|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 05 2017 03:00 zlefin wrote:
There are plenty of such news sources, the problem is most people aren't able to accuratrely tell which news sources are trash; and most people also don't care. Watching actual thoughtful informative reasonable discussion is boring, so most people don't.
Unless people choose to consume better media, the media will not get better.
Like I've said before, it is incorrect to have a binary approach to evaluating news sources. Rotely stating that "NYT and FoxNews are acceptable but Huffpo and Breitbart are not" is emblematic of a simpleton's understanding of the media. More critical thinking is required. Each story has to be evaluated on its own merits.
|
This is a pretty good article on the filibuster and that this show down has been a long time coming.
|
On April 05 2017 03:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 03:00 zlefin wrote:
There are plenty of such news sources, the problem is most people aren't able to accuratrely tell which news sources are trash; and most people also don't care. Watching actual thoughtful informative reasonable discussion is boring, so most people don't.
Unless people choose to consume better media, the media will not get better. Like I've said before, it is incorrect to have a binary approach to evaluating news sources. Rotely stating that "NYT and FoxNews are acceptable but Huffpo and Breitbart are not" is emblematic of a simpleton's understanding of the media. More critical thinking is required. Each story has to be evaluated on its own merits.
Even the highest grade of critical thinking won't spare you from misconceptions if you're being selectively fed facts to fit the editor's biased narrative. How many Republicans think that there were in fact WMDs found in Iraq? How many Democrats think that Planned Parenthood is totally innocent and all of those undercover tapes were selectively edited by antifeminists? Far too many on both counts.
Relying on the viewers' critical thinking to get an accurate perception of something has gotten us nowhere and there's no signs of that changing in the immediate future. Like I said, the two halves of this country are not even on the same playing field.
|
Speaking of the filibuster:
Does that mean he would vote for it or against it?
|
Everyone being siloed off into their own little news bubble by algorithms hasn't helped either. That is a basic failure of search engines when they started creating news sections.
|
Spain17989 Posts
On April 05 2017 03:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 03:00 zlefin wrote:
There are plenty of such news sources, the problem is most people aren't able to accuratrely tell which news sources are trash; and most people also don't care. Watching actual thoughtful informative reasonable discussion is boring, so most people don't.
Unless people choose to consume better media, the media will not get better. Like I've said before, it is incorrect to have a binary approach to evaluating news sources. Rotely stating that "NYT and FoxNews are acceptable but Huffpo and Breitbart are not" is emblematic of a simpleton's understanding of the media. More critical thinking is required. Each story has to be evaluated on its own merits.
Nobody has time for that shit.
I think that's the key message here. We just had this discussion this morning in a symposium on scientometrics and peer review. And one of the key reasons why journals hold a key position in scientific publishing is because they are reputable. You want to publish in Science because everybody reads Science, and you will therefore get cited a lot. Science hence receives lots of hopeful articles that they select the best from, and thus maintains their quality, and thus their readership, and thus their reputation. If you are looking for quality scientific publications on a particular topic, you therefore read the top journals in the field first, who maintain their quality through careful curation of what they publish. You don't type random terms into google and read the first random webpage that you get a hit (well, often you do, because Google knows what you're looking for and points to a journal article rather than some crackpot website).
Media outlets should play a similar role. You can get your news from some crackpot outlet on youtube (Alex Jones), or you can get your news from a curated outlet that guarantees a certain standard of quality. And of course you have to keep your brain switched on, but the reason people say NYT is a reputable news source and your Facebook stream isn't, is because NYT has a qualified editorial staff selecting what gets published, whereas fake news farms in Macedonia throw their crap on Facebook. How you guarantee NYT maintains such quality is not easy. It costs money, and people are not willing to pay for it (unlike in scientific journals). Wikipedia seems to manage with their donation system. Perhaps the Guardian is doing okay with their similar system as well? WSJ has tossed all their stuff behind a (very easily circumvented) paywall. Another part is the education of the population. Scientists are trained to search for relevant literature in their education. The general population is not necessarily trained to distinguish good news (sources) from bad. And especially sensationalist clickbait stuff that is more entertainment than news takes advantage of this. Entertainment is aimed at being fun (or shocking, or tantalizing, or any manner of emotion-inducing stuff), and thus inherently more interesting than news (and its analysis). Our brain is simply wired that way. Just as we are wired to like sweets more than vegetables. How you overcome this challenge I do not know. Educating people seems important here.
|
I give it 60/40 that he votes no. Maybe 70/30. McCain knows that blowing up the filibuster is only the beginning and it won't get better while he is alive. Fuck, it might not get better in my lifetime.
|
On April 05 2017 03:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2017 03:00 zlefin wrote:
There are plenty of such news sources, the problem is most people aren't able to accuratrely tell which news sources are trash; and most people also don't care. Watching actual thoughtful informative reasonable discussion is boring, so most people don't.
