Lord of the Flies

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=eavesdropper]
Like others on this thread, I agree with many of the author’s points, and believe that others should think seriously about some of them. I just don’t see the need in presenting them under a headline meant to incite those who need no additional encouragement. And I see definite potential for great harm if writers, news reporters, bloggers, and pundits persist in doing so, no matter what their particular political persuasion (jeez!! I’m doing it again!!)

Content-wise, I appreciate your link to this article, faterik.[/quote]

Eaves: You mention having worked on a paper in the past, and I’d like to address that. I don’t know when in the past you worked in the newspaper biz, but I’d opine that the news business of the present is probably far different from that of the past, especially given the rapid encroachment of social media and the internet. The Drudge Report was certainly something of a game-changer during the CLinton Administration and I believe we’re seeing a return of the more sharp-elbowed and less objective days of the distant past.

So there will definitely be more “purple prose” and probably downright “yellow journalism”. The old adage of “if it bleeds, it leads” is now at the forefront, as the various media outlets in their various forms compete for eyeballs and readership/viewership. This has contributed to the polarization and is characterized by the writings of the sort linked above.

There was an interesting series of articles following the Breivik attacks in Norway, many of which asked if the present attitudes towards Islam contributed to, or even facilitated the attack.

I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.

Lastly, Arraya, as always, has come up with some excellent food for thought.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]

Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.

This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.

Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.

So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]

Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).

I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.

But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.

Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]

Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.

This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.

Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.

So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]

Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).

I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.

But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.

Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]

Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.

This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.

Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.

So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]

Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).

I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.

But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.

Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]

Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.

This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.

Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.

So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]

Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).

I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.

But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.

Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: I’d pose a question to you in response to your posting. I’m presuming you’re knowledgeable about the so-called “Brixton Uprising” in 1981. With that presumption in mind, were you at all struck by the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011?[/quote]

Not so much about the differences between Brixton 1981 and Tottenham 2011 as much as the backgrounds, motivations, and attitudes of 1981 vs present day protesters. I think that’s why I’m so concerned (rabid?) about the use of polarizing tactics in the media by people who should know better. In our country, we have well-organized groups with large numbers of members who are planning strategy on action to take in domestic situations they consider dangerous to the country. Many of these groups count members of the military and law enforcement agencies among their members, who are ready and willing to commit treason to carry out the “missions” of their organization. While I might admire their willingness to “fight for their country”, as they believe they are doing, their websites all contain reasons for doing so that are based on flawed or exaggerated information, or downright falsehoods.

This is what happens when a country’s leaders look the other way when one or several of their party begin to employ or engage in polarization tactics in order to enhance their chances of winning. Both parties are guilty of looking the other way, and of ignoring opportunities to challenge the hate radio hosts, political bloggers, media pundits, and lobbying organizations posing as “think tanks” on their use of clearly false information and on their employment of words and phrases meant solely to appeal to the base instincts of voters.

Combine the years of falsehoods that have become part and parcel of party lore, and combine that with the immaturity and intolerance of the spoiled, irresponsible, and uneducated youth of a nation, and voila! Justifiable (in their eyes) criminal activity in the form of rioting, looting, and mob beatings. Even if there are only a few ill-informed louts jonesing to start trouble, with the assistance of an epidemic of chronic boredom and the widespread ownership of iPhones and other devices, they can amass a veritable army of supporters within an hour. The leaders have proof that they’ve been done wrong by the government, thanks to the wonderfully efficient Internet Truth Machine (previously known as The Rumor Mill), and they are only too happy to make others true believers also.

So, yes, I do tend to overreact when confronted with gratuitous employment of polarizing headlines designed to zero in on a target audience of fevered brains already overburdened by conspiracy theories, government plots, and the like.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Not to be disagreeable, Eaves, but throughout Europe and the UK we are seeing a sea change and paradigm shift of epic proportions and to correctly assail some of the policies and programs, including emasculation of the UK police, is completely in order. You yourself opined on parenting and responsibility and to see these little shitheads running about, looking for nothing other than something to steal, does not make this a “political” riot about “cuts” or “austerity”. There might be something to that, but it isn’t the motive factor.[/quote]

Oh, Allan, you can be disagreeable. I promise that I will still love you in the morning (and that’s when I am REALLY disagreeable, to which my poor sweet husband can attest).

