Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
o i addressed it, otto.
it's a stupid suggestion.
let's try for a minute to make sense of it, shall we?
you appear to have a kind of facile cynicism about information streams and make no particular connection between the quality of information that is available to the public, the public's capacity to make informed judgments--not to mention political judgments--and anything about a democratic political system, no matter how shallow that system might be.
instead, you seem to think of information as a kind of retail operation like shoes or vegetables and that you can go shopping for the kind of information that you prefer to consume and like shoes or vegetables. so you are not interested in critical thinking--you're interested in being able to find information that reinforces an image of the world that you want to see---and you assume that everyone works with as shallow a relation to information as you do. with that shallow a relationship, it is no wonder that you dont connect problematic information streams to problems of democratic process.
tv doesn't tell you there is such a connection so there must not be one.
if you think there is, then start your own network.
jesus....
|
... or
Perhaps your 3D view is really more like tunnel vision through a socialist lens. If you, host, or anyone of the self-proclaimed 3D minded would force yourselves to actually look at the larger picture, you'd understand that there are many avenues available (to boys and girls just like you and me) for changing corporate behavior that you do not agree with.
If you cut through all the bullshit, all I'm hearing is whining about how the commercial networks won't report something. It appears that the issue is caught insulated between some legal and ethical holes and will most likely not be prosecuted. I have not said once that I approve of the behavior. I never once said that I didn't think that network news is highly influential. And don't make me laugh about what the hell you believe about my need to justify my views, you are the master of shallow generalizations and rationalizations. You reach deep in to your bag of stereotypes, often based on very little information, roll it in crap, spray it with pseudo-intellectual deodorant, and deliver it so cleverly condescending.
Here's where the 3-D part of your intellect should have kicked in. The suggestion of "start your own network" is admittedly a stick in the eye, but absolutely an option if someone had the initiative and creativity to act on their convictions. Boycotts on products and viewing may also be unrealistic to the paper activist, but would be easier and less capital intensive than a new network. But like anything substantial, it would require lots of good old-fashioned hard work, and that's probably a show-stopper right there.
How many creative ways can be thought of by someone of your massive intellect to approach a solution to this problem of the free-market? Because that's what it is.
If you want more laws, get them passed (this is always the laziest and the most popular method with lib/socialists). If you want to prosecute violations of current laws, then prosecute (but that's no fun, enforcing existing laws just doesn't fill that need to save the stupid from themselves or provide that "feel good" quality satisfying one's sense of convenient righteous indignation). If those measures require too much actual work and you don't like what the network news sources don't report, then I suppose turning the channel, turning off the TV, reading a newspaper, searching the internet, starting a boycott, starting a complaint write-in campaign, would be way too much trouble. You can always just start your own network.