Fox News vs. mental stability

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiamKerrington

I highlighted a certain part of your posting. And I feel inclined to agree with you. And yet I am hesitant. Even if media objectives something, they do this on the ground of whatever acceptable or unacceptable moral ground - and if it only is about the cause to question something. Almost any moral or ethical point of view - although being highly subjective and thus anything else but objective in itself - is something the media can perform - even in the way of displaying their news.
The only thing I would not accept is, if a news service blatantly lies or acts against its better judgement by providing false information which can be easily falsified. I guess here things may become very problematic, because it may be very difficult to draw the line between extraordinarily exaggerated sensationalism on the one side and an outright lie on the other side. It is in the interest of any nes-service or media to keep straight enough, though, in order to keep a certain reputation. I think any news-service that would tell real lies and are proven having done this intentionally would cease to exist, because there would be no acceptance at all for them anymore.

As for the last part of your posting: The media certainly would have made a much better job, if they would have stressed the - I guess - fact that the griefing man did provoke certain reactions from the audience - if with or without intention, this, I think, does not matter at all. But the focus of the report was very different. The news-service emphasized that there was no agreement on what the man proposed or wished; and the media services simply "uncovered" that this was the case although children were killed, and thus the media raises the expectancy that things should be as simple as the griefing man demands. In order to give this - actually - fact about the conflict between a moral demand and the disagreement a certain inertia the media edited things in a sensationalist way. I guess this really is a question of interpretation of what the media did here. I don't see a "lie" or something over here (except for mentioning that the griefing man was interrupted; this was not true at all and should be challenged by any means possible); but as I said earlier I am biased about what the media did here, because the overall moral question simply exists, which the media highlighted.

This particluar example of MSNBC is at least as bad as the FOX-News provided in the starting article by YABC. I would like to raise the question, if things like this are plain and simple "normal" in any media in the USA (in Germany there is kind of a variety regarding the usage of neutrality as much as possible on the one extreme and full-blown "infotainment" or sensationalism on the other). And the follow-up question would be: Is there a certain balance in the media about it which may root in the competition of the media?

All the best!
Liam

---

but the media wasn't highlighting any moral question. this was immediately picked up by several politicians (and dropped almost as quickly) and sounded like a war cry that the "gun-lobby" has no respect for the dead or grieving. it was blatant and malicious. there is no need to highlight that there are different points of view on the matter, everyone in America has an opinion on it, that was a political ploy designed to garner favor on one side. and what's worse, no one holds these people accountable. there hasn't been, and prolly never will be, any sort of apology for this farce, it just gets swept back under the rug of failed media/political ploys that haven't worked, never to be heard from again. and fox news is just as guilty of throwing bs out there just to see if it sticks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osiris

I've been asking you this since the beginning. This is what the argument has degraded into. You cannot answer the question without citing scenarios in which the only way out for you is a gun. Good job. Unless you come up with an answer to the question, move on.

---

so why won't you answer the question? what makes your views and opinions more valuable than mine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reaper239

so why won't you answer the question? what makes your views and opinions more valuable than mine?

---

I answered that question already. Maybe you should go back, and read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osiris

I answered that question already. Maybe you should go back, and read.

---

humor me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reaper239

but the media wasn't highlighting any moral question. this was immediately picked up by several politicians (and dropped almost as quickly) and sounded like a war cry that the "gun-lobby" has no respect for the dead or grieving. it was blatant and malicious. there is no need to highlight that there are different points of view on the matter, everyone in America has an opinion on it, that was a political ploy designed to garner favor on one side. and what's worse, no one holds these people accountable. there hasn't been, and prolly never will be, any sort of apology for this farce, it just gets swept back under the rug of failed media/political ploys that haven't worked, never to be heard from again. and fox news is just as guilty of throwing bs out there just to see if it sticks.

---

Thank you.
It looks both of us have drawn different conclusions from the same report. And I am pretty sure others will have come to varying conclusions as well. In my opinion this is actually one task news-services and media have to fulfill.
Besides: I agree with you that the methods MSNCB used in this particular case are at least problematic.
As for the accountability for things gone wrong: Maybe there are no legal ways to challenge MSNBC (or other media/ news-services) for comparable actions; but that's what the competing news-services and media are there for. And this is something I tried to put forward several times. And again I say: As long as anyone from the audience has the chance to choose from different sources and maybe even to compare different sources, the tendentious activities of any news-service or media is not beyond what it is supposed to do.

Now - if there is demand that a news-service or the media is only there to provide the news in terms of "facts only", I wonder who would like pay for this kind of news in order to let it survive in the multi-layered world of news-services and media; I guess it is safe to assume that such a "facts only news service" would not last long; and if it does nevertheless, two more questions spring to my mind: how many would watch it, and who controls this news-service, if they really provide facts or at least choose the news wisely.

All the best!
Liam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiamKerrington

Now - if there is demand that a news-service or the media is only there to provide the news in terms of "facts only", I wonder who would like pay for this kind of news in order to let it survive in the multi-layered world of news-services and media; I guess it is safe to assume that such a "facts only news service" would not last long; and if it does nevertheless, two more questions spring to my mind: how many would watch it, and who controls this news-service, if they really provide facts or at least choose the news wisely.

