Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

I cannot watch political shows anymore!

Old 10-11-08, 04:38 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Posts: 8,730
That's an interesting point.
I wouldn't mind three clearly delineated pieces of content:
News - what happened when, who did it, where
Analysis - what you're talking about; the reasons for the news, the impact thereof, etc.
Commentary - clearly biased opinion on the news or newsmakers, sometimes including analysis.
The only problem is analysis. Unless the news is something like "A ball was dropped today", with clear impact ("The ball hit the ground"), much analysis is trying to place blame (or determine root cause, saying it a more positive way) and define the impact. For many news stories, both or either of those can be subject to great disagreement. Having "experts" on would be nice, to debate point/counterpoint--if the people in charge of picking the "experts" weren't biased and not trying to hide it at all; their bias comes into play even in the selection of experts.
The media does believe their job is to "inform" and "educate", however, to a great extent, what is informed is passed through their heavily biased filters.
I do agree to an extent that "the general population wants to hear bias", although I wouldn't phrase it like that. Conservatives overall have grown tired of what they perceive as a heavily leftward biased media, so they seek out news/commentary more in line with their views--not so much that they only want to hear their side, but it gets really old hearing how conservatives want to starve schoolchildren, etc.
Add to that the fact that now instead of ABC, NBC, CBS, we have multiple cable news networks, multiple terrestrial and satellite radio political/news channels or programs, newspaper is dying but they are still read by many, dozens of podcasts, and of course roughly nine jillion websites of various levels of factchecking and hidden/obvious bias. There's too much information to get it all, and most people don't want to make an effort to listen to something that will talk down to them or insult their beliefs. And many people do want validation (consciously or subconciously) so they're more likely to seek out and listen to news/opinion that is more in line with their own.
tonyc3742 is offline  
Old 10-11-08, 04:38 PM
  #27  
Member
 
Brack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near Cincinnati
Posts: 9,583
Originally Posted by Cardiff Giant View Post
I'm sick of the pro-obama media and just general feel among some. I dislike the man's leftist policies but it seems like if you say you don't like him people label you a racist, far right extremist even if you cite valid issues you dislike about his policies. I just can't wait to see how the media will turn on their darling Obama in due time if he wins.
This is "news" to me.

No, people are labeled racist when they speak up about Obama at rallies, and they shout out things like "terrorist," "shoot him," and "he's an Arab." That actually happened this week. What do you think the media is going to do, condone those statements?
Brack is offline  
Old 10-11-08, 04:44 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Posts: 8,730
The media should certainly not condone those statements. However, they should also condemn statements such as "God damn America" and "We should have done more (domestic bombings)", those who espouse those statements, and those who support the statement makers.
Or I could point you toward virtually anything said in the past year by Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, many Hollywood political thinkers, and many other leftist media darlings; each has said equally inflammatory statements. And I think a "public figure" saying things like that is worse than some random Joe Blow on the street
However, even before those alleged statements were made (which I don't condone either, they're inciteful and inflammatory and add nothing), many pundits were implicitly or explicitly calling proMcCain or anti-Obama people "racist". "There's no reason he shouldn't win, so if he doesn't, it's got to be racism" is a loose paraphrase of one recent article. I don't recall who wrote it, so I don't know if it was an "opinion" and thus should be viewed as such, or if it was written by a "newsperson" who should be held to a higher standard of fact-reporting and non-trolling.
tonyc3742 is offline  
Old 10-11-08, 05:01 PM
  #29  
Member
 
Brack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near Cincinnati
Posts: 9,583
Originally Posted by dtcarson View Post
The media should certainly not condone those statements. However, they should also condemn statements such as "God damn America" and "We should have done more (domestic bombings)", those who espouse those statements, and those who support the statement makers.
Um, who hasn't condemned those statements? Please, inform me.

Originally Posted by dtcarson View Post
Or I could point you toward virtually anything said in the past year by Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington, many Hollywood political thinkers, and many other leftist media darlings; each has said equally inflammatory statements. And I think a "public figure" saying things like that is worse than some random Joe Blow on the street.
Equally inflammatory? Really? Yeah, Moore said something stupid trying to make a point about Katrina when Gustav was about to hit, but other than that, nothing very newsworthy (and even that wasn't). Regardless, those people aren't running for office, so it's not gonna get the same treatment.

