Toxic Media

[doodle]

Just listened to a clip of CNN going after fox for failing to call Biden president elect until lawsuits have passed. Whatever one might think of fox's decision, the fact remains that the media once again is stirring the pot, attempting to inflame emotions in order drive up ratings. How do we get a hold on this? Honestly, I don't think most americans are really that far apart on most issues.. You have a few whackjobs on both sides of the aisle that get the majority of attention and media outlets that love conflict.

[doodle]

This seems to be an example of a negative consequence from a profit driven enterprise....in some ways similar to food. Media outlets like food companies have discovered that they can increase consumption or viewership if they spice things up with certain ingredients....instead of sugar and fat....they realize that humans are drawn like moths to flame when there is conflict. We have this crazy attraction to it. Because profits matter more than happiness or civility or peace we get media stations intentionally creating conflict to increase profits.

[doodle]

Tom, how does one address the fact that profit motives can lead to market decisions that we know are detrimental to our survival as a species?

[doodle]

What about a giant scrollbar on any media broadcast saying something to the effect of

"This broadcast is for entertainment purposes only. Anything said here represents the opinion of an individual and has not been fact checked"

[Tortoise]

Who should be the “official” fact-checkers? The government?

[flyingpylon]

Who should be the “official” fact-checkers? The government?

They have only our best interests in mind.

[doodle]

Ummm...I wrote nothing about fact checkers. Why did you respond in that manner?

[Tortoise]

You used the phrase “fact checked” in your previous post.

[doodle]

I'm saying that there should be perhaps a warning label across media broadcasts indicating that what is being said is simply opinion. I'm not sure about the fact checking.

I'm trying to think outside the box about how one can deal with forces within our society that will year us apart and make our lives worse but not impose government controls. I'm trying to think about market or information based solutions to market created issues.

[doodle]

Ok rephrase it then....the information here constitutes the opinion of the individuals and may or may not be fact.

[doodle]

I'm trying to think about how one can deal with a media apparatus that is feeding the American public a constant stream of incendiary bullshit and passing it off as fact. That is incredibly destructive ....might as well be pumping poison into our water supply.

[doodle]

As far as the fact checkers perhaps there should be some conglomeration of individuals selected somehow (I don't know the details) that reviews claims and puts out evaluations on that. How does one fact check them? I'm not sure...I'm trying to think of mechanisms...

[flyingpylon]

As far as the fact checkers perhaps there should be some conglomeration of individuals selected somehow (I don't know the details) that reviews claims and puts out evaluations on that. How does one fact check them? I'm not sure...I'm trying to think of mechanisms...

You're not thinking outside the box at all.

[doodle]

Ok, then help me daddy.

[Maddy]

You know, Doodle, virtually everything you post--and I mean everything--demands that somebody else change to accommodate your view of how the world should be. Not only does that type of self-referential thinking ignore the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, it conveys a certain abhorrence for the idea that other people have values and ideals of their own. Your solution to every societal ill is to simply impose the "right" answer on everybody else.

Channeling Harry Browne, the idea that your happiness and fulfillment depend upon other people changing is one of the most fundamental "traps" into which people fall, and that prevent them from achieving what they want. They spend their entire lives excusing their own failings by perseverating on the fact others cannot be made to think or behave in a manner consistent with their "wants." They work off the misguided premise that other people either think as they do or that they should think that way. It takes very little, from that point, to conclude that anybody with a different vision or viewpoint is not only wrong, but mentally disordered ("sociopathic," in your words) and needs to be corrected, punished, or simply eliminated from public view.

I would challenge you to dust off Harry's book, entitled "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World," and read just that chapter dealing with the "Identity Trap." It describes you to a tee.

[vnatale]

What about a giant scrollbar on any media broadcast saying something to the effect of

"This broadcast is for entertainment purposes only. Anything said here represents the opinion of an individual and has not been fact checked"

Actually, Fox with Tucker Carlson got sued for some type of facts thing and their defense, which won the case was exactly the above for Tucker’a show.

