No this isn’t a tirade against the So-called Liberal Media.
I just got through watching Crossfire earlier today and I am fucking pissed.
Have you ever tried to follow the logic of a “debate” show like this? I see why Jon Stewart really hates this show now.
From the transcript:
Then later…
Is this all our fucking press is good for?
Lets recap…
Democrats make acertation A. To prove this acertation Democrats show poll B which is tenously related to A. Begala said that the president lied us into war. Then he used a poll that said people thought he was NOT TELLING THE ENTIRE TRUTH or HIDING SOMETHING. That doesnt’ necessarily mean that he lied us into war, now does it? It could mean that he is covering up something since then, or whatever. And since when the hell does what the public thinks = the truth? If Hitler got alot of Germans to believe that Jews were the true reason for Germany’s economic problems, does that make it true? I can imagine Crossfire 1938.
“Well Tucker, I don’t know about you, but I really like the line in Bill’s book that says “the truth is that the Jews are actually the reason for our economic downturn.” And if you look at these public opinion polls, the public actually believes it. So it must be true!”
then…
we get Tucker saying that Bush isn’t a liar by touting out the polls that state that most people find bush more honest and trustworth than Kerry.
How the fuck do you debate, guys? You concede the points you are wrong on and you promote the points that you are right on. Look, Begala, people don’t trust Kerry as much as they do Bush. Why would they? Bush has been president during really tough times. Its just the way its going to be. And also, don’t try to say that Bush is lying because people think so. You say that he is lying by proving that he was.
Its just sad to see what passes for proof nowadays. I hate seeing these fucking polls for proof of some point or other. (excluding public opinion). Its public opinion for God’s sake! It is totally dependent on what the news reports! Why the hell are you telling us what our opinion means? I think that Bush was lying us into war, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I think he is still hiding shit. When did we get this INSANE logic that whatever the masses believe is correct? Remember when a majority thought Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for 9/11? The public is only as informed as the press wants it to be and our press is doing a pisspoor job is this is any indication of their methodology of determining the truth.
Premise 1: George Bush took the country to war on false pretenses.
Premise 2: According to a recent poll 3/4ths of the country thinks he’s either hiding something or he’s mostly lying.
Conclusion: The president has a major credibility crisis.
Which is rebutted by:
Premise: Another recent poll says that more people think Bush is more honest and trustworthy than Kerry.
Conclusion: People don’t think that Bush is a liar.
And that, folks, is what passes for debate in our fair country.
Is it just me, or have the logical fallacies (or just outright nonsense) been growing exponentially in last few years? I remember is college logic classes about 10 years ago, we always hunted down fallacies in the media, and I really don’t remember it being nearly as damn easy as it would be today. There was no shortage of them, but it seems lately it would be make more sense to hunt for sensible arguments.
I love opinion polls on topics that the public has no way of knowing anything about. My personal favorite was CNN’s poll, “Is Osama bin Laden Dead?” The reporter outlined the results of that poll in this (paraphrased) manner:
“Twenty-three percent of those polled think bin Laden is dead. Sixty-five percent believe he is still alive. And the remaining twelve percent admit that they don’t know.”
Too bad the majority didn’t think he was dead. That would’ve settled that issue, and we could all have gotten on with our lives.
And just what information are we supposed to glean from that? Since 65% of Americans think that Bin Laden is still alive, therefore… Therefore, what? Therefore, nothing. It’s there purely as entertainment, no different from asking “Who’ll win the World Series next year?”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m fine with entertainment. I’m even OK with soft news, but the line between entertainment and journalism has been blurred into oblivion.
I wouldn’t go so far as to blame the entirety of media itself, but I agree that 24 hour news channels and their programs are quite tiresome. Or I should say that the “programs” on 24 hour news channels are quite tiresome. It’s often like radio talk shows in front of a camera, and the worst part it, instead of these shows doing investigative journalism like news “magazine” shows, when do they have time to do it? They have to continually talk about something, whatever news is trendy at the moment. And the more pundits and topics they trot out, the more that something can be said about nothing, or nothing can be said about something. And then it seems like much is being said, discussed, debated, when usually nothing is actually debated per se, it’s just opinions yelled back and forth between a few people that really know what they’re talking about and about 9 X as many fake “experts”. Usually there are no conclusions, no serious examinations of facts, nothing that really helps or informs the viewer. They could just as well debate the issue of how you lose a sock, or the false pretenses for Bush taking us into a pointless war, and in the end, I think by the time the discussion is over, you find yourself and your own opinions about the subjects right back where they were at the beginning. Honestly I think anyone can learn more from watching an episode of Springer than an episode of Crossfire and all the rest of the pretend news shows.
When I watch the news, I want comentary that helps me form my opinions based on the most neutral source. I don’t want balance from both sides. I want someone to tell me when either party is full of shit. That’s all I ask for. Having a news-source that cuts it as cleanly as possible as often as it can would be better. None of this balance bullshit that doesn’t lead you to any conclusion. Its worthless and it’s useless. Balance means nothing. It just means that they have two people spewing bullshit or one person spewing bullshit from both sides.
“The president said X today, but some democrats say that X is not true.”
Goddamnit! Isn’t the point of being a journalist to find out the truth and report who is right?
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Really… what the hell are we to do?
I honestly can’t say that I care what happens on cable news for my own benefit, becase I know where to get news on the internet that, in the end, comes out being pretty balanced. I’ll go to a neutral source (like AP or wire services) and then go around to other places to see the other sides. But the really sad things is that some people (like my parents) get all their news from tv. That disturbs me.
Have you ever noticed how small the amount of news you actually get from a news program? Its miniscule. Nothing compared to the internet.