OT: Shooting in Munich and media coverage

[ripvanrando]

My teen son was "forced" to only use CNN as his news source for a presentation in a HS AP class. His use of Al jazeera, BBC, RT, (CNN), and Fox was met with derision and threats of a lower grade for using "biased" sources to which my son responded that they are all biased, which is why he likes multiple sources so that he can filter and form his view. He ended up using only CNN and got am A+.

We tend to believe what we want to believe. For instance, I think the Progressives are the new Brown Shirts. This BS about unity and then squashing anyone else's opinion with ridicule, hatred, and outright violence tears a page right out of Munich's history.

[rugbysecondrow]

Originally Posted by dave thompson

Perfectly said. As an old guy, I was brought up listening to Murrow, Cronkite, Schieffer and the like. They presented the facts to the stories and allowed us to draw our own conclusions. That was entertainment!

Today's "news" doesn't encourage critical thinking. Talking politics with younger people today is totally uninteresting.

Talking politics with 99% of the population is uninteresting, old men included.

I suspect when you were a youth, you and your counter parts were just as uninteresting. It is a societal hazard.

[rugbysecondrow]

There is a risk in choice, people might choose unwisely. We can yearn for the days of 18 minutes of evening news with Cronkite, but that was the source and you had no choice but to assume it was valid and true (regardless of whether that belief itself is valid to hold).

Now, there are options, just like with food. Some people do well and choose wisely, others consume ****.

It seems that much of the characterizing going on here does what they have decried themselves: paints a black and white picture.

[FlashUNC]

Hate to tell you guys, but you're reading the media situation all wrong. This isn't a deviation from the norm, this is a return to the norm that existed before an unprecedented era of media "independence."

The media environment that exists now is far closer to the era at the dawn of the penny press than the rather unique post-war media boom that led to the Walter Cronkites and Old Grey Ladys of the world. Media, for vast chunks of our country's history, has been balkanized, partisan, self-serving publications who openly tried to sway the populace's passions in one direction or another. Judith Miller and the NYT and the run-in to the Iraq War wasn't even a novel use, William Randolph Hearst cornered the market on that a century prior.

Those days of large metro newspapers with huge staffs and three networks cranking out sober news reports every night was the exception, not the rule, of the industry. It was a 4-5 decade blip of a variety of economic forces that allowed the concept of that form of journalism to thrive. Notably that both the networks and large papers were effective monopolies, cranking out money in such insanely profitable businesses that in-depth, thoughtful, nuanced journalism could thrive, subsidized almost entirely be Chesterfield commercials and classified ads. And that era emerged after a bloody few decades of trench warfare in the industry, with papers going boom and bust and in-fighting that, again, looks more like what we have today.

But it was an outlier. The media landscape of 1840 or 1870 or 1920 looks far more like what we have today than those -- for lack of a better term -- "Cronkite" years.

You yearn for the exception, not the rule. And the exception is not coming back.

Now, does that mean all media are terrible? Of course not. But it demands a thoughtful reader to separate the wheat from the chaff. And most are unwilling to do that.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by rugbysecondrow

It seems that much of the characterizing going on here does what they have decried themselves: paints a black and white picture.

No, it merely reflects deep differences. People have different views. It is not a characterization, it is a reality. Some like Merkel think open borders are wonderful while others don't want undocumented Rapefuges in their country living off them. I am tired of free handouts to illegals and the coddling that they get in our country and that is not painting it black or white. It is black and white.

[malcolm]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

No, it merely reflects deep differences. People have different views. It is not a characterization, it is a reality. Some like Merkel think open borders are wonderful while others don't want undocumented Rapefuges in their country living off them. I am tired of free handouts to illegals and the coddling that they get in our country and that is not painting it black or white. It is black and white.

I'm not sure I would consider them coddled. The life of illegals is likely still fairly harsh. The only real handouts are benefits that most needy people in this country obtain. I think people in need of the basics should be considered human beings first and nationality should come second.

The only illegals I've had much contact with have been mexican and that was taking care of them in the ER. I think the majority are hard working and doing the best they can with what they've got. Many times they are preyed upon by less than upstanding natives. Payday robbery by native thugs often quite brutal was common.

Sure a few take advantage of the system, but that's true of all varieties native and otherwise. I think most are just trying to make a life for themselves and their families.

After having said the above I do think there needs to be a legal way to be in the country and it should be required of those that want to be here. I also don't think citizenship should be automatic just because you happen to be born on this soil. Parents here illegally offspring should not be citizens but that's another topic.

Most non native citizens I know tend to be better Americans than most of the natives I know.

[CampyorBust]

Originally Posted by ripvanrando

My teen son was "forced" to only use CNN as his news source for a presentation in a HS AP class. His use of Al jazeera, BBC, RT, (CNN), and Fox was met with derision and threats of a lower grade for using "biased" sources to which my son responded that they are all biased, which is why he likes multiple sources so that he can filter and form his view. He ended up using only CNN and got am A+.

We tend to believe what we want to believe. For instance, I think the Progressives are the new Brown Shirts. This BS about unity and then squashing anyone else's opinion with ridicule, hatred, and outright violence tears a page right out of Munich's history.

Have to come back and say this comment really struck a cord with me, you get to the heart of the matter. I applaud your courage for saying this here, kudos to ya the good kind!

It is truly disturbing what your son had to go through, the ministry of truth in action. As someone that sees merit in many progressive points of view I want to try and refute the brown shirts comment and I can’t. I believe they have their heart in the right place, however their lack of tact, wisdom and total embrace of McCarthyistic tactics, intimidation and harassment is detrimental to their cause. They are being provoked and have fallen into a mob mentality. They will ultimately fail and we will all be worse off for it. I believe it is unbecoming of the American ideals some of us were brought up with. I like Norman Rockwell’s America.

I was however pleasantly surprised by the Clinton News Network today. Watching Smerconish in the morning and all of the sudden he has Stephen Cohen on, talking about the neo-McCarthyism and Cold War 2.0. Couldn’t believe it, are the progressives finally coming to their senses? Or just releasing a little bit of pressure before plowing straight ahead into chaos with the most pro-war Neocon to ever slither. Too early for a clip, but on a weekly basis Stephen Cohen has a great interview with John Bachelor on the Nation. Last weeks interview…
https://www.thenation.com/article/ne...-new-cold-war/

I have noticed RT dismissed a number of times here in typical myopic pro-establishment fashion. So a few words if I may, and I appreciate that I may so I do, if you don’t use it you loose it right? I am pretty critical of the network, I think its cheesy, half-assed and at times unprofessional, its coverage choices of world events are somewhat bias. Hold on I just forgot which network I am talking about, train of thought where are you, choo choo oh yes…I would never expect RT to cover the atrocious corruption and abysmal realities of life in Russia. But I don’t go to RT for that, that is not their purpose, they exist to shed light on western crimes, unspoken realities and countless hypocrisies, this they do splendidly. Why is it they are often the first to report on major events? I am a news junkie I notice this, as well as many other patterns. They cover issues in the west that everyone else ignores or quickly glances over and buries on the back pages. Why do they give voice to independents, the green party and the disenfranchised all over the US, while the west shun its own and demonizes them?

Essentially all of my words add up to what has been said already, the media is infotainment. However much like GM korn, kernels of truth sometimes make it through the muck, but digging them out is not pleasant.