Isn't time that we understand that mainstream media is limited?

Well isn't it?

Where is the cutting edge information on all kinds of the goings on in sciences and politics

None

Other perspectives from other people on the same subjects

We need other voices being heard

Thoughts

Are we not being brainwashed by the networks of TV and movies on how to think about this or that subject?

I think we have become reliant far to much on the populace media to keep us informed on the world around us, when in fact they are all have control filters on what gets out, and therefore what we know, and the attitude towards what is known

This is not a good thing

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, yes and yes.
Support public, commercial-free networks (not hostage to every sponsor's agenda) and pressure government to expand funding of independent broadcasters.
Democracy depends on accurate information getting to all the voters; without that, democracy dies. It's dying now.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who is we? Everything has limits, just as it has strengths. Did you only just become aware of this?

For the cutting edge information in science I would attend a relevant conference and listen to the talk in the bar. If I want it somewhat delayed and at a much lower cost I would subscribe to publications like New Scientist or Scientific American. And, if the budget would accomodate it, to relevant specialist peer reviewed journals. Why the latter? Well, we've already agreed the mainstream media is limited.

Do you complain when you can't log onto this forum using your shower? I mean clearly your shower is limited.

So I can watch the same story unfolding as reported by CNN, the BBC, Al Jezeera, etc. I can read carefully constructed editorials in The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Guardian, or op ed pieces in the International Herald Tribune, or in depth assessments in The Economist. Which voices are not being heard, in your opinion?

Well, if you are not bright enough to ask probing questions and make your own assessments then perhaps you are being brainwashed. Your peculiar ideas on science, as demonstrated in other threads, certainly shows you have the capacity for being brainwashed.

Clearly you have become to reliant. The solution, however, is not to accept as factual anything that is presented which is contrary to the ****** media. (****** = popular or mainstream. Please make your mind up which you are talking about.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is there anyone out there who does NOT understand this?

Science News and Science Today are good for the popular sciences
Nature and Science are good sources for more in depth research
The Economist is a good source for politics

I'm not - because I never watch them.

 

For general news of the world, I rely on the BBC (even though I live in the U.S.) because they have no sponsors with special interests to serve. (Of course, I expect River to claim that they kowtow to whatever the British government wants them to say.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As to U.S. news outlets, I don't think they are as heavily biased as claimed EXCEPT for the areas involving politics. But I certainly agree that they DO put a lot of effort into over-dramatization of facts and speculation in an effort to draw more viewers/readers.

 

Turn the TV off. It's OK. Really.

 

Yes. Please do. Instead, turn the internet on - much more enlightening...

 

What does mainstream media mean to you? It used to mean network TV, newsstand rags, and the occasional radio news feeds.

None of those (with the exception of NPR/PBS/BBC affiliates and college stations) are likely to have any content on science, although you can expect to get plenty of politics with them. But the sky is the limit on the web. How about Huffington Post and Salon? Hopefully you wouldn't consider them mainstream.

But I suppose you wouldn't be interested in feeds from NASA, National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Health, the NOAA or USGS or any of countless sources of reliable information--I mean not if you're afraid that the Government has poisoned the meal it lays before you.

And I guess the Discovery channel is no good since it would be airing propaganda messages as well. Scientific American, National Geographic, Discover and Science Daily would no doubt fit that same pattern of conspiracy.

The problem is, once you've convinced yourself that all food is toxic, you simply convert yourself into an anorexic.

Bon appetit, Partisan.

 

You just proved my point about mainstream media

Such as CNN , MSNBC , NBC , ABC , CBS , FOX , AND CBC for me as well

None offer cutting edge news from many disciplines of study

 

Trouble is, the internet isn't wholly uncontaminated by mis-, dis-, un- dys-information and even (yes!) partisan propaganda. You have to be selective about your sources, and a great many people don't know how to find or assess news sites. Mostly, they go the website of their same old tv networks and newspapers.

It's not the government poisoning information - though, of course, all governments, all administrations, all parties, all agencies have their own slant - it's usually the owners of the media. Which means that the most strongets bias never changes, regardless of elections changes in the political balance of power: the tone is always set by financial interest. Which further means that media will always foster such moods and states of mind in the public as is best for business. Which is ignorance, discontent, low self-esteem and rah-rah nationalism.

 

Is this science discussion forum possibly contaminated by mis-, dis-, un- dys-information and even (yes!) partisan propaganda?

Or is it the exception to the rule?

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm hopping , alot that it becomes the exception to the rule

It , then becomes the forefront of cutting edge knowledge and becomes a more intellectual stimulating place to visit

But that is up to the forum administrators

 

I notice River that you have decided to avoid my dismantling of your notions in post #3. I suppose that was the safest route for you.

 

Of course.

They're not information services, but only businesses. This is how it's been since the invention of the 'press'. It's a classic capitalism mess of what should be a simple, fair and streamlined system. Yet another reason capitalism needs to be ended as soon as fiscally feasible.

