General politics

[Champuckett]

 

 

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.

 

Correct, which is why I offered for others to google on their own time, if they have spare time, because I don't want to link a bunch of sites that are perpetuating the problem.

 

I doubt people are going to respect a link I give if it comes from an independent/alternate source, or from perhaps, from Reddit or another community speaking about the issue, so it comes down to a case of "d***ed if you do, d***ed if you don't.  But it's very possible I assumed too much.  I searched for it, and the top hits were WPost, NYtimes, BBC, and the Guardian, all with questionable establishment based backgrounds.

 

But yeah, they have more than a few skeletons in their closet, including contracts with the CIA to build a data cloud through Amazon Web Services.

[Champuckett]

 

 

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.

 

We can agree to disagree then.  Fox is a big part of the problem as well, because, you could say, they were the first test case honeypot to attract conservative/republicans away from establishment media, as a new home where their views would be more represented.  The fact is, they are no better than any of the rest of the establishment media, have the same general beliefs as the establishment media at the end of the day, operate with the same mechanisms as establishment media, but pretends to be a beacon of safety for disaffected conservatives.

 

They are in effect, establishment media.

 

And I made sure to point out in the post you were responding to the fact that I was not singling out this board with the Kraft example.  And I understand you did not imply I did either, just to make it clear for others that will be reading these responses.

[Champuckett]

 

 

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.

 

You assumed I was white.  And you assume I am not a minority.  I'm unsure what my skin color or race status have to do with the discussion at hand.

 

I understand Brock's post and what he/she meant by it.  And I responded accordingly understanding what was being said.

[Champuckett]

 

 

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.

 

Yes, it was expected.  I do appreciate that you can see it as well though.  Thank you for the insightful comments regardless.

[Craig Arko]

 

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.

TD is the non-spicy version of the Internet banquet.

[Champuckett]

 

 

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.

 

I suppose that is debatable whether it's a microcosm for life itself, but more specifically, I find it is a microcosm for the internet at large.  I did not seek out this website and try to set up camp and start some rabble rousing in a random way.

 

I've been here for what feels like 6 or 7 years.  I don't comment on Twins related topics as often as others, but I do check out what the pulse of the fanbase is on a pretty regular basis.  It was only after the 2016 election occurred that I started filtering down into the Sports Bar section of the site to see what was going on down here and that's when I found some of these threads.  The world got turned upside down for a while there and I feel we are all still trying to sort out what happened.

 

I'm under no illusion that I'm going to change the habits or status quo of the participants here in even the most minor way.  I am, however, interested in talking about some of these issues in an honest way, and exploring the topic with board.  We'll see where it goes, I'm learning a lot.

[LaBombo]

 

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.

 

I'm not looking for overall political neutrality here, or 'fairness' or anything like that.

 

But I would argue that part of the draw here should be a broader range of viewpoints precisely BECAUSE it's a baseball site.

 

The vast majority of political discussion on the internet takes place in forums associated with content that leans heavily left or right, meaning that the posters lean heavily as well. So you get echo chambers with the occasional bumper car drivers butting heads with everyone in sight.

 

And yet the paradox of this forum (at least to me) is that its value lies not in a left/right balance (there isn't one) that one might expect from posters whose common draw is not political affiliation.

 

It's that the overall tone is usually more akin to a spirited... ok, sometimes heated... debate in a workplace lunchroom, rather than the typical internet political fare of contests to see who can pull off the sickest burn of Trump or AOC. 

[LaBombo]

 

TD is the non-spicy version of the Internet banquet.

 

Freeper headline:

 

'Local leftist decries Minnesota-based website's lack of multicultural spiciness; ominously vows 'You Fargo-heads gonna taste the Internet sriracha!'

[LaBombo]

 

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.

 

Completely agree that there's certainly plenty of room for concern over the highly partisan nature of editorial commentary (Hannity/Lemon/Hayes/etc.) in cable news.

 

But my greater concern is when the non-editorial product suffers bias, either unintentional or deliberate. It's probably impossible to make news coverage entirely unbiased, or even bias-neutral in the aggregate. Seems like a good goal for the news media to aspire to, though.

 

And yes, thankfully the discussion here tends to rise above the more tedious and tabloid-y topics that don't do much for me, and are freely available for pie-fighting elsewhere if they did.

[NumberThree]

TD is the non-spicy version of the Internet banquet.

And Midwesterners do tend to feast on the bland meat and potatoes.

[Craig Arko]

 

And Midwesterners do tend to feast on the bland meat and potatoes.

