General politics

[Champuckett]

 

 

I mean, if your point can be boiled down to: "be skeptical and cynical about major media"....sure.

 

 

I'm skeptical and cynical about just about everything.  Not sure many people would disagree with your claim.  However, I don't think you have a solid foundation to say that any discussion that rings similar beats with media stories means that we are being driven by the same narrative.

 

There is overlap, sure.  But correlation is not causation.

 

I would say more accurately, my point is complete abandonment of major media.  Complete.  Total.  Adhering to it for even a minor amount is dangerous for everyone.  If that sounds shocking, then that might have something, whether minor, moderate, or major, to do with the apparent mud surrounding everything I have laid out.

[Champuckett]

 

 

No evidence. It's supposition.  But we should always be wary of state and corporate run institutions, often their interests are more aligned than we want to believe, arguably the same group of people control each.  I trust BBC and NPR more than corporate media, but we should have some cynicism, and realize they are in tune in the moment, and don't advocate for our future. 

 

Unless I am mistaken, the BBC and NPR are both state owned by their respective countries.  The incentive then for polishing up mistakes and celebrating successes by both of these institutions would be increased to a more aggressive extent than corporate run media coverage of the state.

[Champuckett]

I'm headed to bed.  It has been enjoyable and stimulating to hear from you all on this.  I hope you understand I'm not coming here with the intent to attack anyone.  I simply want to talk about some of these issues that I did not feel were either being talked about or addressed.

 

I'm willing to talk to anyone in private messages about any of these topics at length or for clarification's sake.  Let's see where we can go from here.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Unless I am mistaken, the BBC and NPR are both state owned by their respective countries.  The incentive then for polishing up mistakes and celebrating successes by both of these institutions would be increased to a more aggressive extent than corporate run media coverage of the state.

We can all see the potential conflict, hence my professed wariness. Yet, the actual content produced by each is surprisingly thoughtful even if within a prescribed context.  In other words you put too much weight on on potential problems, without actually judging the content.  Largely, we should be proud of the content the BBC and NPR produce, esp. given their state ownership.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

I would say more accurately, my point is complete abandonment of major media.  Complete.  Total.  Adhering to it for even a minor amount is dangerous for everyone.  If that sounds shocking, then that might have something, whether minor, moderate, or major, to do with the apparent mud surrounding everything I have laid out.

 

I think you are equivocating several terms in your argument.  Engaging with media and adhering to it are not necessarily the same thing.

 

Using it as a jumping point for discussion is not being bound to it either.  There are a number of gross exaggerations you try and pass off as fact, I'll try and label each of them:

You named some of the most heavy contributors to this thread, which is the subject of my concerns.It's understandable if these are the same people that are going to be questioning what I am saying the most intensely.

 

The narrative is what the media pushes, that we have liberals/democrats/republicans/conservatives running our country and that their stances on issues are the only available options.These factions debate between one another and their talking points are the foundation for where our public discourse is derived.The discourse is false in nature and there are more options available to be discussed than what they lead us to believe.The narrative also focuses only on things that benefits the state, so we will tend to get stories that only show the state in a positive light, or show enemies of the state in a negative light.The stories that pop up that are news that we may or may not be interested in, will be chosen unbeknownst to us or our desires, and we will not end up getting the full picture of reality and what it is that is happening in our country or in the world.Alternative forms of media are slowly beginning to fill in these gaps of missing/discarded information that we previously did not have, which is enabling us to see a bigger picture of what is happening.

 

To do "better", we simply need to stop following said narrative.This does not mean we follow a new narrative, simply abandon the existing one.Participating in following the narrative, preaching it, discussing it, it will continue the media's domination of the narrative over us and thus, their power over us in terms of forming what we think and speak about with one another, especially with political debate.It will begin to shine light on those (politicians, corporations, bankers, etc) interested in subverting the will of the people.This is already in the process of happening as many are leaving the establishment media behind and finding new forms of collecting information.I think you are likely aware that this is already happening.

 

 

1. No one is questioning you out of defensiveness.  I'd suggest that's actually your defensiveness.  Rather than look at whether you are posting with clarity, you project the question as defensiveness by us.  You claim Psuedo understands you, but I think he's addressing the fringes of your points that he can address but the substantive core eludes us all. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but given my posts that he's liked and his responses, I think you are misreading his level of understanding.  And it's taken us this many pages to even get past the surface.  That, in and of itself, speaks to a lack of clarity.

