The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Not sure if serious.

Are you saying you think FNC is a news source with a slant?

I am serious, and don't call me Shirley!

Let's face it, I don't think there is any news outlet in the civilized world that doesn't have some degree of a "news slant" one way or the other.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

IALTO

They don't get their news there any more than I do. They have their already held opinions validated and get to point and laugh at the hypocrisy of the people that Stewart and Colbert crush.

I love their shows, but sometimes disagree with their opinions. I'm there for some laughs.


The difference between them and the "news" channels is that they aren't calling themselves news. Even my 15 year old knows they comedians.

Actually, at least back in 2004, the people in my age bracket get their news from Stewart.

A poll released earlier this year by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 21 percent of people aged 18 to 29 cited "The Daily Show" and "Saturday Night Live" as a place where they regularly learned presidential campaign news.

I don't know if that's still the case because the polls and news reports I found in my brief search have been a bit more vague, looking more at whether people get their news through TV, radio, websites, etc. than specific programs or sites.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Why can't there be a news channel with no slant?

It's theoretically possible, but the problem is even the selection of stories is defined by some sort of worldview. Let's say a certain cretinous, unprepared, naive, illegitimate president (I think I made that sufficiently vague to be acceptable to both sides) starts a stupid war with no exit strategy, no evidence of real threat, and tepid at best international support. An event occurs on the ground -- if it's positive and you report it, the opponents scream you're leading the parade; if it's negative and you report, the supporters scream you're an evil fifth column undercutting the moral fiber of America's backbone.

But it's worse than that, since in some cases having a functioning cerebellum is considered "biased." A story on a breakthrough in evolutionary theory is by definition "slanted" to half the people in this country. When you get that kind of idiocy over an established matter of fact, the game is over.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Actually, at least back in 2004, the people in my age bracket get their news from Stewart.


I don't know if that's still the case because the polls and news reports I found in my brief search have been a bit more vague, looking more at whether people get their news through TV, radio, websites, etc. than specific programs or sites.

21%?

That's not a whole lot.

My guess is that at least 60% of that demo (including the 21% that would admit to that) are completely clueless about news and elections altogether.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I am serious, and don't call me Shirley!

Let's face it, I don't think there is any news outlet in the civilized world that doesn't have some degree of a "news slant" one way or the other.

Again, though, I think it's pretty important to distinguish entities that are news organizations but have a slant and entities that are created for the sole purpose of pushing an ideology. The latter aren't "news," they are "reassurance."

Here's one critical test. A news provider creates cognitive dissonance, a propaganda outlet reduces it. Because real life is actually grey and complex, reporting actual news will leave people unsettled in their opinions. Propaganda outlets, on the other hand, aim to reduce complexity and ambiguity and move people back into the "sweet spot" of certainty.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Again, though, I think it's pretty important to distinguish entities that are news organizations but have a slant and entities that are created for the sole purpose of pushing an ideology dressed up as news.

Yep.

People really struggle with that distinction.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

21%?

That's not a whole lot.

My guess is that at least 60% of that demo (including the 21% that would admit to that) are completely clueless about news and elections altogether.

At least.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

21%?

That's not a whole lot.

My guess is that at least 60% of that demo (including the 21% that would admit to that) are completely clueless about news and elections altogether.

Given that these are topical comedy shows from which they're getting their news, 21% is a lot. And it doesn't matter if they're clueless about the news and elections altogether, they still live in our world and have the potential to impact election outcomes - 21% is too much!

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

21%?

That's not a whole lot.

My guess is that at least 60% of that demo (including the 21% that would admit to that) are completely clueless about news and elections altogether.

Leno's Jaywalking segments pretty much proved your theory.

This does as well.

Be afraid, be very afraid!

A new poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center revealed that most of you failed civics class in elementary school: Only 36% of Americans could name all three branches of the federal government, while 35% “could not name a single one”.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Given that these are topical comedy shows from which they're getting their news, 21% is a lot. And it doesn't matter if they're clueless about the news and elections altogether, they still live in our world and have the potential to impact election outcomes - 21% is too much!

Solution?

There is undoubtedly a higher percentage of people who don't get news from anywhere and go about their lives oblivious to the wheels turning around them.

21% of that demo when compared to the entire population isn't anything to get undies in a bunch over.

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Again, though, I think it's pretty important to distinguish entities that are news organizations but have a slant and entities that are created for the sole purpose of pushing an ideology. The latter aren't "news," they are "reassurance."

Here's one critical test. A news provider creates cognitive dissonance, a propaganda outlet reduces it. Because real life is actually grey and complex, reporting actual news will leave people unsettled in their opinions. Propaganda outlets, on the other hand, aim to reduce complexity and ambiguity and move people back into the "sweet spot" of certainty.

I agree. But, I go back to what I say about virtually all news outlets in all mediums having some degree of bias or an agenda. I honestly can't think of one that is straight down the middle.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I agree. But, I go back to what I say about virtually all news outlets in all mediums having some degree of bias or an agenda. I honestly can't think of one that is straight down the middle.

Not to beat this horse carcass, but while true, that doesn't make all of the news outlets the same.

Leans right (left) is not the same as far right (left).

There are degrees and saying that they all have an agenda doesn't make Faux (or MSNBC) any less of a dishonest propaganda machine.


There are not universal equivalencies.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Solution?

There is undoubtedly a higher percentage of people who don't get news from anywhere and go about their lives oblivious to the wheels turning around them.

21% of that demo when compared to the entire population isn't anything to get undies in a bunch over.

The solution is going to be around education, convincing children that taking an interest and using their time to learn about their government will truly benefit them in the long run, but that gets into something much larger than this.

The problem with the cavalier attitude of 21% of the youngest generation getting their news from those shows isn't something that impacts a snapshot-in-time situation. We would need to know if it's a trend or an anomoly. Will future generations follow this same trend or not? If they do continue, then it's eventually not just 21% of a specific demo, but 21% of the entire population, likely growing higher than that if history's any indication.

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

To return (somewhat) to the topic of this thread.

Obviously, this is a left-wing plot!

Stephen Hayes, a senior writer for the conservative-leaning Weekly Standard magazine, has been placed on the Department of Homeland Security's terrorist watch list, he announced Tuesday afternoon.

"Just informed I'm on the @DHSgov terrorist watch list. Explains why I have been subject to extra screening each of my recent trips," Hayes wrote on Twitter.

Hayes, who is also a Fox News contributor, speculated on the matter in subsequent tweets. He suggested his recent one-way trip to Turkey could have triggered extra attention. He also said he attempted to fix the issue on the DHS website but hit a technical glitch.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

To return (somewhat) to the topic of this thread.

Obviously, this is a left-wing plot!

Wasn't Teddy Kennedy also on the Watch List? The AA watch list would be another matter.