I actually agree with much of what Mr. Hastings says in his piece. However, I do have an issue with the implications and actual statements that the unfortunate traits are pretty much exclusive property of the “welfare” class – essentially, the poor. I realize that this is England, and it’s possible that there are distinct differences in the upbringing, discipline, training, behavior, restraint, and education levels of the poor/welfare class vs the middle class.

But here in the states, the undesirable traits mentioned by Mr. Hastings are readily apparent in increasingly large numbers of middle class, and even well-off children. U.S. children in all socioeconomic classes are spoiled, abusive toward everyone including adults and the elderly, have an exaggerated sense that they are treated unfairly, believe themselves deserving of unearned praise, recognition, and privileges, don’t believe that rules apply to them, and aren’t studying and learning at anything close to an age-appropriate level. More and more hate crimes of a violent nature are being perpetrated by teenagers, and even preteens, both male and female. And while I realize that these students are not motivated by changes in the political landscape, I do believe that our children are being negatively affected in a very serious way by increasing polarization. We can force 14 year-olds to attend a school assembly on bullying, but is it really going to take root in a girl when she returns home and reads vitriolic posts left by her father on a political message board, or the latest installment in a nasty rumor war about a neighbor spread by her mother on Facebook.

Yes, I am in agreement that the events in the U.K are worthy of special attention. I only hope that our government, especially our Homeland Security staff, are likewise taking note.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]
Allan, I totally agree. I think it’s human nature to find a pack that think/move like they do. Safety in numbers. Even before the Internet, do you often see group of friends that’s completely opposite in their thinking? I would surmise that people seek out friends who think like they do. The Internet only let you seek out those “friends” who are not even in your same geological area. Same goes for people seeking out news and information. Do you think those who watches Fox news would even watch MSNBC? If they do, do they believe a single opinion that the news broadcaster say? Vice versa for those who normally watch MSNBC.

Before the Internet, J6pack can only sit and watch what others are saying. Today, people can participate and voice their opinion. Although, opinion are like a$$hole, it’s not always a bad thing to at least listen to those opinion and use your own judgement to determine to believe such opinion or not. Example would be Piggington itself. In the 1990 RE crash, your only source of information is RE agents. If there’s no Internet and no blogging, I’m sure there will be even more people who loses their a$$ from buying a house at the peak. The bloggers were the first to ring the alarm bell. Even Piggington, a very data-centric, on attract like minded posters (at least in term of RE). Periodically, permabulls would come and post, but they don’t last very long.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]
Allan, I totally agree. I think it’s human nature to find a pack that think/move like they do. Safety in numbers. Even before the Internet, do you often see group of friends that’s completely opposite in their thinking? I would surmise that people seek out friends who think like they do. The Internet only let you seek out those “friends” who are not even in your same geological area. Same goes for people seeking out news and information. Do you think those who watches Fox news would even watch MSNBC? If they do, do they believe a single opinion that the news broadcaster say? Vice versa for those who normally watch MSNBC.

Before the Internet, J6pack can only sit and watch what others are saying. Today, people can participate and voice their opinion. Although, opinion are like a$$hole, it’s not always a bad thing to at least listen to those opinion and use your own judgement to determine to believe such opinion or not. Example would be Piggington itself. In the 1990 RE crash, your only source of information is RE agents. If there’s no Internet and no blogging, I’m sure there will be even more people who loses their a$$ from buying a house at the peak. The bloggers were the first to ring the alarm bell. Even Piggington, a very data-centric, on attract like minded posters (at least in term of RE). Periodically, permabulls would come and post, but they don’t last very long.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]
Allan, I totally agree. I think it’s human nature to find a pack that think/move like they do. Safety in numbers. Even before the Internet, do you often see group of friends that’s completely opposite in their thinking? I would surmise that people seek out friends who think like they do. The Internet only let you seek out those “friends” who are not even in your same geological area. Same goes for people seeking out news and information. Do you think those who watches Fox news would even watch MSNBC? If they do, do they believe a single opinion that the news broadcaster say? Vice versa for those who normally watch MSNBC.