Wasn't that Glenn Beck's defense? That all he was saying was strictly for entertainment purposes and not to be accepted as any form of truth? Forgetting if he won or lost? I seem to remember him losing?

Vinny

[pp4me]

You know, Doodle, virtually everything you post--and I mean everything--demands that somebody else change to accommodate your view of how the world should be. Not only does that type of self-referential thinking ignore the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, it conveys a certain abhorrence for the idea that other people have values and ideals of their own. Your solution to every societal ill is to simply impose the "right" answer on everybody else.

Well said. I think this is called an "authoritarian impulse".

[doodle]

You know, Doodle, virtually everything you post--and I mean everything--demands that somebody else change to accommodate your view of how the world should be. Not only does that type of self-referential thinking ignore the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, it conveys a certain abhorrence for the idea that other people have values and ideals of their own. Your solution to every societal ill is to simply impose the "right" answer on everybody else.

Well said. I think this is called an "authoritarian impulse".

I don't agree. I'm not telling anyone how or what to think. My suggestions with regards to this topic do not say what you must think about anything but are merely making the argument that in order to make decisions you must be provided with accurate information or facts.

Say for example you were trying to eat a prescribed diet and there were nutrition labels on the food packages saying what was in the food...whether printed by the company itself or some third party. Consumers would use that information to make decisions. Let's say those labels claimed to provide accurate information (They were 'Fair and Balanced' labels!) but in fact were totally false and intentionally contained wrong or misleading information in order to manipulate your health for some end goal. That would make it very difficult to follow the diet that you wanted and make informed decisions.

I'm sure you would have an issue if a food product said it was pork but it was really donkey, right? Or do you think that consumers should have to set up food labs in their house and do DNA analysis on any meat that they buy to see if the label is accurate?

I'm saying this information problem exists throughout our news networks. I'm advocating for a way to provide more accurate information for consumers so that they can make better decisions.....Im NOT telling them what to think!

[doodle]

The answer is self-regulation. If the media is stirring up the pot, then people should avoid the media by choice. If no one consumes it, they'll go bankrupt. The media has to provide a useful value to the customer/viewer to stay in business.

Tom, I don't disagree with you in theory....but the fact is that is not what we are seeing. In fact people seem to be doing just the opposite. They gravitate to a few sources where they are literally fed a stream of propaganda because it feeds their ego or validates their preconceived ideas or whatever....you wonder why it's so hard to get decent gun legislation passed? It's because left wing people are being fed a bunch of bullshit information about guns that emotionally persuades them to feel a certain way to further some agenda of some autocrat. They are not being given the facts about guns and have no desire or curiosity to know anything more...."Rachel Maddow on the news is informed and I trust her"! Can you not see how this is a problem?

[pp4me]

You know, Doodle, virtually everything you post--and I mean everything--demands that somebody else change to accommodate your view of how the world should be. Not only does that type of self-referential thinking ignore the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, it conveys a certain abhorrence for the idea that other people have values and ideals of their own. Your solution to every societal ill is to simply impose the "right" answer on everybody else.

Well said. I think this is called an "authoritarian impulse".

I don't agree. I'm not telling anyone how or what to think. My suggestions with regards to this topic do not say what you must think about anything but are merely making the argument that in order to make decisions you must be provided with accurate information or facts.

Say for example you were trying to eat a prescribed diet and there were nutrition labels on the food packages saying what was in the food...whether printed by the company itself or some third party. Consumers would use that information to make decisions. Let's say those labels claimed to provide accurate information (They were 'Fair and Balanced' labels!) but in fact were totally false and intentionally contained wrong or misleading information in order to manipulate your health for some end goal. That would make it very difficult to follow the diet that you wanted and make informed decisions.

I'm sure you would have an issue if a food product said it was pork but it was really donkey, right? Or do you think that consumers should have to set up food labs in their house and do DNA analysis on any meat that they buy to see if the label is accurate?

I'm saying this information problem exists throughout our news networks. I'm advocating for a way to provide more accurate information for consumers so that they can make better decisions.....Im NOT telling them what to think!

