Fox News got OWN3D!

[Jonas]

I think one of the biggest problems is that CNN feels the need to give both sides even if one of them is objectively wrong. They need to have their fact checker simply step in and call bullshit whenever someone is bullshitting. In politics I don't need to know the Republican and Democratic positions on every issue (unless I'm voting for these people) what I need to know is what is actually true.

One of the more interesting problems with giving both sides a say in every matter is that sometimes that means you end up drastically over-exposing one side.

For example, on the issue of climate change, Denmark has a fairly well known (even internationally) economist called Bjørn Lomborg, who made quite a name for himself applying economics to all the world's problems and then prioritising them according to how much bang we could get for our foreign aid buck in certain areas. The most serious problem with his method was that preventing global climate change costs a disproportionately huge amount of money compared to the improvement we'd get out of it, but if we don't fix the climate change, most other efforts are void because everything will go tits-up in the third world anyway - yes, congratulations on providing food and education to so many poor Africans, but their countries have now turned into a desert.

Anyway, when the question of climate change was still whether or not it was even man-made, almost all proper scientists in the country agreed that yes, it probably was, and we really had to try to do something about it. Bjørn Lomborg (I stress, not actually a scientist, but an economist) was pretty much the lone dissenting voice, but every news programme and every debate show dealing with the issue of climate change felt obliged to hear out both sides, so they would bring in one proper scientist and then Bjørn Lomborg, which completely failed to convey the fact that Bjørn Lomborg was the only person in the damn country holding his opinion, and that everybody else disagreed. You don't have to give both sides equal representation when one side is completely outweighed by the other to the point of insignificance.

He's since admitted that yeah all right, the global climate change is probably man made, but he still maintains that actually doing something about it is a waste of money. Maybe he's right, fucked if I know, but it still seems stupid not to give it a shot.

[bobby 55]

Yeah don't do anything about it (climate change) and make a killing on the waterfront property market. Well how about the news stories where there is only one side given. I don't know if anyone else remembers, but a few years back a young guy was accused of molesting children at a child care centre.
The news people had a feast and painted him a demon. As it turned out he was accused after some child psychologist had interpreted the children's stories regarding the teacher incorrectly. It was the misinterpretation that started the whole frenzy but it took a long time to find out the truth. All the while the media were slamming this guy and I can't remember even a retraction let alone apology after the truth was out.

[justanotherfan]

I like it when they discuss a minority view next to the majority one. I think it's really important to hear dissent, and I've seen interviews with Lomborg where he makes a lot of sense. Goods should be prioritized, with cost/benefit and diminishing returns in the analysis. I don't agree with his hierarchy of goods, but I like it when the news reports the lone voice since often it's the lone voice of reason. It's the responsibility of the news to properly place the dissent, "You are the only one objecting. Why?". What annoys me is when there is one moron out there that disagrees, asserting things that are objectively false, and so the reporters give it equal attention. Small difference, but it is in one instance someone saying that 300 Million USD could pay for bed nets to nearly eliminate malaria when eliminating global warming has an incalculable cost now, and in another instance the constant reporting on Palin's "Death Panels" in America because there's funds given for counseling on living wills.

[Jonas]

I don't agree with his hierarchy of goods, but I like it when the news reports the lone voice since often it's the lone voice of reason.

Really? You may want to qualify that. I think if you were to gather all the people who are the only person to hold their beliefs, you will end up with quite the collection of crackpots.

But it doesn't bother me that Lomborg was heard, what bothered me was that he was heard as much as the thousands of other people who disagreed with him combined. That's a gross misrepresentation of the scientific community.

[Duke Floss]

I am not going to read through the posts on this ---- cause I don't got the time for it at the moment, so in the event that my post covers well tread ground - whatever.

