"The more voices there are the more spin there is. The truth becomes that much harder to find. In the end its just all noise."
Printable View
"The more voices there are the more spin there is. The truth becomes that much harder to find. In the end its just all noise."
Quote:
Originally Posted by orion
Interesting. In Germany we have a saying: "The truth lies inbetween." But in contrary to our saying in with "lie" the sense of "alocate" the English version has a certain ambiguity, doesn't it? Awesome ...
Besides: Is all this a question about spreading the truth or about forming opinion or about both? Or from the perspective of the audience: expecting or accepting 'a' instead of 'the' truth or just opinions?
From another angle: What is the task of nems-services or media; and are they even capable of sueccessfully passing the challenge?
Journalists and their editors spread their information they have collected in the first place. And most information they extract from a huge variety of sources: statistics, interviews, informants, press-releases, hearsay, conclusions, bribery(?) etc, while it might be imortant to highlight that first-hand-information may play a rather small role all of this. Therefore the information provided by news-services/ media is by no means 'neutral' in the first place, although almost any information has a neutral core. Small example:
Two news-services report about a car-accident on a junction caused by a bloody young driver with no experience at all and a very old driver. Both news share the same core: there was a car-accident; but because both journalists have chosen to talk to different whitnesses and looked at different pictures about the scene, both news have different tendencies: the first one gives you the impression that the young driver might have underestimated the situation which might have caused the accident, while the second news tells you about danger of traffic by old people over-estimating their skills considering their loss of reaction-time, sight, etc.
Which news is a news?
This example you can extrapolate on many other news being reported.
All this being said: maybe news-services/ media are just intermediaries or multipliers for any kind of information. The tendentious work might be a problem for some people, because it does not correlate with their expectations or even acceptance, while again it suits the expectation of the other part of the audience.
My conclusion from this long and interesting discussion therefore is: For as long as news-services or media simply do not outright lie about things, anything may be possible, some things could be made better; but I don't see any case of misinformation or wrongful doings by the news-services or media - even if I don't like the tendentious work of at least some of those services.
I would be very glad, if someone challenges these thoughts, if there are major flaws in it I should have taken care off ...
All the best!
Liam
but see, here you're advocating a showdown, and you're saying that in that showdown, you plan to employ force above and beyond what your adversary is equipped with. condor and i aren't, our point is, as you so entheusiastically pointed out previously, there are violent people, and in order to prepare to deal with that violence, we would like to carry force at least equal to what we are most likely to encounter in the execution of our daily lives. why can't we have the right to defend ourselves and our families the way we want, just as you have the same? you don't want to have a gun? that's fine, but why do you have to force your views on us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Osiris
opinionated and tendentious journalism isn't news, it's opinion. news is facts, and if you want to broadcast the news, you should not be editing a story so you can point fingers at someone else and say "see? those are bad people." if you want to say your opinion, don't disguise it as news, because it's not. it's misinformation because it was never declared to be an opinion, it was presented as a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiamKerrington
In theory I would agree with you, if news services and media were only about giving you the facts. I have doubts that you could boils down as easily. Just consider all the different topics, in which facts are anything but easily obtained. As I pointed out over my various walls of words news-services and media are actually everything else but limited to the presentation of facts only - especially since the sources they rely on do neither necessarily nor generally provide facts alone, but only parts of it at best. Here one major part of activity is to raise questions - as for example about he "why" or the "who else".Quote:
Originally Posted by reaper239
Since this thread started with one particular "weak" article by FOX-News, I would say: Even FOX News, although some of you have highlighted how important this news-service or the media-group of FOX, does not do simple reportings of facts alone. And in this FOX is no different then any other (mass)media or news-service.
And please consider that the selection of what news, even if it is only about simple facts alone, is already tendentious in itself. To stay with the gun-examples and look at the evening-prime-time news: 15 minutes only reports in which journalists only speak about people shooting other people - without asking how things evolved, why things happened, and without questioning the background. No. Facts alone, that alone is not what news-services are there for.
All the best!
