There's two separate traditions there, really, isnt there?
Media can never be absolutely objective - even when they try to, their reports will always reflect,at the very least, their frame of reference.
There's two ways around that. At least do your utmost best to always preserve strict neutrality from all sides and never take position - the BBC tradition.
Or explicitize your position, so that when people check in, at least they know where you're coming from. In Italy, where you have three public stations, you used to have a strict division: channel 1 would be controlled by the Christian Democrats, channel 2 by the Socialists, channel 3 by the Communists. Each had news; each news was slanted; but the population, by having that choice and knowing where each of the three slants came from, could still reasonably collect an independent judgement. Same thing happened within the old Dutch tradition. Broadcast time on the two public stations was divided up among a range of broadcasting organisations each representing a "pillar" in society: Protestants, Catholics, Socialists, Liberals, Free Protestants ... Each had their current affairs programmes, though an overarching organisation provided the 8 o'clock news.
What I think is most pernicious is if a network claims and suggests objectivity, while pursuing a hidden ideological agenda - which is what is suggested about Fox. And what is most dangerous is if there is a monopoly on TV news. That is most obviously the case in countries where there's only the one state broadcaster, but according to some critics countries like the US have that problem, too, with mainstream networks mainly parroting the same selection of news and perspective of comment, and alternative voices hardly ever getting heard.
In a way you could say at least Fox has apparently added a wholly different voice, a medium for opinions that weren't getting air time elsewhere. Perhaps what you now actually need is a left-wing Fox, to balance the scales again, and offer a medium to the critics from the other side who dont ever get to CNN either. That would work. (Reason why it'll never happen is, of course, that there are few businessmen rich enough to start a TV station that would be willing to sponsor a leftist news network). Media consumers should in that case still realise that you cant ever rely on only Fox or 'counter-Fox', of course, but that already held true for CNN as well; and actual lying should simply not be allowed for media with as great an impact and as few alternatives as the broadcast news media have. Thats my take ;-).
Kara
Your comments in reply to Timber a few pages back are truly impressive and should be read and re read by all. Just when I was beginning to give up on America, you have generated hope.
The airforce may have its MOAB. You perhaps deploy the MOAA (mother of all arguments) on this thread!
Dys
Regarding dropping WMD on Iraq. You make a good point, but I don't think it will be necessary to go to the lengths you describe.
Post conflict, if WMD are found, the war will have been "worth it" and can be justified.
If they're not found, it will be necessary to import them.
Just trying to be fair and unbiased ;o))
You are welcome.
Tres -- The media have never (in my lifetime) fully lived up to that glorious concept of bringing thorough and neutral reporting to the citizen, but the concept remained in place -- the standard for which all reach. Even within respected papers such as the New York Times, there are better editors and not so good editors.
I don't have TV and therefore only see Fox when I can't avoid it, but it clearly touts the standard without even attempting to meet it. Example? The one I remember most clearly spanned the amount of time I spend on a Precor: Scott Ritter was being interviewed at length by a sharp but not very intelligent anchor (probably about 2 in the p.m., don't know his name). It was clear from the start that the anchor wasn't out for information or an expert's opinion on arms searches, but to demolish Ritter. Ritter was, even under this barrage, amazingly responsive and even-tempered. The anchor went at him with increasing frustration, trying to rattle him, break him. Didn't succeed. It was painful to watch, except that one had to admire Ritter for his cool, his grasp of information, his ability to articulate clearly under fire.
End of interview, cut to commercial. When the anchor returned, he harangued his co-anchor about the interview and for about a quarter of an hour could not let go, blasting Ritter when Ritter was no longer there to respond, calling him names, accusing him of sexual perversion, etc. etc. It was really unprofessional, of course, and it was also very clear that this hadn't been a responsible effort to bring information to the public but had been intended to embarrass on-air an interviewee, to sell a point of view. Not responsible broadcasting!
It's important to ask oneself "responsible to whom?" when judging a news source. More and more news media are responsible not to a city or a region but to national and international corporations whose interests are not served by full and honest coverage and a wide range of opinion. That's one of the reasons why the political spectrum is so much narrower in the US than in almost any other developed country. It's one of the reasons why many of us worry about the future of representative government in this country.
Craven wrote:
<Impatience makes for my presentations to be more disjointed than they should be. Incoherence probably has more to do with my short attention span that the underlying logic (though I did notice a few logical errors in my earlier posts, as usual I left my rear open for rebuttal through crelessness).>
Impatience and short attention span are not good reasons for incoherence but I will accept them since we are off topic.
