tshile Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 15 minutes ago, Burgold said: That said, when you choose to use a label make sure it fits. Many of us use labels out of sheer laziness. It's easier to use a catch phrase because it short cuts thinking. You can just lump things into a category and be done with it. Some people do fall into those tidy little boxes, but if your job is to be perfect you should not allow yourself to be lazy. That last is what I find much more troubling about the modern Cable News model. They don't research, they don't investigate. Instead, they frequently get a cabal of analysts who are paid to spout uninformed or barely informed, often sensational opinions. Again, in full agreement. This sort of problem is part of the reason why discussions often devolve to such a simple level of throwing around labels and eventually personal attacks. It is hard to have a high level discussion anymore. You can one-on-one, or even in small groups, where the people are informed and respectful. Once you venture outside of that (say - cable news round tables, or discussions over the internet like here or on social media sites in public view where anyone can [and does] jump in with their two cents) it becomes impossible because people have, intentionally or not, been trained to just throw their opinion around and when the discussion gets over their head the natural reaction seems to be to drag it down to simple, broad discussions and alter the topic instead of sitting back and listening to someone who might be more informed or have new information you've yet to come across and should consider. I'll add that a growing trend that seriously worries me is one where the 'news media' hides behind the idea that they're trying to get something to air first, and that such a need is both imposed on them and comes with the inherent increased probability of getting information wrong, as an excuse to put out bad information for the purposes of furthering and agenda/narrative. There's a fine line between an honest mistake and a well planned, intentional misleading of a group of people that plays on said group of people's opinions, desire to accept shaky information if it further supports such opinions. We saw a lot of that the last two weeks of the election, where people who arguably have a responsibility to the American people were willingly putting out bad information because they knew they could apologize for the shoddy reporting the next day and also rile up a group of people... They get their desired affect, and they get to simply apologize and salvage their integrity because, according to them, the problem is inherent to the job. They idea that the only thing inherent ot the job is putting every effort into not putting out bad information has gone to the wayside, and we have made it entirely too easy for this to have happened. It's a fine line, but if you try to be objective and look at it all you can find where there are definitely people crossing that line, and it seems to be done so easily and is growing in use. It's troubling. (We saw this with both candidates, from multiple agencies/outlets) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 I think we're agreeing too much. Aren't you the evil, closed-minded, anti-science & education, gun toting Conservative! I worry that my notion of journalism is slipping out of fashion (mainly because it takes too long and is more expensive), but it's always been a point of view much more at home at NPR than on TV. 90 second news reports can't be all that comprehensive. Heck, I always had to leave too much on the floor when I had six or even eighteen minutes! The bigger issue you raise is a windmill that I still like to tilt at though I am not sure if I still have a horse or a lance. One of the biggest laurels in traditional media is being the first guy to break the big story. The problem with that thinking these days is that no reporter will ever be quicker than Twitter or a blog. Reporters have to go through an editor, have to be fit onto the clock or sent to the web department,etc. etc. Therefore, if the reporter can't be first they need to consider what they do offer. The biggest thing traditional media offers over new media is depth. We have access (potentially) to first person accounts, to major players, etc. Therefore, instead of using a speed model, I argue for a depth model and a quality model. That's what the reporter can do better than the tweeter or the citizen journalist. It's an argument I generally find a warm reception too, but then it's ignored. It's nice being patted on the head. It'd be better if we'd make the shift. Not sure how the 24/7 news networks could really do that, but for all the rest especially news papers (the slowest model) I think that's the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 29 minutes ago, tshile said: I'll add that a growing trend that seriously worries me is one where the 'news media' hides behind the idea that they're trying to get something to air first, [snip] There's a fine line between an honest mistake and a well planned, intentional misleading of a group of people that plays on said group of people's opinions, desire to accept shaky information if it further supports such opinions. We saw a lot of that the last two weeks of the election, where people who arguably have a responsibility to the American people were willingly putting out bad information because they knew they could apologize for the shoddy reporting the next day and also rile up a group of people... They get their desired affect, and they get to simply apologize and salvage their integrity because, according to them, the problem is inherent to the job. They idea that the only thing inherent ot the job is putting every effort into not putting out bad information has gone to the wayside, and we have made it entirely too easy for this to have happened. It's a fine line, but if you try to be objective and look at it all you can find where there are definitely people crossing that line, and it seems to be done so easily and is growing in use. It's troubling. (We saw this with both candidates, from multiple agencies/outlets) Are you talking about legitimate news organizations purposely putting out misleading information in order to deceive the public? Can you give some examples of this, from "the last two weeks of the election" or from elsewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 @Burgold It's ignored, I would guess, because our society is a headline-only type right now. You can publish a multi-page report on an issue that is incredibly informative, but its value is based on if people actually read it... when you rule out the people unwilling to read such a piece, and the people who will read it but don't have the open mind required for it have the desired affect, i think you wind up with a small group of people... We also have a whole group of people who see a 'breaking news' tweet and that becomes their opinion/information level on