Before the Internet, J6pack can only sit and watch what others are saying. Today, people can participate and voice their opinion. Although, opinion are like a$$hole, it’s not always a bad thing to at least listen to those opinion and use your own judgement to determine to believe such opinion or not. Example would be Piggington itself. In the 1990 RE crash, your only source of information is RE agents. If there’s no Internet and no blogging, I’m sure there will be even more people who loses their a$$ from buying a house at the peak. The bloggers were the first to ring the alarm bell. Even Piggington, a very data-centric, on attract like minded posters (at least in term of RE). Periodically, permabulls would come and post, but they don’t last very long.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]
Allan, I totally agree. I think it’s human nature to find a pack that think/move like they do. Safety in numbers. Even before the Internet, do you often see group of friends that’s completely opposite in their thinking? I would surmise that people seek out friends who think like they do. The Internet only let you seek out those “friends” who are not even in your same geological area. Same goes for people seeking out news and information. Do you think those who watches Fox news would even watch MSNBC? If they do, do they believe a single opinion that the news broadcaster say? Vice versa for those who normally watch MSNBC.

Before the Internet, J6pack can only sit and watch what others are saying. Today, people can participate and voice their opinion. Although, opinion are like a$$hole, it’s not always a bad thing to at least listen to those opinion and use your own judgement to determine to believe such opinion or not. Example would be Piggington itself. In the 1990 RE crash, your only source of information is RE agents. If there’s no Internet and no blogging, I’m sure there will be even more people who loses their a$$ from buying a house at the peak. The bloggers were the first to ring the alarm bell. Even Piggington, a very data-centric, on attract like minded posters (at least in term of RE). Periodically, permabulls would come and post, but they don’t last very long.

[an]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]
Allan, I totally agree. I think it’s human nature to find a pack that think/move like they do. Safety in numbers. Even before the Internet, do you often see group of friends that’s completely opposite in their thinking? I would surmise that people seek out friends who think like they do. The Internet only let you seek out those “friends” who are not even in your same geological area. Same goes for people seeking out news and information. Do you think those who watches Fox news would even watch MSNBC? If they do, do they believe a single opinion that the news broadcaster say? Vice versa for those who normally watch MSNBC.

Before the Internet, J6pack can only sit and watch what others are saying. Today, people can participate and voice their opinion. Although, opinion are like a$$hole, it’s not always a bad thing to at least listen to those opinion and use your own judgement to determine to believe such opinion or not. Example would be Piggington itself. In the 1990 RE crash, your only source of information is RE agents. If there’s no Internet and no blogging, I’m sure there will be even more people who loses their a$$ from buying a house at the peak. The bloggers were the first to ring the alarm bell. Even Piggington, a very data-centric, on attract like minded posters (at least in term of RE). Periodically, permabulls would come and post, but they don’t last very long.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] I’d opine that the news business of the present is probably far different from that of the past, especially given the rapid encroachment of social media and the internet. The Drudge Report was certainly something of a game-changer during the CLinton Administration and I believe we’re seeing a return of the more sharp-elbowed and less objective days of the distant past……
There was an interesting series of articles following the Breivik attacks in Norway, many of which asked if the present attitudes towards Islam contributed to, or even facilitated the attack…..
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]

This is definitely true, although I believe that the Internet “news sources” (such as Drudge), for the most part, were largely created to counter the mainstream media’s reporting of events, whether or not that reporting was accurate. I wasn’t following Drudge back in the 90s, but I’ll ask you: Was Matt Drudge responsible for keeping the Monica story going for as long as it did, or was it simply a case of the MSM attempting to keep ahead (aka, keep up with) of what was being reported on Drudge?

While I realize there are serious economic considerations, I’m disgusted by the MSM’s abdication of its responsibility to report the news in an objective way. While some of the general news stories are written in an objective manner, they are so concerned with being called “liberal” that they go to ridiculous lengths to prevent that from happening (and it doesn’t work!). Also, the news is surrounded by so many opinion pieces, and the comments of readers, that it’s difficult to discern objectivity. In addition, I find the starring roles being assumed by reporters and columnists on TV news and pundits shows, that I can’t trust anything that they write.

