World Media vs Reality.
#1
Posted 07 December 2007 - 05:29 AM
I understand the idea in the US that a candidate who can withstand such scrutiny might be worthy of the job of President. But at some point both sides of the arguement might notice, the world media is very biased.
Not just left or right, but on the micro-scale level that makes candidates 2nd grade view, of the world, relevant in world politics. Can I be held accountable for something I've said on this forum 2 years ago when I may have changed my view on the matter since than?
Am I allowed to grow up as well as others here?
I feel the US and world media has SO much access to info that maybe it's 24/7 coverage is forcing issues not otherwise enforced. Is there no rest period between time zones?
Let's say I am running for office and said something two years ago that I may have changed my opinion on. Am I liable for the fact that I changed my opinion? Call me a flip flopper on my opinion, but I'll trade a flip flopper who is someone who has the guts to change thier opinion based on facts presented to them, over someone who refuses to see the truth, as presented to them.
Am I wrong if I choose to listen to others, and after that, choose to change my opinion? Because if this is so, than I know for a fact that many poeple who thought I as was wrong, now understand I was correct in my assumptions. Only time will tell how humble some others might appear, considering my humbleness as well.
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#2
Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:09 AM
I agree with this. While I'm unsure what the rest of your post means, this part my sleepy head could understand . I agree that media are quite biased.Well to start, I'm not gonna reference any media sources, as that defeats the purpose IMO. I believe the world media has focused on world sensationalism. Paparazzi, famous people, candidates for office, the person next door. No one is out of harms way.
#3
Posted 07 December 2007 - 01:01 PM
Here's some food for thought: There was a politician once who got accused of rape by a prostitute. The media went completely apeshit and within a matter of days the guy was ruined. A rigorous investigation revealed that the accusation was completely unfounded, and the guy wasn't even near her that day. Did he regain his image? Heck no. It doesn't matter what the truth is when the mass media say it, their amazing psychological techniques influence the population like nothing else ever did.
We live in a world where we simply can't trust the mass media anymore, the mainstream serves only the interests of those who can pay for their services. Fortunately there are still a few independents left..
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
#4
Posted 07 December 2007 - 01:04 PM
It's part of why I read little or nothing of news reports. There's so much spin half the time I'm dizzy just reading the headline.
#5
Posted 07 December 2007 - 03:58 PM
Basically anyone can say anything about anyone and it's true till proven false, and than it's still rings with an aire of truth. Regardless of the validity of the statement.
So maybe we don't need a worldwide government reform, maybe we need a worldwide media reform. Free speach, I love it. But it doesn't appear to be free if someone has to pay the price for it with thier career or lives.
Take the recent mass killing in a mall where 8 people got killed and the mass murderer's name and face is plastered everywhere. Wouldn't it make sense that the media would supress the name of the murderer and his face in order to stop the threat of "suicidal, get famous quick" copycats.
Why isn't the media more mature enough to know that if you don't make someone famous by displaying thier pic and name that maybe it'll be less appealing to commit mass homicide followed by self suicide?
Maybe if we stop "making these people famous" by giving them the post-mortum spotlight they desire, maybe they won't be so inclined to commit mass homicides before blowing thier head off. Which was thier intial plan anyway.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong...
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#6
Posted 07 December 2007 - 04:30 PM
At least there used to be rarely any when I was actively following newspapers. Nowadays I occasionally read the free newspapers in the train and otherwise get the important things to hear in conversations with friends and family, or from browsing the web.
Solinx
"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr
#7
Posted 07 December 2007 - 05:11 PM
also considering that many, if not most, newspapers are owned by someone who likes to make a bit of money. the problem is that news and information should not sell for the sake of sales or popularity. it should be something that you would be interested to read, and it should give you new information about something you have not considered, it should revolt you but at the same time enlighten you to how the world works. it should NOT tell you what to mean, but since its hard to get people to read what you are writing without playing on their emotions, you rarely have a choice.
basically, i feel that what we are doing here right now is the next generation of information-gathering. we talk about stuff that interests us, and we create specific forums to discuss the topics that we especially like to be enlightened on. we don't get some journalists garbled opinion, but we look at what a journalist says and then discuss the different sides of the case, often coming up with a less contrast-filled opinion on it.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#8
Posted 07 December 2007 - 05:26 PM
#9
Posted 07 December 2007 - 06:30 PM
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
#10
Posted 07 December 2007 - 09:32 PM
#11
Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:09 PM
#12
Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:21 PM
luckily i don't believe that the net will easily be defeated that way. it would be a good scenario for a cyberwar though. the hordes of geeks vs the organizations of well-paid geeks.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#13
Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:34 PM
#14
Posted 08 December 2007 - 06:38 AM
We feel we must go with the majority, or that becuase others are able to state their reasons for why we are wrong,
that means we are wrong, instead of listening to what they claim and understanding where they are comming from.
It is then we should decide if our opinion still stands or possibly it was wrong, in which case, It is not the end of the world, but simply a moment of better understanding, which is, in my opinion, the way we should be when making decisions.
It's a wonder what can occur in an IM O_o
And i've had the same Sig for 4 years~
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users