Liam
which is a problem with the media. objective journalism is technically impossible, since it is impossible to completely remove your world view from a report, but does that then mean that it is acceptable to go to the extreme and make a story that only serves the purpose of creating bias? certainly not. there is a principle that arose, i believe, from the double slit experiment, that observing an event affects the outcome, but observing is not the same as interfereing directly. observation can certainly change the outcome of a heart surgery since the doctor now knows he is being watched and might be more carefull or his nerves make him more prone to mistakes, but that's a far cry from running into the OR and hitting the patient with a sledge hammer. and that's what that story is, taking a sledge hammer to objectivism, and then masquereding it as news. i'll go ahead and say it, the made a claim that was patently false: the man asked a question that everyone assumed was rhetorical and when it became clear that it was not, some in the crowd answered his question. the reporter and editor lied to their viewers.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiamKerrington
You may have hit upon the true importance of Fox News to the American people, whether we appreciate it or not. Without Fox there is no "in between" in television news reporting. Getting that competing viewpoint, and the chance to find the truth inbetween is worth the occassional misinformed guest or confused host. And what does it say about the motives of those who are so hellbent on silencing Fox News, and thus the competing viewpoint?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.Quote:
Originally Posted by reaper239
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
This is a very good question. As a first reflex I would say: This is not good at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabbage Patch
Quote:
Originally Posted by reaper239
That isn't the argument. That's the place you want to take the argument to try and prove your point.
Quote:
why do you have to force your views on us?
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.
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 LiamKerrington
so why won't you answer the question? what makes your views and opinions more valuable than mine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Osiris
I answered that question already. Maybe you should go back, and read.Quote:
Originally Posted by reaper239
humor meQuote:
Originally Posted by Osiris
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by reaper239
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiamKerrington
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by reaper239
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
I consider the article a good one. And I guess that using mane-haired to describe Grillo's appearance is fairly ok, as well as the prosecco thing. In my opinion, the stock-exchange losses are not that extraordinary if you take a look at the German DAX for example in February 2013. There is no panic. It had its ups and downs.
But back to the article, it lacks a distinct showmanship, I think it is informative and well written. It is just my opinion and if you have a complete different one, you are welcome. I like diversity.
Since this thread all started with comments on Fox News reporting I thought it was only fitting to share their take on the Italian election results:Quote:
Originally Posted by YetAnotherBloodyCheek
On the election results: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02...cial-election/
On the potential economic impact: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02...lmer-eurozone/
No reason to challenge most of you wrote there - except for the stock-exchange-drop. Today I listened to a press-review, in which articles from the press from all over Europe was covered. And there the drop in the stock-exchange was directly related to the elections in Italy; but this is a mott point to discuss the quality of such news, since - as you say - changes on the stock-exchanges happen all the time. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by YetAnotherBloodyCheek
This is exactly the point: "I think", "my opinion", "you have a complete different one", "diversity".Quote:
Originally Posted by YetAnotherBloodyCheek
Again I raise the question: What makes news, a news-service, or media a "good" one? What is the measure for "good"? You refer to your opinion, which is exactly what I do all the time. And I also throw in that any media basically gets down to "opinions" as well - no matter how close you get to neutral 'facts'.
All the best!
Liam
No offense intended, YABC, but the quality of the FOX articles are - in my opinion - a lot better then the article provided by The Guardian, since FOX News does not seem to focus on unimportant trivia like what The Guardian does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabbage Patch
BUT: Both articles are worth reading anyway, because both have their particular foci and adress different audiences ... So, which one is the better one?
All the best!
Liam
I think that you cannot compare both articles because they cover different aspects of the Italian vote. The Fox article gives a basic overview. Bersani is a former communist, a left-wing politician, well yes. I guess that there is nothing nice to say aber Silvio, he wants to give the people their money back, that is ok as well. Grillo is a comedian, a provocateur convicted of manslaughter. But "Grillo's forces are the greatest unknown", come on, Fox do your homework. There are a lot of sources. All in all, the article is ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiamKerrington
I have more problems with the second article, just because it is a Q&A one. I have not read one article of this kind that really helped me to understand the European financial crisis. Not one. The whole structure those kind of articles suggest that there are short and easy answers. There have been a whole bunch of augurs and analysts, but nobody provided a solution to the problem.
What are good news? I do not know. Maybe we all have to invest more time in reading articles / background information. Do not believe in condensed information (high-level statements), whatever.