next march against the latest government restriction of liberty - but I fear I won't! 2
John Cuthber Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 There is always the famous Churchill quote “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” Probably the most notable thing about that quote is that it's plainly wrong, but people still cite it as if it's meaningful. It's also interesting to consider whether Churchill's policies would be viewed as conservative or liberal by today's standards. I understand that an examination of Obama's policies found them to be to the Right of Ronald Reagan. That's a much shorter interval for attitudes to change.
overtone Posted December 6, 2012 Posted December 6, 2012 I will try and dig out a link for an article (somewhat prescient) which argued many years ago that our society is so complex and each decision must be so contextualised that it is difficult to arrive at absolutes, political touchstones have all but disappeared; we are left with directions and tendencies That's not a property of our society, but a consequence of failure in our education and media establishments. The political scale of left/right, for example, is essentially fixed - not relative to the temporary circumstances of a campaign season. It isn't an eternal absolute, maybe, but it is not whimsical or changeable or whatever some shill declares it to be on Fox. Not only is it fixed, but it is not really all that difficult to apply - community vs corporate control of economic resources, labor vs capital, etc: the division of issue is usually pretty clearly visible. The problem is that only a small fraction of the US population has any idea what it is any more. There's touchstone aplenty, but the blinded can't find any. So we have a situation in which the Heritage Foundation's recommended rightwing, corporate friendly health care policy, proposed and pushed by the Republican candidate for President in 1996, first established by a quintessential capitalist Republican and self-described "conservative" in his role as Governor of a State, to fend off a movement toward community control of health insurance and medical care in his State, is labeled "socialist" and "leftwing" by a dominant fraction of the pundits analyzing it today, and these pundits do not then get laughed out of their jobs and find themselves replaced by the competent. There is always the famous Churchill quote“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.” What Churchill meant by "liberal" bears little resemblance to the meaning of the term in US politics today. A closer term of current discourse might be "libertarian", but as leftwing libertarians are held to not exist by Murdoch media, and Murdoch media set the terms of discourse in the US these days, that would be misleading as well. The word "liberal" has been destroyed, rendered all but meaningless, by an organized and coherently managed propaganda campaign funded by the fascist right in the US. Churchill's quote must now be translated, as one woulc translate obscure references in Shakespeare, and without that effort its meaning is very different from the original.
imatfaal Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 Probably the most notable thing about that quote is that it's plainly wrong, but people still cite it as if it's meaningful. It's also interesting to consider whether Churchill's policies would be viewed as conservative or liberal by today's standards. I understand that an examination of Obama's policies found them to be to the Right of Ronald Reagan. That's a much shorter interval for attitudes to change. LIke all aphorisms it isn't wholly correct or universal - but it strikes a chord with many people; and unless you are taking it literally to say that it is "plainly wrong" is as laughable as claiming that it must be followed dogmatically. As a political saying it has that important grain of truth that means that people keep quoting it. Churchill would be as much an enigma politically today as he was then; a dashing war hero from the stateliest of stately homes, yet fighting for workers' rights and budgetary equality; pilloried, sometimes wrongly, for brutal decisions as Home Secretary, and yet willing to consider progress towards women's suffrage. That's not a property of our society, but a consequence of failure in our education and media establishments. How is that any different - education and media are integral to society and cannot be taken as outside influences. The political scale of left/right, for example, is essentially fixed - not relative to the temporary circumstances of a campaign season. It isn't an eternal absolute, maybe, but it is not whimsical or changeable or whatever some shill declares it to be on Fox. As John correctly mentioned above and you even allude to with reference to Churchill - this is simple not the case. The mainstream Labour speakers I listened to as a teenager are completely ostracized from the party now as being far too socialist, too anti-freemarket, (too unelectable), and just generally opposed to much that is now considered unassailable. Not only is it fixed, but it is not really all that