 

2.  I think the second paragraph is full of many gross generalizations I'm not even sure how you can claim it as true.  Now, are our politics largely driven by two parties?  Yes, they are.  But many alternative voices and ideas are available.  Including in this thread.  That you dismiss or diminish them does not mean they don't exist.  That is an over-exaggeration that is not true.

 

And herein lies where you appear to be a victim of the very thing you claim you're lecturing us all on.  Either we are wholly stuck in the "narrative" or not.  That intelligent, aware people are either being led blindly or are "lemmings".  You have reduced the complexity of discussion here into many subjective, binary camps.  

 

A claim of that magnitude requires evidence.  Of yet you've provided none.

 

3.  You say we abandon it and don't replace it, but then acknowledge that people do indeed replace it.  News has existed for as long as people have.  And corruption, spin, and all the negatives that go with it have as well.  They are as inseparable as our flaws as human beings.  And this should be obvious why - news/media is a human enterprise.  And all human enterprises are subject to our strengths and flaws.  So the idea that you simply drop it is not feasible.  And you know this as well as I do, because later in that same paragraph you state as much: people go elsewhere.  And, over time, these new sources of information will (if not already) be subject to the same problems.  Your answer to this question, is simply not good enough.  It speaks to what Psuedo said - the world is imperfect, we do what we can with this knowledge and persevere.  

 

That's what it means to be human.  If the best answer you can provide to "better" is this, you have grossly misunderstood the complexity of humanity.  That would explain a lot about your position.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I could be wrong, but I think people are discussing these issues with the notion that what the media says is real and credible and base their reactions we see here on that credibility.

I'm raising two black kids and I don't listen to the media nearly as much as I do the black friends around me, so...

I disagree with your point here, rather profusely.

 

I hate to swing race right back into *every* conversation but it's a pure luxury to not really care much about what is said; a white luxury.

My own kids won't enjoy that luxury so yeah, gonna kinda get up in arms about it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Unless I am mistaken, the BBC and NPR are both state owned by their respective countries.  The incentive then for polishing up mistakes and celebrating successes by both of these institutions would be increased to a more aggressive extent than corporate run media coverage of the state.

BBC, yes, state owned.

NPR, state partially funded (not OWNED). In fact, our own MPR is mostly funded by listeners, largely in due to their creation of The Current, a music station.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Heaven knows Minnesota has done quite a job going out of its way to give these people a great setup plan for life.  Would be nice to see them make an attempt to assmiliate if they want citizenship.

 

Sorry if this offends anyone

Have you ever wondered if there’s a cause-effect with the US meddling in a foreign region, followed by a destabilizing of a region, followed by a migrant and refugee situation where the people of the region flee to the US for safety?

 

Nope, me neither.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Unless I am mistaken, the BBC and NPR are both state owned by their respective countries.  The incentive then for polishing up mistakes and celebrating successes by both of these institutions would be increased to a more aggressive extent than corporate run media coverage of the state.

And, as a larger point, if this is your post, you're not even trying.

Listen, I'm all ears when it comes to burning down the establishment... well, most of it.

 

But you don't even understand how media is published. You're promoting media without repercussion. Super fun, right? Except that's how we get Breitbart and Dailykos.

 

So how do we stop that? Maybe listen to the actual journalists who do research, except...

 

You said let's not listen to them, either.

So who DO we listen to at that point?

[MMMordabito]

Sounds like clocking out on consuming news (well except for baseball news and concert tour date news) is probably the way to go. I hear it's actually really good for the psyche. I wonder if my curiosity can be held in check though.

[Badsmerf]

Levi, you really need to look at this. These are three posts in succession on the top of page 62.

 

My first post:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

This is about the most in-depth estimation of Trump's approval rating as I can find. It uses about every single poll there is and tries to average it out. As far as I can tell, it's about 40something approve and 50something disapprove. Whereas here, I would venture to say it is about 95% disapprove and 5% too afraid to comment,

My response:

It's an aggregate from a lot of sources. I'm really not interested in polls, but I wanted to look for a fair reflection. It feels to you all these sources have a pro Trump bias. That is certainly possible

Could it be that there is an anti-Trump bias here

 

I was speaking about POLLS having a PRO-TRUMP bias. I mused....

