Disappointed at Fox News Analyst

[hagoth]

Hi Traveler,

Interesting post - but I would like to put forward some ideas.  I have some training in propaganda as a means to change culture and individual morals....if one can be enticed to laugh they will believe anything they will allow themselves to laugh at.

 

For the record, I don't believe I have ever laughed at anything said on the Daily Show. And as I have said elsewhere, I disagree with many things said on that show. But I certainly get your intended point: caution is needed. Like you, I've studied German and American propaganda, psychology, and how learning works. I still have a lot to learn.

 

Jon mocks some sacred things. I take objection to that. But I value his ongoing insight in how much of the fourth estate is frequently failing in its duties. If much of the press is beholden to special interests, or is marching in lockstep to direction from politicians, or specifically the Executive branch, or has simply become lazy, what then? What becomes of a nation where much the press is actually not free, but is a leashed dog, only doing the bidding of its master(s), or has fallen asleep on duty? How can an uninformed (or misinformed) citizenry govern itself? Or, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."

http://www.politheo.com/thomasjefferson.html

 

You may have noticed that this post is made with deliberate soberness and lack explicit of humor.  I am not trying to "trick" you into how to think but to be very careful what swallow as TRUE.  Every one has a bias - as well as my self.  If you do not understand the bias - you are less like to be able to decipher what truth there is in the things you like laughing at.

Your reference to Nazis is noted (have we arrived at Godwin's law so soon?), however using humor to illustrate a point is not necessarily evil or a trick. It might more accurately be called a skill. It is a teaching tool. We occasionally even see humor used masterfully from the pulpit in General Conference. I don't have much skill at it, but I appreciate it when I see it done well.

 

(As to bias, I just completed a long thread elsewhere on that very same topic.)  And there's a considerable difference between appreciating insightful humor and outright laughing.

 

Thoughts?

Edited June 7, 2015 by hagoth

[unixknight]

The problem with justifying bias in the name of forming a bulwark against corruption is that you necessarily have to sacrifice a certain amount of reason to achieve it.  At the core of partisan thinking is the notion that there's no value in analyzing the issues in a case by case basis.  "Your team's biases are based on principles while THEIR team's biases are based on emotion" will only take you so far.  

 

This kind of thinking tends to create a HUGE amount of confirmation bias.  The Left accuses Mormons of being hate-filled bigots because we generally oppose gay marriage.  They could use the "bulwark against corruption" argument too, couldn't they?  Do you like being called a hate filled bigot?  I sure don't.  I wish I could get the people who say such things to stop throwing labels and LISTEN for a minute.

 

But if I want that courtesy for myself, I need to extend it to others, ESPECIALLY when the team says I shouldn't.

[prisonchaplain]

You know what I see here? The conservative cannot take off the jersey of the "Conservative Home Team" as she treats the issue like a political football game. Okay, either that, or she's one that would do the exact same thing Geller did if she had the guts to do so (this is statistically unlikely I think). The liberal at least has the ability to get out of the sports game, shed his jersey, and analyze the story as a real person instead of a cardboard caricature of a liberal.

This is a prime example of why people who watch Fox News thinks it's a cesspool of conservative numskulls.

Yes, this was during American Newsroom - the news section rather than the commentary section like Hannity, Van Susteren, etc.

 

Could it be that the conservative analysts just really believes that killing religious opponents is horrifically wrong, and that in the face of such evil, it is inappropriate to discuss the wisdom of Geller's stunt?  In other words, I'm not going to tsk tsk Gellar when her opponents are literally trying to kill her.  We can discuss the appropriateness of religiously inflammatory demonstrations at another time.  Right now we're dealing with domestic religious homicide. 

[prisonchaplain]

You are assuming that he didn't. And this assumption came from nothing more than that I said he is liberal. What other source could it have been?

I've seen this guy on Fox before. I can't remember what they were talking about then but it wasn't anything to do with Book of Mormon musical because then I would have remembered it.

I tried looking at the website to see if I can find his name so I can read up on him but there are so many people listed in their On Air Personalities and there's no "search" function where I could search for a good-looking young black man who wears rimless eyeglasses.