Originally Posted by dtcarson View Post
However, even before those alleged statements were made (which I don't condone either, they're inciteful and inflammatory and add nothing), many pundits were implicitly or explicitly calling proMcCain or anti-Obama people "racist". "There's no reason he shouldn't win, so if he doesn't, it's got to be racism" is a loose paraphrase of one recent article. I don't recall who wrote it, so I don't know if it was an "opinion" and thus should be viewed as such, or if it was written by a "newsperson" who should be held to a higher standard of fact-reporting and non-trolling.
You can't decide if it was opinion or not? It's a prediction, of course it's opinion.
Brack is offline  
Old 10-11-08, 07:30 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,777
Originally Posted by Bronkster View Post
This, my friends, is why God made cartoons and Three Stooges DVDs.
Last time I checked, Hollywood made cartoons and The Three Stooges.
Michael Ballack is offline  
Old 10-11-08, 08:21 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 30,500
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
I can't watch them either. I get my news from this forum. I skip through commercials on shows I record so I don't have to watch political ads.
I wish we could V-chip political ads.

I have to guys running for congress who are just fucking flooding the television. I think they each run about four an hour. And it's like the same five or six ads over and over and over and over and over.
Josh-da-man is offline  
Old 10-11-08, 08:34 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
eXcentris obviously believes the press has a different function in society than I do.

The first role of the media is tell you what's happening. If it fails in that - it has failed in its primary function.

I believe the vast majority of the media failed in that during the first 2-3 weeks of the War in Iraq.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 10-11-08, 09:34 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,535
Originally Posted by classicman2 View Post
The first role of the media is tell you what's happening.
The first role of the media is to tell you what to think.

Unfortunately, some time in the '50s they decided to start telling people to think the media is unbiased and impartial, despite the fact that there is absolutely no historical precedent for news reporters to behave that way.
Sean O'Hara is offline  
Old 10-11-08, 09:49 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,730
Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara View Post
The first role of the media is to tell you what to think.

Unfortunately, some time in the '50s they decided to start telling people to think the media is unbiased and impartial, despite the fact that there is absolutely no historical precedent for news reporters to behave that way.
Newspapers certainly were not unbiased and impartial during the US Civil War.
The newspapers of the Civil War-era were quite different from those of today, with no photographs and minimal headlines. These newspapers also had clear political affiliations: either Democratic or Whig (later Republican).
http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/xml_doc...l/opening.html
wishbone is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 07:26 AM
  #35  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The bias in the media doesn't particulary bother me. After all, Thomas Paine was somewhat biased. It's when it goes to the extreme - such as Fox & MSNBC has during this presidential election - that it tends to bother me a little.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 10:14 AM
  #36  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,865
Originally Posted by Brack View Post
This is "news" to me.

No, people are labeled racist when they speak up about Obama at rallies, and they shout out things like "terrorist," "shoot him," and "he's an Arab." That actually happened this week. What do you think the media is going to do, condone those statements?
Where did I say I was ok with people saying those things? You can attack the man's policy and even his history in appropriate ways and those aren't examples of them. I was speaking of personal experience where someone tried to say the real reason I wasn't voting for Obama is because he's black rather than being leary of his leftist agenda.
Then again, if your user name has something to do with your political views(which if it doesn't is a strange coincidence I guess), there's probably little purpose in defending my point. Moving on.

Last edited by Cardiff Giant11; 10-12-08 at 10:16 AM.
Cardiff Giant11 is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 10:36 AM
  #37  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 29,621
Originally Posted by sracer View Post
Not surprising since what you saw on French TV was more compatible with what you are predisposed to believing.
Totally besides the point. The point being that it was actually intelligent and informative, regardless of what my views were.

I don't disagree with classicman that reporting the news is the main goal of the media. They do also provide limited analysis of said news. There lies my beef for reasons I already expressed.
eXcentris is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 10:39 AM
  #38  
DVD Talk Legend
 
sracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 12,666
Originally Posted by eXcentris View Post
Totally besides the point. The point being that it was actually intelligent and informative, regardless of what my views were.
No, that IS the point. You might like to think that you are enlightened enough to be above personal bias, but it is way to easy to label something as "intelligent and informative" when it matches your views.
sracer is online now  
Old 10-12-08, 10:42 AM
  #39  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
We all have a tendency to label something as 'intelligent & informative' if we agree with it.