Does this site (if it were polled) have an anti-Trump bias

 

Bias is a very rudimentary term in statistics. This is why random sampling occurs.

 

For heaven's sake. I have clarified this a number of times and it wasn't even all that confusing unless you chose to be, reacting to the word BIAS. Why in the world do you keep referencing this after I have clarified this several times?

 

This is what chmpuckett was talking about, quite frankly.

 

Get off it already. It's done.

If you have any further question PM me. Stop carrying on here.

To clarify... I read 538 a lot. I don't think the polls themselves are bias. My point was, if you poll most Republicans they will approve of Trump. If you poll most democrats they will disapprove of Trump. There is little objectivity anymore.

 

This feeds into what champ is talking about with media narratives. How many Republicans in these polls are just the lemmings doing what good lemmings do? The same could have been asked with Obama. As a whole, I don't think our country pays much attention to the details in politics. Tribalism is real, and the media.... and even more so Trump, are creating more of it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sounds like clocking out on consuming news (well except for baseball news and concert tour date news) is probably the way to go. I hear it's actually really good for the psyche. I wonder if my curiosity can be held in check though.

 

You couldn't.  And part of what makes the concern about "narratives" silly is that these things happen all the time.  The key in life is not to avoid such things, but learn how to cut through the noise the best you can.

 

The more I reflect on this conversation, the more I feel like I'm trying to talk someone off the "You're just corrupted by the man!" argument.  I don't know if you've ever had or seen such a conversation, but it goes in circles and lacks the specifics to be meaningful.  Sounds good as a sound byte, not so useful as an actual contention.

[biggentleben]

 

I can't say I am suprised no one brought up Ilhan Omar, are Somali immigrants like Hindu cows here?  

 

I would say that it's a great counterpoint to Champ's assertion that the talking points on this site are media-based.

 

If that was the truth, we'd have been on this issue for the last few days, would constantly be discussing AOC, and would have Mueller/House hearings on our tongues constant over the last 7-10 days.

 

When big events do happen that capture the nation's attention, I would say the issues behind the event is what is at discussion here, as by and large, the discussion here is nothing akin to the media discussion and coverage of the event.

[biggentleben]

 

Respectfully, I think we are seeing different things regarding the behavior of the participants in this thread.

 

I at no point said there is a right narrative to be had.  Simply we are all following the same narrative, which is brought to us by the media, and this is not just a problem in the thread here.

 

I'm sorry this topic is nebulous to you.  I think it holds merit and is a why we have seen the direction this particular thread has taken since the beginning.  But again, it is not just a problem here with the members here, but expands well beyond this thread or message board.

 

The issue here...you're hammering at an issue that, with specifics, would bring about a relevant discussion. Instead, it's being left as a general "problem here" and "things you cannot see".

 

I would say that very seldom is the argument based on one side or the other bias. When the board as collective will take apart something like Medicare for All or the 2nd Amendment and review it piece by piece, it's not with intense media stories as backing, it's with personal experiences and data that arguments are made. If not with personal perspective and facts, what elements should be utilized in forming discussion points?

 

One thing I've appreciated in discussing politics with some on this thread now for 20ish years is that there is seldom an issue affecting politics and life that is a 100% - rarely, if ever, is there a topic that someone is 100% for every argument on one side of an issue or even one angle of an issue. For instance, to me, guns in this country are by no means a 2-sided issue. They are more like a stop sign in angles that make up the entirety of guns in this country. While there are some points of an extreme "take 'em all" argument that I can understand and even agree with, there are points of the "keep your paws off my ammo" crowd that I get as well, and that doesn't even consider the differing angles of the NRA's involvement on the issue in this country and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

This has now been nearly a dozen pages that this generalistic line has been morphed from a heavy slant to one side to then completely influenced by the media in our discussions, and none of it really approached with specific points in hand, though I, like I truly believe anyone else in this thread, would gladly discuss the merits of our opinion on a particular discussion if you were able to point to a topic or even a singular post as emblemizing the media wash that you're supposing in the discussion.

[LaBombo]

 

I imagine it’s tough feeling like a minority.

 

That depends a great deal on the actions of the majority, as we've been told for at least two generations.

 

And yes, I know exactly what you were going for there. The irony is that the nature of your post perfectly sums up the point that the non-left interlopers are trying to make about posting here.