Craven wrote:
Actually my explanation as to the difference in perspective IS simplistic. 'Twas an afterthought. In reality, my analogy is flawed because unlike the example (in which colors are viewed differently without the possibility of a shift in perception) life affords differing viewpoints to the same individual.
Did you ever think your simplistic explanation of seeing colors differently might be due merely to a physiological genetic defect called "color blindness"?
Craven further wrote:
Now as to my pet peeve I really can't let it go without comment.
Since I only respond to "pet peeves" when there is nothing better to do, I won't legitimize this one with an answer. This is not intended to be a slight but we are off topic.
I will continue by asking you a question which is on topic:
You made the statement that the war "is a cakewalk" . This is a sloganistic term of the type you have vehemently protested in the past but I don't want to make that an issue----just point it out as being contradictory and inconsistent with many of your past statements. My question is this: Since you have concluded we are passing swiftly into the post war effort of keeping the peace and the more important effort of rebuilding the Iraqi economy so that it will be self sustaining----what would be your plan for accomplishing this goal? I'm assuming of course that you wouldn't just pull our troops out and let chaos prevail.
As you say nimh, context is everything. If some mickey mouse channel puts out something....however outrageous....well the source is mickey mouse.
There is no absolute truth, only individual attempts to describe it (as any quantum physicist will tell you).
But that doesn't mean it's all hopeless, and we will never know what to believe.
After all if you think big, that incomprehensible mass of fundamental particles and energy levels is just a jug of milk.
Of course its true. And when that happened The Soviet Union was a Super Power, Disco was King, I had considerably more hair, and Alan Alda starred on the number one TV sitcom. None of that is any more relevant.
Will US forces bomb Detroit next then ?
I heard the Osamas are all free men of Salt Lake City
Nimh
You contend that my case for moral justification for this war has not been proven---I would also contend the anti-war position to the contrary has also not been proven. Since only history will prove one of us wrong I will rest my case for now.
My original post was addressed to Kara and I was making an honest attempt to answer the morality of our actions because she is struggling with the moral issue. I believe the possible moral justifications I presented are least valid enough to warrant waiting for the jury to come in before dismissing them as a smoke screen for really sinister motivations. I would request that you grant this repreive because you nor anyone knows the true motives in the Presidents mind. All the critics of the President have been acting on vigilante law----hang the guilty bastard before someone proves him innocent.
All of you self righteous folks want your rights protected but yet you conveniently ignore the most basic human right----the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
folks
I just wanted to put a little blue star up in the corner here. The quality of this discussion over the last little while has been quite extraordinary.
Steve wrote:
But that doesn't mean it's all hopeless, and we will never know what to believe.
That's why you cross check everything with other news sources---the problem as I see it is this: After each person cross checks the various "facts" as presented by the media, they then run it through the memory which also contains faulty data due to factors such as environment, social prejudices, education/ type of education, social status, religion, etc. The resultant conclusion may or may not resemble reality. Most people do not consider the possibility of being wrong----it's the other person who is wrong. There is no possibility of reconciliation unless each person admits the possibility of this being true.
I see very little evidence of this admission on this forum or for that matter in international diplomacy.
Gautam, I love your new outfit. :wink:
Thanks for the book tip Kara
I'm trying to buy that book
but every store I've used on line doesn't recognise my password or my email address or I've forgotten my ......I thought buying on line was supposed to be easy
Can I borrow yours?
ps I didn't wish to give the impression that I was familiar with quantum physics; I'm not. I wouldn't know my eigen function from my schroedinger wave form these days.
Yes, we speak of things that matter,
With words that must be said,
"Can analysis be worthwhile?"
"Is the theater really dead?"
And how the room is softly faded
And I only kiss your shadow,
I cannot feel your hand,
You're a stranger now unto me
Lost in the dangling conversation.
And the superficial sighs,
In the borders of our lives.
Sorry, blatham's post brought this to mind ....
So blame him ;o))
Steve, I ordered additional copies from the author's website, haven't received them yet.
Have you tried Amazon UK? I just pulled this up from their website:
From Science to God: The Mystery of Consciousness and the Meaning of Light: the Mystery of Consciousness and the Meaning of Light
~Peter Russell
Peter Russell
Paperback - 1 November, 2000
Usually dispatched within 3 to 4 days
Our Price: £9.95
Or: Do you live right in London? I'll bet Hatchard's have it.
