Mark Thoma on "News You Can Choose"

[bush_cheney2004]

Nobody has done that from what I can see.

Then you support their right to say as they please...lies or not?

We are all connected... the memes that travel through Canada travel through the US as well.

Must have missed those "memes"...your CRTC wants it that way. Look at it from my perspective...why would a Canadian get bent over American talking heads, anymore than I would over nonsense from Peter Mansbridge?

I have another option - to make fun of them and show them as ridiculous. In fact, that's a responsibility of citizens, I would think: to demand good and complete information.

Nope....citizens would rather be entertained. That's why Rush is #1 in the Arbitron ratings.

Edited November 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Then you support their right to say as they please...lies or not?

Yes, I support their right to lie, distort, and general ruin things.

Must have missed those "memes"...your CRTC wants it that way. Look at it from my perspective...why would a Canadian get bent over American talking heads, anymore than I would over nonsense from Peter Mansbridge?

We're the 51st state, you're not the 11th province.

Nope....citizens would rather be entertained. That's why Rush is #1 in the Arbitron ratings.

Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, I support their right to lie, distort, and general ruing things.

It's all good, and part of the process. Worship America if you must, but that means the good, the bad, and the ugly.

We're the 51st state, you're not the 11th province.

Syntax error. Try a different operating system (not made in the USA).

Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Nobody is getting out of here alive, so enjoy the ride.

[Michael Hardner]

It's all good, and part of the process. Worship America if you must, but that means the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Sure, but it's not all good anymore than hate speech is all good.

The problem is that there's no objective way to ban lying without making it illegal to express oneself.

Nobody is getting out of here alive, so enjoy the ride.

What kind of logic is that ? We all die anyway, so who cares ? You don't even believe it.

I defend your right to express yourself. If your self-expression is such a negative drag on the world that it impacts me, then I will find a way to mitigate, scold, and mock you until people realize what a despicable dollop of spew you are, even if you do refuse to shut up after all that.

That's MY right to expression - the right to tell you to put a cork in it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, but it's not all good anymore than hate speech is all good.

The problem is that there's no objective way to ban lying without making it illegal to express oneself.

The cure for hate speech is more speech....I am sorry that this fundamental American departure from your 'norm' is so vexing. May I recommend starting with some Larry Flynt or Al Goldstein?

What kind of logic is that ? We all die anyway, so who cares ? You don't even believe it.

It was a retort to your melodrama.

I defend your right to express yourself. If your self-expression is such a negative drag on the world that it impacts me, then I will find a way to mitigate, scold, and mock you until people realize what a despicable dollop of spew you are, even if you do refuse to shut up after all that.

That's the spirit! We'll have no more talk of illegal hate speech, eh?

That's MY right to expression - the right to tell you to put a cork in it.

True, but you have already lost the battle. I don't care if you cork it or not. I am not trying to control your speech.

Edited November 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

The cure for hate speech is more speech....I am sorry that this fundamental American departure from your 'norm' is so vexing. May I recommend starting with some Larry Flynt or Al Goldstein?

That is one cure. But in the absence of a convincing central source of information then ridicule is a valid tool.

It was a retort to your melodrama.

That's the spirit! We'll have no more talk of illegal hate speech, eh?

Melodrama is a possible antidote to stupidity. Laws preventing people from speaking are not. ( I think laws regulating mass media are ok, but let's leave that one.)

True, but you have already lost the battle. I don't care if you cork it or not. I am not trying to control your speech.

I'm trying to control yours, but by legal means: i.e., shut UP !

[bush_cheney2004]

That is one cure. But in the absence of a convincing central source of information then ridicule is a valid tool.

Why is the control and sanctioning of information so important to you? You are with history's darkest villains.

Melodrama is a possible antidote to stupidity. Laws preventing people from speaking are not. ( I think laws regulating mass media are ok, but let's leave that one.)

There are such laws, but free speech is bigger than that. Ideas will always find their audience.

I'm trying to control yours, but by legal means: i.e., shut UP !

Cute, but the difference is stark. Only death will shut me up.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is the control and sanctioning of information so important to you? You are with history's darkest villains.

I dunno... why are Questions so important to Alex Trebek ?

Information makes the world go around, and I dig that. Information flow is one of those things that is so simple, but it constantly fractals into strange memes that great terrible crimes or amazing deeds of valour.

