Rush to Judgment, or The Death of Objective Journalism

Can we get off the dang hats, please?

The topic is journalistic integrity and the nature of news media in our society today and how we can make them more accurate and accountable.

Thank you.

They spend a lot of time on the bottom, but are truly magnificent when they breach...

alfadriver said:

 

Well, having some public funding does reduce the likelihood of corporate influence.  We still have that.  

And neither NPR nor PBS are going for hits (as far as I can tell) that Youtube encourages in terms of presentation, or need subscribers like Netflix does.

So there are reasons to support it.

If you think it has an agenda, you can get involved with PBS and NPR, too.  They are more welcome to input than most others- like a liberal calling Rush will never make the air.

Try to throw a bit of something in hear between all the S throwing:

NPR does however seem to get a LOT of funding from some large corporations / groups. Just note the Sponsored By at the beginning of some of the programming. Not saying it has a bad affect, but those corporations of course make some sort of choice what they fund.

NPR does however, seem to be weathering this storm better then most.

In a way, all the BS in this thread is a great example of the problems associated with the original issue noted.  There is a good amount of information out there now and I am sure some is still missing.  Some of it cannot be disputed, some of it is more ethereal (motivations etc).  What is a "fact", what is the "truth"? Some of it requires context (even historical context). How do you report it "fairly"?

I am starting to feel like this guy (getting hard to keep this boat going in the right direction):

alfadriver said:

In reply to STM317 :

So why do they wear the hat in the first place???  Why do they NEED to identify with that group of people? 

It's not an accident that people wear that hat.  And to 1) deny that it causes hard feelings and 2) accuse that on the person who has those feelings... wow.  

Look at just this thread- and accept that MAGA DOES incite people.  Is it that hard to just accept that?

It's just like the color orange and Ireland vs. Northern Ireland.  It actually means something.  Even if it's just a color and just a shirt.

If I walk into the Horseshoe wearing a t-shirt that says something about Ohio sucking, it's the fault of OSU fans for being mad?

I never meant to deny that it can be divisive, and I'm certain some shiny happy people wear it strictly for that reason. There has seemingly been an uptick in hate speech and hate crime in recent years, and many of the individuals responsible are on the wings of political ideology. Left wing nutjobs are just as capable of hateful speech and violence as right wing nutjobs. That's the problem. Everybody wants to quickly and easily fit somebody into a box and categorize them as "us" or "Them" because that's easier than being adults, taking the time to understand who a person actually is and trying to get along.

The important thing in my opinion is that everybody controls how they react to things they encounter. If somebody does something to upset you, they may be an shiny happy person and your reaction may be justified. There is also the possibility that they may have done nothing wrong, and your resulting feelings are just your incorrect assumption based on a lazy generalization. If you see a person wearing some clothing item break into a car, do you automatically assume that all people that wear that item will break into your car? If you see a tall person hold a door for a stranger, does that mean all tall people are polite? If a person is (rightly) rebuked for assuming that all Muslims are terrorists, then why is it ok to assume that all conservatives are racist? Stereotyping is wrong regardless of who is doing the stereotyping of whom. It's pretty simple.

STM317 said:

GameboyRMH said:

You can't choose your skin, but you can choose your hat. And that hat has picked up some meanings, like it or not...

I agree. Totally valid point. But who is responsible for the meanings that the hat has picked up? Those who have acted in disgusting ways while wearing it are of course the root cause, but those who assume that anybody who wears it are only exhibiting the same types of stereotypical thinking. If people assume that anybody wearing a hijab or burqa is a terrorist, they're rightly rebuked, but it's ok to assume that anyone in a MAGA hat is a racist?

Actually that's a difficult question. A burqa or hijab only says you're a Muslim who believes women should cover up for religious reasons, nothing more. It's not tied closely to jihadism at all, it's more equivalent to an elephant-logo button in the specificity of its messaging (although even that is more specific). A MAGA hat carries much more plentiful and specific messages. In specificity (but not extremity) it's more like an ISIS flag. Anyone who flies that is being very specific about what they support.

I think I've already spelled out the messaging those hats carry.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

STM317 said:

Because it's wrong to judge an entire segment of people based on appearance. Being racist is deplorable. Assuming anybody in a MAGA hat is a racist requires the same stereotyping that racism does.