 

There are a lot of low information and/or low time budget people, who lack the time to research and question all information. They depend on others for quick and concise information, so they can stay current and at least partially informed. The Main Stream Media is aware of this. They have the choice to do the research for their busy viewers and provide concise, reliable and balanced information. Or they can chose to become a propaganda wing for a political party and/or provide other forms of misinformation using various marketing manipulation techniques.

The government, rightfully so, regulates polution. Why does it not regulate information polution? If the main stream media, under the guise of journalism, is dumping misinformation toxins, into the public information supply, shouldn't an information EPA look into it to make sure this polution is within safety guidelines, for the low information consumer?

The child buying water, does not do research to see the spectral analysis before they drink. He/she depends on the government to act as the protector and has faith this is clean water. I believe in freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. But I also believe in good balanced information for a clean information supply. The government may be hand-cuffed due to freedom of speech and press.

One way to do both would be private sector misinformation filtration. For example, how about a non-profit reality check main stream TV station, whose job would be to look at media stories, opinions and the media personalities and then analyzes what they say and report their analysis a week later after the original broadcast. They rate them and their information for balance or pollution; add free market pressure. This would be good TV. The low information or low time viewer would appreciate a filter so they can stay informed with good info. Nobdy wants to be stupid or a patsie without knowing it. Given a choice they will move to the clean water if they know it is clean.

 

Just avoid epistemic closure by reading from divergent positions.

 

Maybe River is just ignoring you, John.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think that's even a full picture. The MSM will select the most credible reporter or commentator that fits the worldview of the editor, owner, staff or shareholders - probably in that order. There is, simply, no such thing other than marketing. This is capitalism.

And how is the government going to regulate fairness in reporting? They haven't so far and that shows no evidence of changing anytime soon. In fact, they'll probably confine their regulation to those stations that don't fit their worldview; i.e. Obama vs. Fox, Republicans (whichever one it is now) vs. NBC. (Or is it CBS? I forget.) The supporters of such stations will raise an outcry and then the trial balloon will be popped or more usually let to float away. It's no different than science, these days.

 

Or science discussion forums.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Something About Today

The main streams of culture in general are limited.

Religion, the arts, news and information, politics ... the list goes on. It's a matter of reconciling demand and necessity.

Some people watch sitcoms. I have a weakness for specific crime dramas on network television. In truth, we'd be better off without these programs; not because of sex or violence or anything like that, but because they actually suck.

The Oscar nominations are due soon; are these really the end-all top tier of movies made last year?

You can say the same thing about music. How often does the Grammy for Song of the Year go to the truly best song created that year? How often does the sales chart reflect the most refined, educated, and sensitive musical theory?

Really, it's pretty much never.

Priority is determined by consumption.

Take American politics. This is a year in which the question of whether or not the United States Congress is willing to pay the bills on the nation's public debt is actually a viable question. The ones arguing that this is unusual, dangerous, or downright silly? They're regarded as partisan, and therefore unreliable. How the hell does this happen? As I noted in a political thread:

And as fond as conservatives are of invoking household budgets as a metaphor for the federal budget—you know, because Mr. and Mrs. Jones' first concern in life is not so petty as their children, home, or food, but instead is geopolitical—we might simply ask this straightforward question: What concession is there in paying bills already charged?

Really, I would love to stick it to Comcast, or watch friends have it out with their credit card companies: Sure, I spent the credit, but now, as a matter of principle, I don't want to pay.

Seriously, if paying bills is a "concession"?​

Regardless of partisan differences, how did this come about? It's a marketplace matter: This is what passes for mainstream political discourse.

It's been over twenty years, believe it or not, since "I'm Too Sexy" topped the American charts. That, too, was a marketplace matter. Australia, Austria, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States? That damn song topped the charts in all of those countries.

When I was in high school, my brother used to lament that bands like Warrant and Nelson got promotion, but not the Screaming Trees. These days, it's a culture of Justin Bieber and Psy and Ke$ha, and yet Floater plays clubs.

It's true, after a while you get used to it. But with music, if I listen to "corporate" radio, it's either the classic rock or classical station.

Painting, books, stand-up comedy; "self-help", philosophy, education; television, movies, music; politics, religion, even basic identity labels. If there is an identifiable "main stream" within a culture, it is necessarily limited. It is an inevitability of the term, which lops off the ends of any bell curve. And the term arises inevitably from marketplace identity complexes.

With news and information media, marketplace matters are even more apparent. It is cyclical at this point; an outlet providing a comprehensive spectrum of straight news would be destroyed by its infotainment competitors. Sure, it's reasonably true to say, "Five hundred channels, and there's nothing on", but we still watch. It's certainly fair to say newspapers pretty much suck these days, but we still read them. And it's certainly common enough to lament that the talking heads are all pandering morons, but we still follow the discussion.

At some point, the main streams of a culture are simply amalgamations of market demand, which means there does arise a question that only consumers can answer.