I will say this - as much as I hate Fox News, and I do hate them - I hate CNN as well. Have you seen the new CNN iPhone app - essentially you are paying CNN your money to do their job. What is the world coming to. You can't trust the news - it is just another form of Entertainment. Simple as that. If it was really changing anything - if any of this mattered we'd have been living in a utopia a long time ago. Unfortunately (fortunately?) we are still living on the same broken system that has coloured societies for millenniums. The day that politics begins to shift over to something more dynamic is the day when "God Bless" is deleted from political speeches. Cause when you boil it down our political, justice, corporate, and entertainment industries are still by & large heavily influenced on an outdated religious moral system that has been broken and full of deceit since its invention. And the very sad fact behind all of this - is that the real power is with the people they are just to busy being fed ridiculous lies to notice.

/rant

[Jaedar]

"God Bless" is deleted from political speeches.

Not to brag, but politicians in Sweden stopped using religion like 50 years ago. Even the christian-democrats refrain from it.

is that the real power is with the people they are just to busy being fed ridiculous lies to notice.

Or, they are just to lazy to care

[justanotherfan]

I don't agree with his hierarchy of goods, but I like it when the news reports the lone voice since often it's the lone voice of reason.

Really? You may want to qualify that. I think if you were to gather all the people who are the only person to hold their beliefs, you will end up with quite the collection of crackpots...What bothered me was that he was heard as much as the thousands of other people who disagreed with him combined. That's a gross misrepresentation of the scientific community.

Yeah, I guess I do believe it. I still qualify it with the need for reporters to do fact-checking, and disallow objectively false information. That "global warming is too expensive to try to fix now" is a reasonable conclusion to reach, though I think it's incorrect (I'm not an economist, or a scientist either). By including any reasonable conclusions, journalism can explore those conclusions to check for validity, and it can let people decide with more information. I understand your point, about having some wacky economist in an interview with a scientist of the opposite opinion on a scientific matter, that it makes both opinions look equal in standing. Plus it can give equal time to the right opinion with the many wrong opinions, and it introduces conflict to generate ratings where there shouldn't be conflict. Still, I think giving more options democratizes the information, like in a debate with the few major political parties, while still giving time to the Fascist Flowerpower Party and the Marxist New Zion party. Sure they can be crazy, but the major parties won't dare to talk about things that hurt all major parties. Anyway, ideally the wrong idea gets torn apart on live TV.


On Duke Floss' idea about news = entertainment, I disagree. You can't allow your news to be entertainment. TV news is mostly entertainment. News is provided to make money, and so they want to entertain to catch more attention to make more money. Still, I think news shouldn't be allowed to become just entertainment, and that news is more of a duty. In a democracy, your opinion matters. In any system it matters. If you only watch the News Is Entertainment Channel, it affects me and everyone else. Bad reporting can lead to wars, riots, murder, economic collapse, corruption, and it has done all of these fairly recently. I've never been a big civics person, but institutions are realizing how much power they have when they entertain while pretending to inform, so that they can manipulate their audience into action and co-opt any reasonable debate. If you're not aware of what's actually happening, you're failing a social responsibility.

Breaking News: News Broken

[chris the cynic]

I think that the truth, wherever the truth can be known, needs to be front and center. Even when the truth can't be known context should be presented throughout instead of just reporting every opinion as if it has equal footing.

If you watch CNN* you'll end up with the impression that whatever the issue the country (or whatever group is involved) is split on it 50-50.

Also they rarely tell you what the truth is, and if they do they don't hold anyone to that. They could tell you that X has been proven objectively false 5,000 times in the past month, and then they go to their CNN contributors with opposing viewpoints and let someone say, "Well everyone knows X is true, and therefore..." without mentioning that, no, this person is lying. Not wrong; lying. The person is saying something he or she knows to be false in an effort to mislead the viewer and CNN is letting them. It would be nice if they'd put their foot down. Something along the lines of, "We are devoted to showing both sides, and want you hear your perspective, but we can't let you lie to our viewers. You can't say X is true when it has been proven beyond all doubt X is false."

In 2004 people put it like this, "If Kerry said the Earth was round and Bush said the Earth was flat, the headlines would read, 'Candidates disagree over shape of Earth.'" And its true. They report both sides, the truth, if it is reported at all, is ignored outside of isolated Fact Check segments.