[Champuckett]

 

I think you are equivocating several terms in your argument.  Engaging with media and adhering to it are not necessarily the same thing.

 

Using it as a jumping point for discussion is not being bound to it either.  There are a number of gross exaggerations you try and pass off as fact, I'll try and label each of them:

 

1. No one is questioning you out of defensiveness.  I'd suggest that's actually your defensiveness.  Rather than look at whether you are posting with clarity, you project the question as defensiveness by us.  You claim Psuedo understands you, but I think he's addressing the fringes of your points that he can address but the substantive core eludes us all. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but given my posts that he's liked and his responses, I think you are misreading his level of understanding.  And it's taken us this many pages to even get past the surface.  That, in and of itself, speaks to a lack of clarity.

 

2.  I think the second paragraph is full of many gross generalizations I'm not even sure how you can claim it as true.  Now, are our politics largely driven by two parties?  Yes, they are.  But many alternative voices and ideas are available.  Including in this thread.  That you dismiss or diminish them does not mean they don't exist.  That is an over-exaggeration that is not true.

 

And herein lies where you appear to be a victim of the very thing you claim you're lecturing us all on.  Either we are wholly stuck in the "narrative" or not.  That intelligent, aware people are either being led blindly or are "lemmings".  You have reduced the complexity of discussion here into many subjective, binary camps.  

 

A claim of that magnitude requires evidence.  Of yet you've provided none.

 

3.  You say we abandon it and don't replace it, but then acknowledge that people do indeed replace it.  News has existed for as long as people have.  And corruption, spin, and all the negatives that go with it have as well.  They are as inseparable as our flaws as human beings.  And this should be obvious why - news/media is a human enterprise.  And all human enterprises are subject to our strengths and flaws.  So the idea that you simply drop it is not feasible.  And you know this as well as I do, because later in that same paragraph you state as much: people go elsewhere.  And, over time, these new sources of information will (if not already) be subject to the same problems.  Your answer to this question, is simply not good enough.  It speaks to what Psuedo said - the world is imperfect, we do what we can with this knowledge and persevere.  

 

That's what it means to be human.  If the best answer you can provide to "better" is this, you have grossly misunderstood the complexity of humanity.  That would explain a lot about your position.

 

I think it is very possible I am being questioned out of defensiveness.  And it was expected before I started participating here in this thread.  It's natural to have this reaction when a challenge or a threat is felt to the status quo, even if said threat can be stamped out as quickly as it started.  This was one of my points in the very first post I made in this thread was.  That there would be an attempt by everyone to have majority rule outweigh the minority polemic, and this is now how things are playing out.  You don't poke a hornets nest without expecting the hornets to sting, and I think that's what we are seeing play out here.  This is why it's possible it could be beneficial to have some of these discussions as a 1 on 1 basis in pm's, because there are more opportunities for growth, from both parties, when there is not the basic human need to use numbers to overwhelm opposition.  And we can still do that, hopefully.

 

There is an illusion that there are alternate voices and that's one of the primary points I have put forth before the members of the thread here.  Some of the participants are admitting that the narrowing of potential arguments which is responsible for shaping most of our political discourse is in fact happening, mainly Psuedo.  And although he does not let this deter him from participating in the thread, he was able to quote one of more famous modern day philosophers that has previously pointed that this is in fact occurring.  We can agree to disagree on this point, which I was happy to do many pages back, but simply saying I am wrong and leaving it at that, is not going to help any further examination of this point.  But I'm pointing this out, because you are not speaking for everyone on the matter.  I'm glad there is at least some understanding that this is happening, and would love to move onward from here.

 

You are absolutely correct, news has, since the beginning of time, been used in this way.  It's important to admit this and maybe we should discuss why there has been a reluctance to question this media, but instead reinforce it on a daily/weekly basis by linking the news of the day from the very same sources that we are increasingly becoming aware of are distorting what is really happening and partitioning the information load so that we only receive the bits that they want us to see while the bits that they do not are thrown in the waste bin.  So knowing this, we can at a minimum be questioning the primary way that our countrymen and citizens of the world, are getting their news.  Maybe you are, and if you are that is great.  And if that is true, maybe that can be used to help understand my point about a single same narrative being followed.

