huh.

so if i understand this correctly, pointing to questions about--o let's just say--fox news' documented practice of blurring the way information is framed into the political viewpoints of management (roger ailes et al, let's not forget)--is a snobby thing to do.


and second: if you can't distinguish between news infotainment and explicitly political infotainment you probably dont care anyway so it's not a problem when it happens.


and third, even if it were a problem, "the left" and the right are numerically equivalent ("given a normal distribution" which i am assuming means something) so that cancels the problem out even if there is one.


so no problem. and you're a snob for suggesting otherwise.

nice.

This is simply untrue

Ace, roachboy has raised some of the concerns I have with your response to my statement. You've admittedly made some assumptions, all of which I think are rather large leaps and aren't really telling of anything.

My post did not target anyone specific, because I have often heard the type of statement pointed out from many sources.

I don't understand the true nature of the type of comment made.

I point out why the comment confuses me, openly and honestly (I admit directly, and I hope to simply cut to the root of the issue) and I ask questions of those who hold the view that confuses me.

Now you, take my post no where and add no value. We all know how you feel about me, and we all know I don't care - so what's next?

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

Excuse me for attempting to communicate and to understand an opposing point of view. I read or hear a comment like that, and I think what I wrote. On this occasion I though it would be good if I challenged my assumptions. It is an opportunity for you and others to help a guy like me. In my view I would rather deal with assumptions with them put directly on the table than to have them hidden and a constant hindrance to mutual understanding. But, that is just me - I understand that honesty is not easy to deal with.

You have absolutely no idea what "left" is if you think the majority of reporting in America is bent to the left, let alone substantially so. America is one of the most right-wing nations in the western world, and that is reflected in our news reporting. It's no wonder that so many people get socialism and communism - which are two very different things - confused if centre-left reporting is considered substantially left-wing. Fox News Channel seems slightly less crazy in America due to the fact that the majority of our news outlets are centre-right, so Fox being so far to the right doesn't seem quite so extreme. Elsewhere in the world, it seems just plain batshit insane - places where MSNBC might be considered centre-right. And I'm not talking about the People's Republic of China, I'm talking about evil socialist nations like Germany. ;) A little perspective goes a long way, and there is very little reporting in America that can actually be considered left-wing.

ace--you seem to imagine that you can load up questions with dubious logic and/or assumptions as if there are no problems with that and when they're pointed out to you, you get all sniffly about it.

if you want to know how it is that ideological biases can be teased out of the ways in which infotainment is framed/presented, there are any number of approaches you can take, and it only requires a bit of research to start finding out what they are.

and there are debatable point in alot of the methodologies--like discourse analysis, say, which would define a set of categories as conservative-speak (for example) and then simply count the occurances across a given sample of infotainments--with that there are some problems (the definition of conservative-speak can be one, but that's usually resolved by taking some care with the building, making arguments for the classifications or interepretations)---there's problems of representativeness (which are typically addressed in the methodology section of a study, but one can argue about that)---and sometimes there are problems of overall interpretation (on the order of well these regularities look interesting and seem to say something, but what functionally do they mean? do people modulate their actions as a function of the frequency with which certain terms are repeated?---but this typically comes down to what is being explained or understood through the study, and within that usually comes to versions of the teleological fallacy--what you're looking to explain selects the elements of analysis for you in a way)....


i say all this because there are approaches to actual research that try to isolate political meanings and/or questions and they're not without problems necessarily---but they're actual projects and not questions pulled out from beneath your hat.

and there's a TON of such research generated all the time and a simple web-search would no doubt run you into some of it.

so my "value-added" (god i hate that expression) was to point out, in a relatively nice way i might add, that your questions were so badly framed as to be kinda useless.
but there are other versions of such questions that might be interesting--but you'd have to do a little work to get to them.

I think if you applied your critique of me consistently you would have some credibility with me.

Or, I can ask directly.

What?


