Justice for Zimmerman

I don't think it is correct to say the media was more objective when it was hundreds of independently owned papers at one time. Even with the concentration of media we see today, the bottom line is making money, and that means producing something that will bring in the highest ratings for the highest ads dollars one can get.

BoldW_sl said:

Would you say it's getting worse, or that the media manipulates even more than at some previous time?

Click to expand...

I know the response was directed towards Cad, but felt like throwing in my 2cents.

I'd say, in a small addition the average of the nation in its entirety is becoming more aware (as a generality) than in the past. However, the spread of information is instantaneous, along with people's reactions. So its easy to see more stupidity, as more people are quicker to react these days. You couple this with the fact that we can see people acting stupid or ignorant just as quickly and there appears to be a overload of stupid.

However, I see this as a side effect of gaining information this quickly. We parse only what we want to see, then leap to conclusions based off of that. Its like reading the first page of a book, "Wow this pertains to my interest." then losing interest and sometime later jumping to the last page of the book. And instead of one person, its large groups of people at the same time now through social media.

As far as media manipulation goes, I'm not so sure that it occurs more often than it did in the past. A few that I know makes this assertion - but in the argument one of the major variables that factor into this is a largely improved rates of 'bullshit' detection (independent verification, cross verification, other sources ..etc) and in effect, seemingly more manipulation than in the past.

As we have this online conversation about being more aware, I just had a conversation in the office about the trial with people who swear Zimmeman profiled him, Zimmerman is a racist, that we don't know what happened, etc. People these days, in my experience, decide how they feel about something and find information sources to back that up.

kaosu_sl said:

However, I see this as a side effect of gaining information this quickly. We parse only what we want to see, then leap to conclusions based off of that. Its like reading the first page of a book, "Wow this pertains to my interest." then losing interest and sometime later jumping to the last page of the book. And instead of one person, its large groups of people at the same time now through social media.

Click to expand...

Speaking of confirmation bias, I got accused of google confirmation bias for stating self-defense.

Accusation is used byeveryone.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore...

This is probably a question for a different thread, but I think given the track of this thread I'll plop it here anyway.

If we agree (or do we) that the media is more sensational than informative and more myopic in each individual outlets political/social view, do we need to rethink the press' constitutional protections if the media is failing to perform the service the Founding Fathers assumed they would provide the country?

To be clear my question is only regarding Freedom of the Press, not Freedom of Speech.

Edit: Clarifications and grammar.

Kaines_sl said:

This probably a question for a different thread, but I think given the track of this thread I'll plop it here anyway.

If we agree (or do we) that the media is more sensational than informative and more myopic in each individual outlets political/social view, do we need to rethink the press' constitutional protections if the media is failing to perform the job the Founding Fathers assumed they would provide the country?

Click to expand...

mmm no. we can't be the judge of what is worthy information or not. free press all the way and let the people be the judge.

and people suck.

I don't know. I wish there was a way to hold news organizations accountable and still let entertainment do whatever they want, but if there is I don't know.

Kaines_sl said:

This probably a question for a different thread, but I think given the track of this thread I'll plop it here anyway.

If we agree (or do we) that the media is more sensational than informative and more myopic in each individual outlets political/social view, do we need to rethink the press' constitutional protections if the media is failing to perform the job the Founding Fathers assumed they would provide the country?

Click to expand...

That'd be a slippery road. The press more or less can still be viewed as the 4th estate, though its slowly sliding to more along the lines of the 4th branch in my opinion. There are still some institutions out there that are doing a great job on reporting and honestly needs those protections from ...various elements within the system.

Tanoomba_sl said:

I agree 100% with your statement.

Having said that, it's much easier to identify other people sticking to a flawed point of view because they initially decided it was the right one than it is to identify that same behavior in oneself. We probably all do it to a certain extent. I've been part of many conversations on this board where otherwise intelligent people repeat an obscenely retarded point simply because it gels with their flawed world view.

If we want to criticize people for sticking to their guns when their whole foundation is a sham, that's totally fine. Let's not pretend we are above all that, however.

Click to expand...

I try hard to identify that behavior in myself. When this Zimmerman thing first happened, I was in the "Lynch Zimzam" camp. When I saw the evidence though, it was obvious that there was a lot of doubt, and then the trial took away all doubt. Zimmerman was the victim. I did the same thing on gun control, I used to be a huge gun control proponent until I read some things and thought it through, and it just doesn't make sense to me anymore. There are a lot of issues like that.

I think people build these identities and how they come down on issues is something they use to define who they perceive themselves to be. "I am pro-life and an Independent who believes in expanded health care for all" or whatever. That is a dangerous practice.

chaos_sl said:

I think people build these identities and how they come down on issues is something they use to define who they perceive themselves to be. "I am pro-life and an Independent who believes in expanded health care for all" or whatever. That is a dangerous practice.

Click to expand...

lol sounds like someone in here.

chaos_sl said:

As we have this online conversation about being more aware, I just had a conversation in the office about the trial with people who swear Zimmeman profiled him, Zimmerman is a racist, that we don't know what happened, etc. People these days, in my experience, decide how they feel about something and find information sources to back that up.

Click to expand...

This is why I said people are not interested in the truth. As with most other things, people made up their mind a long time ago about this case. The narrative was 'armed gunman shoots kid with skittles, armed man says fucking punks'. Everything after that is irrelevant, even if it's not the truth. And in that sense you can say that the media has everything to do with framing this debate.

I just read an article saying they're considering pushing through federal charges.

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-shifts-...er-martin-case

chaos_sl said:

I don't know. I wish there was a way to hold news organizations accountable and still let entertainment do whatever they want, but if there is I don't know.

Click to expand...

Need to hold news agencies accountable if they're only using the moniker "news agency" and not actually providing news. If they're just entertainment, they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news. So pretty much the entire 24 Hours News cycle needs to be renamed 24 Hour Entertainment News cycle or something.

W4RH34D_sl said:

I just read an article saying they're considering pushing through federal charges.

Click to expand...

A extremely dangerous practice and really, its nothing more than showboating. The charges they are considering are some form of criminal civil rights charges. This is all off the basis of what Eric Holder said. However, this is dangerous territory to be stepping foot it, even if it was to appease to those he was speaking towards.

Something to take from this is that when Fox do their thing it's all about the propaganda, but when liberals/anti whites do the same it's all of a sudden about money. Ok!

racism is new means of propaganda for liberals. they lost all the real issues, so they gotta manufacture one. like feminists.

Someone step in here and check me on this, but wasn't there laws that disallowed a company from conglomerating media that was repealed somewhat recently (perhaps 90s), after which a few companies essentially control all the traditional media outlets (print, radio, TV) in the country?

And to answer my own question, yes, there were rules and they got "relaxed" as big money pushed an agenda through in the late 1990s/early 2000s:Media Cross-ownership. Between this and the repeal of Glass-Stegall, the early 2000s really set the stage for the shit-show that our current media and banking systems are.