something. Same thing for people who read various alt-right sites, the headlines are written with that purpose and it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 29 minutes ago, Dan T. said: Are you talking about legitimate news organizations purposely putting out misleading information in order to deceive the public? Can you give some examples of this, from "the last two weeks of the election" or from elsewhere? (I may have details like specific days/times of day mixed up here, I think I have them right though) The easiest, and I believe most widely recognized, was when Bret Bier of Fox News went on the evening news program on Wednesday before the election to report that FBI sources told him that indictments were likely to come soon in an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Two days later he went on air, on Friday night (a time notoriously used for dropping inconvenient news specifically because the lower-than-average number of people paying attention gives a high chance of it going relatively unnoticed or under-reported) to apologize for his 'mistake.' I don't think it takes a great deal of objectivity, it just simply requires someone to pay attention and have a desire to be honest with themselves, to see exactly what went on here. He dropped a headline with the sole purpose of getting a certain group of people to think "Oh man, it's even worse than we thought, shes about to get indicted for a serious problem! What a corrupt person!" And it worked. Another example, from the other side, was when CNN/MSNBC was pushing to the story about the woman sexual assaulted as a young girl by Trump was about to release a statement. That floated around everywhere mid day. By the evening they simply said she was threatened to be sued, would not speak, and then that was the end of it. An accusation of sexually assaulting a young girl, thrown at a candidate for Presidency, a week before the election... same situation. Compare and contrast that with something like the media jumping up and down every time the Fed announced a new round of quantitative easing, yet when the fed announced the program was done and started actually rolling it back it was nothing more than a slug on the bottom crawl. Majority of the people in this country know about QE, and the fed injecting money, but how many know the program stopped years ago? I was reading posts complaining about the fed injecting money months after the program was halted. Two of these belong on one side of the line I was discussing, where it seems obvious there was a thought-out plan to push an agenda. One is on the other side, of them just being lazy and caring more about sensationalism than getting it right. Both are dangerous as it creates such a large group of uninformed/misinformed people, and so I hate the media's role in both types and it's why I found your attempt at defending them the other day absurd and hilarious (x3, now), but when you start talking about the motives one is downright scary and seems to have gone unchecked for the most part towards the end of the this past election. Which means we'll see more of it next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 15 minutes ago, tshile said: Another example, from the other side, was when CNN/MSNBC was pushing to the story about the woman sexual assaulted as a young girl by Trump was about to release a statement. That floated around everywhere mid day. By the evening they simply said she was threatened to be sued, would not speak, and then that was the end of it. An accusation of sexually assaulting a young girl, thrown at a candidate for Presidency, a week before the election... same situation. I disagree with this bit. If anything, I thought that the suits were under-reported. When a major candidate for President of the United States is involved in a trial about potential child rape or fraud/racketeering that needs to be front shelf news. These stories were barely touched. Too often, stations were busy chasing their own tail over the latest scandalous tweet or some nonsense. This is where quality, in depth journalism could and should have come to the fore. Investigating the truth of these accusations, looking at history of prior activities, etc. That's real stuff. That tells you who the man running for office is. The result may exonerate him and prove him the victim of money grabbers or political slander operations, but it also may reveal someone dangerously inappropriate to hold office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Burgold said: I disagree with this bit. If anything, I thought that the suits were under-reported. When a major candidate for President of the United States is involved in a trial about potential child rape or fraud/racketeering that needs to be front shelf news. It was a suit by an anonymous person that dropped the suit. What certain news organizations did was push this around and they did it for a reason. I find it interesting after speaking about journalistic integrity in the last few posts, you have no qualms with this situation. Faceless accusations through the press, followed by a press conference that never happened, followed by a dropping of the suit. I don't disagree that it should be news, I'm disagreeing with the way it was done. It was done a very specific way, and the reasoning seems obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, tshile said: I don't disagree that it should be news, I'm disagreeing with the way it was done. It was done a very specific way, and the reasoning seems obvious. Ah, can't judge that without having read, seen, heard the specific reports you did. I'm not asking you to do this. We've derailed this thread already lol. I think that's okay, but we are certainly far afield from the original topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 47 minutes ago, tshile said: @Burgold It's ignored, I would guess, because our society is a headline-only type right now. Can someone summarize what's going on in this thread right now. "Argumentative white male in internet dispute with Jew" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 3 hours ago, tshile said: (I may have details like specific days/times of day mixed up here, I think I have them right though) The easiest, and I believe most widely recognized, was when Bret Bier of Fox News went on the evening news program on Wednesday before the election to report that FBI sources told him that indictments were likely to come soon in an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Two days later he went on air, on Friday night (a time notoriously used for dropping inconvenient news specifically because the lower-than-average number of people paying attention gives a high chance of it going relatively unnoticed or under-reported) to apologize for his 'mistake.' I don't think it takes a great deal of objectivity, it just simply requires someone to pay attention and have a desire to be honest with themselves, to see exactly what went on here. He dropped a headline