You can't choose your skin, but you can choose your hat. And that hat has picked up some meanings, like it or not...

Was going to type a reply to the whole red hat thing, but too difficult to not make it political. Let's just say that I'm sad that you can only see what you want to see, and I feel bad that you believe what you do about a large percentage of our population. I'm also disappointed that it's okay for people to assign meanings to others despite their objections, like it or not. 

FWIW, NPR is somewhere between 2% and 15% funded by the government, depending on how you construe the money that comes from universities to the local stations, and whether you consider a competitive grant to be taxpayer support (I suppose most would).   At annual revenues of $180 million, that's a public funding component of $27 million dollars...or about eight cents per American citizen.

In reply to aircooled :

They do, and also they make a point for every article that is it's one of their financial supporters that you know that.  Which is a lot better than all other news outlets do.

As for the biased news, if you are a fan of the musical Hamilton, and then read Chernow's book, you have already noted that biased media existed for the entire time The United States of America has existed.  And it was so ugly back then, there were duals.  And back then, there was confirmation bias for the readers- if you were a Federalist, you read the scribe that Hamilton ghost wrote for, if you were a Democratic Republican- you read Jefferson's.  

This is nothing new, at all.  Just at a level where it's REALLY easy to get news out, be it true or totally fabricated.

And the whole line "Bad news is better than no news" is still quite true.

Boost_Crazy said:

Was going to type a reply to the whole red hat thing, but too difficult to not make it political. Let's just say that I'm sad that you can only see what you want to see, and I feel bad that you believe what you do about a large percentage of our population. I'm also disappointed that it's okay for people to assign meanings to others despite their objections, like it or not. 

If they object then why wear an object that carries such meanings to a huge chunk of society, even if it has other meanings you like?

Example: In a purely aesthetic sense, Che Guevara shirts look cool. One of the messages they carry is rebellion which I think is cool. But the guy was a murderous communist, so those messages are also attached to the shirt, and since I don't endorse that ideology I don't wear those shirts. If I wore one would it be wrong to think I might be a militant communist or at least historically ignorant enough to wear a provocative shirt? What if it was a Mao Zedong shirt? He's in some of the "little red book" parody shirts but I won't wear those that still have his picture in them for the same reason.

If you wear a MAGA hat you don't get to pick and choose which meanings popularly attached to it you endorse.

The nature of symbols change, and if they're adopted by a polarizing or fringe element then they may change in ways that don't please everyone who originally adopted those symbols. But this evolution does unfortunately happen, and it's happened to the hats. Time for Godwin's law here but it's a really good example - the swastika used to be a good luck symbol before it got coopted by a certain group and tainted forever. Tainted to the point of being illegal in Germany.

The biggest networks do seem to have given up any legitimate attempt at impartiality, unfortunately. I don't listen to NPR, but I do get a fair bit of my news from the BBC and the CBC because I find it a little more free of really obvious bias. I think the public funding is a big contributor, in large part because the these broadcasters don't need to chase controversy to seem relevant and thus gain advertising revenue. There is going to be (and always has been) a bias in any news source that follows the philosophy of whoever's running the ship, but it seems to be less overt.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

"HUGE CHUNK OF PEOPLE" is very subjective. I think it's quite a bit less, but then I don't suffer from TDS. 

GameboyRMH said:

Actually that's a difficult question. A burqa or hijab only says you're a Muslim who believes women should cover up for religious reasons, nothing more. It's not tied closely to jihadism at all, it's more equivalent to an elephant-logo button in the specificity of its messaging (although even that is more specific). A MAGA hat carries much more plentiful and specific messages. In specificity (but not extremity) it's more like an ISIS flag. Anyone who flies that is being very specific about what they support.

I think I've already spelled out the messaging those hats carry.

I don't wish to derail this thread any longer. I'll finish by saying that Just as you (rightly) point out that a burqa or hijab only says you're a Muslim, one could just as easily say that a MAGA hat only identifies you as a person with a desire to have a more self-sufficient America, or one that isn't ruled by Wall St and special interest groups. Assuming anything further about the wearer of either item is on the one doing the assuming.

GameboyRMH said 

You can't choose your7 skin, but you can choose your hat. And that hat has picked up some meanings, like it or not...

So to be clear, if a girl dresses like a prostitute......?