Cute, but the difference is stark. Only death will shut me up.

What are you saying ?

[bush_cheney2004]

I dunno... why are Questions so important to Alex Trebek ?

Because he already has the answers.

Information makes the world go around, and I dig that. Information flow is one of those things that is so simple, but it constantly fractals into strange memes that great terrible crimes or amazing deeds of valour.

"Truth" all the time is boring, so we invented lies (fiction).

What are you saying ?

Patrick Henry said it better than I - "Give me liberty or give me death."

[Michael Hardner]

Because he already has the answers.

Exactly. Now you're starting to understand.

"Truth" all the time is boring, so we invented lies (fiction).

Fiction is just truth with some flavour. (That's right, FLAVOUR.) Lies are a cheat, and laziness.

Patrick Henry said it better than I - "Give me liberty or give me death."

I don't think you mean that. Would you rather I imprison you in a penthouse condo with HBO and pizza, or that I end your life ?

Take your time with that one.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I don't think you mean that. Would you rather I imprison you in a penthouse condo with HBO and pizza, or that I end your life ?

Take your time with that one.

America...and its media have already answered this question. You can do neither.

[Michael Hardner]

America...and its media have already answered this question. You can do neither.

And yet, you yourself didn't answer.

[Moonlight Graham]

Television news has many pros and many cons. No point in pointing them out.

The internet has been the biggest revolution to news media since, well, television. The internet is virtually limitless in its potential to deliver news. It is instant, it is cheap to make, the amount of info it can provide is virtually limitless, and it can present info with any kind of media that can be digitized (video, audio, photos, charts & interactive images etc.). And all while the user can choose what they want to be exposed to & customize their news the way their like it presented.

[Shwa]

Television news has many pros and many cons. No point in pointing them out.

The internet has been the biggest revolution to news media since, well, television. The internet is virtually limitless in its potential to deliver news. It is instant, it is cheap to make, the amount of info it can provide is virtually limitless, and it can present info with any kind of media that can be digitized (video, audio, photos, charts & interactive images etc.). And all while the user can choose what they want to be exposed to & customize their news the way their like it presented.

The best part of television news is that it is passive and choices are relatively limited. You flip on a news style that you prefer and let it run. Television news - and to a degree radio as well - is much more social.

The Internet is good, but relatively limitless, requires more far more interaction, especially if for varied news interests - and is far less social.

Now when they come up with an affordable television-like device that 'knows' our news preferences and can present them passively with a higher degree of sociability, then are talking.

Even better, if the government installed such a television like device in every home or residence, decided our news preferences for us, and then scheduled us to pay attention when the news speakers did come on. That would be ideal!

[bush_cheney2004]

And yet, you yourself didn't answer.

Sure I did...you didn't like the answer.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure I did...you didn't like the answer.

Ok - no penthouse for you then...

[bloodyminded]

And yet we are seeing more and more news programs. Arguably, we can even hook in "reality" television as the bastard child of a news oriented society.

That's an interesting idea, Shwa. Reality TV is, in the tagline of one of its progenitors ("The Real World") all about "keeping it real." The notion is that of unfiltered information...ostensibly "regular" or "everyday" life presented as is.

That's not true, of course. Anyone with even an elementary understanding of television media will instantly recognize the fictional qualilites of these programs...much of it as much the responsibility of the "characters" themselves as of the producers; that these "real people" are often performing seems clear enough.

An example: my girlfriend, a sort of cynical fan of reality tv (no doubt a major demographic), liked to watch "The Hills." On one episode, two of the young ladies are having a discussion (about their relationships...what else?) in some noisy venue. "Let's go talk in private," one says.

Cut to: a quiet, empty room elsewhere. The girls come onscreen, in front of the static camera, miraculously centre themselves, and then continue their discussion.

This is perfectty usual. The producers and the "actors" are both complicit, and it is not "reality" as we tend to understand the word. But how different is the artifice from the news? Or from many documentaries, in which the subject is filmed "working on his computer" or "strolling casually along a footpath in a wooded area," always as if there's no camera present?

To a degree. But by and large, the government sets the agenda and access to the news people are most interested in. Contrast the news reporting from Vietnam in the late 60's to the "embedded media" in the last Gulf War.

Another really good point.