Republican Ethics and Values

Politics & Elections
41

That’s what we’re trying to figure out!
Greetings, ohiomstr2, and welcome to the Straight Dope Message board! We really have no idea of how to move the country forward into a fact-based discussion, along the lines of what the founding father’s intended. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, and Hamilton cared a lot about liberty, but they also were big supporters of science and reason-based policy.

On any week, Fox News screws its facts up. They also push an agenda that tends to divide the country, weakening it in the face of its enemies.

If true that’s a problem, right?

Right?

42

There are different forms of hypocrisy. Some hypocrites do wrong, but they know they do wrong; the flesh is weak. “Hypocrisy is the complement that vice pays to virtue.”

It’s when folks lie to themselves that it gets into more dangerous territory. I’m guessing they do so, because they get some sort of charge from it. Sort of like I do, when I hit “Like” or “Retweet” on twitter. Positive reinforcement: hit the lever, get a food pellet.

As I said above though, I don’t know the way out of this morass. We have our work cut out for us, if we want to advance evidenced based policy.

43

Can’t. You have to save yourself. To do that, you first have to suspect there’s a problem. But all it takes is to change the channel once in awhile.

44

My question was not about how to interpret information presented on TV. It was how, exactly, as an old white guy, am I to be protected from a particular broadcaster?

Most folks with enhanced experience are able to figure out if the scripts on tv news are accurate, so, I am curious about how I can be protected from making evaluations as i choose.

Please consider starting a new thread with the answer as i really dislike hijacks but cannot ignore suggestions to protect me.

45

Just stop watching it. Take a break from it. You don’t need hours of Washington chatter a day, for one thing. And Fox is a twisted enterprise.

Fox News’s reputation rests on two elements: One, that it’s news. Two, that it’s American. Both are dubious.

In the USA, even a high school journalism class would teach you to have better journalistic standards than Fox News. Shep Smith is actually an OK newsreader/anchorman. But Chris Wallace is worryingly partisan and slanted. The talk shows are not news, whatever they are.

Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, is an Australian billionaire who has no respect for journalistic standards. He is largely deplored by people who care about integrity in journalism. He’s a joke at best.

46

I’m not certain I understand your question - but I don’t think that it’s a hijack!

Let me speak for myself. If I find an information source that is factually unreliable, I deweight it a lot. Here’s an example from the liberal side. Years ago, I would stumble across provocative Daily Kos headlines. I’d read the article. I’d click through to the news article they were commenting on. There was a mismatch. I had gotten burnt. After getting burnt like that a couple of times, I lost a lot of interest in the Daily Kos. That was years ago. Maybe they’re better now. I haven’t visited them recently.

Second example. Bill O’Reilly at Fox News. I was told by my Mom (who was a fan) what he was going to be covering over the next half hour. I looked up the topic at google news and found an AP article.

Did O’Reilly’s show cover the basic facts of the topic? No. Admittedly, there were not actual falsehoods (something that occurs regularly at Fox). But it wasn’t informative either. It was just noise, assertion, with a little innuendo mixed in.

I think CNN is crummy frankly. But it’s markedly superior to Fox. I don’t get my news from the television. I go to newspapers like the New York Times and magazines like The Economist (but that has a hefty price tag). Vox.com has excellent explainers, and their news coverage is decent as well. They don’t label their op-ed pieces as well as they could though (they call them First Person I think). fivethirtyeight.com is also solid.

Are you asking for a list of good and bad sources of information? We could start a thread about that.

47

My question was not about which sources are good or bad. While I appreciate the examples supplied, I believe that I am able to independently evaluate the accuracy of a news report. The comment I was responding to was to the effect that “little old white folks” need protection from Fox News

Leaving aside the assumptions made about older women and men, my question remains. How am I, an old white guy, going to be protected? Are my news viewing habits to be monitored and redirected to a correct source? Who decides what is correct?

Is Fox News to be banned? What about other news outlets that make errors in their reporting?