All the best!
Liam

---

In a lot of the cases that people complain about bias, the story is actually running facts only. But it may not be "all" the facts. Or the choice of which stories they run is biased. In other words, there really isn't a way to prevent some sort of bias coming to bear in a news service or media outlet.

So, how many would watch it? I don't think it would go over big here in the US. Unfortunately, we have a very large number of people that want the 60 seconds of someone else's opinion instead of the facts. One gives them something to a) sound smart about when they parrot it at work and b) most likely support an opinion that they have already formed. It's a sad state.

Here are two things that I think come into play heavily when people consume news/media/information:

Confirmation Bias (From http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/...irmation-bias/)
The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.
The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

The Backfire Effect (From http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/...ckfire-effect/)
The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

So, reporting facts only probably isn't profitable for anyone - not even in public broadcasting...

osiris, i commented on my blog post, but since i didn't go back for a long time to check it, i figured no one else would either so i'll post it here.

ok, so what you're asking me is why your right to infringe on my rights is less important than my rights you seek to infringe upon? come on dude, that's like saying my right to live in an environment without cars is supreme to your right to own a car. a car is more likely to kill you than a gun. so, let's turn this discussion on it's head, i believe in a world without computers, i believe computers are evil and should not be allowed in public, therefore all laptops and other computing devices must be banned from public. it's my right after all, so why is your right to have your ipod or laptop in public supreme to my right to live in a world without those things?

the very nature of requireing someone else to do something, by force, in order to satiate your desire to live the way you want is tyranny, not freedom. you don't have a right to be a tyrant, that's not a natural right, tyranny requires coersion to accomplish the tyrants goals, and coersion is a violation of human rights.

i'm not trying to goad you, but you asked me for my answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reaper239

the very nature of requireing someone else to do something, by force, in order to satiate your desire to live the way you want is tyranny, not freedom. you don't have a right to be a tyrant, that's not a natural right, tyranny requires coersion to accomplish the tyrants goals, and coersion is a violation of human rights.

---

By your very definition, you're acting tyrannical when you infringe on my right to live in an area without guns. You don't have the right to do so. Your goal is to finally be permitted to do whatever you like with your firearms which, by your very definition, is coercive in nature, and thereby violates my human rights. It's not so easy to re-write a law that is just, and encompasses the needs of the populous, is it? You can't arbitrarily decide what is good for another person, simply because you believe it is.

There's nothing wrong with owning a gun (I've said this numerous times before in this thread). Keep your fucking gun at home, there's no reason for you to carry it past my kid's school or to the grocery store that my mother shops at. You're not hunting for game at Target. You're not a vigilante out fighting crime, because that's against the law you're vehemently trying to convince me that you're following. This is not the wild west. You don't need a gun on you at all times for protection from wild animals. Your arguments about rights fall apart when you try and force them down the throat of another. I really don't see how me asking you to leave your pistol at home is a violation of your human rights, whereas you endangering my life, and the lives of my family members though your actions is a violation of my human rights.

You want a clear, honest answer to the question? My rights take precedence over yours because they are mine. Don't sit, and argue that you're protecting everyone's rights, because you are not if you are trying to violate mine. You're only trying to protect the ones that you believe to be important, if you weren't we wouldn't be having this conversation. You'd be saying, "You're right. You have the right to live in a peaceful, arms free environment, and I have the right to bear arms. So I'm going to leave my guns at home until such time that I need them to defend my country, or take down a tyrannical governing body." That's harmony. You're intentionally creating a discordant environment for the sake of it. It doesn't need to be. You just want it to be because you don't feel safe without it. Otherwise, you'd leave it in the closet.

That said, we're done with the gun argument in this thread. If you'd like to continue, feel free to PM me or fire up a guns and rights thread, but let's keep this on track here. If the gun argument pertains to your views on the news media, different story, but let's put a moratorium on rights with regard to firearms. We've pretty well covered it to death, and it's turned into an a never-ending parade of what if scenarios, and we've both answered the question posed. Cool? Cool.

Onward!

I recently found a nice example of bad / good journalism.

Last monday, the Italians elected a new parliament. Wow, democracy in action. What is the catch? The German media's main goal seems to be making fun of the outcome of the election. Besides the mainstream winner (Mr Bersani), the Italians mainly voted for Mr Berlusconi (a real comedian) and Mr Grillo (a former comedian). And that is it, you do not get much more information from the German media. Most of the articles try to foster the German Angst. "We will all die because the Italians voted wrong. This is definitely the coffin nail to Europe as we know it."

However, I also found a good article, I think that it is an example for good journalism. I like the style very much, how about you?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...i-young-female

Hi there,

first of all: the news I read or followed were about the mere result in Italy at first; but they quickly turned to the level of analyzing, evaluating and commenting things. Yeah, sure ... Many voices seem to see the end of the world, or at least the end of the EU ... But as it seems: German news-services don't seem to be alone on this. The world-wide stock-markets gave in for 2-5% as a reaction to what has happened in Italy. And I think this led to some more sensationalists' gibberish.

I am not sure what to think about the article you provided. Is this a good article? A bad one? What's the scale for this, and how would you rate each information? I wonder, what prosecco and mane-haired have much to do with Italian elections or politics ... ;)

All the best!
Liam