Man Made Global Warming

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by jimson8

Biased, if not corrupt network news directly led to "designer news." It makes little difference if it comes from a desire to please a market or from prejudices seeping out even subconsciously.

It's not even so much the fairness of the journalism, but what is given the most coverage and what is given less. Much is driven by what equals good ratings, but ideology also plays a very significant role.

There is no answer for this.

We are bombarded by so much conflicting information, the "truth" we choose to believe is that which conforms best to our own opinions.

That’s not totally true. To show why I need to get a bit philosophical as it raises the issue of how we decide what constitutes truth or reality. There are two broad classes of question that we are faced with:

The first can be answered by direct observation. In simple cases of this class, such as whether a particular table in front of us has four legs, the answer is a matter of straight verifiable observation - anyone with the necessary visual sense should agree on the answer (and people who don't agree are usually labelled delusional). A more realistically newsworthy example of the same thing would be an earthquake in Japan. This type of 'truth' then can be viewed as 'objective', easily verifiable and NOT dependent on your prior opinion (unless you want to admit to being delusional!)

(There is a more complex variant of this where the observations may require specialised apparatus (eg microscopes) or specialised training/education to be able to discern the facts, but again, anyone with the training and access to the required instruments should be able to agree.)

Then there are questions that are tightly bound up with people's value systems. In these cases simple observational answers are usually not available. Examples of these questions are: is abortion justified?,
was the decision to invade Iraq correct?,
what should be the responsibilities of the state?
In questions like these disagreements are common.

Any competent (honest) news organization should have no difficulty in reporting the first class above. With the second class if they are to give a fair and balanced representation they will need to tread more carefully. In fact, a good way of distinguishing between ‘news’ and ‘propaganda’ is by seeing how diligently a news organization attempts to tread this fair and balanced path.

And here is the problem. The Reagan administration in 1987 effectively abolished the requirement for television news to attempt to provide balanced and fair coverage (I believe the argument was that it infringes freedom of speech and property rights - i.e. wealthy media owners should be able to have their organizations say what they damn well want). This opened the door for the current situation in American news broadcasting where the news channels, having abandoned the need for impartiality, have become ever more partisan in their presentations. It also increases the tendency to chase market share which can lead to sacrificing accuracy of coverage in order to pander to your perceived demographic (i.e. twist the facts so as to keep your viewers)

As Bewolf said, this has generally bad effects on a democracy. For the people to be able to make good judgements they must first be given accurate information. In the UK there is still a requirement for TV news to be impartial. I would suggest that for healthy democracy keeping the media bias-free is important. For this some regulation is needed.

-------

The above also takes us back to climate change where the argument can be viewed as about being whether it is a Class 1 observable fact (most scientists) or a Class 2 opinion (liberals V conservatives)?

[kendo65]

To summarise the above:

In the UK TV media organisations are required to fairly report both Class 1 and Class 2 above.

In the USA currently Class 2 reporting has moved from balanced news into propaganda-driven presentations. Arguably (?) some of the Class 1 items may be being distorted and skewed too, as this necessitates accurate reporting of the 'other side's' position without distortion, spin or value judgement.

Once Class 1 'facts' are routinely distorted we are into Goebbels territory and it is time to be worried.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by kendo65

In the UK there is still a requirement for TV news to be impartial. I would suggest that for healthy democracy keeping the media bias-free is important. For this some regulation is needed.

Same in Switzerland, this rule will be also supported as long as they stay on their socialist track...

Like the other guy said; free speech, free will - you only have to share mine.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by swiss

Same in Switzerland, this rule will be also supported as long as they stay on their socialist track...

Like the other guy said; free speech, free will - you only have to share mine.

Are you saying that the Swiss mainstream media have a socialist bias?

The BBC has been getting attacked for some time now from the Conservative right for supposed bias. Interestingly Labour have also had a bash at them at times. My opinion - if you're annoying both sides you're probably doing ok.

As I argued above - once you get past the verifiable factual stuff (earthquakes in japan, numbers dead in a car crash) and move into the Class 2 stuff it's arguable that there are only opinions anyway. In this territory even if you try hard to be impartial it is likely that someone will be annoyed.

It's also likely that the further out you are from the centre on either left or right, the more you are likely to perceive the attempt at balanced, centre-line coverage to be biased.

Which explains why those with more hard-line positions are the ones getting most annoyed...

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Are you saying that the Swiss mainstream media have a socialist bias?

The BBC has been getting attacked for some time now from the Conservative right for supposed bias. Interestingly Labour have also had a bash at them at times. My opinion - if you're annoying both sides you're probably doing ok.

As I argued above - once you get past the verifiable factual stuff (earthquakes in japan, numbers dead in a car crash) and move into the Class 2 stuff it's arguable that there are only opinions anyway. In this territory even if you try hard to be impartial it is likely that someone will be annoyed.

It's also likely that the further out you are from the centre on either left or right, the more you are likely to perceive the attempt at balanced, centre-line coverage to be biased.

Which explains why those with more hard-line positions are the ones getting most annoyed...

+1

The problem with most radicals is that they do not recognize themselves as radicals.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Are you saying that the Swiss mainstream media have a socialist bias?

no - it's a fact.

[raaaid]

you know the true origin of the word hypocrit comes from the hipocratic sweraing doctors do?

i concluded so a friend who works in a hospital concluded so both independently

[swiss]

Originally Posted by raaaid

you know the true origin of the word hypocrit comes from the hipocratic sweraing doctors do?

The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "Jealous" "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".[3] The word hypocrite is from the Greek word ὑποκρίτης (hypokrites), the agentive noun associated with υποκρίνομαι (hypokrinomai κρίση, "judgment" »κριτική (kritiki), "critics") presumably because the performance of a dramatic text by an actor was to involve a degree of interpretation, or assessment.

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by raaaid

you know the true origin of the word hypocrit comes from the hipocratic sweraing doctors do?

i concluded so a friend who works in a hospital concluded so both independently

[jimson8]

Originally Posted by kendo65

And here is the problem. The Reagan administration in 1987 effectively abolished the requirement for television news to attempt to provide balanced and fair coverage (I believe the argument was that it infringes freedom of speech and property rights - i.e. wealthy media owners should be able to have their organizations say what they damn well want).

The above statement is biased as it ascribes motives based on opinion, but the press as advocate began a long time prior to 1987.

It wasn't Walter Cronkite's place to declare the Vietnam war unwinnable in 1968.

History now tells us that the Tet offensive was a rather large military defeat, rendering the Viet Cong southern insurgency, combat ineffective. What militarily could have been a turning point for victory became politically, a turning point for failure.

Few would now disagree that the venture was a huge mistake from the beginning, but Cronkite had a huge amount of influence on the public and wasn't really qualified to make such a statement.

The press can and does agree on tables that have 4 legs, but the majority of "news" is more subjective.