Hotdish.

[PseudoSABR]

 

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.

Do you though? You haven't given your opinion on anything other than on the discussion itself.  At certain point the rubber must meet the road.  What is this differing opinion and on what subject?  Your criticism about how we talk and where we get our evidence from rings hollow when you're not willing to weigh on any substantive discussions, use different source material, make unique arguments.   It's simply pretty easy to challenge others to do better, than to put whatever you have in mind into action and see whether it's actually better and leads to more fruitful discussion with better practical results.

 

 

[LaBombo]

Well, this seems timely...

 

The Geography of Partisan Prejudice, brought to you earlier this week by the folks over at The Atlantic.

 

As the title suggests, the focus is on geography, but early in the article there's an acknowledgement that there are demographic trends as well. This sums up the non-geographic component pretty well:

 

"In general, the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves".

 

and

 

"... white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity. They don’t routinely talk with people who disagree with them; this isolation makes it easier for them to caricature their ideological opponents."

 

It's a pretty interesting read even without the context of the current discussion. Geographically FL, SC, MA, VA, and the Rust Belt states jump off the page as higher in prejudice than the national average, but the map lets you mouse over individual counties. As the demographic tendency would seem to indicate, the Twin Cities rates relatively high for partisan prejudice by both D's and R's.

 

Ironically the article allows a basic political prejudice into its own discussion of the subject, misleadingly making 'no abortion' supporters out to be alone on a minority island, when in fact 'unlimited abortion' supporters are also a smaller minority than the plurality who believe in legal abortion with limits.

[Craig Arko]

 

Well, this seems timely...

 

The Geography of Partisan Prejudice, brought to you earlier this week by the folks over at The Atlantic.

 

As the title suggests, the focus is on geography, but early in the article there's an acknowledgement that there are demographic trends as well. This sums up the non-geographic component pretty well:

 

"In general, the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves".

 

and

 

"... white, highly educated people are relatively isolated from political diversity. They don’t routinely talk with people who disagree with them; this isolation makes it easier for them to caricature their ideological opponents."

 

It's a pretty interesting read even without the context of the current discussion. Geographically FL, SC, MA, VA, and the Rust Belt states jump off the page as higher in prejudice than the national average, but the map lets you mouse over individual counties. As the demographic tendency would seem to indicate, the Twin Cities rates relatively high for partisan prejudice by both D's and R's.

 

Ironically the article allows a basic political prejudice into its own discussion of the subject, misleadingly making 'no abortion' supporters out to be alone on a minority island, when in fact 'unlimited abortion' supporters are also a smaller minority than the plurality who believe in legal abortion with limits.

You may find Appiah's recent book about identity politics interesting.

[MMMordabito]

 

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

 

Here we go .... Toot, toot!!!  All aboard the guilt train!  Same tactics the preachers used when I was kid ... Instead of pushing the guilt of non-existent original sin, it's now non-existent white privilege.

 

Have fun everyone!

 

No point in taking part in this conversation anymore.

[biggentleben]

 

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.

 

That's the whole crux of the issue here. Seldom does the discussion here remain at the surface level of news coverage or even the first level of coverage that a cable news service like CNN or entertainment news service like Fox attempt in a story. Around here, the story really moves into the background to the real issues at play in the story itself, which is where the debate is coming for you, I do believe.

 

I could not have cared less about the actual incident with the boys at the Catholic school. The background of what happened that day - that was relevant. The view of Native Americans and the absolute rip that took place on a Native person immediately from the right and even moreso the second that there was found to be more to the story than initially covered - raising 5 Native children, that is a HUGE piece of that story to me. Finally, the discussion about stepping back and not overreacting and at least tempering our reactions when we're presented something solely on social media was a very good discussion. That stuff was nearly completely ignored by any cable news or national news entity covering the story in their base news coverage, so attempting to say that discussion here is parroting the news will strike a chord with many who have participated in discussions on politics in this group (and previously BYTO and ESPN before that) with one another for some time as the beat has been fairly similar for year - break down what's truly at hand and discuss that, not the 30-60 second talking points that propagate news media coverage of an event.

 

Like it or not, these events shape our culture and our world. My father's view of the incident at Kent State in 1970 strongly shaped how he viewed the world and the government. Reflecting back on that incident years later for his youngest sibling led to a very different viewpoint. That's common for all in our culture. We are shaped by the time we live in, and to ignore the world simply isolates us from the reality of it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

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.

