Political Vids/Images

[sunrisevt]

P1. A functional democracy depends--completely--on a well-informed citizenry.

P2. Fox News viewers are MORE IGNORANT than those who consume no news reporting at all.

______________________
C. Fox News is anti-democratic.









(Anyone spot the flaw in my logic?)

[runawayjimbo]

P1. A functional democracy depends--completely--on a well-informed citizenry.

P2. Fox News viewers are MORE IGNORANT than those who consume no news reporting at all.

______________________
C. Fox News is anti-democratic.









(Anyone spot the flaw in my logic?)

If Fox News didn't exist, would their viewers be any more informed? Correlation vs. causation.

On the other hand, democracy would be fundamentally flawed if speech was limited to media outlets that disseminated the "official" news.

[rowjimmy]

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

[nab]

The reporting of any phenomena necessitates obfuscation and agenda.  To report is to filter information into a coherent narrative, a narrative that must be at least passable to the person/group of people who finance the distribution of said report. 


The real problem is that the more an individual agrees with the agenda being put forth in a report, the less likely they are to question which elements of the report are supported by fact or reasonable deduction. 


Fox News knows this, as does the New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and on and on and on.       

[runawayjimbo]

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

RJ, I know you're smart enough to realize that Fox News isn't the only media outlet pushing an agenda, right?

[sunrisevt]

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

RJ, I know you're smart enough to realize that Fox News isn't the only media outlet pushing an agenda, right?

I won't speak for RJ, but I'll tell you I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you're smart enough to know they're the worst offender by several orders of magnitude. But as a result of your consistent posture in their defense I'm having my doubts.

[sunrisevt]

The reporting of any phenomena necessitates obfuscation and agenda.  To report is to filter information into a coherent narrative, a narrative that must be at least passable to the person/group of people who finance the distribution of said report. 


The real problem is that the more an individual agrees with the agenda being put forth in a report, the less likely they are to question which elements of the report are supported by fact or reasonable deduction. 


Fox News knows this, as does the New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and on and on and on.     

I agree in theory, but real-world politics is a long, long way from the philosophical purity of the first sentence of your post.

[runawayjimbo]

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

RJ, I know you're smart enough to realize that Fox News isn't the only media outlet pushing an agenda, right?

I won't speak for RJ, but I'll tell you I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you're smart enough to know they're the worst offender by several orders of magnitude. But as a result of your consistent posture in their defense I'm having my doubts.

I'm not defending Fox News, I'm just not comfortable making that value judgment that they are several magnitudes worse than others. The stuff I see from Krugman and Maddow and Jonathan Chait are just as deliberately misleading, IMO.

[rowjimmy]

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

RJ, I know you're smart enough to realize that Fox News isn't the only media outlet pushing an agenda, right?

I won't speak for RJ, but I'll tell you I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you're smart enough to know they're the worst offender by several orders of magnitude. But as a result of your consistent posture in their defense I'm having my doubts.

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

RJ, I know you're smart enough to realize that Fox News isn't the only media outlet pushing an agenda, right?

This.

Fucks News was the topic du jour.

[sunrisevt]

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

RJ, I know you're smart enough to realize that Fox News isn't the only media outlet pushing an agenda, right?

I won't speak for RJ, but I'll tell you I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you're smart enough to know they're the worst offender by several orders of magnitude. But as a result of your consistent posture in their defense I'm having my doubts.

I'm not defending Fox News, I'm just not comfortable making that value judgment that they are several magnitudes worse than others. The stuff I see from Krugman and Maddow and Jonathan Chait are just as deliberately misleading, IMO.

You were, you do, and they're not. IMO.

[runawayjimbo]

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

RJ, I know you're smart enough to realize that Fox News isn't the only media outlet pushing an agenda, right?

I won't speak for RJ, but I'll tell you I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you're smart enough to know they're the worst offender by several orders of magnitude. But as a result of your consistent posture in their defense I'm having my doubts.

I'm not defending Fox News, I'm just not comfortable making that value judgment that they are several magnitudes worse than others. The stuff I see from Krugman and Maddow and Jonathan Chait are just as deliberately misleading, IMO.

