Left Wing Media, or is it Right Wing?

[Jebus]

As I said before, the only defense toward biased media is a critical mind. If you lack this, you will always be indoctrinated, wether it be for a 'good' or 'bad' cause in your eyes.

Really, Jebus, how many people have this critical mind? 1/1000 of the population? Most will just blatantly assume anything they hear, and this IS a bad thing.

Since this is the only thing you wrote that actually has something to do with the point I'm trying to make; (really Sander, you should try to read my posts better); and this is the only part where you're not either repeating what I said or what you supposedly said; or seem not to be to understand what the hell I am saying; I'll only reply to this one. After all, I haven't got all day.

Indeed, very few people have a mind that is critical enough to see information from desinformation, or objective information to subjective propaganda. And there lies the real problem. Not per sé in the fact that some sources offer biased information, or, in the case of Fox network, shout out this biased information out loud to a large target audience.

Biased sources have always existed, my friend, and have always been able to reach larger audiences then the, less interesting, objective sources. And always have they affected people's way of thinking. Just think of the Crusades, the Inquistion, World War II, the Cold War, Vietnam, and I don't know what. It's a given fact, and frankly a world without bias or personal opinions is unthinkalbe.

So the answer is not to attack those sources. Well, it might be, but it wouldn't solve anything anyway. The answer lies in teaching people how to handle the information they are offered, and teaching them which sources are reliable for the subject at hand and where to find the best information on a given subject. To learn people critical thinking, scepticism and ways to obtain information.
It's barely a 'subject' in any schools, and it should be. Information can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Sander]

Biased sources have always existed, my friend, and have always been able to reach larger audiences then the, less interesting, objective sources. And always have they affected people's way of thinking. Just think of the Crusades, the Inquistion, World War II, the Cold War, Vietnam, and I don't know what. It's a given fact, and frankly a world without bias or personal opinions is unthinkalbe.

Since you're trying, in vain, to bash me with my own stick, I'll bash you with the one your using now. This the third time you said this, and this is now the second time I'm saying that, and the second time I'm saying that I've said that before. No need to repeat it.

So the answer is not to attack those sources. Well, it might be, but it wouldn't solve anything anyway.

And why not? If people are convinced that their media is bad, they won't listen to it, no matter how dumb they are or how much they lack a critical mind.

The answer lies in teaching people how to handle the information they are offered, and teaching them which sources are reliable for the subject at hand and where to find the best information on a given subject. To learn people critical thinking, scepticism and ways to obtain information.
It's barely a 'subject' in any schools, and it should be. Information can be a dangerous thing.

And here I couldn't agree more. However, I stopped believing this was possible a while back when no-one could be bothered, not even after five repetitions, to properly read and think about that violence and games thing I was posting. Really, people want to remain blind, stubborn idiots, and no matter how much you want to educate them, it won't help.

And I should apologize to you, Jebus, since I didn't read one thing properly:

Simply because a certain target audience will read and believe these biased sources, simply because they are biased in the same way and want to believe these sources. If one, for instance, has a subscription to a Neo-Nazi magazine, then the risk for this subscriber to suddenly turn Neo-Nazi from reading this magazine is fairly low, since the subscriber was probably Neo-Nazi already before he took the subscription.

I'm sorry, Jebus, that I didn't read this properly, I should have.
Now, I'll reply to that with the following:
The fact that someone is already biased before starting to watch news like that is irrelevant. I'll show you why:
Take news-sources like the ones we have here, and make sure that only those kinds of news sources were available in the United States. How many people would then still believe WMD have been found, or that Iraq and Al-Qaida were co-operating for the 9/11 attacks?

 

[Jebus]

. This the third time you said this, and this is now the second time I'm saying that, and the second time I'm saying that I've said that before. No need to repeat it.

Well then. Let's move on then, shall we?

So the answer is not to attack those sources. Well, it might be, but it wouldn't solve anything anyway.

And why not? If people are convinced that their media is bad, they won't listen to it, no matter how dumb they are or how much they lack a critical mind.

Because those kind of sources will always be there. If you 'strike one down', another one will be there to take its place. If Fox network would cease to exist, another Republican-biased network will be there to take it's place...

The fact that someone is already biased before starting to watch news like that is irrelevant. I'll show you why:
Take news-sources like the ones we have here, and make sure that only those kinds of news sources were available in the United States. How many people would then still believe WMD have been found, or that Iraq and Al-Qaida were co-operating for the 9/11 attacks?