And besides... just because he has not said anything about the Book of Mormon musical does not mean he is "okay" with it. If he has not said anything about the musical then it is most likely because he was not asked about it - he is a Fox Analyst... he doesn't have his own show on that channel. I've never seen Fox have a news piece about the controversy of the Book of Mormon musical, let alone have analysts debate it, let alone choose him specifically to comment on it. You're a man of logic, let it not fail you now. He was asked about Pam Geller, so he told us what he thought about Pam Geller.

 

 

I gotta call you out on this.  To feign ignorance about the very pervasive liberal hypocrisy on this issue is not something I expect.  For decades conservatives have complained about public funding of obscene and sacrilegious art displays and productions.  A picture of the Virgin Mary placed in elephant dung, a crucifix put inside a jar of urine, a Catholic cardinal sculpted to look like a phallic piece--all of these paid with our tax dollars, all esteemed as social commentary, all with liberals saying we conservatives were just too willing to censor, to closed to intelligent ideas, so narrow minded, so easily angered.  Why oh why, they asked, is our faith so easily challenged?

 

Then, when it is Islam (who's extremist happen to be opposing the U.S. and Israel) that gets the "intelligent social commentary" treatment, oh my--this is bigoted, this is disrespectful, this is insensitive--typical conservative behavior!  Tsk!  Tsk!

 

Are you seriously asking for citations and examples of this???

[Guest]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to "get off the field"

 

You need to understand that one group bases their ideas on Principles and the other bases their ideas on Feelings.

 

The statement I bolded above gets to be made when you're "on the field". If you would get off the field you will realize that both sides either talk through principles and/or feelings. The opposing jersey just refuse to see it because they've already concluded the other is basing on whatever it is they are broad brushed to be based on. And... who gets to decide what the broad brush is going to be? Whatever brush can sell the most votes... So, the narrative continues - the Left kills babies, the Right kills grandmas, the left are lazy welfare bunnies, the right are greedy wealthy scrooges. All of which has not a smidgen of semblance to reality.

But, you can put a small sound bite on a propaganda machine - a little stint on a news analysts segment, a 30-second video commercial, a 120-character tweet, a meme, etc - along the lines of the broad brush and you can pretty much get all the team jerseys to nod their heads and spread the word to cement the false narrative... even as it is so far from reality even Photoshop can't possibly doctor it up any further.

The result of this is - not only does people generally dismiss the point of views of the other team jersey (regardless of merit), also they just automatically pick up the narrative of their team color without the benefit of their own unbiased analysis based on their own principles - they just parrot the same things, regurgitating the false narratives that they have been conditioned to espouse.

It happens all the time - the most recent incident is the Cops and the Pool Party. A short clip that fits the broad brush narrative gets parroted by so many people who doesn't even bother to analyze what the thing is about. It is even sadder to see the young people - teens, early twenties and even 30's that are so politically naïve that if you ask them why they voted for a certain candidate they just say, oh because he has accomplished so much and helped so many people and can relate to the poor... talking about Obama or Hilary... and because the other guy is a greedy rich tax-evader who gives tax cuts to the rich... so you ask for specifics and not a single thing they say is backed up by any sort of facts! And no, don't even try to say this is because they're liberals... it happens just as bad in the conservative side of the aisle... It got so bad you can't even make heads or tails of what people mean when they say liberal or conservative... it's just another way of saying - Democrat or Republican - and trying to come off as a high-roader non-partisan.

 

But unfortunately the "Game" is necessary.

Politics is not a game. Politics is necessary. Treating Politics like a Sports Game is terrible. Get off the GAME means to stop treating Politics like a Sports Game and throw away your adopted labels. Start THINKING and ANALYZING things without the assigned political label and apply your own individualized thinking onto the arena of Politics instead of somebody else's team narrative. That's how Democracy is supposed to work.

Edited June 9, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

anatess,

I'm not sure I understand the point here. Is it (forgive me if I'm misunderstanding):

We need to compromise our core values so we can all just get along.

??

'Cause....yeah....I don't think so.

I know you are a highly intelligent person. I'm sure you don't think I'm that much of an idiot either. Do you really think I would say something like that? Take a moment and try to understand what I'm trying to say regardless of the poorly worded paragraphs. I try to write clearly but I still struggle.

But, it's okay now because unixknight here worded what I was trying to say in a MUCH MUCH MUCH BETTER and CLEARER way. He hit the nail right on the head:

The problem with justifying bias in the name of forming a bulwark against corruption is that you necessarily have to sacrifice a certain amount of reason to achieve it. At the core of partisan thinking is the notion that there's no value in analyzing the issues in a case by case basis. "Your team's biases are based on principles while THEIR team's biases are based on emotion" will only take you so far.