You were, you do, and they're not. IMO.

I was defending the right of an individual to seek out and absorb information in any way they see fit. No more, no less.

[nab]

The reporting of any phenomena necessitates obfuscation and agenda.  To report is to filter information into a coherent narrative, a narrative that must be at least passable to the person/group of people who finance the distribution of said report. 


The real problem is that the more an individual agrees with the agenda being put forth in a report, the less likely they are to question which elements of the report are supported by fact or reasonable deduction. 


Fox News knows this, as does the New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and on and on and on.     

I agree in theory, but real-world politics is a long, long way from the philosophical purity of the first sentence of your post.

I fail to see how real world politics are exempt from what I stated. 

The call to "real world politics", however, is a prime example an appeal to common sense that I illustrated in the second part of my post.  The statement assumes that both the speaker and the audience have the same construction of the concept and presents the following information as self evident based on that shared construction.   



Edit: See, even I appealed to "real world politics" and common sense in my first sentence.  I've left the logical error in place to illustrate further how easy it is to assume that your own construction of the world is self evident.  It's hard to escape. 

[sunrisevt]

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

RJ, I know you're smart enough to realize that Fox News isn't the only media outlet pushing an agenda, right?

I won't speak for RJ, but I'll tell you I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you're smart enough to know they're the worst offender by several orders of magnitude. But as a result of your consistent posture in their defense I'm having my doubts.

I'm not defending Fox News, I'm just not comfortable making that value judgment that they are several magnitudes worse than others. The stuff I see from Krugman and Maddow and Jonathan Chait are just as deliberately misleading, IMO.

You were, you do, and they're not. IMO.

I was defending the right of an individual to seek out and absorb information in any way they see fit. No more, no less.

You did nothing of the sort. You impugned my friend's intelligence by use of a strained analogy.

/$0.02

[sunrisevt]

The reporting of any phenomena necessitates obfuscation and agenda.  To report is to filter information into a coherent narrative, a narrative that must be at least passable to the person/group of people who finance the distribution of said report. 


The real problem is that the more an individual agrees with the agenda being put forth in a report, the less likely they are to question which elements of the report are supported by fact or reasonable deduction. 


Fox News knows this, as does the New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and on and on and on.     

I agree in theory, but real-world politics is a long, long way from the philosophical purity of the first sentence of your post.

I fail to see how real world politics are exempt from what I stated. 

The call to "real world politics", however, is a prime example an appeal to common sense that I illustrated in the second part of my post.  The statement assumes that both the speaker and the audience have the same construction of the concept and presents the following information as self evident based on that shared construction.   



Edit: See, even I appealed to "real world politics" and common sense in my first sentence.  I've left the logical error in place to illustrate further how easy it is to assume that your own construction of the world is self evident.  It's hard to escape.

I agree 100%. I just won't pretend that Fox News is no worse than the NYT, PBS, BBC, etc.

[runawayjimbo]

Deliberately obfuscating the truth so as to support an agenda is not what I'd call the democracy saving counter to providing "official" news.

Unless by "official" news you mean Facts.

RJ, I know you're smart enough to realize that Fox News isn't the only media outlet pushing an agenda, right?

I won't speak for RJ, but I'll tell you I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you're smart enough to know they're the worst offender by several orders of magnitude. But as a result of your consistent posture in their defense I'm having my doubts.

I'm not defending Fox News, I'm just not comfortable making that value judgment that they are several magnitudes worse than others. The stuff I see from Krugman and Maddow and Jonathan Chait are just as deliberately misleading, IMO.

You were, you do, and they're not. IMO.

I was defending the right of an individual to seek out and absorb information in any way they see fit. No more, no less.

You did nothing of the sort. You impugned my friend's intelligence by use of a strained analogy.

/$0.02

My comment had nothing to do with RJ's intelligence (quite the contrary, I was appealing to his intelligence, not diminishing it). I was simply asking an honest question about his perception of the existence of a left-leaning agenda in the media that, in some sense, Fox News seeks to capitalize from. If I worded it inartfully, I apologize but I was not insulting his intelligence (or yours).