with the sole purpose of getting a certain group of people to think "Oh man, it's even worse than we thought, shes about to get indicted for a serious problem! What a corrupt person!" And it worked. Another example, from the other side, was when CNN/MSNBC was pushing to the story about the woman sexual assaulted as a young girl by Trump was about to release a statement. That floated around everywhere mid day. By the evening they simply said she was threatened to be sued, would not speak, and then that was the end of it. An accusation of sexually assaulting a young girl, thrown at a candidate for Presidency, a week before the election... same situation. Compare and contrast that with something like the media jumping up and down every time the Fed announced a new round of quantitative easing, yet when the fed announced the program was done and started actually rolling it back it was nothing more than a slug on the bottom crawl. Majority of the people in this country know about QE, and the fed injecting money, but how many know the program stopped years ago? I was reading posts complaining about the fed injecting money months after the program was halted. Two of these belong on one side of the line I was discussing, where it seems obvious there was a thought-out plan to push an agenda. One is on the other side, of them just being lazy and caring more about sensationalism than getting it right. Both are dangerous as it creates such a large group of uninformed/misinformed people, and so I hate the media's role in both types and it's why I found your attempt at defending them the other day absurd and hilarious (x3, now), but when you start talking about the motives one is downright scary and seems to have gone unchecked for the most part towards the end of the this past election. Which means we'll see more of it next time. Those are interesting examples, though I wouldn't characterize them as intentionally misleading the public to push an agenda by the media, as you describe them. Your case would be stronger if Bret Baier knew or believed his sources at the FBI were lying but went with the story anyway. I assume he had every reason to believe at the time he was getting good information, (though I didn't see the retraction he made.) The woman accusing Trump of rape filed had filed a lawsuit several months earlier. Media accounts I read about the suit at the time reported on it responsibly with a tone of skepticism. But the story has been out there for a while. So when a press conference with the accuser was announced, it was reported. The sexual conduct of Trump and of Bill Clinton had become an issue late in the campaign. (My eyes glaze over any time the Fed is mentioned, so I'll leave that example alone.) Did the media entities in these examples (Fox News in the Baier case and any outlet that reported the soon-canceled rape accuser press conference) get played? That's a fair question. They went after news. Perhaps they went stronger for news that tested their objectivity. I'm not arguing that the "MSM" is a shining beacon of perfection. (The shorthand MSM in itself is a problem - an overgeneralization of a wide range of media.) But now more than ever - with the increased Balkanization of news sources targeting specific demographics, with fake news proliferating, with instant communications that can put out information - good or bad - instantaneously, and - not the least of problems, with a President-elect who has no problem with tweeting utterly false information - we need a strong, responsible Fourth Estate that holds itself to high journalistic standards. Do they fall short sometimes? Hell yes. But what got this whole sidetrack started was, in my opinion, an unwarranted criticism (the "active shooter" complaint.) Let's criticize when warranted. There's plenty of opportunity for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Anyone want to talk about the change to Run,Hide,Fight? add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 30, 2016 Author Share Posted November 30, 2016 12 minutes ago, twa said: Anyone want to talk about the change to Run,Hide,Fight? What was the change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said: What was the change? Fight, they encourage it now if the first two are not feasible. Just as they changed police response from first securing the perimeter to actively engaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 30, 2016 Author Share Posted November 30, 2016 I thought fight was always the 3rd recommended option and was taught that way. when was it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I thought fight was always the 3rd recommended option and was taught that way. when was it not? Not common before , but I'm old https://wabi.tv/2016/11/29/run-hide-fight-colleges-changing-emergency-protocol/ Quote http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/run-hide-fight-ohio-state-attack-advice-is-a-new-mantra/ar-AAkSesX HOW DID "RUN, HIDE, FIGHT" BEGIN? The idea dates to 2012 in Houston, where city officials produced a video introducing the message as a response to any shooting. The city created the video with a $200,000 federal grant and help from the Department of Homeland Security in response to the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado. At the time, officials said too few in the public knew how to respond to a shooting. The same guidance, with some variation in wording, has since been endorsed and promoted by colleges around the country including Georgetown University, Bowdoin College, Indiana University and New York University. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 52 minutes ago, twa said: Fight, they encourage it now if the first two are not feasible. Just as they changed police response from first securing the perimeter to actively engaging. Not only actively engaging, but there has been a change to not tending to victims first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 I think the moms reaction could be explained as a reluctance to believe our kids could be capable of horrible, violent acts. The Boston bombers parents said the same thing. Not sure if they've changed their minds. Still, it's hard not to think about how so many on the left are reluctant to believe that someone could be motivated by ideology- not to overlook the far rights tendency to generalize too often about groups, specifically minorities. People believing that a higher power not only excuses violence against or killing of those who disagree, but rewards it, is just dangerous. Minimizing the power of belief, or pretending this isn't a thing, isn't the way to fix the problem. I don't believe the far right or left have the answer. http://radio.wosu.org/post/columbus-mosque-holds-funeral-abdul-artan Artan's mother, he says, doesn't think her son is guilty. "She's waiting for the investigation to conclude to see what they come up with, but she still believes that her son is innocent," Ahmed said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.