 

The news can exist on more platforms than what we now know of today as the corporate news.  I think we have made some progress based off what you have stated.  You can correct me anywhere I go wrong.  You believe that news has and can be corrupted or spun in ways to benefit certain parties.  Great.  Then taking the leap that corporate and state run news are our only avenues for news is not something I can agree with.  I think we are seeing an alternate news form out of the ashes of the standard news we have all become accustomed to since each of our births.  The corporate and state runs news will eventually die due to the interests of the state and of the news agencies outweighing the interests of the people, who are becoming more aware of the failures of the current system and the intentional misleading of the controlling parties of the news.  Therefore, I do believe it is not only feasible that this old type of news is dropped, but a certainty, and we all begin the process in earnest of embracing new  variations of news collecting that are more decentralized and on the ground, rather than in the centralized office space where but a few controlling parties have reign over the information hundreds of millions of people are receiving on a daily basis.

 

If we want to haggle over the definitions of what it means to have news in the first place, I'm happy to have a discussion on that.

[Champuckett]

 

 

I would say that it's a great counterpoint to Champ's assertion that the talking points on this site are media-based.

 

If that was the truth, we'd have been on this issue for the last few days, would constantly be discussing AOC, and would have Mueller/House hearings on our tongues constant over the last 7-10 days.

 

When big events do happen that capture the nation's attention, I would say the issues behind the event is what is at discussion here, as by and large, the discussion here is nothing akin to the media discussion and coverage of the event.

 

Thanks for entering the discussion.  The point is, that these are non-news news items that we are occupying ourselves with.  I'm not singling out this board with the forthcoming example, just making this point that there are a lot more things out there happening in the world, and we are instead concerning ourselves with, for example, how a sports franchise owner was using prostitute and we are spending more than a weeks worth of time focusing on it.  That is not news, it's largely irrelevant information.

 

Why are we taking what the national media is concerned about, and having our own variations of what they are talking about here.  I understand media talking points may not be thrown back and forth here as if we were on some kind of CNN panel with opposing sides.  That's what my point is.  If we want to admit to ourselves that it's purely entertainment, then that's respectable at least, because it is unfortunate truth and spending almost any time on these issues is getting us off track and away from issues that we should be more concerned about or at least have a minimal amount of interest in.

[Champuckett]

 

 

We can all see the potential conflict, hence my professed wariness. Yet, the actual content produced by each is surprisingly thoughtful even if within a prescribed context.  In other words you put too much weight on on potential problems, without actually judging the content.  Largely, we should be proud of the content the BBC and NPR produce, esp. given their state ownership.  

 

To those that like the BBC, as others beyond Pseudo have mentioned there like for it: Are you aware of Jimmy Saville and how the BBC went to great efforts to cover up the crimes of him raping and sometimes killing over 500 children over many decades.

 

You can google for more information which won't take more than a few seconds, but the coverup by the BBC was staggering and the responsible parties, mainly Mark Thompson, are all still working within the establishment media, mainly the New York Times.

 

Maybe this is something that can be easily dismissed, but it would seem wrong to based on those hundreds of children's lives that were probably permanently damaged or ruined in some way.

 

I'm only linking to this to get things going on the topic in the hopes this will spur at least minor investigation on the part of at least 1 person reading this.  Maybe it will not, but it's worth a shot I suppose:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/27/how-bbc-star-jimmy-savile-got-away-with-allegedely-abusing-500-children-and-sex-with-dead-bodies/?utm_term=.3df4a8bfaab5

[Champuckett]

 

 

I'm raising two black kids and I don't listen to the media nearly as much as I do the black friends around me, so...

I disagree with your point here, rather profusely.

 

I hate to swing race right back into *every* conversation but it's a pure luxury to not really care much about what is said; a white luxury.

My own kids won't enjoy that luxury so yeah, gonna kinda get up in arms about it.

 

But you were raised under the same system with the same education as most here on the board.  And the influence of the media in your daily life over what your thoughts and beliefs are can't be understated.  You may not feel it had or has an impact, but if you grew up in this country, it most likely did, unless you were home schooled.  All of this took a role in who you are today and what you believe.

[Champuckett]

 

 

BBC, yes, state owned.

NPR, state partially funded (not OWNED). In fact, our own MPR is mostly funded by listeners, largely in due to their creation of The Current, a music station.