Unless people choose to consume better media, the media will not get better. Like I've said before, it is incorrect to have a binary approach to evaluating news sources. Rotely stating that "NYT and FoxNews are acceptable but Huffpo and Breitbart are not" is emblematic of a simpleton's understanding of the media. More critical thinking is required. Each story has to be evaluated on its own merits. Nobody has time for that shit. I think that's the key message here. We just had this discussion this morning in a symposium on scientometrics and peer review. And one of the key reasons why journals hold a key position in scientific publishing is because they are reputable. You want to publish in Science because everybody reads Science, and you will therefore get cited a lot. Science hence receives lots of hopeful articles that they select the best from, and thus maintains their quality, and thus their readership, and thus their reputation. If you are looking for quality scientific publications on a particular topic, you therefore read the top journals in the field first, who maintain their quality through careful curation of what they publish. You don't type random terms into google and read the first random webpage that you get a hit (well, often you do, because Google knows what you're looking for and points to a journal article rather than some crackpot website). Media outlets should play a similar role. You can get your news from some crackpot outlet on youtube (Alex Jones), or you can get your news from a curated outlet that guarantees a certain standard of quality. And of course you have to keep your brain switched on, but the reason people say NYT is a reputable news source and your Facebook stream isn't, is because NYT has a qualified editorial staff selecting what gets published, whereas fake news farms in Macedonia throw their crap on Facebook. How you guarantee NYT maintains such quality is not easy. It costs money, and people are not willing to pay for it (unlike in scientific journals). Wikipedia seems to manage with their donation system. Perhaps the Guardian is doing okay with their similar system as well? WSJ has tossed all their stuff behind a (very easily circumvented) paywall. Another part is the education of the population. Scientists are trained to search for relevant literature in their education. The general population is not necessarily trained to distinguish good news (sources) from bad. And especially sensationalist clickbait stuff that is more entertainment than news takes advantage of this. Entertainment is aimed at being fun (or shocking, or tantalizing, or any manner of emotion-inducing stuff), and thus inherently more interesting than news (and its analysis). Our brain is simply wired that way. Just as we are wired to like sweets more than vegetables. How you overcome this challenge I do not know. Educating people seems important here.
It's important to note that the perception we have of the rigorous nature of "good journalism" isn't really comparable to "rigorous science"
The premier school of journalism was started by the same guy who built his fortune in part on the exact kind of clickbait type journalism we're decrying. That's not to say there aren't distinguishing characteristics of top tier journalism, but it's never really been the majority of what most news organizations do.
We need an organization like that,even if no one watches it and it doesn't make a penny in donations. If for no other reason than when some future society eventually does want to know what went so wrong they'll have a good archive to work with.
|
On April 05 2017 03:22 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2017 03:00 zlefin wrote:
There are plenty of such news sources, the problem is most people aren't able to accuratrely tell which news sources are trash; and most people also don't care. Watching actual thoughtful informative reasonable discussion is boring, so most people don't.
Unless people choose to consume better media, the media will not get better. Like I've said before, it is incorrect to have a binary approach to evaluating news sources. Rotely stating that "NYT and FoxNews are acceptable but Huffpo and Breitbart are not" is emblematic of a simpleton's understanding of the media. More critical thinking is required. Each story has to be evaluated on its own merits. think that Planned Parenthood is totally innocent and all of those undercover tapes were selectively edited by antifeminists? Far too many on both counts.
What's PP guilty of? Genuine question, I've never heard anything about this.
|
Is there anything to stop Democrats from just adding 2 seats to the Supreme Court next time they control the Presidency and the Senate and just appointing whoever they want?
|
I'm actually somewhat amazed by that graph posted a while back that Talk Radio performs better than Fox. I guess it may just be that I find talk radio almost unbearable, but I always felt like when I did hear it that it was massively distorted on whatever they were talking about.
|
On April 05 2017 03:42 meadbert wrote:
Is there anything to stop Democrats from just adding 2 seats to the Supreme Court next time they control the Presidency and the Senate and just appointing whoever they want?
The last time we got close to that, FDR finally got his way and the nation truly started leaving the Great Depression behind.
Let's hope your worst case scenario ends up being more likely than it seems 
|
On April 05 2017 03:42 meadbert wrote:
Is there anything to stop Democrats from just adding 2 seats to the Supreme Court next time they control the Presidency and the Senate and just appointing whoever they want?
Just Republican majorities, and public perception. So yeah they could pass something if they got majorities and the presidency saying there's 21 SC justices if they wanted.
|
Edit: Damn, I'm super wrong on that one. Woops.
|
On April 05 2017 03:39 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 03:22 LightSpectra wrote:On April 05 2017 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2017 03:00 zlefin wrote:
There are plenty of such news sources, the problem is most people aren't able to accuratrely tell which news sources are trash; and most people also don't care. Watching actual thoughtful informative reasonable discussion is boring, so most people don't.