 

 

It's precisely because I understand this, and skepticism about media, that I reject your premise.  You waded into this discussion decrying the "one narrative" that didn't allow outside views.  (Implying right leaning views) It's morphed now into some nationwide "narrative" in which we are all caught as blind or lemmings or whatever.  

 

So as Pseudo notes, we come back to square one.  Without concrete examples of what is not done here or should be done here, we are back to the question I asked you from the get go: can you give an example of what should be done right?

 

I don't think there is a lack of skepticism here.  I don't think people are buying media stories 100%.  I don't think people are only talking about what they are spoon fed.  Those are your characterizations and, thus far, you haven't provided any evidence for that.  Or evidence to the contrary to model what should be done.

 

So I refer you back to my original question, that mike asked in the middle, I asked several times in the middle, that Psuedo just asked again, and I second for about the tenth time.  Time to talk in more than vague generalities and answer that question:  What sorts of discussions are not happening here that should be?

[biggentleben]

 

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?

 

This to the Nth degree. I've been astounded as I've pushed farther into the sports media world just the difference in those who put in the work and the effort to develop and hone sources, and those who are looking for clicks and views. The Braves offseason has been a great example of exactly that. Respected, well-regarded journalists may not come out with the hottest takes, but in the end, their stuff passes the sniff test over and over. It's true in all aspects of media.

[Craig Arko]

 

This to the Nth degree. I've been astounded as I've pushed farther into the sports media world just the difference in those who put in the work and the effort to develop and hone sources, and those who are looking for clicks and views. The Braves offseason has been a great example of exactly that. Respected, well-regarded journalists may not come out with the hottest takes, but in the end, their stuff passes the sniff test over and over. It's true in all aspects of media.

I'd guess that holds true for all professions.

[biggentleben]

 

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.

 

...or not every home utilizes television, radio, and the internet in the same way, and there are hundreds if not thousands of ways for children of the same community to have their perspectives influenced.

 

That said, now you're either trying feebly to add in education into this massive media bias within the board without a shred of evidence, or you're grasping at straws.

 

I'm not attacking you here, but I do not believe that your arguments are saying what you think they are saying...

 

That, or you're just attempting to troll, and if so, well done, as we're going to achieve 15-20 pages on this...

[biggentleben]

 

We can agree to disagree then.  Fox is a big part of the problem as well, because, you could say, they were the first test case honeypot to attract conservative/republicans away from establishment media, as a new home where their views would be more represented.  The fact is, they are no better than any of the rest of the establishment media, have the same general beliefs as the establishment media at the end of the day, operate with the same mechanisms as establishment media, but pretends to be a beacon of safety for disaffected conservatives.

 

They are in effect, establishment media.

 

And I made sure to point out in the post you were responding to the fact that I was not singling out this board with the Kraft example.  And I understand you did not imply I did either, just to make it clear for others that will be reading these responses.

 

Except they aren't. They were established as an entertainment news organization. That has allowed them to avoid numerous lawsuits since their inception. They "play" news, but they are not held to the same standard as actual organizations that are held to standards of journalistic integrity.

[Badsmerf]

Here we go .... Toot, toot!!! All aboard the guilt train! Same tactics the preachers used when I was kid ... Instead of pushing the guilt of non-existent original sin, it's now non-existent white privilege.

 

Have fun everyone!

 

No point in taking part in this conversation anymore.

Let me get this straight... You don't believe what champ said was white privilege or you don't believe white privilege exists? If it does exists, I'd like to see your definition.

[biggentleben]

 

I'm not looking for overall political neutrality here, or 'fairness' or anything like that.

 

But I would argue that part of the draw here should be a broader range of viewpoints precisely BECAUSE it's a baseball site.

 

The vast majority of political discussion on the internet takes place in forums associated with content that leans heavily left or right, meaning that the posters lean heavily as well. So you get echo chambers with the occasional bumper car drivers butting heads with everyone in sight.

 

And yet the paradox of this forum (at least to me) is that its value lies not in a left/right balance (there isn't one) that one might expect from posters whose common draw is not political affiliation.

 

It's that the overall tone is usually more akin to a spirited... ok, sometimes heated... debate in a workplace lunchroom, rather than the typical internet political fare of contests to see who can pull off the sickest burn of Trump or AOC. 

 

Consider where the team that this site is associated with hails from and the political makeup of that state. Primarily, the heaviest supporters of the Minnesota Twins are coming from a state that is very Democrat, with only Nixon taking a Republican vote in a Presidential race in the state since 1932.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Well, this seems timely...

 

The Geography of Partisan Prejudice, brought to you earlier this week by the folks over at The Atlantic.

