The sad state of modern journalism


Syme
 Share

Recommended Posts

Identifying a denied bias, over and over again = insulting someone?

 

 

No, not at all.  Identifying a denied bias is fine.  As a matter of fact I am identifying a denied bias on the part of *both* sides. The beatin' stick didn't bother me, either.  But calling one's opponents (whether it is an individual or a group) "sick" is insulting.  It's a minor example, but an example nonetheless. I fully understand the bias on the part of those who insult others--they deny it or talk it away in attempts to diminish the effects.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I disagree.  It seems an apt analogy.

 

A room full of [adherents of politics x], who don't know they are adherents, without a single genuine opposing viewpoint in their circle.  They think they're unbiased and diverse, but they're not.

 

A mine full of miners breathing gas, unaware they're breathing the same gas, with no canary to alert them to the fact.  They think they're healthy and safe, but they're not.

 

 

From where I'm standing, someone getting offended by this isn't getting offended because it's offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I disagree.  It seems an apt analogy.

 

A room full of [adherents of politics x], who don't know they are adherents, without a single genuine opposing viewpoint in their circle.  They think they're unbiased and diverse, but they're not.

 

A mine full of miners breathing gas, unaware they're breathing the same gas, with no canary to alert them to the fact.  They think they're healthy and safe, but they're not.

 

 

From where I'm standing, someone getting offended by this isn't getting offended because it's offensive.

 

I'm skeptical that a room filled with [adherents of politics x] would be without a single genuine opposing viewpoint in their circle.  Because I'm skeptical I'm also prone to suspect the description is at best mischaracterized.  Nor do I think the analogy to miners breathing gas is sufficiently close to people with opposing viewpoints to be anything beside an effort to mischaracterize and get a laugh from those whose bias it serves.  

 

I suspect that what you and I respectively find offensive depends upon our biases.  From where I'm standing, someone getting offended isn't up to the person issuing the offense.  It's up to the victim.  I suppose that if I were to exclaim that you are "sick" to hold the political views you hold you would not take offense.  However, as I review the rules on our own forum here they seem to indicate that I would be placing myself in a position where someone could complain to a moderator about my comportment.  If I understand them accurately, I think they are good rules and based upon good standards of conduct.  What I see as the disparity between such standards and the behavior we've discussed (among some political opponents) compels me to conclude that the problem the original OP brought up is less one of a change in journalism and more one of general attitudes about political discourse, i.e. scoring "points" not out of a better argument but by the number of ad hominem jabs one can provide.

 

Bottom line, I suppose, is that you and I see things differently on this specific aspect of the issue.  If we didn't, I suppose we would have less to talk about.   :)

Edited by UT.starscoper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical that a room filled with [adherents of politics x] would be without a single genuine opposing viewpoint in their circle.

 

This is amazingly naive. Perhaps you are famillar with the NYTimes movie critic who was baffled at Nixon's re-election, and said that though she knew only one person who voted for Nixon, could sometimes feel them in the theater. The insularity of opinion among cliques, and specifically among leftists, is legendary.

 

I have personally been in gatherings where I was the only person to hold particular viewpoints, such as opposition to elective abortion. With my absence, the remainder of people in the meeting would indeed have lack anyone -- ANYONE -- to hold a divergent opinion. This leftwing lockstep Goodthink is far more pervasive than you appear to realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is amazingly naive. Perhaps you are famillar with the NYTimes movie critic who was baffled at Nixon's re-election, and said that though she knew only one person who voted for Nixon, could sometimes feel them in the theater. The insularity of opinion among cliques, and specifically among leftists, is legendary.

 

I have personally been in gatherings where I was the only person to hold particular viewpoints, such as opposition to elective abortion. With my absence, the remainder of people in the meeting would indeed have lack anyone -- ANYONE -- to hold a divergent opinion. This leftwing lockstep Goodthink is far more pervasive than you appear to realize.

 

I'm not familiar with the movie critic.  Would you be so kind as to provide me with a reference and the context so that I may investigate it.  By the way, it is interesting that you chose the world "legendary" in context with insularity of opinion given the nature of legends.  

 

I've been labeled naive before, but not for my interpretation of a sentence.  Are you and I reading Neurotypical's quote, and coming away with completely different ideas of what the sentence meant?  I'm thinking that is the case because I don't think your rebuttal has anything to do with my remark.  If I am guilty of the same mistake then perhaps you or Neurotypical can clarify it for me.  I may not be naive, but only guilty of reading too fast.

