The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[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.

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

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.

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[joecct]

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

I've actually taken to watching Al Jazeera for world news...

W T F?

Well, there is Russia Today. I watch every now and then to see what the Muscovites are up to. Usually I have Tartar sauce with my dinner when I do so.

[Kepler]

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

Why can't I remember the dude with the bow tie's name? Used to actually watch his show....

Tucker Carlson.

[Kepler]

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

But how many younger viewers get their "news" and opinion/commentary from Stewart & Colbert? Probably a lot more than those getting the same from FNCCNNMSNBCABCCBSNBC

The weird thing is, not as many as you would think.

Working down here has been an incredible eye-opener as to how many blue collar / lower middle class white families are still Big Three. If they go out of that orbit at all it's FNC. The white southern guys in my office almost all watch FNC uncritically -- most are in their late 20s / early 30s, they're non-college, ex-mil, conservative Christian. Most of them aren't frothing at the mouth "secular humanism is the devil" either, they're just not aware there is more to the world than what daddy and mommy taught them.

The older fundies self-segregate deliberately, but the younger ones are just self-segregated by their ignorance of other options. "We've got both kinds -- country and western."

[Slap Shot]

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.

I can't tell if he's trying to convince you or himself.

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

I can't say I remember those days. AFAIK, MSNBC has always treated the GOP exactly like FNC treats the Dems:

1. (some topical statement)
2. (tenuous bridge)
3. HURDURHERP THEY SUCK!!!11!

Note that this works whether 1. is A or ~A. That's the genius of the attack ad networks -- the conclusions are already in the teleprompter, so the only work that has to be done is working backwards to the ostensible "trigger."

Everyone used to go on Hardball. You don't see the Republican big wigs on there anymore. Trust me, it's changed a lot. Not just that show, but the whole network.

They always leaned left, but nothing like now.


Why can't I remember the dude with the bow tie's name? Used to actually watch his show....

[Timothy A]

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

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

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

But how many younger viewers get their "news" and opinion/commentary from Stewart & Colbert? Probably a lot more than those getting the same from FNCCNNMSNBCABCCBSNBC

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.

[Kepler]

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

The unfortunate part about MSNBC is that they used to actually try and only lean left instead of what they have become.

I remember when Matthews used to skewer Dems as gleefully as he does GOPs. Scarborough had a show in prime time. The dude with the bow tie had a show. Pat Buchannan used to be on quite a bit.

Then they saw that they really had no niche and decided to fill the void as an unapologetic voice for the left.

Can't blame them as survival and being profitable is important.

I miss the MSNBC of 10 - 15 years ago though.

I can't say I remember those days. AFAIK, MSNBC has always treated the GOP exactly like FNC treats the Dems:

1. (some topical statement)
2. (tenuous bridge)
3. HURDURHERP THEY SUCK!!!11!

Note that this works whether 1. is A or ~A. That's the genius of the attack ad networks -- the conclusions are already in the teleprompter, so the only work that has to be done is working backwards to the ostensible "trigger."