Comparing food labeling to the News is apples to oranges. Are you really suggesting we need an FDA for the news?

[jalanlong]

Is it just me or after every contentious election that a Democrat wins do I immediately have to hear the mainstream press and celebrities rattle on about “coming together and putting aside our differences”? But yet I never heard that when Bush or Trump won.

[doodle]

Is it just me or after every contentious election that a Democrat wins do I immediately have to hear the mainstream press and celebrities rattle on about “coming together and putting aside our differences”? But yet I never heard that when Bush or Trump won.

Yes it's obnoxious.....both sides.

You know, Doodle, virtually everything you post--and I mean everything--demands that somebody else change to accommodate your view of how the world should be. Not only does that type of self-referential thinking ignore the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, it conveys a certain abhorrence for the idea that other people have values and ideals of their own. Your solution to every societal ill is to simply impose the "right" answer on everybody else.

Well said. I think this is called an "authoritarian impulse".

I don't agree. I'm not telling anyone how or what to think. My suggestions with regards to this topic do not say what you must think about anything but are merely making the argument that in order to make decisions you must be provided with accurate information or facts.

Say for example you were trying to eat a prescribed diet and there were nutrition labels on the food packages saying what was in the food...whether printed by the company itself or some third party. Consumers would use that information to make decisions. Let's say those labels claimed to provide accurate information (They were 'Fair and Balanced' labels!) but in fact were totally false and intentionally contained wrong or misleading information in order to manipulate your health for some end goal. That would make it very difficult to follow the diet that you wanted and make informed decisions.

I'm sure you would have an issue if a food product said it was pork but it was really donkey, right? Or do you think that consumers should have to set up food labs in their house and do DNA analysis on any meat that they buy to see if the label is accurate?

I'm saying this information problem exists throughout our news networks. I'm advocating for a way to provide more accurate information for consumers so that they can make better decisions.....Im NOT telling them what to think!

Comparing food labeling to the News is apples to oranges. Are you really suggesting we need an FDA for the news?

Do we need an FDA? Let's stay away from the news media for a minute...should a company be able to label their food however they like? Should a company be able to say something is organic gras fed beef when it is really feedlot beef pumped full of antibiotics?

When talking about all of this you also have to remember that when something seems obvious to you...or they can just figure something out....everyone on this forum is probably close to the top 10% of the bell curve in intelligence. That matters. Also, you all seem to have a lot of time on your hands to research shit...you aren't struggling single moms with three jobs trying to make sure you are just putting healthy food on table for kids.

[flyingpylon]

The problem (or at least one of them) is that what we commonly refer to as “facts” are actually data + interpretation + persuasion. So an appeal to facts is inherently flawed and won’t solve anything.

It’s also why vague concepts like “follow the science” are essentially worthless.

[Mountaineer]

Unless you thoroughly understand Original Sin, all the hand wringing is for naught. Man will never, and I mean never, create heaven on earth. But that doesn’t mean we should not try to make things better. It mainly means our actions result a lot of unintended consequences and the cycle continues. It’s a big game of whack-a-mole we will never win.

"Wisdom from Above"
Psalm 90:10-12 - The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. Who considers the power of Your anger, and Your wrath according to the fear of You? So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom.

These are not very encouraging words, yet we might find it difficult to disagree with the psalmist. Some individuals do live well past 100 years, but such longevity is rare. Even though today many people may celebrate 90 years and more, the psalmist rightly observes that "the years of our life" are 70 or 80. Whatever the number of years involved, we may readily agree that a life span is "but toil and trouble." Trouble is something we experience at every age and, while the nature of the burdens we bear changes with the passing years, our burdensome troubles will always weigh heavily on us.

Do we live out our span of years in fear of God's wrath and judgment? Is that the source of our trouble? The psalmist is concerned about that: "You have set our iniquities before You, our secret sins in the light of Your presence" (Psalm 90:8). With the psalmist, we pray for a realistic understanding of our limited life spans that will impart to us "a heart of wisdom." During our earthly years, do we follow the divine wisdom revealed in the Word of God, or do we listen to the wisdom of the world?