 

Thanks for the correction.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Have you ever wondered if there’s a cause-effect with the US meddling in a foreign region, followed by a destabilizing of a region, followed by a migrant and refugee situation where the people of the region flee to the US for safety?

Nope, me neither.

 

I like this line of thought and agree with you for the most part.  There is something to that, isn't there.

 

It then begs multiple questions, how did these wars that started this potential destabilization begin, was the media complicit, was our government complicit, which president(s) were occupying the office when each of these wars started, why was the media silent when some of these wars began, why isn't the media answering any of these questions or even asking them.

[Champuckett]

 

 

And, as a larger point, if this is your post, you're not even trying.

Listen, I'm all ears when it comes to burning down the establishment... well, most of it.

 

But you don't even understand how media is published. You're promoting media without repercussion. Super fun, right? Except that's how we get Breitbart and Dailykos.

 

So how do we stop that? Maybe listen to the actual journalists who do research, except...

 

You said let's not listen to them, either.

So who DO we listen to at that point?

 

Great question.  The most basic response I can give you is, if there is a will, there is a way.

 

To expand on that, we have accepted, since we were old enough to understand, that the media needs to be centrally located, with a primary hub/office with various affiliate sites spread out over large swathes of territory.  This is one method information collection can occur, but there are newer ways that are coming into existence as we speak. 

 

There are many independent journalists that are not owned or operated or in any way affiliated with corporations or corporate based financial backing that are putting in their own time and resources to uncovering truth.  They are self funded and do most of the work by themselves.  The reduction in potential conflicts of interest is what keeps them afloat, because there is a market for this now due to the overwhelming corruption of the establishment media.

 

This is just the beginning of a growing trend of newer sources of news using alternate methods versus the standard method of information collection.  Just because they are doing this right now in 2019 does not mean these operations will still be viable in say, 2030.  Now that it is easier to build your own studio at minimal cost, use your own cameras and production also at minimal cost, individuals are slowly making news more decentralized and self operated.  I have no idea what it will look like 10 years from now, but I'm guessing no one really does since the landscape is changing so fast.

 

Breitbart and similar websites are dinosaurs just like the rest of the establishment media.  They are trendy these days because Trump established his own kind of media conglomeration indirectly to combat the establishment media complex, but they both operate under similar guidelines and rules and should therefore both be questioned, disputed, and discarded in the same way.

[PseudoSABR]

 

To those that like the BBC, as others beyond Pseudo have mentioned there like for it: Are you aware of Jimmy Saville and how the BBC went to great efforts to cover up the crimes of him raping and sometimes killing over 500 children over many decades.

 

You can google for more information which won't take more than a few seconds, but the coverup by the BBC was staggering and the responsible parties, mainly Mark Thompson, are all still working within the establishment media, mainly the New York Times.

 

Maybe this is something that can be easily dismissed, but it would seem wrong to based on those hundreds of children's lives that were probably permanently damaged or ruined in some way.

 

I'm only linking to this to get things going on the topic in the hopes this will spur at least minor investigation on the part of at least 1 person reading this.  Maybe it will not, but it's worth a shot I suppose:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/27/how-bbc-star-jimmy-savile-got-away-with-allegedely-abusing-500-children-and-sex-with-dead-bodies/?utm_term=.3df4a8bfaab5

I am aware of this, but that's anecdotal evidence that we should misstrust the BBC altogether.  Your suggesting that the journalistic are mere puppets of their state and corporate masters, certainly with their western education and modern journalistic norms, their world view is some what bound, but it is not false, and within those bounds, journalists give us clarity.

 

I mean you did cite to the Washington Post, which is own by Bezos, should we discredit their journalism as well because problematic ownership or even a history that I'm sure has more than a few skeletons in closets.

[Badsmerf]

So if we're morphing this discussion into how the media shapes our bro view of reality... let's go for it.

 

I disagree strongly that corporate news will ever die. I also disagree corporate news is evil in all facets. All these major outlets have some flaws, but I'm going to pick on Fox, because their role in dividing this country is the highest imo. Fox has credible and respected journalists that do their best to report the facts about what is happening. However, a bigger part of Fox is opinion and manipulation from the likes of Sean Hannity. We can pick on CNN too, and their ridiculous panels with extreme opinions on both sides who's overall goal is to skew the information in one party's favor. Neither methods helps provide clarity, both methods talk about irrelevant matters.