Someone up thread mentioned a Federalist Papers type discussion about the political divides we here in middle north america are currently experiencing. I think this is a great idea.

Perhaps we can begin with a discussion of the First Amendment

48

Nobody is proposing anything like that in this thread. I think you misinterpreted the original comment.
We’re discussing persuasion. How to you persuade someone to avoid information sources with demonstrably non-factual and emotive content? The first step is understanding the target, which is what we’ve dwelt on so far.

49

Again, my question is how am I, as an apparent class of individuals who need saving from a corporate evil doer, going to be protected? If it is by redirecting my news consumption?
If so, am I to rely on someone younger and less experienced to take my hand and guide me through the intricacies of interpreting the veracity of a news or opinion piece?

Perhaps, in spite of being old and white, I am able to use multiple outlets, most of whom are guilty of sloppy reporting and biased opinion, and form my own opinions without outside assistance. Making assumptions about a particular group of folks ability to think for themselves, and that potentially disagreeing with one ideology or another requires some kind of intervention is just, you know, a little bit arrogant and, dare I say, oppressive.

One wonders what the reaction would be to stating that “little youngsters” need protection from CNN and the NYT

50

QUOTE=foolsguinea;21328927]What this kind of discussion comes back to is that we need to save little old white folks from Fox News.
[/QUOTE]

Again, my question is how am I, as an apparent class of individuals who need saving from a corporate evil doer, going to be protected? If it is by redirecting my news consumption to a different corporation, am I to rely on someone younger and less experienced to take my hand and guide me through the intricacies of interpreting the veracity of a news or opinion piece?

Perhaps, in spite of being old and white, I am able to use multiple outlets, most of whom are guilty of sloppy reporting and biased opinion, and form my own opinions without outside assistance. Making assumptions about a particular group of folks ability to think for themselves, and that potentially disagreeing with one ideology or another requires some kind of intervention is just, you know, a little bit arrogant and, dare I say, oppressive.

One wonders what the reaction would be to stating that “little youngsters” need protection from CNN and the NYT

51

Oh dear, I apologize for the double post.

What passes for a browser on this Kindle does not always play well with this site
������

52

I’m confused by your post. You keep referring to “I.” Does this “I” refer to the specific citizen known here as ohiomstr2? Or to a hypothetical “old white man” who is much more intelligent than typical Fox viewers? Or does it refer to the typical Fox viewers themselves, who, in an alternate reality, might be capable of forming valid opinions without assistance?

In any event, I’m a firm believer that: First we identify problems; Then we seek remedies. Let’s set aside for the moment the great difficulty of designing remedies. Do you agree that Fake News, with Fox News as one of the most egregious evil-doers, is a very serious threat to American democracy?

53

This might be part of it. There are all sorts of methods of weaponizing elderly isolation. Fox News trends towards the older crowd after all. My WAPO link described a woman who believed the truth was somewhere in between the various claims she read. But in her case that would mean finding the happy average between factually implausible claims about the US instituting Sharia Law (where Muslims make up maybe 1.1% of the population) and Obama’s birth certificate forgeries. She apparently didn’t entirely grasp the idea that empty assertions should be given zero weight, and valid arguments require substantiation, typically factual. At 76 she had a lifetime of experience and purported to understood that you can’t believe everything you read. But she kept hitting those share and like buttons and didn’t grasp the limits of gauging assertions with feelings as opposed to factual cross-checks. Nor did she have a sense that she was being played.

She rarely socialized. “I’m not a conspiracy-theory-type person, but . . .” she wrote, before sharing a link to an unsourced story suggesting that Democratic donor George Soros had been a committed Nazi, or that a Parkland shooting survivor was actually a paid actor.

54

Again, my question is how am I, as an apparent class of individuals who need saving from a corporate evil doer, going to be protected? If it is by redirecting my news consumption to a different corporation, am I to rely on someone younger and less experienced to take my hand and guide me through the intricacies of interpreting the veracity of a news or opinion piece?