Edited by UT.starscoper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is amazingly naive. ...

 

Maybe I should offer the following to explain my *own* interpretation of what Neurotypical wrote, and if you still feel to indict me for being naive I'll accept your verdict (with the understanding that I think it is biased, haha.)

 

The sentence(s) in question are: " A room full of [adherents of politics x] who don't know they are adherents, without a single genuine opposing viewpoint in their circle.  They think they're unbiased and diverse, but they're not."

 

As I read the sentences above I picture a room filled with oh let’s say adherents of the idea that President Bush was the best president ever.  The first skeptical thought that occurs to me is that they don’t know they are adherents of the idea.  The second skeptical thought is that all their viewpoints are identical.  No views in opposition (to any degree).  Show me a room filled with such people, and I'll show you an observer who hasn't taken the time to look very closely.

 

 

The second sentence claims *they think* they are unbiased and diverse.  The person offering this description of course thinks they are not unbiased and diverse.  But how can the person (validly) make such a claim? His own biases are evident.  Has he interviewed every one of them?  How does he know what they think?  Has he made a study of what they mean when they consider themselves diverse.  Are they all white?  Are they all registered Democrats (oops, I mean Republicans)?  Or does diversity itself mean different things to different people?

 

Now I will bet a milkshake that you and I looked at it differently, hahahaha.   :) 

Edited by UT.starscoper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not.  I've gone shooting in the early AM with older former military dudes.   :D

 

 

Hahahahahaha, I appreciate the comic relief.  On the other hand I've known quite a few military dudes myself, and unless one corners them and forces them to defend themselves I've observed that their viewpoints can be pretty diverse depending on their ranks, their cultural backgrounds, etc.  Oh, and the military term f.u.b.a.r. comes to mind as further evidence of their various degrees of love for the military.  (Offered in the same spirit of humor).   :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahahahahaha, I appreciate the comic relief.  On the other hand I've known quite a few military dudes myself, and unless one corners them and forces them to defend themselves I've observed that their viewpoints can be pretty diverse depending on their ranks, their cultural backgrounds, etc.  

 

Honestly, no comic relief intended.  I wasn't giving an example from the military dudes I know, I was giving an example of going shooting in the early am with older retired military.  As someone who was accepted among them, not as an outsider or someone trying to corner them.

 

Yes, military is full of diverse viewpoints.  Older retired military who go shooting in the early AM, not so much.  I've yet to see a leftie among them.  Zero leftie viewpoints.  Very few center-right for that matter.  More like solidly-right to libertarian-right, with a few tinfoil hatters thrown into the mix.  

 

I stand by my original claim, and think you'd be well served to rethink your skepticism.  Insular groups, who sometimes aren't even aware they're insular, exist.  Yes indeed, you can find many of these insular groups in newsrooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by my original claim, and think you'd be well served to rethink your skepticism.  Insular groups, who sometimes aren't even aware they're insular, exist.  Yes indeed, you can find many of these insular groups in newsrooms.

 

 

I know insular groups exist. I'm skeptical that they don't (honestly) know they're insular--but never say never. I've heard so many people over the years complain about how insular Mormons are. And I can see why they say it. But I don't think that's the same as what I've been talking about.  Help me understand why I would be well served to rethink my skepticism. How would I be better served by accepting (what seems to be your point of view). Maybe I should ask you to explain what the insularity of groups in newsrooms is--what you mean, and how it is you know it.

Edited by UT.starscoper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine made an interesting point about this.

 

He was saying that it used to be there were no commercials during the news broadcasts, and that each channel was obligated to provide news and information.  The change happened when it became possible to run commercials during the news shows.  When that happened, it turned news broadcasting into a competitive venture, just like every other type of TV programming.

 

So how do you get people to watch YOUR news over the other stations'?  You all report on the same events.  You all send correspondents, cameramen, etc. to the same places, so what do you do?

 

You make your version of the news more INTERESTING, of course.  You make it a form of entertainment.  You tell people what they want to hear, or run the kinds of stories that interest them.  It becomes less about keeping the public informed and more about making money on how you sell information.

 

And thus: The situation as it stands today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine made an interesting point about this.

 

He was saying that it used to be there were no commercials during the news broadcasts, and that each channel was obligated to provide news and information.  The change happened when it became possible to run commercials during the news shows.  When that happened, it turned news broadcasting into a competitive venture, just like every other type of TV programming. ...

 

I wonder obligated by whom? And who payed the expenses of broadcasting the news in those days? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share