All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Paradox]

And also that Fox regularly has at least twice the viewers MSNBC does. "Liberals" don't take their "propaganda station" nearly as seriously as "conservatives" do theirs.

[Clarkie]

So how does a society survive over the long haul when vital information is filtered through an ideological lens and people gravitate to the outlet that agrees with their point of view?

the same way it has for a few thousand years, except right now the ability to challenge that lens, and filter information, has never been greater.

[Mark]

the same way it has for a few thousand years, except right now the ability to challenge that lens, and filter information, has never been greater.

The country hasn't existed for a few thousand years.

[Mark]

When comparing FOX and MSNBC it's important to realise that only the first one ever deemed it necessary to go to court to defend their 1st ammendment righst to blatantly lie and make stuff up in news broadcasts.

I figure MSNBC hasn't gotten around to it yet.

[Clarkie]

The country hasn't existed for a few thousand years.

you said society, not U.S.A society, and there rather obviously has been a society in North America for a few thousand years anyway, and the current U.S.A society doesn't live in civilisational vacuum.

[Mark]

you said society, not U.S.A society, and there rather obviously has been a society in North America for a few thousand years anyway, and the current U.S.A society doesn't live in civilisational vacuum.

There were multiple societies on North America before the 1600's, but they are gone now (a dark mark on America's history) but none of them as far as I know had any resemblance to current US society.

[Mikekerr3]

Or MSNBC. The networks are mirror images of each other. But really how do we know that Wolf Blitzer is credible and Chris Mathews or Bill Oreily isn't? The political parties are masters at manipulating the media.

We know becasue there is a lot of information proving that Mathews and especial O'Riely are consistantly lying. The same does nt apply to Blitzer, He is not perfect but the lies are the reason for his shows existence. And Bill O is one of the more honest talking heads at Faux.

[Mark]

We know becasue there is a lot of information proving that Mathews and especial O'Riely are consistantly lying. The same does nt apply to Blitzer, He is not perfect but the lies are the reason for his shows existence. And Bill O is one of the more honest talking heads at Faux.

But how can you trust that information?

[Carabas]

But how can you trust that information?

By not pretending that there's just these two networks out there.

[Mark]

By not pretending that there's just these two networks out there.

No, I mean how can you trust any of them?

[worstblogever]

When MSNBC decides to start claiming a recovered POW is a traitor, and that his father's beard is a sign he's also sympathetic to terrorists, maybe then they'll be in the same ball park as FOX News.

Because seriously, I feel like we're on a countdown to the first time some FOX News viewer goes and publicly lynches somebody because of what the d***wads on the curvy couch told them about them. Which is a hell of a lot more glaring issue with journalistic integrity.

[Mikekerr3]

But how can you trust that information?

Becasue,. I have a brain and access t the source data in many cases. Believing in fox requires that you ignore reality. The bergdal case is a great example, with the beard supposedly showing he is somehow a taliban simapthiser, theier take on global warming is even more dishonest and I can read the source data on that myself, and understand most of it.

[Carabas]

No, I mean how can you trust any of them?

By not being an overly paranoid cynic.

[Paradox]

Exactly. You look at several sources and make up your mind. Don't "trust" at all, investigate.

[CSTowle]

That's why I think it's a good idea not just to investigate the facts behind an issue (though that is the most important thing), but also to look at the ideological and emotional arguments of the people who have the direct opposite opinion on an issue you do. Finding intelligent and articulate examples can be difficult at times (I would avoid Fox News if you're a liberal), but they're out there and while they won't change your minds necessarily it's good to confirm that there are rational arguments and that the other side aren't always (or even mostly) morons that can be easily dismissed but ordinary human beings who happen to have a different opinion on things.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people who are morons who can be dismissed (sadly they're the loudest and most entertaining so they tend to be popular). Racists, 9/11 truthers, young Earth creationists (really anything where a holy book is taken literally gets people into trouble when trying to make rational arguments), etc. Just not everyone who tends to vote for the other side.