You are far to theoretical for me. My brain is beneath my hat (make your jokes, etc., ha, ha, ha) and what gets pulled out is what is really there. Do you assume my questions are not real? Do you believe there is some agenda behind every question or post? Why does everything have to be made so complicated with you? What are you pretending to be and why? Is the true sign of intellect to make the simple complex or the complex simple? Did that last question offend you, why?

I think you would make an interesting character study. Have you ever taken an objective look at what you do and why?

How do you know I am not doing research? Do you hold the position that because "research" exists that no further "research" is needed? Do you want to re-think what you are really suggesting here? Do you even understand the implication of what you wrote here, or is this furthering the notion (that prompted this exchange) that you or people who hold your views are more informed or intellectually more capable than the masses?

There are two way to look at badly framed questions. One is to seek a better understanding of the questions. The other is to dismiss the questions. The former adds value, the later does not. If you get "jollies" from sitting on high and taking jabs at all the "inferior" folk with their poorly framed questions, poorly framed post, poorly structured logic, etc., you must be a very happy person. You do it well, but understand that it moves nothing forward, it adds nothing, it has no value. I repeatedly suggest that you take another approach with me or ignore me. Primarily, I don't accept that I am inferior to you in the ways outlined above. I don't accept the notion that honest questions can be "poorly framed". I don't accept the notion that I will let someone take "pot shots" at me without responding. So, you are in a no win situation given your approach. So, if you do decide upon a little self-reflection, the first question is how long will you do the same thing over and over and get the same result. I know what I am doing and I know why, do you?

In the end are you saying the questions are what they are? Are not versions of the same question have a commonality of an unanswered underlying question? Again, do you even know what you suggest here? Or, are you simply like the six year-old kid, who has to have the game played by his rules or he takes his ball and goes home? "I'm not going to answer you question, unless you ask it the way I want you to!" That is real mature, isn't it?

You two should just make out and get it over with. This sexual tension is really distracting from the important issues at hand.

Pretty much sums it up: Video: For Fox Sake! | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

I usually lurk in the political forums (mostly because I find it entertaining to watch you goons talk past it each other, desperately trying to change each others minds, all while not giving a shit about anything more than yourself and your own opinions) but I had to point out that the same anti-intellectual "you're all snobs" non-argument you've used above is the same tactic Glenn Beck employs with every broadcast.

I realize that real and honest discussion is impossible here but I'm entertained and wondering what's next. Can I ship you a chalk board?

oh if the issue with fox news was only that it was conservative...

the issue is that it goes beyond being conservative, into being republican infotainment that is neither serious nor consistent.

It would be one thing to be consistently against government intervention, taxes, etc. But, as the link by smeth above shows, not too long ago it wanted more censorship, more government, etc. etc.

I wonder what network Jesus would side with...

I still don't understand the problem with my post #40. I honestly described what goes through my mind when I read or hear the type of comment I highlighted. I was not saying that I understood the nature of the comment, but it was very clear to me that I was making judgments. when I thought about the judgments it was clear to me that they were based on assumptions that I was making. My intent was not to be a "snob" but was to do something "snobs" don't do - I put my thoughts on the table including my assumptions and I asked questions seeking clarification. At this point, I have made more assumptions based on the responses - The primary one is that some here are overly defensive and believe there is some hidden agenda in my post. I say again, my post honestly reflected what I thought and there is no hidden agenda.

1-ton leg-pressing Pat Robertson and the 700 club, who else of course?!

:lol: Nice.

I think most people have touched on the major points... Here's my $0.02 into the pot:

I personally subscribe to the social constructionist approach to media. It sees the established television news organizations (TV, newspaper) as the primary conduit of symbolic knowledge (knowledge about the world we've obtained but haven't experienced - for instance, how we know there is no oxygen in outer space). Yes, it is being supplanted by the internet, but for now, newspapers and televised news still represent a large segment of the "truth pie".

Social constructionism posits that all news is biased, representing the values or beliefs of specific segments of society, regardless of what that segment is. One group presents a frame by which we can understand some social phenomenon. That frame gets picked up by a news organization and is presented alongside news as a framework by which to interpret "reality." This works just as well for any issue (drop in stock market framed as market reaction to Obama). This happens on every news network, I just used Fox for the example because this thread is about Fox.