Perhaps, in spite of being old and white, I am able to use multiple outlets, most of whom are guilty of sloppy reporting and biased opinion, and form my own opinions without outside assistance. Making assumptions about a particular group of folks ability to think for themselves, and that potentially disagreeing with one ideology or another requires some kind of intervention is just, you know, a little bit arrogant and, dare I say, oppressive.

One wonders what the reaction would be to stating that “little youngsters” need protection from CNN and the NYT
[/QUOTE]

I am old and white also. The people who need to be protected from Fox News are not the ones like you who get information from a variety of sources, but the very large number of people who get their information exclusively from Fox News and who therefore believe factually incorrect things. Like Planned Parenthood is primarily about abortion, for instance.
Actually, the number one person who should not be watching Fox News is Donald Trump, who seems to swallow their crap whole.

55

The objection is not with the news in general, it’s with the lies they tell and the way they intentionally inject opinions instead of facts.

The way you are reacting at the criticism of the network is exactly indicative as to why it’s so nefarious. I would hazard a guess that a big chunk of politics in general makes you angry, and that discussing it makes you angry.

Fox News did that to you.

56

deleted response.

57

They also preach about the importance of civility and respect, yet will go on supporting a president who calls a political detractor “Schitt“.

58

Let me be as perfectly clear as I can.

Personal reveal:

My opinion of the current state of political affairs in middle north america is that it is neither surprising nor shocking that a billionaire (even a potentially bogus one) was elected President, regardless of his qualifications. Both political parties are essentially controlled by corporate interests through campaign contributions, and both parties are essentially only interested in expanding those interests. This culture is the most advanced capitalist one so far, and because political campaigns are funded privately and corporations are able to fund large scale lobbying efforts, there is considerable pressure on said politicians to advance the interests of their sponsors,

Unless and until this practice is stopped (or even better, as a comedian I once saw suggested, have Congress people wear uniforms like race care drivers with their sponsors decals sewn on) the situation is not going to change.

The deadlock looming in Congress is, historically speaking, more of the same and, I suspect, exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended. My interpretation of the document is that the structure of the various branches of the Federal Government is deliberately designed to allow roadblocks to a particular group of citizens imposing a regime.

It is possible that the upcoming House may be able to at least slow down the current administration as the political pendulum swings from side to side, but as long as nothing in the culture that perpetuates it changes, profit will continue to be the guiding force.

I agree the the Democans tend toward ideas that I like, and have made some progress in carrying out those ideas, but to believe that their members are not primarily interested in campaign fund raising is, to me, ludicrous.

My personal view of voting in this system is based on the wisdom of someone older and more experienced than me: If you can’t find something to vote for, find something to vote against.

I occasionally watch Fox News and find it biased toward a “right wing” perspective that is likely a reflection of the corporate entity that owns and profits from it. The reporting seems to me to be poorly prepared and presented, and the opinion pieces I have seen seem biased as well, likely for the same reasons.

I also pay attention to “right” leaning webz stuff. My opinion regarding this source is the same, who profits from the presentations?

Typically I disagree with these sources because the errors in their reporting is obvious and often just plain ignorant. But I do pay attention to what they broadcast.

I also watch CBS, BBC and PBS as news sources. I stopped using print media a while ago but sometimes read pieces on the Washington Post and NYT, as long as I have not exceeded my monthly allotment of free views.

I generally agree with some of the opinions, however I frequently find them to be biased and in need of parsing to find the parts I think are to my liking. It is also relatively easy to find the errors in the reports, which undermines the reliability of the entire presentation.

Oh, and all of the above sources have, I believe, profit driven corporate sponsors, hmm, I wonder if that drives the editorial policy?

End of personal reveal:

Now to my point:
I was specifically responding to the original comment on this thread regarding “little old white folks” needing protection from Fox News, which I found beyond outrageous and astonishingly bigoted.

I am speculating now:

There seem to be some assumptions in the original post. I apologize in advance if I am incorrect.