difficult to apply - community vs corporate control of economic resources, labor vs capital, etc: the division of issue is usually pretty clearly visible. The problem is that only a small fraction of the US population has any idea what it is any more. There's touchstone aplenty, but the blinded can't find any. The division is clear in polsci terms - but that left which you sketch is no longer in existence in either USA (if it ever was) or in the UK. Public Ownership of industries and utilities used to be a touchstone of the Labour party and the left - now you will search in political parties for anyone who seriously advocates that policy. So we have a situation in which the Heritage Foundation's recommended rightwing, corporate friendly health care policy, proposed and pushed by the Republican candidate for President in 1996, first established by a quintessential capitalist Republican and self-described "conservative" in his role as Governor of a State, to fend off a movement toward community control of health insurance and medical care in his State, is labeled "socialist" and "leftwing" by a dominant fraction of the pundits analyzing it today, and these pundits do not then get laughed out of their jobs and find themselves replaced by the competent. Well yes - the terms socialist and leftwing are used wrongly, that incorrect usage is accepted by a decent percentage of the country; how is that not a moving of the spectrum? What Churchill meant by "liberal" bears little resemblance to the meaning of the term in US politics today. A closer term of current discourse might be "libertarian", but as leftwing libertarians are held to not exist by Murdoch media, and Murdoch media set the terms of discourse in the US these days, that would be misleading as well. The word "liberal" has been destroyed, rendered all but meaningless, by an organized and coherently managed propaganda campaign funded by the fascist right in the US. Churchill's quote must now be translated, as one woulc translate obscure references in Shakespeare, and without that effort its meaning is very different from the original. The political positions have not changed enough to render the quote meaningless - and frankly there are very few references in Shakespeare that require translation. The tendency to move from a socialist, liberal, egalitarian stance in one's youth to a more fiscally conservative, restrictive, and doctrinaire position in one's older years is something that has been recognized for many years; and I happen to think is correct. I agree with your comments on the destruction, deliberately, of the word liberal within the USA. liberals in England would not translate as Libertarians in the USA - whilst there are parallels, there would also be areas of complete disagreement.
overtone Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 LIke all aphorisms it isn't wholly correct or universal - but it strikes a chord with many people; and unless you are taking it literally to say that it is "plainly wrong" is as laughable as claiming that it must be followed dogmatically. The "chord" it strikes is a lie - a serious and fundamental deception. Example: Churchill was referring to advocates of free trade and lower tariffs and less economic regulation as liberal. That is not the "chord" struck in the US today, and people who claim the moral authority of the man who led the fight against Hitler for their advocacy of free trade as the mature, grownup approach are either lying or badly misinformed. What actual political stances Churchill considered mature and intelligent, as well as what he and everyone admired as having heart, is central to the meaning of that quote. And so his terms need translation. The political positions have not changed enough to render the quote meaningless Actual political positions are not involved. As it is used now in the US, it is often (usually) meant in a political position sense (as a reference to a political stance) almost the opposite of what Churchill meant. The invocation of Churchillian character and authority to support the opposite of what Churchill said and stood for is at least objectionable, no? At least a bit deceptive? - and frankly there are very few references in Shakespeare that require translation. Or Churchill. But it has been less than a century since Churchill, and not nearly the revolution in culture - we are surprised to find even these few cases. Then we note that the propaganda operations launched against some of the terms in Churchill's political vocabulary are new - Shakespeare's vocabulary, which does require frequent footnoting for the modern reader, changed in more natural circumstances and over longer spans of time. Well yes - the terms socialist and leftwing are used wrongly, that incorrect usage is accepted by a decent percentage of the country; how is that not a moving of the spectrum? The only "spectrum" involved has not moved. Reality has not changed. The actual political stances and arguments and positions have not inverted through some kind of opposite-day mirror, dragging their vocabulary with them. We still need terms for the collection of political viewpoints