Which are you?
- Thread starter iknowtest
- Start date
Is there a certain amount of naivety also with people who believe the media blindly? This exists also in the UK (Sun, Mirror, Star, Mail readership amoungst others). I personnally think that there should be far more controls on the media, they should be held accountable for the statements they make. Force them to verify their sources and be clear about what is conjecture/opionion vs verifiable fact and 'public interest'.limerickman said:
For example; was the Monica Lewinsky thing 'public interest'? Bear in mind that there is a very big difference between the public being interested in something and something being of public intestest. In these terms; there's an attractive girl on my morning bus - I'm interested in certain garments of clothing not exposed to me ;0) but I do not have the right to view unless she permits me to (and I suspect she won't)...
Opps, a bit off the trail there but I'm not going to delete it now...
Ssushi said:
Monica Lewinsky was a blowjob - which was overblown by the same anal retentives who think nothing of shitting on the people of the USA and the people of Iraq.
Ssushi said:
I think that you will find that the term 'public interest' is basically a legal term, and I do not have any intention of expanding explanations here. It is in itself a very interesting topic. As for your boring bus ride, why not say hello to the girl, she might be wondering how dirty your underpants are. Touche.
??????How can you learn about history without subjecting oneself to media, books, television etc.?? All history textbooks reflect a bias. All the professors/teachers who teach history to their students will slant information according to their own biases. The education we receive is biased.limerickman said:
How does one learn about history without subjecting oneself to a bias in one form or another?
Fact: Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941
That this fact appears in a history textbook reflects a bias. For various reasons this fact was felt to be more important than the following fact:
Fact: A baby was born in Shanghai on December 7, 1941
It is reasonable that the first fact was reported and not the second, but it is still true that the reporting of the first fact reflects a bias. I am using an extreme example to show that the documentation of history is inherently biased.
You talk about learning “history” but it should be noted that almost all history in the western countries is very Euro-centric or American-centric (is that a word?). How much do any of us know about Chinese or Japanese history? I hardly learned any Asian history in school, it all reflected a european or north american bias.
So how does one form an opinion on anything?
1. Recognize that there is bias in everything
2. Recognize that everyone has a bias.
3. Try to determine if the source of your information has reason to be biased.
4. Question everything.
5. Seek out information from different sources
6. Seek out alternative perspectives
At the end of the day we all make conclusions based on our own biases. We have to accept that this is a reality and do the best we can, knowing that bias exists.
I don't think that there is any more bias in a television documentary or newspaper (i.e. "media") than there is in a grade school textbook. It is all biased.
Saucy said:
Did I not say that the winner writes history - and the vanquished have to live with that, in my initial reply to you ?
Of course history is biased to some extent.
However, there are two issues here : (a) being misinformed
(b) having no historical knowledge.
It seems to me that a lot of the anti-Islam/Iraq/Afghanistan rhethoric that we
hear from Americans, is directly related to the disinformation spewed by it's media.
If Americans were educated about history, they would not/could not tolerate
the rhethoric spewed by Rumsfeld, Cheney etc.
Americans would know that the "facts" as presented by these political liars are lies and disinformation.
But the average American hasn't got a clue.
He simply accepts what ABC,CBS, NBC says.
Look at Bush "there used to be a poster that said "wanted dead or alive"
- that's a line from Hollywood !
Yet, Joe Bloggs out in hickland sitting there, simply rolls over and accepts it.
I was in the USA in 1990/1991 : during Gulf War 1.
The majority of the guys I worked with would go home each day with "I gotta get home before the traffic, I wanna watch the war".
Watch the ****ing war !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You admit that you never did Japanese/Chinese history in school : where did you go to school ? In the States ?
In my country we covered both Chinese and Japanese history, as well as every other type of history.
Opinion in the the USA is not being formed through education - reasoning.
Opinion is being informed by disinformation, through the media.
FredC said:
Bit on the heavy side though, Fred C, do you not think ?
If she lost a couple of stone, I'd agree.
I can see where you think she looks Gallic - I used to have a Gallic looking girlfriend at one stage.
Fair play to Clinton - if he can get way with it and the women are prepared to play along (and if Hilary isn't too put out), then why not go for it ?
limerickman said:
My point is that "education" is a very loosely defined term. Education can be just as biased and misinformed as information from the media. In the U.S. there are certain districts that want to teach Creationism in school!! You can see that an "education" may not necessarily result in a well-informed person, and that given this kind of education might be better informed by reading newspapers or magazines etc.
No I didn't learn Chinese or Japanese history. Only as it pertained to European/western history. I'm not proud of it, but I had no choice in the matter.
I am the first to agree with you: Americans are dumbasses!
You could quantify that by saying, for example: "Many" or "Some" or "a considerable amt." Broad generalizations don't accomplish much. I know if i said " All repub's (amer.) are dumbasses i would be making a false statement. There are "some" intelligent people in that party. I think they are being disingenuous by claiming their platform will benefit the greater good. I hold their party in contempt but not all person's in it, albeit mostSaucy said:
.Just heard "Wall Street" gave huge amt's of $ to the repub's so as to get their hands on that part of social sec. $ that George plans on privatizing.