Americans? Plenty. Not as much, of course, because they are listening to biased sources (which you can't help ); but many will still believe it because they want to believe it. Much like racist still believe their race is superiour to others, while science has long proven this is never the case. Much like even when it has been proven a dozen times Faith Healings are bullshit, people still believe in them. Much like when it has been pointed out plenty of times Homeopathy is nothing but a bullshit scam, lots of people still believe in it.

People love to fool themselves, you know. Plenty of Americans who don't even watch Fox still believe Iraq had something to do with the War On Terror, or with altruism. Hell, half the American population will vote Bush coming elections, even when plenty of sources have proven that Bush is a bad president.
And that's not only the fault of the sources. If Fox network were to say to me Bush is great, I wouldn't believe it. Because I have learned to think critical.
And many, many people seem to lack that ability somehow. Hell, not only Americans. 1/4th of the Flemish vote Neo-Nazi, you know. And you can hardly say Flemish networks are biased that way...

 

[Sander]

Because those kind of sources will always be there. If you 'strike one down', another one will be there to take its place. If Fox network would cease to exist, another Republican-biased network will be there to take it's place...

Possibly, but probably not, because it takes a lot of money to run such a network. You can't just set one up because one has gone away, especially not if that one is then criticised for the exact same reasons.

Americans? Plenty. Not as much, of course, because they are listening to biased sources (which you can't help Wink ); but many will still believe it because they want to believe it. Much like racist still believe their race is superiour to others, while science has long proven this is never the case. Much like even when it has been proven a dozen times Faith Healings are bullshit, people still believe in them. Much like when it has been pointed out plenty of times Homeopathy is nothing but a bullshit scam, lots of people still believe in it.

Note that homeopathy isn't a scam, but that there are many people who scam others by claiming they use homeopaty. Non-modern medicine has never been able to prove it's the sole source of good medicine.

People love to fool themselves, you know. Plenty of Americans who don't even watch Fox still believe Iraq had something to do with the War On Terror, or with altruism. Hell, half the American population will vote Bush coming elections, even when plenty of sources have proven that Bush is a bad president.

Actually, no-one has been able to prove he's a bad president, they've just been able to show that the CIA and FBI were wrong. Bush, as a good politician, managed to shift a lot of blame away from him. And many people believe Kerry would be worse.

And that's not only the fault of the sources. If Fox network were to say to me Bush is great, I wouldn't believe it. Because I have learned to think critical.
And many, many people seem to lack that ability somehow. Hell, not only Americans. 1/4th of the Flemish vote Neo-Nazi, you know. And you can hardly say Flemish networks are biased that way...

*nods* As I've said somewhere before: people are stupid.
Meh, more seriously: it's one of the reasons why I and many others believe democracy is inherently faulty.

 

[Jebus]

Possibly, but probably not, because it takes a lot of money to run such a network. You can't just set one up because one has gone away, especially not if that one is then criticised for the exact same reasons.

Don't be too certain about that...

If a current of thought is strong enough, the people who follow this current will do their best to 'spread the word'. If there is a gap in 'the market' (I don't neccesairily mean financially, but -well, you know what I mean), someone will fill it. If there is a target audience, someone will 'target' them.
Also remember that it's not illegal to have a certain political inclination as a company. Especially not in the USA, where companies are actually allowed to fund political campaings... And I mean, how many newspapers and stuff aren't being distributed to 'spread the word' of certain political, religious, or whatnot, beliefs?

As I recall, but I could be wrong (of course I could be; I'm no expert by far after all), only state-owned media are banned by law to be politically subjective.
But even of that I'm not sure. I don't know a thing about American media laws, to be honest.

Note that homeopathy isn't a scam, but that there are many people who scam others by claiming they use homeopaty. Non-modern medicine has never been able to prove it's the sole source of good medicine.

Sander; please, PLEASE don't tell me you, as a scientist-in-training, actually believe in that utter, utter, UTTER nonsense. Have you read up on what homeopaty is all about? I mean, really. It makes NO sense at all.
You should research what exactly homeopatic medecine is all about, you'll no doubt come to the conclusion it's utter bullshit.

Heck, I'll probably start a thread about homeopathy someday soon anyway. I've been on a crusade against that, lately.

Actually, no-one has been able to prove he's a bad president, they've just been able to show that the CIA and FBI were wrong. Bush, as a good politician, managed to shift a lot of blame away from him. And many people believe Kerry would be worse.

Well, I'm not really talking about his talent as a politician. Of that, there can be no doubt. If he actually manages to still pull about 50% today, after all he's done, he must be a political god.

I'm talking more about the line of thought he follows, and the solutions he sees to world's problems. Although the arguments against his policy (especially international) have always been way more rationally founded, and generally way more sensible, a lot of Americans still seem to believe he is doing what's best for them. Frankly, this baffles me. I would believe any sensible man could see his policies have greatly degenerated the American standard of life, and that the absolute majority of American citizens have in no way profited from his decisions.

