3 ms·

Social commentators employed by the same companies that give us garbage news, terrible reporting, and comically blatant bias at every opportunity. For a social

by beeboop 11y ago

Social commentators employed by the same companies that give us garbage news, terrible reporting, and comically blatant bias at every opportunity. For a social commentator to speak out against the government on a major news outlet would be a ratings disaster. Most Americans either agree with the surveillance state, don't give a shit, or don't even know about it. American media outlets are tremendously political and it'd be political suicide to speak ill of those who essentially own you. I don't know how anyone can argue that the US doesn't fit the definition of an electronic police state as it was defined above. Your head would have to be very deep in the sand. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

johncolanduoni 11y ago
I think he meant social commentators in academia/think tanks, not anchors at news stations. > For a social commentator to speak out against the government on a major news outlet would be a ratings disaster. What do you see them constantly doing when it comes to police brutality? And for the federal level, have you watched Fox News while we've had a Democrat president or MSNBC while we've had a Republican one? Gratuitously negative in both cases. There is certainly tons of bias at all the popular news outlets, but it's very different from the bias of state owned news agencies.
- beeboop 11y ago
  The problem is that both sides of the political spectrum are in favor on the problems being discussed here. Very few congress members are against the NSA spy program/NSLs/secrete courts/etc. They will bash republicans for being pro-life, but they won't bash them for being pro-NSA (generally speaking). Also, even amonst the academics, the only ones that make it on air the vast majority of the time (and are placed in a positive context within the programming) are the ones conforming to what the media wants. Ask anyone who's ever been on "the list" for expert interviews on television. They call you up and say "would you be willing to go on air and defend this position?". If no, they hang up and try the next person. The opinions broadcasted on American television are as scripted as any other TV show. Through this process they create what the socially accepted norm is, and even if the majority disagree, they become the "fringe" because their opinions are not as well represented.
PlzSnow 11y ago
"I don't know how anyone can argue that the US doesn't fit the definition of an electronic police state" Unfortunately the vast vast majority of people disagree with you, including basically every single social commentator. The only people agreeing with you are those on the fringe extremes. I'm sorry, but I don't think reasoned debate is possible with you.
- beeboop 11y ago
  You're saying reasoned debate is not possible with me when I call you out on a logical fallacy and you reiterate as a trump card, thinking you've won the discussion? Yeah, have fun with your head in the sand.
- rfrank 11y ago
  astroturfffff
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Appeal to authority on your behalf doesn't solve much either. Read up on the electronic police state idea, then return... and try to be honest.

by beeboop 11y ago

johncolanduoni 11y ago

I think he meant social commentators in academia/think tanks, not anchors at news stations. > For a social commentator to speak out against the government on a major news outlet would be a ratings disaster. What do you see them constantly doing when it comes to police brutality? And for the federal level, have you watched Fox News while we've had a Democrat president or MSNBC while we've had a Republican one? Gratuitously negative in both cases. There is certainly tons of bias at all the popular news outlets, but it's very different from the bias of state owned news agencies.

beeboop 11y ago
The problem is that both sides of the political spectrum are in favor on the problems being discussed here. Very few congress members are against the NSA spy program/NSLs/secrete courts/etc. They will bash republicans for being pro-life, but they won't bash them for being pro-NSA (generally speaking). Also, even amonst the academics, the only ones that make it on air the vast majority of the time (and are placed in a positive context within the programming) are the ones conforming to what the media wants. Ask anyone who's ever been on "the list" for expert interviews on television. They call you up and say "would you be willing to go on air and defend this position?". If no, they hang up and try the next person. The opinions broadcasted on American television are as scripted as any other TV show. Through this process they create what the socially accepted norm is, and even if the majority disagree, they become the "fringe" because their opinions are not as well represented.

PlzSnow 11y ago

"I don't know how anyone can argue that the US doesn't fit the definition of an electronic police state" Unfortunately the vast vast majority of people disagree with you, including basically every single social commentator. The only people agreeing with you are those on the fringe extremes. I'm sorry, but I don't think reasoned debate is possible with you.

beeboop 11y ago
You're saying reasoned debate is not possible with me when I call you out on a logical fallacy and you reiterate as a trump card, thinking you've won the discussion? Yeah, have fun with your head in the sand.
rfrank 11y ago
astroturfffff
cryoshon 11y ago
Appeal to authority on your behalf doesn't solve much either. Read up on the electronic police state idea, then return... and try to be honest.