Justice for Zimmerman

Dunhill_sl said:

Except, you're still not explaining why journalists all of a sudden would develop a large variety of rational viewpoints, just that they would.

Click to expand...

I never implied rationality would come of it.

Only less homogeneity, and less centralized control.

You seem to be arguing against points I don't make, but you wish I'd made, rather than the points I did make. You'd think after how badly Tanoomba got schooled on that very activity yesterday, people would stop trying to put words I didn't say into my mouth, so they can then argue those points, rather than what I actually said.

Ameraves_sl said:

My family and friends on Facebook make me so sad. I was raised on a pretty conservative home and went to a private school, so many of the people on there are hard core conservative. But they are now all linking these ridiculous stories of black versus white crime and why the media isn't making a huge issue out of those. Like the one of the black kid that shot the baby in the face, or some 5 year old case about a couple that was abducted, raped, and killed by 4 black dudes. I am not sure why they believe that the media making a frenzy out of those stories somehow helps this whole racial issue. In both of those cases nobody is arguing at all that those fucks should not be behind bars, and in the latter case all of them already are with one guy being on death row.

I need to not get lured in to responding to the stupidity.

Click to expand...

The point, I think, is to show how the media selects specific stories to blow up into national stories based on race, while ignoring others.

Not to say that both are equivalent, or that these other cases should have been made as controversial and as public as the Zimmerman case was made, but rather, that none of these crimes warranted being blown up the way any particular one of them were by the media.

There is a race angle to it. The media does seem to ignore many black on black and black on white and black on hispanic and vice versa crimes all the time, for whatever reason, while taking a case like the Zimmerman trial and turning it into Medgar Evars for the 21st century, when it was nothing of the sort and never should have been.

That's my take on it.

Dunhill_sl said:

Heh, you said you had a solution to bad news, as in, instead of four viewpoints you'd get a bunch of them. If less homogeneity and less centralized control doesn't lead to more unbiased and rational news then what exactly is your point?

Click to expand...

Considering I never said that the criteria for fixing the news was completely removing bias, or injecting rationality, I'd say you're still here arguing a completely irrelevant point to what I made.

My point was made clear in my original posts. Several other people not only understood what I was saying, but also restated my point in their words to help clarify the issue for you. I encourage you to peruse back a few pages and ruminate on what I actually said, rather than what you chose to read, and then maybe, just maybe, the answer will come to you.

Dunhill_sl said:

Why would that give you better news?

Click to expand...

Because it's monopolies that are preventing market forces from working, on the internet I can choose between a myriad of news sights all with different opinions and ideas and many of the top end bloggers and podcasters are just as good as regular journalists, the ability to be exposed to multiple sources, encounter multiple ideas ect these things are naturally curbed by monopolization of thought and money.

Borzak_sl said:

Yup, just what college needs. More kids who can't speak english and can't read.

Click to expand...

cause she's new school borzark she don't need to use proper words yo, also reading treyvons text messages where brutal at times, it was like ebonics++1

About a third of newspaper chain editors admitted in a survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors that they ?would not feel free to run a news story that was damaging to their parent firm.?

Noam Chomsky, who has documented a number of biases in the US media?s treatment of foreign affairs, points out that media corporations ?are closely integrated with even larger conglomerates? and like other business they sell a product?audiences?to buyers?advertisers.

http://www.herinst.org/BusinessManag...ownership.html

Dunhill_sl said:

Of course I was arguing more rational news. Obviously I was wrong assuming that's what you meant. Your criteria for fixing the news is about getting more viewpoints from small news companies "so people can weed out the biased ones". And you keep avoiding to argue for why you're sure that'd even happen. My experience with newer, smaller news sites is that they are repeating the same shit everyone else is saying. You seriously remind me of the the non-intellectual environment hippies in the 80s. Spurting out stuff you heard somewhere, hoping it has some truth to it.

Click to expand...

"your experience"

my personal experience is the opposite of yours, there are so many different points of view it's hard to read/watch them all

are you sure you aren't caught in an internet filter bubble? you have to go out of your way a bit to seek out new information sources.

Noodleface_sl said:

hodj still fighting the good fight i see

Click to expand...

No, I'm busy today. I just don't see how he keeps putting words in my mouth I didn't say.

Shit gets pretty old pretty quick. Just deal with the words coming from my mouth/fingertips instead of the words you wished I'd said and I'll be a happy camper at this point.

On a lighter note, I was able to find my organic chemistry book for this coming fall/spring semester on Kindle. Which was pretty awesome.

Triangular_sl said:

i think i watched a video where a group of bright young folks would use network of internet to access knowledge to create a smaller, non-globalized community. I thought that was pretty neat. Small group of people don't have to visit large city to learn and be entertained. They can stay where they are.

Click to expand...

I figure with better education, more globalization, and more integration of the internet, eventually, though it will be awhile away, what we'll see is almost total decentralization.

Its going to be a long while away, and really, how decentralized are you, when everyone is literally connected into the future version of the internet directly? I dunno. But it will be physical decentralization, as populations decline with increased education and automation of manufacturing becomes near total, there won't be virtually any reason to live in large cities anymore, or cities at all, really.

Kurzweil has proposed something along those lines as a future possibility as well.

Dunhill_sl said:

. Your criteria for fixing the news is about getting more viewpoints from small news companies "so people can weed out the biased ones". And you keep avoiding to argue for why you're sure that'd even happen.

Click to expand...

I don't think for sure every person will engage in it, and don't think its necessary for them to do so.

You're really just off on a tangent of stuff that has little to do with what I said. The point is that the capacity for individuals to find a broader set of information, while reducing the homogeneity of opinion coming from the same 4 or 5 major power players, will help fix the situation of news media being able to come up with a false narrative and shit that narrative out of twenty different stations and internet sites they own with little to no opposing points of view expressed.

I'm talking about busting up the echo chamber monopolies, that's literally it.

Dunhill_sl said:

You seriously remind me of the the non-intellectual environment hippies in the 80s.

Click to expand...

That's pretty hilarious seeing my content in this thread and you saying that. I'll chalk you up as functionally retarded at this point.