 

I'd just like to point out, we haven't wasted our time in Robert Kraft or even the recent Cohen testimony, despite many of us aware of the topics.

[Champuckett]

 

 

Sounds like clocking out on consuming news (well except for baseball news and concert tour date news) is probably the way to go. I hear it's actually really good for the psyche. I wonder if my curiosity can be held in check though.

 

Sounds about right.  Just addressing it for what it really is, entertainment, is all that needs to be done.  And being aware that we are on a daily basis, made to believe these are the issues we should be focusing on.  Why should we be focusing on them, what about this information over here or over there.  As long as it is consistently questioned and not accepted as the focus, I think it's a healthy start.

 

And yes, dropping 100% of the daily load of negativity and fear consumption, and working on yourself, and your family, and your community, will prove better in the long run, for everyone.

[Champuckett]

 

 

To clarify... I read 538 a lot. I don't think the polls themselves are bias. My point was, if you poll most Republicans they will approve of Trump. If you poll most democrats they will disapprove of Trump. There is little objectivity anymore.

This feeds into what champ is talking about with media narratives. How many Republicans in these polls are just the lemmings doing what good lemmings do? The same could have been asked with Obama. As a whole, I don't think our country pays much attention to the details in politics. Tribalism is real, and the media.... and even more so Trump, are creating more of it.

 

You are right, both political parties are involved in being lemmings, and Republicans certainly don't get a pass.

 

And you are right again, tribalism is arising, because those that felt disaffected and did not have a voice through either major political party or any of the establishment media, so they flocked elsewhere.  You could even say the Bernie movement was another one of these areas that people flocked away to, but is that movement really an alternate movement seeking to bust outside of the system, or just a way of corralling the people into another part of the controlled narrative.

[Champuckett]

 

 

That depends a great deal on the actions of the majority, as we've been told for at least two generations.

 

And yes, I know exactly what you were going for there. The irony is that the nature of your post perfectly sums up the point that the non-left interlopers are trying to make about posting here.

 

Thanks for that.  It's sad that I, or others, are being considered an interloper(s), but it is expected.  I'm a fellow Minnesotan, that happens to have a differing opinion than the majority does here.

[Badsmerf]

Sounds about right. Just addressing it for what it really is, entertainment, is all that needs to be done. And being aware that we are on a daily basis, made to believe these are the issues we should be focusing on. Why should we be focusing on them, what about this information over here or over there. As long as it is consistently questioned and not accepted as the focus, I think it's a healthy start.

 

And yes, dropping 100% of the daily load of negativity and fear consumption, and working on yourself, and your family, and your community, will prove better in the long run, for everyone.

Do you not see how that is your white privilege talking? Like has already been pointed out by Brock, minorities don't have the same luxury.

 

Putting your head down and not paying attention has never worked to further society, especially for black Americans. Activism is part of our foundation. We can't help demand change if we don't listen to journalists and aren't able to investigate topics in person.

[LaBombo]

 

Thanks for that.  It's sad that I, or others, are being considered an interloper(s), but it is expected.  I'm a fellow Minnesotan, that happens to have a differing opinion than the majority does here.

 

It's not my word for you (et al), and it's not their word for you, but it seems to fit the... atmosphere that you're trying to define, and which I see to a certain extent as well. In the end, I'm hoping that everyone will feel like the subject has been worthwhile.

[NumberThree]

That depends a great deal on the actions of the majority, as we've been told for at least two generations.

 

And yes, I know exactly what you were going for there. The irony is that the nature of your post perfectly sums up the point that the non-left interlopers are trying to make about posting here.

I wouldn’t claim this website is a good microcosm example of life itself, though. This is a fairly small website for the purposes of baseball. The draw here isn’t a greater, broader political discussion, so the participants here are drawn from the other reason we are all here. That itself is going to render whatever bias there is as one that is not truly representative participation. None of us can truly speak to being a minority in life; well maybe some of you can, I wouldn’t know. If we feel ‘outvoiced’ on TD, we can always return to the ‘relative safety’ of other spaces. As I said long ago, I understand the reticence of jumping on here. But finding balance here is the wrong place to look for it. I don’t expect it, ever. And have only if late jumped in. But never with ease. But if I’m looking for ease I’ll need to find a site that is exactly as I am.