That's what you are saying, right? What was he wearing? A hat. Oh, then he deserved it. 

Pot, this is Kettle, and you no longer have the moral high ground. 

I wonder if the narcissism inherent in our fully connected lives isn't as big a contributor to the extremism as the news sources. It's much easier to create a shallow self image that doesn't require critical self assessment or evaluation of new information. 

oldopelguy said:

So to be clear, if a girl dresses like a prostitute......?

That's what you are saying, right? What was he wearing? A hat. Oh, then he deserved it. 

Kettle, this is Pot, and you no longer have the moral high ground. 

Silly analogy, revealing clothes are again a less specific message (they don't wear hats saying "Hey handsome, lookin' for a good time?" #HHL4AGT?), and the only thing that a woman appearing to be a prostitute deserves is men asking "how much?" (or women asking, I don't care...)

I see some children in a very tense situation being expected to be perfect not only in their actions but also in everyone else’s perception of them. Those children appear to be rising above the stench and handling themselves in a very dignified adult manner. 

I also see adults with many years of experience to draw wisdom from acting in a very childlike manner. 

TLDR

The media is a whore

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I driven through a lot of red light districts. I’ve never seen a sign (or a hat) that said “Hey handsome, looking for a good time?”

I have, however, seen a lot of women dressed like prostitutes. 

I love it how Gameboy is allowed to come in and E36 M3 all over a thread, like he always does without fear. Like clockwork. 

GameboyRMH said:

Silly analogy, revealing clothes are again a less specific message (they don't wear hats saying "Hey handsome, lookin' for a good time?" #HHL4AGT?), and the only thing that a woman appearing to be a prostitute deserves is men asking "how much?" (or women asking, I don't care...)

No. A woman wearing whatever doesn't deserve anything at all because of what she is wearing.  Neither does a kid in a hat.  No one does.  That is exactly what prejudice is, assuming without knowing, dismissing as less based on assumptions. 

Instead we should strive to pay attention to the content of their character, to the person. It's a hard lesson to learn.  

oldopelguy said:

GameboyRMH said:

Silly analogy, revealing clothes are again a less specific message (they don't wear hats saying "Hey handsome, lookin' for a good time?" #HHL4AGT?), and the only thing that a woman appearing to be a prostitute deserves is men asking "how much?" (or women asking, I don't care...)

No. A woman wearing whatever doesn't deserve anything at all because of what she is wearing.  Neither does a kid in a hat.  No one does.  That is exactly what prejudice is, assuming without knowing, dismissing as less based on assumptions. 

Instead we should strive to pay attention to the content of their character, to the person. It's a hard lesson to learn.  

 

 

 

A kid in a hat vs.a group (aka tribe) of kids in a hat are not exactly the same thing.  

And people DO make a conscience decision of what hat they wear to send a message.  These kids were not on a field trip.

Again, deny it all you want, but a good example of it being real is right on this thread. 

EDIT!!!  And THIS is a good example of how infotainment can skew how we look at stuff.  

Perhaps we should all return to our respective corners, but this discussion does show how biases do exist. 

Thank you. 

oldopelguy said:

No. A woman wearing whatever doesn't deserve anything at all because of what she is wearing.  Neither does a kid in a hat.  No one does.  That is exactly what prejudice is, assuming without knowing, dismissing as less based on assumptions. 

Instead we should strive to pay attention to the content of their character, to the person. It's a hard lesson to learn. 

I still think that clothes can carry messages. A Rush shirt means you like Rush. An Obama-face "hope" shirt means you like Obama. And a MAGA hat means you like the guy at the head of that political campaign. Why is that so controversial? If the coolest, chillest guy in the world approached me wearing a generic swastika shirt, I'd at least ask him why the berkeley he's wearing that shirt, and that would be a fair thing to do based on the message his shirt carries. Maybe he'd explain that he just likes radial geometric designs and we could debate the messaging of his shirt like reasonable people, but he can't avoid sending the message his shirt carries on sight, before he's even opened his mouth unless he hides around a corner and explains that he's gonna come out wearing a shirt with a design that he doesn't support all the messages commonly attached to.

In fact there's a real story like that I can get into...

I think that everyone's voiced their opinions on this topic, so I'm going to press the pause button for a few.

Thank you for understanding.