This kind of thinking tends to create a HUGE amount of confirmation bias. The Left accuses Mormons of being hate-filled bigots because we generally oppose gay marriage. They could use the "bulwark against corruption" argument too, couldn't they? Do you like being called a hate filled bigot? I sure don't. I wish I could get the people who say such things to stop throwing labels and LISTEN for a minute.

But if I want that courtesy for myself, I need to extend it to others, ESPECIALLY when the team says I shouldn't.

[Guest]

Could it be that the conservative analysts just really believes that killing religious opponents is horrifically wrong, and that in the face of such evil, it is inappropriate to discuss the wisdom of Geller's stunt?  In other words, I'm not going to tsk tsk Gellar when her opponents are literally trying to kill her.  We can discuss the appropriateness of religiously inflammatory demonstrations at another time.  Right now we're dealing with domestic religious homicide.

The news story was Geller putting the winning cartoon on the DC buses. Why should she not talk about the appropriateness of religious inflammatory demonstrations when IT IS THE NEWS STORY they were analyzing?

[Guest]

I gotta call you out on this.  To feign ignorance about the very pervasive liberal hypocrisy on this issue is not something I expect.

FEIGN ignorance? When you give me the name of that guy (I couldn't find it on the Fox website) then I can tell you if he is a liberal hypocrite. Until then, he is simply a liberal.

And calling all liberal hypocrites is another point to support my view on American Politics as a Football Game.

For decades conservatives have complained about public funding of obscene and sacrilegious art displays and productions.  A picture of the Virgin Mary placed in elephant dung, a crucifix put inside a jar of urine, a Catholic cardinal sculpted to look like a phallic piece--all of these paid with our tax dollars, all esteemed as social commentary, all with liberals saying we conservatives were just too willing to censor, to closed to intelligent ideas, so narrow minded, so easily angered.  Why oh why, they asked, is our faith so easily challenged?

 

Then, when it is Islam (who's extremist happen to be opposing the U.S. and Israel) that gets the "intelligent social commentary" treatment, oh my--this is bigoted, this is disrespectful, this is insensitive--typical conservative behavior!  Tsk!  Tsk!

 

Are you seriously asking for citations and examples of this???

Citations and examples doesn't matter. Just the fact that you broad brushed ALL LIBERALS into this already dismissing the label LIBERAL to be synonymous to HYPOCRITE already proves my point.

[prisonchaplain]

The news story was Geller putting the winning cartoon on the DC buses. Why should she not talk about the appropriateness of religious inflammatory demonstrations when IT IS THE NEWS STORY they were analyzing?

 

Because...err...the assassination attempt sorta trumped the original story. 

[prisonchaplain]

FEIGN ignorance? When you give me the name of that guy (I couldn't find it on the Fox website) then I can tell you if he is a liberal hypocrite. Until then, he is simply a liberal.

And calling all liberal hypocrites is another point to support my view on American Politics as a Football Game.

Citations and examples doesn't matter. Just the fact that you broad brushed ALL LIBERALS into this already dismissing the label LIBERAL to be synonymous to HYPOCRITE already proves my point.

 

If we were in a journalism class analyzing a particular writer/commentator's leanings and fairness, perhaps I could concede your point.  However, we can't help but look at the big picture.  At least since Reagan the media has had an obvious liberal bias.  Along comes FOX and talk radio, and I've hard nothing but a drum beat from supposedly more reputable media about the "right-wing echo chamber," as if they were objective.

 

So...when an identified liberal bemoans an identified conservative's alleged meanness and inappropriateness (again, in the face of a significant assassination attempt), it is most natural for us to respond quite loudly with, "Where were you when . . . "

 

Oh...you are right though.  This is no game.  I tire of the commentators treating it as such.  When my tax dollars literally fund dung and urine that's used to mock and shame my faith, when a male private part is erected as representation of clergy at a public university, and then a liberal gets up and complains because of a privately funded cartoon drawing competition--sorry if I don't take the time to check whether said commentator might have actually been on our side for any of this.  Honestly though, the odds are pretty slim.

[mrmarklin]

In fairness, in these segments having one side oppose the other is SOP, regardless of the merits of the case.  Otherwise there would not be a discussion. :)