All symbolic knowledge has bias - Even deciding what is newsworthy introduces bias. Everything else is just semantics about whose bias, how much bias, and who is it biased against.

What can we do about it? Nothing. Just put on your critical thinking cap and dive in. Or, if you value your sanity, turn off the news and just enjoy your own experienced reality, instead of fretting over some symbolic knowledge that will never impact you in any meaningful way.

ace--the problem was not a "hidden agenda"---what you were doing was pretty obvious.
and there's no defensiveness in it, despite the pleasure that must come from you in imagining such.

basically, the question you posed was in opposition to any analytic view of how infotainment works as a political question. what you argued was that an attempt to analyse presupposed a distance--which is true in theory, though in practice it's not so obvious what that means---between the analyst and the "objects" of analysis which in this case would be infotainment, how it's packaged and then one form or another of linkage between that packaging and an audience.
this distance was staged as not following from the game of trying to understand how such phenomena work socially, but rather as a snob thing.
there's nowhere to go with that.
if you're going to move from the anecdotal ("i feel this way when i see x on tv") to trying to work out patterns, you have to operate at a remove. whence statistics or any number of other devices the only point of which is to let you fashion and then talk about patterns. even a conservative media analyst would adopt the same basic procedure. even a tool like reed irvine does it.
and it's obvious to anyone who thinks about it that the distance you take, the way you proceed, what you're looking at--all of it is political.
the idea usually is to try to control for the political dispositions that shape how you frame and move through a question.
but that never really works out, despite all the blah blah blah about bias or "objectivity"
so you have to read critically. there's no way out.

the other thing you objected to was people trying to understand how conservative politics operates as if it were different from how other types of politics operates--which it is. and there is inevitably a kind of traveling to the zoo to look at the conservative creatures dimension to that. but that too is unavoidable, part of the game itself.

if it's part of the game itself and you object to it, not because the game comes with problems that require you approach the outcomes critically, but because you see the game as an extended exercise in snobbiness, then your objection really is to analyzing anything to do with conservative political discourse at all.

that was the problem, ace.

News kinda makes us dumb. Its not what we know that is important - it's what we don't know. Now, the main thing to admit here is that FOX has an agenda. They do nothing to cover that up. They are right-wing propagandists and I don't think you can deny that. Yes, they "ask questions that nobody else is asking" but that comes with a whole load of buffoonery. They sell their agenda as news and not opinion. So we have two big problems: we have a one-sided story and it is being sold under the guise of trustworthy news. This is insidious. That isn't to say that other networks aren't guilty of the same.

Back to my first point: news makes us dumb. There's a lot that we miss when we watch the news. Even if we scan the channels and get every take, we're still missing the point. We're learning the facts and not the concepts. Its myopic, but gives use the illusion of knowing more. Another insidious element.

I read what you wrote three times and some portions more than three times and I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.

From my point of view, for example, I am watching MSNBC and I hear a host and a guest go on and on about the type of people who watch Fox, listen to Rush Limbaugh, go to Tea bag events, etc., and a common theme is how "those" people don't get it, they don't understand, they don't know the difference between news (or facts) and opinion, they just blindly follow their leaders, etc., then I think about what I actually think about Fox, Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. and there is a discontent. Sure it is anecdotal, so I ask the question - why do they assume everyone else lacks the capability they think they have?

I thinks it is a pretty simple question.

Elitism.

If you possess a modicum of a conservative idea, then you are clearly incapable of thinking for yourself, and are obviously under the influences of Limbaugh or Beck. There can be no other answer for your inability to see the "light".

Not all conservatives are Beck/limbaugh/Palin nutbags. Just because you're conservative doesn't mean you are insane. But there are those who watch FOX news that believe that everything they are told by them is %100 accurate. It's the only source of information they get on a given subject. Most(but not all) of the information put forth by FOX is completely false, and extremely biased.

Works just as well.

I'd like someone to respond to my post because I think I speak the truth.