Assumption one: “little old (specifically white) folks” are somehow misinformed or too ignorant to recognize when a news or opinion piece is poorly reported or biased. It seems to follow that such individuals are worthy of dismissal and stereotyping.

Assumption two: Fox News, specifically (and presumably their ilk), is in some way more dangerous to this group when misreporting or issuing biased opinions than say, CNN.

End of speculation

Which leads me to this question:

How, without violating the First Amendment, am I (personally) to be prohibited from watching the Fox network news outlet? (please, can I watch GOTHAM reruns?)

I am editorializing now

The basic beef I have with the original post is that implying that a group of people are too stupid to understand your ideas is no less bigoted and (swear word omitted) ignorant than using a racial slur.

Stop with the assumptions about folks who may lean to the “right” and consider that they might be able to think and decide on their own. It** may be the fault of the people that deride their opinions that they do not see the benefits “liberal” ideas**.

The Democans have been making this mistake for decades, the Repulicrats are merely manipulating this market better at the moment.

Instead of attacking your political opponents and off hand dismissal of their ideas, perhaps it might be better to show them how a particular stance benefits them, personally. It might work, has for me.

And for Pete’s sake stop using slurs with folks you don’t agree with. Nothing is more infuriating than being told I am stupid or ignorant because I might have an opinion you don’t like.

Doing so is no different than using (insert random slur here) and my** persona**l moral code is that such behaviors are worthy of a dope slap, possibly with a bat.

But then again my moral code was established back when folks like me were actively resisting this kind of thing, you know, in the reinforcing of civil rights for African Americans and taking attempts to restrict constitutional rights personally.

Kind of like resisting bigotry against a group I now happen to be part of.

Hench my objection to the original comment.

End of editorializing

I thank you for your ideas and suggestions and while I agree with many of them, no one yet (with a swift scan of the thread) has suggested how my fellow old white folks are to be protected from their own opinions. It is probably a good idea to reach out to these individuals to persuade them that they may not be seeing the benefits of your (collectively) proposals.

It may also be a good idea to listen to their ideas, you might change your mind.

But dismissing them as ignorant and stupid is not going to win any adherents.

My purpose in this comment is to point out that bigotry, discrimination and oppression is a two way street. It is as easy for a “left wing” totalitarian regime to form as a “right wing” one, and from the perspective of an ordinary citizen, are indistinguishable. Attempts to regulate information and opinion are fairly well recognized paths to such systems.

The real issue in this culture is economic differences and the inequalities that result.

In the unlikely event that this is recognized and dealt with there might be change, but I do not think this culture is ready.

So please just stop with the unwise, and possibly immature, name calling.

If the original comment was intended to be funny it was not.

59

ohiomstr2: FYI: The participants of this message board trend older, trend white, trend male. I suspect they aren’t wildly different from the Fox News demographic in those terms. [1] That doesn’t justify one remark or another. It’s just background. foolsguinea, for example, has been on this message board for over 18 years. He’s probably substantially over 38.

So what gives? October was a fantastic month for Fox News: they do well before elections. Their ratings hit… 2.6%. This is a niche audience, like all cable audiences. While Fox News trends old and white, most oldsters and whitesters don’t care especially for Fox News. So I’m guessing the thrust of the comment wasn’t ageist, and to the extent it was, it was self-deprecatory.

I do think that conclusions can be drawn about Fox News fans, given that relying on demonstrably poor information purveyors is a choice. I read the business press: I’m pro-capitalist. I believe healthy democracies have both reformist leaners and skeptical reformists. By European standards I am a centrist. That said, a centrist European is admittedly placed at the far left end of the American political spectrum.
[1] This message board is probably a little more urban though. Nonetheless, we have a fairly broad demographic representation, though the weights are skewed, especially towards US citizenry.

60

I cannot explain why a conservative Christian would support a man who not only has affairs with porn stars and playboy bunnies but brags about grabbing women’s crotches, etc. It can only be that most of his supporters are just covering their ears and pretending it ain’t so in order to justify standing behind such a man.