The whole Norway thing, with the endless speculation….no, declarations……of an Islamic perpetrator, was pretty disturbing. This was an across-the-board action on the part of all forms of media. Although I have to admit to some amusement when reading a thread on FreeRepublic.com: 150 posts of ever-escalating hate directed at the Muslim perpetrators, interspersed with declarations of the brave among them of what they would do/ what the US should do to ALL Muslims, including US citizens…..UP TO THE POINT when someone wrote in that it was a blond-haired blue-eyed native of Norway who represented a Christian militant group who had been responsible. The board immediately fell silent. It was like those old SNL Roseanne Roseannadanna skits: “Oh!….Never mind.”

As for the feeding of our confirmation bias, I think simply recognizing that we do that is a significant accomplishment. Once I realized a couple years back that I was doing it, I made an effort to stay off websites that had opinions most closely aligned with mine, and went out of my way to research those that didn’t. It can be very difficult to read some of this stuff sometimes. But I find that I’m getting a much better overall picture of what’s going on. And I also have a more accurate picture of what’s happening at the grass-roots level.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] I’d opine that the news business of the present is probably far different from that of the past, especially given the rapid encroachment of social media and the internet. The Drudge Report was certainly something of a game-changer during the CLinton Administration and I believe we’re seeing a return of the more sharp-elbowed and less objective days of the distant past……
There was an interesting series of articles following the Breivik attacks in Norway, many of which asked if the present attitudes towards Islam contributed to, or even facilitated the attack…..
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]

This is definitely true, although I believe that the Internet “news sources” (such as Drudge), for the most part, were largely created to counter the mainstream media’s reporting of events, whether or not that reporting was accurate. I wasn’t following Drudge back in the 90s, but I’ll ask you: Was Matt Drudge responsible for keeping the Monica story going for as long as it did, or was it simply a case of the MSM attempting to keep ahead (aka, keep up with) of what was being reported on Drudge?

While I realize there are serious economic considerations, I’m disgusted by the MSM’s abdication of its responsibility to report the news in an objective way. While some of the general news stories are written in an objective manner, they are so concerned with being called “liberal” that they go to ridiculous lengths to prevent that from happening (and it doesn’t work!). Also, the news is surrounded by so many opinion pieces, and the comments of readers, that it’s difficult to discern objectivity. In addition, I find the starring roles being assumed by reporters and columnists on TV news and pundits shows, that I can’t trust anything that they write.

The whole Norway thing, with the endless speculation….no, declarations……of an Islamic perpetrator, was pretty disturbing. This was an across-the-board action on the part of all forms of media. Although I have to admit to some amusement when reading a thread on FreeRepublic.com: 150 posts of ever-escalating hate directed at the Muslim perpetrators, interspersed with declarations of the brave among them of what they would do/ what the US should do to ALL Muslims, including US citizens…..UP TO THE POINT when someone wrote in that it was a blond-haired blue-eyed native of Norway who represented a Christian militant group who had been responsible. The board immediately fell silent. It was like those old SNL Roseanne Roseannadanna skits: “Oh!….Never mind.”

As for the feeding of our confirmation bias, I think simply recognizing that we do that is a significant accomplishment. Once I realized a couple years back that I was doing it, I made an effort to stay off websites that had opinions most closely aligned with mine, and went out of my way to research those that didn’t. It can be very difficult to read some of this stuff sometimes. But I find that I’m getting a much better overall picture of what’s going on. And I also have a more accurate picture of what’s happening at the grass-roots level.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] I’d opine that the news business of the present is probably far different from that of the past, especially given the rapid encroachment of social media and the internet. The Drudge Report was certainly something of a game-changer during the CLinton Administration and I believe we’re seeing a return of the more sharp-elbowed and less objective days of the distant past……
There was an interesting series of articles following the Breivik attacks in Norway, many of which asked if the present attitudes towards Islam contributed to, or even facilitated the attack…..
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]

This is definitely true, although I believe that the Internet “news sources” (such as Drudge), for the most part, were largely created to counter the mainstream media’s reporting of events, whether or not that reporting was accurate. I wasn’t following Drudge back in the 90s, but I’ll ask you: Was Matt Drudge responsible for keeping the Monica story going for as long as it did, or was it simply a case of the MSM attempting to keep ahead (aka, keep up with) of what was being reported on Drudge?