Context helps too. It worth knowing what people believe, and that should be reported on, but also give an actual assessment of who believes it. If five percent of people believe something it may very well be news that they believe it, but acting as if they represent 50% of the population is stupid. They don't, and it shouldn't even be implied that they do.

*For comparison, if you watch Fox News then you'll end up believing that whoever Fox News agrees with is in the vast majority and the other side is represented by a tiny handful of people that happens to include the other news agencies. Also you'll be left with the belief that whatever Fox supports is objectively true and what they disagree with is clearly false.

[Duke Floss]

"God Bless" is deleted from political speeches.

Not to brag, but politicians in Sweden stopped using religion like 50 years ago. Even the christian-democrats refrain from it.

is that the real power is with the people they are just to busy being fed ridiculous lies to notice.

Or, they are just to lazy to care

On the first - you lucky bastards
On the second - probably a bit of both I'd imagine. I mean I know I'd like to believe that this superficial world we are living in right now with its shiny digital entertainment and consumerist market appeal was legit as well.

On Duke Floss' idea about news = entertainment, I disagree. You can't allow your news to be entertainment. TV news is mostly entertainment. News is provided to make money, and so they want to entertain to catch more attention to make more money. Still, I think news shouldn't be allowed to become just entertainment, and that news is more of a duty. In a democracy, your opinion matters. In any system it matters. If you only watch the News Is Entertainment Channel, it affects me and everyone else. Bad reporting can lead to wars, riots, murder, economic collapse, corruption, and it has done all of these fairly recently. I've never been a big civics person, but institutions are realizing how much power they have when they entertain while pretending to inform, so that they can manipulate their audience into action and co-opt any reasonable debate. If you're not aware of what's actually happening, you're failing a social responsibility.

Breaking News: News Broken

I guess I should have clarified with News = Major News Networks = Entertainment Industry - instead of ranting so generally. However that is what makes ranting fun

[bobby 55]

I guess I should have clarified with News = Major News Networks = Entertainment Industry - instead of ranting so generally. However that is what makes ranting fun

Now aint that the truth. lol. The ranting I mean.

[justanotherfan]

Journalists should do a better job framing a disagreement then. "Candidates Disagree on Shape of Earth" is right. It's difficult to prove someone knows they are lying, so defamation comes in even when the dishonesty is obvious, but surely reporters can say "Unless you are ignorant, you are lying. Here is what you are citing; read it."

News is the 24hr networks now. Magazines often get it right, but they get it right a week or two or four too late. I'm not going to read a newspaper; I already read too much Associated Press content without killing trees. Blogs are great for telling you that there is a story, but not at delivering it reliably, except for cases where there's some unique investigative journalism going on (read: disgruntled unemployed blogger). I'm not certain if my stereo even has an AM radio. Aside from RSS and TV, my only real option is necromancy, and corpses never do anything new.

[bobby 55]

Jaf, with the necromancy, isn't there another medium required there?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[Jaedar]

I already read too much Associated Press content without killing trees.

Not to derail the thread, but reading magazines doesn't kill trees, it makes companies plant more to keep up with demand.

[bobby 55]

Actually Jaedar that's a nice lead into when media can do good. That horrible stuff that they put into newly fallen timber to preserve it. That turned out to be a dioxin and mutated or killed living organisms of all kinds in that particular ecology. It was constant pressure from the media that helped to get them to stop using that crap IIRC.

[justanotherfan]

Jaf, with the necromancy, isn't there another medium required there?

Oh yeah, low wouldn't work at all, so you might need a medium, unless you're high. I guess necromancy could be used to tune into UHF/VHF/ATSC TV broadcast medium, but the corpses make it an unpleasant smell-o-vision.

And processing trees into paper does kill trees; it's an annoying distinction in language, but true. As Bobby55 says, paper production and recycling is a manufacturing/industrial process, so there's some nasty chemical pollutants involved. Trees are a renewable resource, so it's not like we're running out of trees (trees are planted for paper production). Still, better to avoid unnecessary use. Reduce and reuse, just like the awful newspapers that reduce journalism to reusing AP wire stories.