I even find myself guilty of it at times.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 10:44 AM
  #40  
DVD Talk Legend
 
sracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 12,666
Originally Posted by classicman2 View Post
We all have a tendency to label something as 'intelligent & informative' if we agree with it.

I even find myself guilty of it at times.
Same here. I find Bill O'Reilly to be intelligent and informative. But I KNOW that is based on what I already believe.
sracer is online now  
Old 10-12-08, 11:15 AM
  #41  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 29,621
Originally Posted by sracer View Post
No, that IS the point. You might like to think that you are enlightened enough to be above personal bias, but it is way to easy to label something as "intelligent and informative" when it matches your views.
The fascinating thing about your last two posts is that they further confirm my belief that partisanship has killed critical thinking in America.

I can make the difference between in-depth, coherent, intelligent, informative analysis and 2 min. soundbites filled with rhetoric from political pundits, regardless of my views. If you can't, see above.
eXcentris is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 11:20 AM
  #42  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara View Post
The first role of the media is to tell you what to think.

Unfortunately, some time in the '50s they decided to start telling people to think the media is unbiased and impartial, despite the fact that there is absolutely no historical precedent for news reporters to behave that way.
Nice.

Most don't have the historical perspective, or the intelligence I guess, to realize what is so easily known and so painfully obvious as the biased press.

Many, if not most, 'enlightened' and 'educated' people of today wax long and poetic on the blind and unbiased media.

It's always hilarious.

Originally Posted by wishbone View Post
Newspapers certainly were not unbiased and impartial during the US Civil War.

http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/xml_doc...l/opening.html
It has always been that way.
"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." - Thomas Jefferson

"Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge" - Erwin Knoll

"I am unable to understand how a man of honor could take a newspaper in his hands without a shudder of disgust." - Charles Baudelaire

"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." - A. J. Liebling

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson
Of course it's the same today.
"The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We’re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I’ve been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats." - Washington Post "Book World" editor Marie Arana as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005 article

"Of course it is. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed." - New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?"

"There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias. [ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut." - Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on "Inside Washington", May 12, 1996.

"There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points." - Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on "Inside Washington", July 10, 2004.
Dr Mabuse is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 11:43 AM
  #43  
Member
 
Brack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near Cincinnati
Posts: 9,583
Originally Posted by Cardiff Giant View Post
Where did I say I was ok with people saying those things? You can attack the man's policy and even his history in appropriate ways and those aren't examples of them. I was speaking of personal experience where someone tried to say the real reason I wasn't voting for Obama is because he's black rather than being leary of his leftist agenda.
Then again, if your user name has something to do with your political views(which if it doesn't is a strange coincidence I guess), there's probably little purpose in defending my point. Moving on.
I was saying "that's news" because I never thought someone who was a truly conservative would be against Obama simply because of his race. From my experience, I wouldn't expect you to be for either candidate.

Uh yeah, Brack is actually a real name (mine's a nickname), and nothing to do with barack. I guess this is my own version of "Obama = Osama?"
Brack is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 08:58 PM
  #44  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,302
Originally Posted by Brack View Post
Uh yeah, Brack is actually a real name (mine's a nickname), and nothing to do with barack. I guess this is my own version of "Obama = Osama?"


The Brack Cucumber Song

VinVega is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 09:00 PM
  #45  
Member
 
Brack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: near Cincinnati
Posts: 9,583
^^^ pretty much.
Brack is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 09:31 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Originally Posted by classicman2 View Post
I believe the vast majority of the media failed in that during the first 2-3 weeks of the War in Iraq.
I think they failed in the 2-3 months BEFORE the war.
CRM114 is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 09:34 PM
  #47  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,949
The fact that NBC had a mushroom cloud turn into the peacock logo points to how terrible the media was.
gmanca is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 09:52 PM
  #48  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
I miss Tim Russert! The right did not like him so much but I always thought he did as good as anyone.
bfrank is offline  
Old 10-12-08, 10:54 PM
  #49  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,712
Originally Posted by bfrank View Post
I miss Tim Russert! The right did not like him so much but I always thought he did as good as anyone.
I agree, although I don't know that the right didn't like him. I also think Chris Wallace does a good job.

Both of them transcend(ed) the agenda and made answering their questions the primary goal. And their questions weren't based on their ideology.
X is offline  
Old 10-13-08, 07:06 AM
  #50  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
I think they failed in the 2-3 months BEFORE the war.
You believe the primary role of the media is different than what I believe it is.
classicman2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.