If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Thanks to the likes of Fox News, we no longer have a fake sense of consensus in views. Or it could just be that our views are constantly evolving. Whichever you want to believe   (politico.com) divider line 35
    More: Interesting, Fox News, Tet Offensive, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Viet Cong, Philip Roth, President Johnson, Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw  
•       •       •

896 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:41 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-20 11:24:03 AM
4 votes:
It's funny, but a lot of people seem to remember the 1960s and early 1970s very differently than I do. I remember Goldwater conservatives complaining that Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley and the rest were liberal shills, particularly when Cronkite started weeping when he reported the Kennedy assassination or when a brash war correspondent named Dan Rather started filing reports from Vietnam which contradicted the government story. I also remember critics on the left complaining about corporate ownership of the news (you may recall that Huntley-Brinkley report was originally sponsored exclusively by Texaco), and the fact that aside from Rather and a few others, no one seemed interested in showing what was really  happening in Southeast Asia. I remember a guy named Hunter Thompson coming along and nearly getting himself killed covering the murder of reporter Ruben Salazar by the LAPD, only to have his objectivity questioned for even mentioning the story. As Thompson said at the time, there is no such thing as objective journalism, there never has been, and the myth of its existence is toxic.

But maybe that's just me. My memory isn't what it used to be.
2014-02-20 11:53:41 AM
3 votes:
OR...

The propaganda wing of one of the political parties has so relentlessly filled the skulls of the gullible with so much partisan bullshiat that a significant portion of the population has become completely disconnected from reality and all common sense.
2014-02-20 11:20:55 AM
3 votes:
Any chance to trot this back out...

i280.photobucket.com
2014-02-20 11:12:58 AM
3 votes:

SlothB77: Until 1997 or so, there was no Fox News. There was no conservative alternative to liberal spin. The news has always been spun by the people who deliver it. There is spin inherent in the prioritization and emphasis given to the stories you report and the stories you choose not to report.


Which is why there was no conservative movement in this country until 1999. No JBS, no WF Buckley, no Rockefeller, no Reagan (1960s "spokesman" or 1980s "president" version), no opposition to Medicare, no opposition to Social Security, full-throated support for Vietnam (until that rat bastard Cronkite had to get liberal all over the place), no Nixon, no savaging of Dukakis in '88 (HAHAHA what a dork!), Watergate was just a fraternity prank gone wrong and Dan Ellburg is just a whiny pussy (thanks for blowing that out of proportion, libs), no Contract for America (in 1994, several years before Fox News), no Lewinskyghazi (spun up in 1996, right about when Fox News was), and the S&L scandal was swept under the rug because it was 5 Democrats and McCain.

Oh, but some guy named Bret Easton Ellis says millenials are soft-skinned liberal crybabies. I guess that means I've been living a lie.

// I'm gonna go buy some Brooks Brothers and get a job as an accountant
// serious question - are you a member of the John Birch Society?
2014-02-20 11:25:31 AM
2 votes:

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


No. It wasn't a consensus. It was just "News". You are confusing the appetite of a certain segment of society for Fox News with liberal bias by other news organizations. People flocking to Fox confirms that those viewers wanted to see skewed reporting toward their viewpoint. It doesn't confirm that the thing they left was diametrically opposed, much as you want to believe it.

Conservatives *need* to hear what they want to hear because the world is going to keep on changing without them. It's the only way older generations can ever feel anchored in the world.
2014-02-20 11:21:11 AM
2 votes:

thamike: dittybopper: Rain-Monkey: Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion.

Well, a convincing fake consensus would do that, or even a not-so-convincing fake consensus without any opposing viewpoints being aired.

We should celebrate the diversity we have now, because no one ideology or viewpoint has a 100% lock on the truth.  *THIS* is the Golden Age of news reporting now, not back when it was filtered long before you saw it, with little or no alternative viewpoints on the events of the day being aired.

"Viewpoints" on news shouldn't be televised as news.  Back when it was "filtered" we had the news, then we had talk shows about the news. Facts are facts.  Bill O'Reilly's interpretation of those facts has no bearing on them, and shouldn't be projected in such a way.  There aren't two sides to everything, and opinion is something that should rest on the viewers' shoulders.  They've taken your opinion away, fabricated a dichotomy, and framed the situation in a way that you must pick one of the two. Do you see the ethical problem here?


THIS

I actually lost a friend over the definition of the word Bias.
They insisted that Fox News was unbiased and all other news was Biased.
I tried to explain that ALL NEWS is BIASED. Some more than others.

