4 ms·

Choosing what to show (and what not) is just as important in shaping opinion and worldview while still allowing for objectivity. We have limited time, limited a

Choosing what to show (and what not) is just as important in shaping opinion and worldview while still allowing for objectivity. We have limited time, limited attention spans, and limited concern (or outrage). For example, one can cover, say, the illegal immigration situation in the US. While a more liberal outlet might focus on humanitarian concerns of the immigrants, the "good ones" leading virtuous lives in the country a conservative one might focus on the humanitarian concerns of Americans, major crime, etc. What would be nice is an objective outlet that provides reasonable consideration of both sides in a concise manner, analyzes potential benefit and harm, etc. I'm sure this is the "Good, cheap, or fast" of news.

whatshisface 9y ago
Politically "active material" is, for some reason, the only branch of knowledge that we all seem to agree can't be expressed in words. I can tell you everything known about the effects of... caffeine on general health: all I have to do is start talking, and then not stop until I've said every well-supported, relevant fact. There's absolutely no fundamental reason why I can't put the profile of an undocumented hard-working fruit picker in the same broadcast as a report on a brutal drug-related homicide believed to have involved people here illegally. There are many political reasons why I wouldn't do that, most of them related to the motivations that drove me to do character profiles (a dangerous combination of emotional credibility and statistical weakness) in the first place, instead of having calm talks about the large averages that we use to illuminate every field of truth that's devoid of strong ulterior motives.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  You still require an audience which understands you, believes you... otherwise you do what you just said for vaccines, and you still get anti-vaxxers. Besides. 90%+ of your audience just flipped to the channels which tell them what they want to hear.
  - whatshisface 9y ago
    The tools that we could use to get the "uninterested" to believe the truth work equally well for falsities, and are usually used to spread beliefs of convienience. If those tools were just sent down entirely, you'd be left with "right" and "random," and the random would always average out at the polls. Sadly, in our present world stupid is dangerous because machiavellians and martyrs alike are magnetizing it with arguments that are as wrong as they are emotionally convincing.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      Sadly, in our present world stupid is dangerous because machiavellians and martyrs alike are magnetizing it with arguments that are as wrong as they are emotionally convincing. I don’t usually do this here, as it’s not strictly substantive, but damn that’s a concise and lovely way of putting it.
oceanghost 9y ago
Yes, I've read Manufacturing Consent :) Fully agree.

whatshisface 9y ago

Politically "active material" is, for some reason, the only branch of knowledge that we all seem to agree can't be expressed in words. I can tell you everything known about the effects of... caffeine on general health: all I have to do is start talking, and then not stop until I've said every well-supported, relevant fact. There's absolutely no fundamental reason why I can't put the profile of an undocumented hard-working fruit picker in the same broadcast as a report on a brutal drug-related homicide believed to have involved people here illegally. There are many political reasons why I wouldn't do that, most of them related to the motivations that drove me to do character profiles (a dangerous combination of emotional credibility and statistical weakness) in the first place, instead of having calm talks about the large averages that we use to illuminate every field of truth that's devoid of strong ulterior motives.

QAPereo 9y ago
You still require an audience which understands you, believes you... otherwise you do what you just said for vaccines, and you still get anti-vaxxers. Besides. 90%+ of your audience just flipped to the channels which tell them what they want to hear.
- whatshisface 9y ago
  The tools that we could use to get the "uninterested" to believe the truth work equally well for falsities, and are usually used to spread beliefs of convienience. If those tools were just sent down entirely, you'd be left with "right" and "random," and the random would always average out at the polls. Sadly, in our present world stupid is dangerous because machiavellians and martyrs alike are magnetizing it with arguments that are as wrong as they are emotionally convincing.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Sadly, in our present world stupid is dangerous because machiavellians and martyrs alike are magnetizing it with arguments that are as wrong as they are emotionally convincing. I don’t usually do this here, as it’s not strictly substantive, but damn that’s a concise and lovely way of putting it.

oceanghost 9y ago

Yes, I've read Manufacturing Consent :) Fully agree.