Fascistization of Cable News

Jopious Extronimous said:
I disagree with transexuality being 'natural' or the concept of boys or girls being born in the wrong body. It doesn't reflect on how I treat them but the notion that a penis doesn't make you a boy and a vagina doesn't make you a girl is some of the dumbest logic I've ever heard. Gender's exist because of sexual reproductive organs, not because people identify with stereotypes from one gender more than another.



That's not the point that I'm trying to make here, I'm expounding on the idea that attention has to be a driving factor to the news. It doesn't. If the news is boring, it's boring. It shouldn't be a constant panel discussion done to present the imagine of bipartisan journalism.

The problem here is nowadays, everything has to be discussed. But they can't discuss that unless they have a panel, and you can't have a panel unless all sides are represented.

But what happens when the only person available to represent a side is unqualified or prepared to outright lie? Should they still be presented with the accompanying news, or can we just be given the news and the tools to interpret it on our own?

Ideally I'd prefer a society where we're informed and have these discussions with eachother. Not listen to strangers who "represent us" do it on cable news in an effort to essentially tell us what our position is.
Click to expand...
I would agree that raw unprocessed data would be best. However, that's nothing more than a pipe dream because too many people are too invested in infecting you with their subjective truths.
 
Exception said:
To answer your question, no, not for simply opposing views. Demonstrably false, yes? However, I understand the country I live in and the fact that I don't get to decide for hundreds of millions of people what's even equal time (as we clearly don't regulate which broadcaster says what at which time) or what the opposing viewpoint is. That is to say, there could be infinite opinions on a topic. Does infinite time exist in your world?
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand the question. It's just a simple logic question, and it has a logically correct answer that is pretty easy to deduce.

The correct answer is that it is a fallacy. The consideration given to opposing views cannot be logically based on the fact that they are opposed. There are no infinities in the logic. The consideration given to opposing views is based, primarily in this case, on the profit generated.

The profit generated by opposing views is a function of their entertainment value, primarily.

The result of this is that by chasing profit, US media has created the most profitable controversies, rather than the logical or meritorious ones.

This twin practice of identifying opposing points of view and selecting the most profitable ones not only damages journalistic integrity, but benefits the irrationality of the Trump administration because the journalistic process selects for illogical controversies.
 
Fawlty said:
You don't seem to understand the question. It's just a simple logic question, and it has a logically correct answer that is pretty easy to deduce.

The correct answer is that it is a fallacy. The consideration given to opposing views cannot be logically based on the fact that they are opposed. There are no infinities in the logic. The consideration given to opposing views is based, primarily in this case, on the profit generated.

The profit generated by opposing views is a function of their entertainment value, primarily.

The result of this is that by chasing profit, US media has created the most profitable controversies, rather than the logical or meritorious ones.

This twin practice of identifying opposing points of view and selecting the most profitable ones not only damages journalistic integrity, but benefits the irrationality of the Trump administration because the journalistic process selects for illogical controversies.
Click to expand...
Billy-D_Approves.gif
 
Exception said:
Does that fact that "rustle mountain" doesn't exist and it's stupid hyperbole clue you in to the fact that you're on the losing side?
Click to expand...

You have to admit it's pretty weird that you and others entered the thread not to express disagreement or agreement with the OP, but to prevent an on-topic discussion. Seems like this is a subject that some people really don't want to see hashed out. Might be worth thinking about why that might be.
 
Fawlty said:
You don't seem to understand the question. It's just a simple logic question, and it has a logically correct answer that is pretty easy to deduce.

The correct answer is that it is a fallacy. The consideration given to opposing views cannot be logically based on the fact that they are opposed. There are no infinities in the logic. The consideration given to opposing views is based, primarily in this case, on the profit generated.

The profit generated by opposing views is a function of their entertainment value, primarily.

The result of this is that by chasing profit, US media has created the most profitable controversies, rather than the logical or meritorious ones.

This twin practice of identifying opposing points of view and selecting the most profitable ones not only damages journalistic integrity, but benefits the irrationality of the Trump administration because their journalistic process selects for illogical controversies.
Click to expand...

Lmao @ you answering a question you didn't ask. Nice stipulations that you'll later claim to be self-evident. You act as if we haven't all seen this before.
 