I believe that anyone who went from "deficits dont matter" to "OMG deficits," from "the president should fight the media" to "that's censorship!," from "yay medicare part D" to "OMG entitlements" in the course of a year is not capabale of thinking for themselves. And that is not at all a matter of being conservative versus being liberal, but a matter of being blatantly partisan in the worst sense of the word or not.

I am not saying that anyone here is like that. But the fact is that fox news is like that.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ----------

oh, and by the way:

It must be nice to wrap your fragile political ego in the warm blanket of exaggerated (or in this case fabricated) victimhood. Don't worry, daddy Reagan/Bush(/Limbaugh?) will hold you tight and make all the evil people with slightly different political views go away.

Shhh.... shhh....

The whole point of Fox news is to highten emotion and then cater to people's fears. With that in place, they can create a very dedicated group of watchers that have an emotional connection. They can manipulate that and market to that group with ease. Emotions make us open to suggestion.

OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

i know i know, it's all outrageous, something carried out by Elements from Within the Persecuting Elite, but if you actually watch the film, the case it makes is hard to get around.

but hey, you don't have to. why subject yourself to more abuse from the Persecuting Elitists?

That is an interesting allegation. Even on the occasions when I have watched Glenn Beck I have not found that to be true. Beck certainly puts his spin on facts/information and he puts his facts/information together in a manner to emphasize the conclusions he seemed to already had reached - but to say the information is mostly false is incorrect. There is no doubt about his bias, absolutely no doubt. But he does not pretend to have a bias free show. The real problem is when those with biases pretend to be neutral but are not.

Like O'Reily?

Just using this as an example. There are two ways to look at deficits. If a nation goes into a deficit for long-term good - I would argue that deficit may be worth while. If a nation goes into deficit for short-term gain at a harm to long-term good - I would argue the deficit is not worth while. Aside from the straw-man argument (I never heard anyone say deficits don't matter), why does it seem this subtlety is lost by those who make the kind of argument above?

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

Correct, OReily's claim of a "no spin" zone is b.s. I know it, you know it, I think everyone knows it. I just see the phrase as an advertising gimmick. He is not the only one who uses advertising gimmicks. But, I think the major network news shows and some newspapers like the NY Times do this with much greater pretense.

Wait, O'Reilly has all the answers.

"This is now the network of record. And the left doesn't like it."

I disagree. Fox as a corporate entity that has an objective to make money. I think that is why they are thriving at the expense of other news outlets. I think some news outlets are or were run by people with idealistic motives. I am a cynic, therefore I always follow the "money" for motivation. I would never put total trust in a news organization, who does?

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

News flash, O'Reily is arrogant! I am arrogant. Is that why he has problems with liberals? Is that why I have problems with liberals?

[
---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

Correct, OReily's claim of a "no spin" zone is b.s. I know it, you know it, I think everyone knows it. I just see the phrase as an advertising gimmick. He is not the only one who uses advertising gimmicks. But, I think the major network news shows and some newspapers like the NY Times do this with much greater pretense.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm glad that you know it. But the majority of folks who watch his show take his word to be absolute truth. They then regurgitate the same rhetoric that he does and pass it off as their own thoughts and beliefs. And that is the danger that FOX news is to America. It takes advantage of the uneducated, and promotes fear in an attempt to sway people towards the right.

I looked at the clip. Fox is what it is. Do you think the NY Times is operated differently? Outside of the fact that different organizations may have different styles, i.e., one style is direct v. another style that is subtle but both effective at getting their people to follow directives, is there really a difference. I am as skeptical of Fox as I am of the NY Times are you more trusting of one over the other and why?

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

I hate being redundant (actually this is false but a point for emphasis), but this goes back to my post #40. Why do you assume everyone is not in on this? I also know that using a certain shampoo is not going to make women stop dead in their tracks and want to make out with me, and other than the 13 year-old boy who tries it for the first time everyone in the universe knows it too, gee.

It seems that it is you who can't see the subtlety in the deficits argument.
Because there is no possible argument that says that deficits are good during an expansion and bad during a crisis.

