Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Something I have seen for as long as I have been discussing politics is the tired canard of source destruction.
Now if Newsweek ran a cover story on how the use of toilet paper was sound sanitary practice, folks on the right would whine and cry... oh its a bunch of commie news trying to sell products for some leftist corporation.
Here you go, use a bark covered stick instead pinheads.
Fox issues a statement that says having good brakes on your car saves lives... Oh its Fox news, its some right wing nut conspiracy for who knows what reason.
Go yank the brakes off your car then scooter.
Why is it so hard for someone to merely look at a statement, whether printed or spoken and evaluate that statement on its face regardless of who said it?
If some news outlet ran a story that said, tossing children who are afraid of water into a swimming pool is the best way to teach them to swim, would you do it? Even if it was the newspaper you generally read?
While I realize people are predisposed towards confirmation bias and we will seek out sources of information that also share our views. Even scientist do this, but to refute something solely on the basis who or what news outlet printed it seems, well ignorant and lazy.
Ha ha... that is pretty funny. I am sadly just coming off a 10 post thread about whether or not Newsweek is Liberal. (It is BTW).
If we did not argue about this... what would we do with our time. :-P
There is still the reality of context. You cannot take something that non objective outlets say at face value. You just can't. Especially political issues.
Ha ha... that is pretty funny. I am sadly just coming off a 10 post thread about whether or not Newsweek is Liberal. (It is BTW).
If we did not argue about this... what would we do with our time. :-P
There is still the reality of context. You cannot take something that non objective outlets say at face value. You just can't. Especially political issues.
I would assert that nothing is purely objective that man has reported on. Every human being has a point of view and while some may be blatantly biased one way or another, that doesn't mean all statements are untrue because of the bias of the source.
If Bill O'Rielly stated that according to an AP poll, Obama's popularity has declined 10%. Well, chances are that is most likely true because it is a verifiable fact and we can all see the AP poll. Now we can disagree with the manner in which the AP did the poll, but more often is the case is that the argument becomes, "Its Fox, its Bill O, so thus is must be bunk" and no need to verify any further.
This happens no matter what the source and I find it completely frustrating that people are so lazy as to discount information wholesale on this basis.
If according to left and right choices of news and information, there are no acceptable sources of information that both deem "non-biased", as it then becomes a simple manner of agreeing with sources that agree with your view and discounting anything else. This is faith, nothing more.
Perhaps it is a sign of the times - a by-product of 24/7 news channels, and the Internet, and all that. But frankly, I tend not to believe ANYTHING these days without checking it out for myself.
The health care bill/debate is a great example. People started getting a bit hysterical about death panels and killing Grandma, and my reaction was, well what does the bill actually say?
There are still some relatively straight-shooting, true NEWS sources out there that simply tell you what the facts are, and let you draw your own conclusions. One source that works well for me is local TV newscasts.
But it seems that increasingly we are faced with a combination of news and spin right off the bat, and in my opinion, far too many people are far too willing to believe whatever they see-read-hear from whatever source, and just accept it as gospel without question.
That's why I like to go to the source documents. If we're talking about health care, then look at the bill, read the part(s) being discussed, and - here's the big one - THINK about it.
If someone says that so-and-so is for this, or against that, I try to find the exact quote (generally easy when it's the President making a speech - I've been a big fan of the White House website for years).
Most "news" outlets have some portion of the truth in whatever story they're pushing at any given time, but we all need to be careful in what we believe to be the truth as soon as we hear it, simply because most of the time, it's only part of the truth ... sometimes, a very, very small part.
That's why I like to go to the source documents. If we're talking about health care, then look at the bill, read the part(s) being discussed, and - here's the big one - THINK about it.
I believe this is where most people get lost. When someone has to look at something said, think about it, then ask themselves, is this plausible, is it verifiable, and in this context, is it right or at least make a valid point?
I happen to love Link TV, which is what I would consider a very traditionally Liberal outlet. I watch it because it offers content that will never air on any cable news outlet, not even MSNBC. I know that it has a Liberal view, but I can still assess the information provided knowing it has this slant and come to my own conclusions. I don't discount Democracy Now because it aired a show I disagreed with or because it is Liberal, anymore than I would discount the American Conservative magazine wholesale because I frequently disagree with one of its many writers.
Again, I just find it baffling that we so easily dismiss information based upon what outlet provided it instead of what was actually said.
Plato, the Classical Greek philosopher, was also a very astute observer of human behavior. When speaking of politics and propaganda he said that anything that worked in a previous age will work in any other because human nature is static and does not change.
This same crap will still be going on long after we're all gone and the ruling class will continue to use it to their advantage just as they do today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