The world's wisdom tells us (as expressed in Jesus' parable), "You have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry" (Luke 12:19b). The wisdom from above tells us, "Exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today,' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin" (Hebrews 3:13). The world's wisdom claims that repentance and faith are unnecessary and the cross is just so much foolishness. What can it matter, worldly wisdom asks, that a Jewish rabbi was crucified by the Romans centuries ago? Why should that concern us today? The wisdom of the Word answers, "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe" (1 Corinthians 1:21). In the face of the world's scorn, we boldly preach "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2b).

Worldly wisdom finds happiness for today and hope for the future in self-centered pursuits, but as Paul wisely said, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:19). Hope for "this life only" is a worldly—and sadly limited—hope. Godly wisdom, a gift of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, teaches us to look to the future with hope in Christ, to await with confidence the day of His return and the resurrection of our glorified (and ageless!) bodies. In every year the Lord our God grants to us, with godly wisdom and in humble repentance, we join the psalmist in grateful prayer: "Satisfy us in the morning with Your steadfast love, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days" (Psalm 90:14).

THE PRAYER: Lord, throughout the span of our years, help us by Your Spirit to grow in the wisdom found in Your holy Word. Amen.

This Daily Devotion was written by Dr. Carol Geisler.

Reflection Questions:

1. Do you recall the time you first thought about life's brevity and the end of your life?

2. Do you fear old age? How do you live differently now than when you were younger?

3. How does a person number his days to present a "heart of wisdom" to God? What does a heart of wisdom mean to you?

[pp4me]

Is it just me or after every contentious election that a Democrat wins do I immediately have to hear the mainstream press and celebrities rattle on about “coming together and putting aside our differences”? But yet I never heard that when Bush or Trump won.

Yes it's obnoxious.....both sides.

You know, Doodle, virtually everything you post--and I mean everything--demands that somebody else change to accommodate your view of how the world should be. Not only does that type of self-referential thinking ignore the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, it conveys a certain abhorrence for the idea that other people have values and ideals of their own. Your solution to every societal ill is to simply impose the "right" answer on everybody else.

Well said. I think this is called an "authoritarian impulse".

I don't agree. I'm not telling anyone how or what to think. My suggestions with regards to this topic do not say what you must think about anything but are merely making the argument that in order to make decisions you must be provided with accurate information or facts.

Say for example you were trying to eat a prescribed diet and there were nutrition labels on the food packages saying what was in the food...whether printed by the company itself or some third party. Consumers would use that information to make decisions. Let's say those labels claimed to provide accurate information (They were 'Fair and Balanced' labels!) but in fact were totally false and intentionally contained wrong or misleading information in order to manipulate your health for some end goal. That would make it very difficult to follow the diet that you wanted and make informed decisions.

I'm sure you would have an issue if a food product said it was pork but it was really donkey, right? Or do you think that consumers should have to set up food labs in their house and do DNA analysis on any meat that they buy to see if the label is accurate?

I'm saying this information problem exists throughout our news networks. I'm advocating for a way to provide more accurate information for consumers so that they can make better decisions.....Im NOT telling them what to think!

Comparing food labeling to the News is apples to oranges. Are you really suggesting we need an FDA for the news?

Do we need an FDA? Let's stay away from the news media for a minute...should a company be able to label their food however they like? Should a company be able to say something is organic gras fed beef when it is really feedlot beef pumped full of antibiotics?

When talking about all of this you also have to remember that when something seems obvious to you...or they can just figure something out....everyone on this forum is probably close to the top 10% of the bell curve in intelligence. That matters. Also, you all seem to have a lot of time on your hands to research shit...you aren't struggling single moms with three jobs trying to make sure you are just putting healthy food on table for kids.

I suspect that less than 10% of people ever look at the food labels. People look at me funny when I do it. Most people just trust that the FDA won't allow products on the shelf that aren't good for us.

Is that the way you want the news to work? Sounds like you do.