and arguments and analyses we used to call "liberal", the economic advocacy we used to call "left-wing" - - - - and the union of corporate with political and military power we used to call "fascism", btw. How are we to discuss socialized medicine if we must refer to Romney's program in Massachusetts (now adopted federally by Obama's administration) as "socialist"? If huge and unaccounted government gifts to private banks are now "socialist"? It takes a while to invent new words, and the necessity of discarding - or translating - the last few centuries of political thought and discourse is no small burden. Thing is: the propaganda usage is not merely wrong, but destructive of meaning - there is no new meaning involved, but a destruction of meaning itself. For example: In this new US usage, the word "leftwing" no longer refer to position on a left/right economic spectrum at all. It refers to whatever the Murdoch press and the fascist radio decide to apply it to - gun control, private bank bailouts, abortion on demand, nothing is too ridiculous or far-fetched, anything at all. It is even used interchangeably with "liberal", and there has been an attempt (still in progress) to make both of them interchangeable with "fascist". A reasonable translation confined to the new usage, without reference to the meaning of the term as standard for two centures of political discourse in English , might be "bad", or in the sense of TH White's ants in "The Once and Future King", "not-done". And this eventually poisons the media well, perhaps irrevocably. We can no longer discuss, in the public media arena, the major political issues and events of the day, if we have no terms of discourse. The easiest person to read on this matter is Orwell.
12012 Posted December 25, 2012 Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) STOP BEING HYPOCRITS, PLEASE! I'm getting tired of these kinds of posts all over the Internet - what is so special about being 'Informed' by conspiracy - theorists? If anybody was truly concerned about what somebody made up in their own head fom an interpretation; that is an average everyday person - that does NOT have a degree in Political Science has to say, they can read the bill or report themselves. Raither it be that you're getting it from a Concervative or Liberal new station; you're going to give a bias Conservative or Liberal interpretation if you read the bill(s) or report(s) from the subject. Please, Stop your rambling. Edited December 25, 2012 by 12012
Moontanman Posted December 25, 2012 Posted December 25, 2012 STOP BEING HYPOCRITS, PLEASE! I'm getting tired of these kinds of posts all over the Internet - what is so special about being 'Informed' by conspiracy - theorists? If anybody was truly concerned about what somebody made up in their own head fom an interpretation; that is an average everyday person - that does NOT have a degree in Political Science has to say, they can read the bill or report themselves. Raither it be that you're getting it from a Concervative or Liberal new station; you're going to give a bias Conservative or Liberal interpretation if you read the bill(s) or report(s) from the subject. Please, Stop your rambling. Everyone has some bias, but lying is not a bias, Fox News lies, they spin the news faster than a turbo prop spins a propeller... your post makes no sense... 1
Jeremy Mallin Posted December 27, 2012 Posted December 27, 2012 Love what everyone wrote above. Didn't have enough time to read every word, but most of you are spot on with what I've been irritated by for years - innacuracy, watered-down reports, partisan commentary instead of facts, etc. I think most of this is due to the fact that in America ratings and profits rule everything. That leads to the passing off of entertainment and pandering as news - weather it's pandering to particular corporate interests or to particular political interests. Either way it's a similar dilution and corruption of news reporting.On a related note, most of the American outlets don't even do investigation for their own reports; they reair and repost reports from news outlets like the Associated Press and Reuters, which on average DO actually do a better job of reporting facts instead of commentary. I've found that's it's often easier and quicker to cut out the middle man, go online, and get the original reports straight from the sources. Plus, you generally get reports on a wider range of topics covering more of the world. News isn't just politics; it's technology, culture, art, science, health, education and so much more. Also... ever since I became more interested in social media I've learned far more and been exposed to far more real news stories than I've ever seen on any televised broadcasts.
Trumptor Posted December 30, 2012 Posted December 30, 2012 I don't think that at any time in the history of America have people been fed so much propaganda, lies, and been manipulated as today. I think the founding fathers are turning in their graves because of what sheep the regular citizens have been turned into and the amount of real knowledge held from ordinary citizens by those in power.
Recommended Posts