Exception said:
Lmao @ you answering a question you didn't ask. Nice stipulations that you'll later claim to be self-evident. You act as if we haven't all seen this before.
Click to expand...
What is your actual disagreement with his post?
 
Exception said:
Lmao @ you answering a question you didn't ask. Nice stipulations that you'll later claim to be self-evident. You act as if we haven't all seen this before.
Click to expand...
You have all you that need to respond to me regarding the substance of the topic, from my posts itt. You have my position, my logical statements, my assumptions. Your ball.
 
@oleDirtyBast4rd

So, what is your take on the effects (regardless of party affiliation) of promoting controversy based on profitable disagreements, rather than on meritorious ones? Do you think that kind of journalism selects for irrational controversy?
 
HomerThompson said:
What is your actual disagreement with his post?
Click to expand...

My disagreement is equal to the unicorn that answers
HomerThompson said:
All you did was insult one line from it. That's not engaging the topic. Do you agree with my position or disagree? Why?
Click to expand...

Lol @ you not even reading the article you posted. The reason he quoted it is because it directly refutes your foolish conclusion.

You didn't read the article so you weren't aware it was a quote from it.
 
Fawlty said:
@oleDirtyBast4rd

So, what is your take on the effects (regardless of party affiliation) of promoting controversy based on profitable disagreements, rather than on meritorious ones? Do you think that kind of journalism selects for irrational controversy?
Click to expand...

Who is to decide when something has merit or is profitable? I surely wouldn't trust your's or Homer's parameters and why should I? I prefer to see people battling out the ideas regardless of platform or how "unfair" it is (3 on 1 etc). As long as they aren't cutting the opposition's mic or not giving any time for their rebuttal/ positions.

I will never trust a singular source for news as it's completely impossible to remove all bias or lean. Actually, it may be possible from somebody who is disinterested, but then the news will be dull and lack depth. Debate is the only way I feel to get to the bottom of these issues. Not everything can be a formal debate, so I definitely approve when CNN, Fox, etc. have apposing viewpoints on.

Also, if your ideas are half as good as you claim, somebody with an opposing viewpoint shouldn't cause your whole argument to come crashing down. I LOVE debating the 2nd amendment with folk and encourage them to talk as they end up making themselves look silly.
 
oleDirtyBast4rd said:
Who is to decide when something has merit or is profitable? I surely wouldn't trust your's or Homer's parameters and why should I? I prefer to see people battling out the ideas regardless of platform or how "unfair" it is (3 on 1 etc). As long as they aren't cutting the opposition's mic or not giving any time for their rebuttal/ positions.

I will never trust a singular source for news as it's completely impossible to remove all bias or lean. Actually, it may be possible from somebody who is disinterested, but then the news will be dull and lack depth. Debate is the only way I feel to get to the bottom of these issues. Not everything can be a formal debate, so I definitely approve when CNN, Fox, etc. have apposing viewpoints on.

Also, if your ideas are half as good as you claim, somebody with an opposing viewpoint shouldn't cause your whole argument to come crashing down. I LOVE debating the 2nd amendment with folk and encourage them to talk as they end up making themselves look silly.
Click to expand...
You start by asserting that people can't have knowledge, and therefore it can't be debated. This is a postmodern leftist position that has been dumbed down for consumption by the alt right. You do this whenever you debate anything. You follow that up with ad hominem. Then you say people should debate and not have their mics cut off.

Man, that was a rough paragraph. It is of no value to me.

Then you flat out refuse to engage the topic, having excused yourself, then have the gall to say that you learn through debate, and then you brag about your belief that you win gun control arguments.

There's nothing of value in there. It's disjointed word salad.
 
Fawlty said:
Negative.

Homer's claim is that through the both sides fallacy, which claims that opposing points of view should be given equal time, the media is increasingly damaging the democratic process through profit motives.

This shouldn't be controversial at all. The article he posted takes this a bit further, and while it's sensationalized because it begs the question of fascism, it supports its "both-sides" claims logically and consistently, using real modern examples and their consequences for illustration.
Click to expand...

Both sides should not be given the same equal amount of time to debate. It's the wrong thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,885
Messages
55,452,299
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top