Man Made Global Warming

[jimson8]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Also, Fox News is a fairly new news channel, insofar one could argue that it is them trying to topple the "old" USA. That at least is the impression coming over to other places.

Or let's put it another way...roughly since FOX news appeared, the US has seen a constant decline in wealth, respect and reputation throughout the world. I doubt that is a coincidence. That ridicolous labeling of everything being socialist and communist is just the tip of the iceberg. We lived here right next to real communism, and what Fox labels as such does not even come close to that.

There is a difference between news and commentary. When you watch Sean Hannity you know you are going to get a conservative viewpoint. He states upfront that he is a conservative Republican.

Contrast that with Dan Rather, who always claimed to be objective, but was always anything but.

There is a reason why Fox news came to be and why they have much greater success than any other cable new channel. They serve a market that was apparently under served.

I'm sure this will start an argument from those who deny that the vast majority of all other American media is slanted left and those who arrogantly state "The truth has a liberal bias."

Here is one of your own who admits what is obvious to so many.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/168466360...ylist_id=86856

Watch the video before you claim "It came from Fox, has to be a lie."

MSNBC is at least the liberal equivalent of Fox, and I see more liberal guests on Fox than I ever see conservatives on MSNBC.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by jimson8

There is a difference between news and commentary. When you watch Sean Hannity you know you are going to get a conservative viewpoint. He states upfront that he is a conservative Republican.

Contrast that with Dan Rather, who always claimed to be objective, but was always anything but.

There is a reason why Fox news came to be and why they have much greater success than any other cable new channel. They serve a market that was apparently under served.

I'm sure this will start an argument from those who deny that the vast majority of all other American media is slanted left and those who arrogantly state "The truth has a liberal bias."

Here is one of your own who admits what is obvious to so many.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/168466360...ylist_id=86856

Watch the video before you claim "It came from Fox, has to be a lie."

MSNBC is at least the liberal equivalent of Fox, and I see more liberal guests on Fox than I ever see conservatives on MSNBC.

The bold part is the crux of the problem. News are not there to please market desires. If they start doing that, then they also will have to adjust their reporting to the likings of their viewers. That is in direct conflict with any kind of objectivity. That also is what tabloids do. Not saying CNN is better, but for sure more in line with western values outside this radical capitalism. I also noticed a tendency in the US to get rid of things altogether instead of fixing them, and ppl a) not thinking in terms of society anymore, but only "me". b) ppl not thinking long term anymore (future generations), but only "now".

This thread, by all means, is living proof of that development.

The US once was more grown up then this. And a more successful country back then.

[jimson8]

Biased, if not corrupt network news directly led to "designer news." It makes little difference if it comes from a desire to please a market or from prejudices seeping out even subconsciously.

It's not even so much the fairness of the journalism, but what is given the most coverage and what is given less. Much is driven by what equals good ratings, but ideology also plays a very significant role.

There is no answer for this.

We are bombarded by so much conflicting information, the "truth" we choose to believe is that which conforms best to our own opinions.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by jimson8

Biased, if not corrupt network news directly led to "designer news." It makes little difference if it comes from a desire to please a market or from prejudices seeping out even subconsciously.

It's not even so much the fairness of the journalism, but what is given the most coverage and what is given less. Much is driven by what equals good ratings, but ideology also plays a very significant role.

There is no answer for this.

We are bombarded by so much conflicting information, the "truth" we choose to believe is that which conforms best to our own opinions.

Agreed here. But then it comes back down to cohersion of society. If everybody just choses to believe what he wants, without an agreement on at least some principles, a society won't work long. It may have worked back in the days when ppl and communications were more primitive and less interconnected, today it is potentially destructive.

What makes this even more of a concern is the global influence of the US; which has direct conseqences to the rest of the world.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

It may have worked back in the days when ppl and communications were more primitive and less interconnected, today it is potentially destructive.

What do think was the purpose of the ten commandments?

