okayyouwinletsmoveon. How 'bout that Sarah girl, eh?
Eh? On Oct 2, 2008, at 7:57 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: > > On 1-Oct-08, at 9:09 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > >> On Oct 1, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: >> >>> Our discussion started with the idea of objective truth and >>> perspective, and I'll bring it back here. >> >> That's a really disingenuous assertion, Michael. At best, objective >> truth and perspective were only mentioned in passing. From the >> initial response, this thread has been about media bias during the >> current presidential campaign. > -- > > I am talking about media bias. I listened to the audio podcast you > sent over, and I was pulling part of this discussion from that > discussion. I had assumed that was required "reading" for this thread. > > One of his points was that there was a shift in thinking in the 60's > about what objective truth was, and how reporting in general affected > the reality of the events to follow. Turns out there's some > indecision about the whereabouts of the cat in that box as well. > > Instead of taking this as a warning about how we should step lightly > around the facts, people generally accepted that this was a way to > affect positive change in the world, and that democracies ought to. > Combine this with Capote's new journalism, which added dramatic > narrative devices to force personal, emotional responses to the > reporting of fact. > > >> I understand your desire to take every opportunity to vilify >> Republicans and Bush in particular. I was hoping to have a >> reasonable discussion with you regarding media bias I've avoided >> taking any of your bait. At least mostly. We can resume after Palin >> kicks Biden't ass tomorrow night. >> >> But seriously, during these times we need the best that journalism >> has to offer. We're now getting the worst. I think it's a >> combination of incompetence and bias. > -- > > I think it's a sign of the general direction of news as > entertainment. It's a "for profit" enterprise, and their main goal is > to generate revenue. While the internet is adding panic to the mix as > stations and papers struggle to find viewers, the internet will also > speed the decline of "journalistic integrity" and the rise of opinion- > based reporting. People will gravitate towards outlets that speak to > their existing opinions, and we'll be well on our way to never having > to hear an opinion that differs from our own. > > I've always been an advocate of setting up a separate public tax for > news organizations, with oversight. I don't think they should be > scrambling for dollars in the same pool as Spike TV and the Food > Network. Truth and health should not be "for profit" businesses. > > But then that's an awfully socialist idea, so I'll understand if you > think that makes me a pinko commie. > > >> I'm not singling you out, but phrases like 'No offense, but I'm not >> a big fan of your "facts"' serve to ensure we never agree on >> anything. That may be the right attitude to take, but it really >> sucks. > -- > > Just because he said that Obama was the least vetted candidate ever, > doesn't mean it's true. He didn't cite any source. > > Obama has been in politics for some time, and he's been a candidate > for a while. He's also written several books, and his financing and > assets are pretty transparent. > > Give me some reason to doubt that he's on the up and up and we'll > talk. > > >> Perhaps the problem will solve itself. The newsprint media >> continues to lose readership, subscriptions and ad revenue. >> Broadcast news outlets continue to lose viewers. I believe some of >> the extreme bias we're seeing is the result of an industry in it's >> death throes. It's only a matter of time before folks realize they >> can ignore the screaming heads, get off their asses and get some >> important things done. > -- > > Choosing to ignore the media because the noise to signal ratio is too > high is no solution. > > As always, people will choose who to trust. > > It's a sign of the times. Once upon a time there were a handful of > stations, and the next day it was virtually a lock that most of the > people you knew or worked with saw the same broadcast. It was > culturally unifying. Today, it's almost impossible to discuss an > issue without differences of "fact" becoming the bone of contention. > > >> I know with the utmost of confidence that I'm getting the liberal >> (or Democratic) take on a story from the AP, just as you know with >> the utmost of certainty that Rush Windbag is giving you the >> conservative (Republican) take on a story. If both news/editorial >> outlets would simply declare their allegiance, we would spend more >> time on policy differences than disputing facts. > -- > > How so? We'd be talking about the same differences in reporting, with > the same knowledge we have now about which stations lean which way. > > >> We would spend a lot less time arguing about the facts or the >> manner in which a story is characterized if both news or editorial >> outfits made their allegiance clear. > -- > > I can't agree with you. > > >> I've found that policy differences aren't that hard to work >> through. Especially when you're face to face. That really serves to >> alleviate a lot of stifling hostility. I'm not always successful, >> but I try to write as though you're across the table from me. You >> may look unbathed with a ferocious hangover and have blood shooting >> out of your eyes, but that still works better than assuming you're >> just another bundle of electrons from the ether. > > -- > > I'll help you fill in the blanks: I bathe regularly, I have a few > beers every couple of months, but I'm not really a drinker, and I've > usually got a sarcastic grin from ear to ear. > > Unfortunately, we're not sitting across the table. You're not getting > any of my body language. When I write, I make large sweeping strokes > about how I feel to substitute for my inflection and gestures. > > I consider these debates to be entertainment, by and large, and do my > best to be entertaining, even if that means being inflammatory =) > > -- > Michael > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