Still, half of the country supports him. It's an absolute mistery to me.

*nods* As I've said somewhere before: people are stupid.

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to calling them stupid.

Critical thinking has nothing to with intelligence, really. Heck, let's take homeopathy for an example: a lot of medical doctors, who should be intelligent people -and of course, the vast majority of them are-, still prescribe that rubbish. So what they lack is not intelligence, but the critical reflex.

Meh, more seriously: it's one of the reasons why I and many others believe democracy is inherently faulty.

Heh. I can't remember how many times I've said that in my life.

Although, I don't think it's because of the same reasons as you do.
Quite the contrary, probably...

 

[Sander]

Don't be too certain about that...

If a current of thought is strong enough, the people who follow this current will do their best to 'spread the word'. If there is a gap in 'the market' (I don't neccesairily mean financially, but -well, you know what I mean), someone will fill it. If there is a target audience, someone will 'target' them.
Also remember that it's not illegal to have a certain political inclination as a company. Especially not in the USA, where companies are actually allowed to fund political campaings... And I mean, how many newspapers and stuff aren't being distributed to 'spread the word' of certain political, religious, or whatnot, beliefs?

As I recall, but I could be wrong (of course I could be; I'm no expert by far after all), only state-owned media are banned by law to be politically subjective.
But even of that I'm not sure. I don't know a thing about American media laws, to be honest.

*shrugs* Neither do I. Meh, to get the answer to these questions here, we'd probably have to take out Fox to see what happens.
Hmm....diffictult task, that.

Sander; please, PLEASE don't tell me you, as a scientist-in-training, actually believe in that utter, utter, UTTER nonsense. Have you read up on what homeopaty is all about? I mean, really. It makes NO sense at all.
You should research what exactly homeopatic medecine is all about, you'll no doubt come to the conclusion it's utter bullshit.

Heck, I'll probably start a thread about homeopathy someday soon anyway. I've been on a crusade against that, lately.

No. But I don't disbelieve it either. I won't start to disbelieve something because it hasn't been proved, but I won't start to believe it either.
As well as that, I've heard many diferent claims as to what homeopathy is, why it would work etc. What I DO believe is that there are certain natural plants and other forms of medicine that may have something to do with non-scientific methods but still work. That doesn't mean I'll start to run to a homeopathist the next time something might be wrong with me. (Hell, I haven't been to a regular doctor in years, let alone a homeopathic one).
But, if you would like to enlighten me, please do. But do so in a PM or a new thread, I wouldn't want this thread to be derailed even further.

Well, I'm not really talking about his talent as a politician. Of that, there can be no doubt. If he actually manages to still pull about 50% today, after all he's done, he must be a political god.

I'm talking more about the line of thought he follows, and the solutions he sees to world's problems. Although the arguments against his policy (especially international) have always been way more rationally founded, and generally way more sensible, a lot of Americans still seem to believe he is doing what's best for them. Frankly, this baffles me. I would believe any sensible man could see his policies have greatly degenerated the American standard of life, and that the absolute majority of American citizens have in no way profited from his decisions.

Still, half of the country supports him. It's an absolute mistery to me.

I personally don't get it either, but what I've noticed is that it's impossible to claim that your side is more logical, because the other side always thinks they're more logical. You just have to hope that you've been better at this critical thinking business than they have.

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to calling them stupid.

Critical thinking has nothing to with intelligence, really. Heck, let's take homeopathy for an example: a lot of medical doctors, who should be intelligent people -and of course, the vast majority of them are-, still prescribe that rubbish. So what they lack is not intelligence, but the critical reflex.

Again: I wouldn't be so quick as to write off everything to do with homeopathy, and if it doesn't hurt, the placebo effect tends to be very beneficial as well.
But I would call them stupid. Intelligence is, for me at least, more than just smarts, it also includes the ability to use your smarts properly.

Heh. I can't remember how many times I've said that in my life.

Although, I don't think it's because of the same reasons as you do.
Quite the contrary, probably...

Explain...

 

[Jebus]

I personally don't get it either, but what I've noticed is that it's impossible to claim that your side is more logical, because the other side always thinks they're more logical. You just have to hope that you've been better at this critical thinking business than they have.

Hehe. Quite the paradox, isn't it? I know.

Heh. I can't remember how many times I've said that in my life.

Although, I don't think it's because of the same reasons as you do.
Quite the contrary, probably...

Explain...

Argh...

There's a big rant I've written about the dictatorship of the majority here somewhere... I'm sorry, but I really don't feel like writing it all over again...