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by swiss

What do think was the purpose of the ten commandments?

Look at todays economies and the rule they have over politics and tell me what relevence these commandments have nowadays.

[swiss]

Would you prefer the politics rule the economies?
(it's a dual system, they will always influence each other)

Back to your question: if fail to see any relevance of the 10c to todays politics/economies.*
Wait...maybe...

. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.

Something you should remind the French of.



*: Dante on the other hand is a direct hit.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by jimson8

Biased, if not corrupt network news directly led to "designer news." It makes little difference if it comes from a desire to please a market or from prejudices seeping out even subconsciously.

It's not even so much the fairness of the journalism, but what is given the most coverage and what is given less. Much is driven by what equals good ratings, but ideology also plays a very significant role.

There is no answer for this.

We are bombarded by so much conflicting information, the "truth" we choose to believe is that which conforms best to our own opinions.

That’s not totally true. To show why I need to get a bit philosophical as it raises the issue of how we decide what constitutes truth or reality. There are two broad classes of question that we are faced with:

The first can be answered by direct observation. In simple cases of this class, such as whether a particular table in front of us has four legs, the answer is a matter of straight verifiable observation - anyone with the necessary visual sense should agree on the answer (and people who don't agree are usually labelled delusional). A more realistically newsworthy example of the same thing would be an earthquake in Japan. This type of 'truth' then can be viewed as 'objective', easily verifiable and NOT dependent on your prior opinion (unless you want to admit to being delusional!)

(There is a more complex variant of this where the observations may require specialised apparatus (eg microscopes) or specialised training/education to be able to discern the facts, but again, anyone with the training and access to the required instruments should be able to agree.)

Then there are questions that are tightly bound up with people's value systems. In these cases simple observational answers are usually not available. Examples of these questions are: is abortion justified?,
was the decision to invade Iraq correct?,
what should be the responsibilities of the state?
In questions like these disagreements are common.

Any competent (honest) news organization should have no difficulty in reporting the first class above. With the second class if they are to give a fair and balanced representation they will need to tread more carefully. In fact, a good way of distinguishing between ‘news’ and ‘propaganda’ is by seeing how diligently a news organization attempts to tread this fair and balanced path.

And here is the problem. The Reagan administration in 1987 effectively abolished the requirement for television news to attempt to provide balanced and fair coverage (I believe the argument was that it infringes freedom of speech and property rights - i.e. wealthy media owners should be able to have their organizations say what they damn well want). This opened the door for the current situation in American news broadcasting where the news channels, having abandoned the need for impartiality, have become ever more partisan in their presentations. It also increases the tendency to chase market share which can lead to sacrificing accuracy of coverage in order to pander to your perceived demographic (i.e. twist the facts so as to keep your viewers)

As Bewolf said, this has generally bad effects on a democracy. For the people to be able to make good judgements they must first be given accurate information. In the UK there is still a requirement for TV news to be impartial. I would suggest that for healthy democracy keeping the media bias-free is important. For this some regulation is needed.

-------

The above also takes us back to climate change where the argument can be viewed as about being whether it is a Class 1 observable fact (most scientists) or a Class 2 opinion (liberals V conservatives)?

[kendo65]

To summarise the above:

In the UK TV media organisations are required to fairly report both Class 1 and Class 2 above.

In the USA currently Class 2 reporting has moved from balanced news into propaganda-driven presentations. Arguably (?) some of the Class 1 items may be being distorted and skewed too, as this necessitates accurate reporting of the 'other side's' position without distortion, spin or value judgement.

Once Class 1 'facts' are routinely distorted we are into Goebbels territory and it is time to be worried.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by kendo65

In the UK there is still a requirement for TV news to be impartial. I would suggest that for healthy democracy keeping the media bias-free is important. For this some regulation is needed.

Same in Switzerland, this rule will be also supported as long as they stay on their socialist track...

Like the other guy said; free speech, free will - you only have to share mine.