Is it just me, or does it seem like these conclusions might be stretching the limits of basic polling? From the methodology:

 

https://blog.predictwise.com/2019/03/the-atlantics-the-geography-of-partisan-prejudice-method-addendum/

 

First, PredictWise collected 2,000 survey responses across the country, using a sampling technique called Random Device Engagement (RDE). For more background, read here, but the gist of it is that we use advertising networks on mobile devices to engage random people where they are to answer our surveys. RDE has a good coverage of 7,000,000 respondents in the US (much deeper than most panels), and allows us to collect ambient data on top of survey responses: most interestingly a rich history of highly precise device-based geo-location coordinates. We then surveyed our unique respondents on 14 questions – the full survey instrument is below:

 

How would you react if a member of your immediate family married a Democrat?

How would you react if a member of your immediate family married a Republican?

How well does the term 'Patriotic' describe Democrats?

How well does the term 'Selfish' describe Democrats?

How well does the term 'Willing to compromise' describe Democrats?

How well does the term 'Compassionate' describe Democrats?

How well does the term 'Patriotic' describe Republicans?

How well does the term 'Selfish' describe Republicans?

How well does the term 'Willing to compromise' describe Republicans?

How well does the term 'Compassionate' describe Republicans?

How do you feel about the Republican Party today?

How do you feel about the Democratic Party today?

How do you feel about Democratic voters today?

How do you feel about Republican voters today?

 

Then they got demographics from each of those 2000 respondents, correlated their responses to those demographics, and projected their results onto every county based on how their demographics matched.

 

I have no doubt they are using nice advanced statistical methods to do this... but with that sample, and those vague questions, I'm really not sure it matters to the validity of their conclusions. How does one define Democrat and Republican? Local cultural effects would be almost completely ignored too.

[Champuckett]

 

Completely agree that there's certainly plenty of room for concern over the highly partisan nature of editorial commentary (Hannity/Lemon/Hayes/etc.) in cable news.

 

But my greater concern is when the non-editorial product suffers bias, either unintentional or deliberate. It's probably impossible to make news coverage entirely unbiased, or even bias-neutral in the aggregate. Seems like a good goal for the news media to aspire to, though.

 

And yes, thankfully the discussion here tends to rise above the more tedious and tabloid-y topics that don't do much for me, and are freely available for pie-fighting elsewhere if they did.

 

I also agree, it is impossible to make news coverage entirely unbiased.  I don't think we are ever going to see that, as long as we have someone deciphering information for us and then summarizing it for our consumption.  It's possible we can decrease bias in order to do better by looking at the raw data ourselves, but it feels like we are a long ways off from making that a reality.  Until then, yeah, striving to improve on cherry picking talking points might restore a moderate amount of confidence again into people giving us news.

 

With that said, I strongly lean towards deliberate over unintentional when doing a quick survey back through history.  I doubt we have researchers or reporters on the ground in nearly 100% of cases doing what they can to subvert the story to meet the desired narrative, rather, I think it's the people at the top who choose which stories do or do not get to see the light of day.  The same people that are responsible for who is and who is not hired based on desirable characteristics and perspectives.

 

A substantial amount of what we know or believe to be true likely never was, because we didn't have a minority group as large as it is now, questioning the authority and credibility of news for most of the 20th century and before.  We have fortunately ramped up efforts on a daily basis in recent times, and I think a lot of the facade is being revealed for the first time now in meaningful ways.  Some are understandably uncomfortable with this as is it playing out.

[Champuckett]

 

Do you though? You haven't given your opinion on anything other than on the discussion itself.  At certain point the rubber must meet the road.  What is this differing opinion and on what subject?  Your criticism about how we talk and where we get our evidence from rings hollow when you're not willing to weigh on any substantive discussions, use different source material, make unique arguments.   It's simply pretty easy to challenge others to do better, than to put whatever you have in mind into action and see whether it's actually better and leads to more fruitful discussion with better practical results.

 

Yes.  I have not given my opinion on news bits and political stances of the day.  I have, however, given my opinion on plenty of topics regarding news and how the media operates.  Is it a requirement for me to give my opinion on the topics that you demand that I give.  I don't feel it is, and I am sorry that I ring hollow in part because of this perceived issue.

 

I think I am challenging people plenty to do better in terms of what they think about the media, and the role the narrative plays in forcing us to adhere to the same general talking points.  That does not of course mean I will have any success by any metric of measurement. 