Some people say that deficits are always problematic. Some people say that deficits are never problematic. Some people say that deficits are good during a recession. But there is no position that says that deficits are good during an expansion and bad during a recession.

And that is the position taken by many within fox news. Dick Cheney said, back in 2002, that ""You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter." When Oneill made those statements public, both Oreilly and Hannity defended Cheney. This was december 2002 when there was no recession. Of course, right now they've rediscovered that deficits are always bad.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

I hate being redundant (actually this is false but a point for emphasis), but this goes back to my post #40. Why do you assume everyone is not in on this? I also know that using a certain shampoo is not going to make women stop dead in their tracks and want to make out with me, and other than the 13 year-old boy who tries it for the first time everyone in the universe knows it too, gee.[/QUOTE]

If everyone knew it there would be no birthers, tea baggers or 9/12ers. The fact is FOX appeals to an uneducated mass in this country. Those people don't do any independant research for themselves. FOX isn't the only one that does this, MSNBC, CNN, all of them are infotainment, FOX just seems to be the one that is the most obvious.

I look at it based on return on investment. Is it a good use of debt for a county to build a needed school - yes. Was it a good use of debt to build the interstate highway system - yes. Was it a good use of debt to fight WWII - yes. Was it a good use of debt to bail-out GM - I would say no.

Some people, yes. Some people would think it a problem for an individual to use an 80% mortgage they can afford to buy a home, I don't.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/10...sp_rofl0ne.gif
Whew!! Yeah...let me catch my breath. Thank you. Thank you so very much for making my point for me, far better than I ever could have.

Thing is, Will, I am not what most people, in the real world, would call "conservative". I openly laugh at loud at the notions of Limbaugh and Beck. Just as I do many of the notions of yours. I'm about as middle of the road, middle America, of a moderate as you're ever gonna find. Thing is...given the overwhelmingly liberal bent of the TFP...I come off as being ultra right wing. I find it humorous. I really do.

But, you...you have to be right all...of...the...time. To the point where you fall into a trap...that I didn't even set! I made commentary. I commented on what I see. People with egos so large that they absolutely positively have to be right. Nothing else will ever do. Look, Will, you're a smart man. And, I have learned a thing or two from you. But, how many times have you offered up fallacious comments on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about? Really? I lost track. I take your word on a lot of subjects because...well... I don't know anything about it. But, I have taken you to task, in the past, for offering up "expert" opinions on subjects that you know absolutely nothing about. But I do. I know because I lived it, I did it, I've been in the trenches. You read a book, or an article, about it once. If it's on paper, and it looks good, it must be right. Right? Get over yourself. You are smart...but you're not that smart. You are, however, an elitist. ;) Bank on that.


Ace, you are 100%...correct.

Only I didn't, actually. I'm pointing out that your victimhood reflex can be triggered even by something with no substance whatsoever. Sure, it can be triggered when someone mounts a powerful attack against the pro-small government way of thinking or the idea that social conservatism is somehow unrelated to fear which is related to religion, but all I did was make a very shallow accusation of feigning victimhood... and you jumped in feet first with not just a red herring, but a backhanded personal attack.

Anyway, it's not about "being right", it's about finding the truth, trimming the fat and gristle until all that remains is what really is. Winning an internet debate rates on par with holding back a sneeze during an awkward moment on my list of personal accomplishments. What I do value is the truth, regardless of ideology, principle, perception, and pride. The truth is that most modern conservatives allow their fear to be transformed into righteous indignation via a perception of victimhood. It's written on the faces of the 9/12 Tea Partiers, and it's written in the posts of conservatives. Even many of the moderate conservatives.

Whatever, Will.:rolleyes:

A.) I claimed no "victimhood". I wasn't even talking about me. I pointed out what I see.
B.) I offered up no personal attack. Backhanded or otherwise. I pointed out what I see.
C.) Truth? Please. You and I both know better...don't we. ;)
D.) It most certainly IS about being right. I let a lot of it go because, quite frankly, I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground about half of what you yammer about. But, on the occasion that I do, I call you out and you offer up bogus slanted sources. Always have. Oh...much like Fox News. (Just to get back on track)