While I realize there are serious economic considerations, I’m disgusted by the MSM’s abdication of its responsibility to report the news in an objective way. While some of the general news stories are written in an objective manner, they are so concerned with being called “liberal” that they go to ridiculous lengths to prevent that from happening (and it doesn’t work!). Also, the news is surrounded by so many opinion pieces, and the comments of readers, that it’s difficult to discern objectivity. In addition, I find the starring roles being assumed by reporters and columnists on TV news and pundits shows, that I can’t trust anything that they write.

The whole Norway thing, with the endless speculation….no, declarations……of an Islamic perpetrator, was pretty disturbing. This was an across-the-board action on the part of all forms of media. Although I have to admit to some amusement when reading a thread on FreeRepublic.com: 150 posts of ever-escalating hate directed at the Muslim perpetrators, interspersed with declarations of the brave among them of what they would do/ what the US should do to ALL Muslims, including US citizens…..UP TO THE POINT when someone wrote in that it was a blond-haired blue-eyed native of Norway who represented a Christian militant group who had been responsible. The board immediately fell silent. It was like those old SNL Roseanne Roseannadanna skits: “Oh!….Never mind.”

As for the feeding of our confirmation bias, I think simply recognizing that we do that is a significant accomplishment. Once I realized a couple years back that I was doing it, I made an effort to stay off websites that had opinions most closely aligned with mine, and went out of my way to research those that didn’t. It can be very difficult to read some of this stuff sometimes. But I find that I’m getting a much better overall picture of what’s going on. And I also have a more accurate picture of what’s happening at the grass-roots level.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] I’d opine that the news business of the present is probably far different from that of the past, especially given the rapid encroachment of social media and the internet. The Drudge Report was certainly something of a game-changer during the CLinton Administration and I believe we’re seeing a return of the more sharp-elbowed and less objective days of the distant past……
There was an interesting series of articles following the Breivik attacks in Norway, many of which asked if the present attitudes towards Islam contributed to, or even facilitated the attack…..
I believe the days of truly objective and, more importantly, non-partisan journalship are behind us, and all of us, intentionally or not, now feed our confirmation bias by finding those sources that support and advance our “beliefs”.[/quote]

This is definitely true, although I believe that the Internet “news sources” (such as Drudge), for the most part, were largely created to counter the mainstream media’s reporting of events, whether or not that reporting was accurate. I wasn’t following Drudge back in the 90s, but I’ll ask you: Was Matt Drudge responsible for keeping the Monica story going for as long as it did, or was it simply a case of the MSM attempting to keep ahead (aka, keep up with) of what was being reported on Drudge?

While I realize there are serious economic considerations, I’m disgusted by the MSM’s abdication of its responsibility to report the news in an objective way. While some of the general news stories are written in an objective manner, they are so concerned with being called “liberal” that they go to ridiculous lengths to prevent that from happening (and it doesn’t work!). Also, the news is surrounded by so many opinion pieces, and the comments of readers, that it’s difficult to discern objectivity. In addition, I find the starring roles being assumed by reporters and columnists on TV news and pundits shows, that I can’t trust anything that they write.

The whole Norway thing, with the endless speculation….no, declarations……of an Islamic perpetrator, was pretty disturbing. This was an across-the-board action on the part of all forms of media. Although I have to admit to some amusement when reading a thread on FreeRepublic.com: 150 posts of ever-escalating hate directed at the Muslim perpetrators, interspersed with declarations of the brave among them of what they would do/ what the US should do to ALL Muslims, including US citizens…..UP TO THE POINT when someone wrote in that it was a blond-haired blue-eyed native of Norway who represented a Christian militant group who had been responsible. The board immediately fell silent. It was like those old SNL Roseanne Roseannadanna skits: “Oh!….Never mind.”

As for the feeding of our confirmation bias, I think simply recognizing that we do that is a significant accomplishment. Once I realized a couple years back that I was doing it, I made an effort to stay off websites that had opinions most closely aligned with mine, and went out of my way to research those that didn’t. It can be very difficult to read some of this stuff sometimes. But I find that I’m getting a much better overall picture of what’s going on. And I also have a more accurate picture of what’s happening at the grass-roots level.

[Author]

Posts