Unless people choose to consume better media, the media will not get better. Like I've said before, it is incorrect to have a binary approach to evaluating news sources. Rotely stating that "NYT and FoxNews are acceptable but Huffpo and Breitbart are not" is emblematic of a simpleton's understanding of the media. More critical thinking is required. Each story has to be evaluated on its own merits. think that Planned Parenthood is totally innocent and all of those undercover tapes were selectively edited by antifeminists? Far too many on both counts. What's PP guilty of? Genuine question, I've never heard anything about this.
In American there is a law against the selling of body parts. Companies are allowed to collect their costs of harvest and transporting the organs, but they cannot turn a profit off of it.
Planned Parenthood has been accused of profiting off of it. The were some stings (that were probably done illegally) where some Planned Parenthood personnel were caught trying to negotiate up the price for baby parts. In one case the Planned Parenthood employee joked that she wanted a Lamborghini.
In reality most of those caught up in the sting actually behaved well. The director in Texas refused to negotiate or do anything to cooperate to procure more parts. It was mostly the California Planned Parenthood that gave some sketchy responses.
In either case I think this business of defunding Planned Parenthood is a bad idea. Even if you think they are an immoral organisation, the fact is they provide free and reduced cost birth control to some of the very people who are most likely to have unwanted pregnancies and seek abortions so while Planned Parenthood aborts many children each year, they also help prevent many more abortions by preventing the unwanted pregnancy to begin with.
|
On April 05 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:
You need to amend the constitution to add seats to the Supreme court. That is 2/3 in the House and Senate.
Where does the constitution specify the size of the court? I thought that was determined by Congress?
|
On April 05 2017 03:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2017 03:00 zlefin wrote:
There are plenty of such news sources, the problem is most people aren't able to accuratrely tell which news sources are trash; and most people also don't care. Watching actual thoughtful informative reasonable discussion is boring, so most people don't.
Unless people choose to consume better media, the media will not get better. Like I've said before, it is incorrect to have a binary approach to evaluating news sources. Rotely stating that "NYT and FoxNews are acceptable but Huffpo and Breitbart are not" is emblematic of a simpleton's understanding of the media. More critical thinking is required. Each story has to be evaluated on its own merits. Nobody has time for that shit. I think that's the key message here. We just had this discussion this morning in a symposium on scientometrics and peer review. And one of the key reasons why journals hold a key position in scientific publishing is because they are reputable. You want to publish in Science because everybody reads Science, and you will therefore get cited a lot. Science hence receives lots of hopeful articles that they select the best from, and thus maintains their quality, and thus their readership, and thus their reputation. If you are looking for quality scientific publications on a particular topic, you therefore read the top journals in the field first, who maintain their quality through careful curation of what they publish. You don't type random terms into google and read the first random webpage that you get a hit (well, often you do, because Google knows what you're looking for and points to a journal article rather than some crackpot website). Media outlets should play a similar role. You can get your news from some crackpot outlet on youtube (Alex Jones), or you can get your news from a curated outlet that guarantees a certain standard of quality. And of course you have to keep your brain switched on, but the reason people say NYT is a reputable news source and your Facebook stream isn't, is because NYT has a qualified editorial staff selecting what gets published, whereas fake news farms in Macedonia throw their crap on Facebook. How you guarantee NYT maintains such quality is not easy. It costs money, and people are not willing to pay for it (unlike in scientific journals). Wikipedia seems to manage with their donation system. Perhaps the Guardian is doing okay with their similar system as well? WSJ has tossed all their stuff behind a (very easily circumvented) paywall. Another part is the education of the population. Scientists are trained to search for relevant literature in their education. The general population is not necessarily trained to distinguish good news (sources) from bad. And especially sensationalist clickbait stuff that is more entertainment than news takes advantage of this. Entertainment is aimed at being fun (or shocking, or tantalizing, or any manner of emotion-inducing stuff), and thus inherently more interesting than news (and its analysis). Our brain is simply wired that way. Just as we are wired to like sweets more than vegetables. How you overcome this challenge I do not know. Educating people seems important here.
Politics and ideology pretty much makes your point moot. Scientific journals are easy to assess by the merit of work being conducted. A narrative on a news source is usually a subconscious process, even the editor is unaware of precisely how their political leanings affect their work. If you asked don lemon how fair you think he is on his show he'd prolly say he does a great job and is just challenging trump. Not saying he's right or wrong, but a lot of ideological debates plus subconscious motives lead to a biased narrative even from "reputable" sources.
|
On April 05 2017 03:49 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 03:47 Plansix wrote:
You need to amend the constitution to add seats to the Supreme court. That is 2/3 in the House and Senate. Where does the constitution specify the size of the court? I thought that was determined by Congress?
I was super wrong. It has been a long time since I taught the Great Depression. I could have swore FDRs push was to amend the Constitution to change its size.
|
If FDR failed to make the case to pack the courts then I have a hard time imagining that idea going anywhere in our current climate.
|
Not to mention if that happened (democrat majority adds 10 seats to the court so they get majority) you would get
1. calls that it is an illegitimate court (I could see renewed attempts at succession)
2. later republican majorities not only adding their own new seats to the court but impeaching democratic appointed members on trumped up charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