 

If you feel it important to challenge participants on a political/story of the day level, then by all means, have at it.  I'm choosing to challenge in other areas that does not focus specifically on the political, but on the reasons behind the political discourse and narrative that the majority tends to follow.

 

It is possible that I do not, on a personal level, feel that politics are necessary or are useful in any way to anyone here or inside the country and may serve other purposes such as division and preoccupation.  This is why I leave it to you and others to take on those battles if you wish, but I will not personally be getting involved in those at this time.

[Craig Arko]

I suppose I should check; is it still okay to read books?

 

Even Math books?

[biggentleben]

 

This is why I leave it to you and others to take on those battles if you wish, but I will not personally be getting involved in those at this time.

 

Except for 15 pages of the "general politics" thread...

[Champuckett]

 

 

That's the whole crux of the issue here. Seldom does the discussion here remain at the surface level of news coverage or even the first level of coverage that a cable news service like CNN or entertainment news service like Fox attempt in a story. Around here, the story really moves into the background to the real issues at play in the story itself, which is where the debate is coming for you, I do believe.

 

I could not have cared less about the actual incident with the boys at the Catholic school. The background of what happened that day - that was relevant. The view of Native Americans and the absolute rip that took place on a Native person immediately from the right and even moreso the second that there was found to be more to the story than initially covered - raising 5 Native children, that is a HUGE piece of that story to me. Finally, the discussion about stepping back and not overreacting and at least tempering our reactions when we're presented something solely on social media was a very good discussion. That stuff was nearly completely ignored by any cable news or national news entity covering the story in their base news coverage, so attempting to say that discussion here is parroting the news will strike a chord with many who have participated in discussions on politics in this group (and previously BYTO and ESPN before that) with one another for some time as the beat has been fairly similar for year - break down what's truly at hand and discuss that, not the 30-60 second talking points that propagate news media coverage of an event.

 

Like it or not, these events shape our culture and our world. My father's view of the incident at Kent State in 1970 strongly shaped how he viewed the world and the government. Reflecting back on that incident years later for his youngest sibling led to a very different viewpoint. That's common for all in our culture. We are shaped by the time we live in, and to ignore the world simply isolates us from the reality of it.

 

Yeah, and I made sure to point that out, that there is not a CNN panel lookalike situation happening here for the  most part, but the issues are ultimately being talked about in further detail with more in depth analysis.  The question then is, why is the news covering these particular stories, and why are we talking about the issue that they are laying before us.  Have you ever asked yourself either of these questions.  I realize if you are a liberal orientated thinker, you may wonder why Fox News on a nearly daily basis covers the stories they do.  Why not extend that critical thought to the very news that you are consuming for yourself.  Maybe you do, maybe the group does, I'm not seeing it.  I'm seeing stories being talked about that the news first covered on a weekly, almost daily basis, and I'm not seeing much questioning as to why the news is even getting us to focus on these topics for any particular topic.

 

I do not think these events shape our world as much as we would like to think.  I think we are told that they do, and we pontificate about how they do, but I think they are doing something else that is far more sinister and divisive in nature, than simply existing as a current event, a talking point that appears worthy of further and deeper digging in discussion.

[Champuckett]

 

 

...or not every home utilizes television, radio, and the internet in the same way, and there are hundreds if not thousands of ways for children of the same community to have their perspectives influenced.

 

That said, now you're either trying feebly to add in education into this massive media bias within the board without a shred of evidence, or you're grasping at straws.

 

I'm not attacking you here, but I do not believe that your arguments are saying what you think they are saying...

 

That, or you're just attempting to troll, and if so, well done, as we're going to achieve 15-20 pages on this...

 

Yes, we all are raised in different environments with differing levels of exposure to media and all of these effects by our environment can make a variety of impact on who we are.  But we all end up being served the same media exposure whether it's 2 minutes of radio here, or 10 hours of television there, or 30 minutes of internet time there.  The messages all are the same and run concurrently.

 

I'm unsure why it is feeble, but yes, education has a part to play in all of this as well.

 

I'm sorry you think I am trolling.  I am not trolling.  I've been a member of this board for many years, approaching a decade.  And saying things like this is adding weight to my original argument in my first post on the matter, that disparaging things may eventually be said to keep the majority opinion in place and to escort minority opinions out.  I understand you may not see that this is what you are doing, but it's unfortunately what you have just done.  We can keep things perfectly civil, which is what I am making sure happens from my end.

 

I'm opening up a new discussion that had not previously been taking place here.  Participants disagree with that assertion.  That's fine.  I will continue ahead stating my case.