No point in ever talking to a box of rocks.
2014-02-20 10:56:24 AM
2 votes:

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


Does waking up every morning believing the whole world is a liberal conspiracy against you ever get tiring?
2014-02-20 10:53:44 AM
2 votes:

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Much in the same way that a debate between the Chair of Immunology at Johns Hopkins and ConcernedMommy2KheylytynandJheydyn is a debate, the difference between real news coverage and "Some are saying Obama ordered the Benghazi attacks personally to cover up his torrid underage affair with the Al Qaeda boss assigned to Libya back when the two met in art class at their atheist madrassa" is easy to see for the non-potato.


Recently, Bill Nye debated climate change with representative Blackburn on global warming.

She just kept repeating "There is no consensus!  There is no consensus!" then quoted that MIT prof who denies climate change.

So, yeah, one or two dissenters mean there's no consensus.  I guess that's true in derperville.

However, a person who believes that GW is a hoax, because, they just don't trust those science-y types will look at that, and take the reps word at face value.

As long as they can keep a dialogue that there's no consensus, they will keep feeding the morons.

Really, I hate Americans at some times.
2014-02-20 10:49:07 AM
2 votes:
You mean back in the good old days when you had reporting vs infotainment propaganda today?
2014-02-20 09:08:05 AM
2 votes:
I miss Uncle Walt. His book is awesome.

Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion. Uncle Walt had national credibility because he reported the news, only the news, in a balanced and credible way.

Today we have deliberate polarization in attempts to magnetize viewer demographics and to acheive political ends in order to acheive financial ends. "News" is infotainment, just enough substance to carry the narritive of the day.

At some level, most of us seem to want to be in a place of growing unity. We are sick as shiat of this Red - Blue crap. I don't want to feel outrage every day. I want us to remember we are a mix of peoples with very different views, but the minority views are just that and don't deserve amplified focus because we have minutes to fill on air.

/soapbox
2014-02-21 10:34:52 AM
1 votes:

PsiChick: thamike: PsiChick: thamike: PsiChick: Who says that's a  bad thing?

[media.tumblr.com image 300x177]

Airing a difference of opinions is never a bad thing.  It's framing every issue as a difference between two polar opinions that's the Bad Motherf*cking Thing.

If you expected it to go from 'one opinion' to 'all the opinions treated respectfully and factually' overnight, let me explain you a thing...

Don't make me reach through the internet and choke you into hilarity.

No, seriously. Yes, what we have now isn't good either, it's just a step in the right direction. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be made better, just that we're lurching forward instead of stopping.


The news isn't a matter of opinion is my point.  More opinions = less news.  You get it?  I don't want more opinions.  They are the problem.
2014-02-20 05:00:38 PM
1 votes:

PsiChick: Who says that's a  bad thing?


media.tumblr.com

Airing a difference of opinions is never a bad thing.  It's framing every issue as a difference between two polar opinions that's the Bad Motherf*cking Thing.
2014-02-20 02:15:57 PM
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: Actually, people aren't divided as much as the media tries to make it seem, it's just that the lunatics are running the asylum.


REALLY???

have you TALKED to people on the other side?
Have you TALKED to people who think Bohner is doing a great job? Or that think Obama is destroying america?

So yah, about that, I think many people are about as divided as you would think.

Look at the tea party rallies and the HATE for abortion.
FFS, people still vote for candidates after the candidate spouts pro-rape nonsense.
HOW can you explain that and maintain that people are not divided?

/OMG if you were trolling, that is 11/11!!
2014-02-20 12:09:45 PM
1 votes:

neversubmit: ikanreed: neversubmit: Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.

Yeah, you're just crazy.  The fact that you think of yourself as magically more aware of shiat than others just makes you crazy.   Like there isn't a crazy-sucker dichotomy, there's just a crazy flag.

There's always been a lot going on in the world, not all of it just and right, and there isn't some elaborate conspiracy to "wake up to".

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x850]

Be a good biatch and suck it! LOL


I think you may have accidentally debunked yourself.  Conspiracy theorists are exactly the type of people Hawking is talking about:  those with bogus ideas about the world, but who believe they know better than the rest of the population.

Conspiracy theories are hard to eradicate in part because their adherents can't be educated.  They already consider themselves more enlightened, more informed, more aware of the TRVTH.  You try to tell them that "chemtrails" make no sense and you're just perceived as an underinformed rube.

And while we're on the topic, doesn't Hawking's premise imply that too much college education is bad?  One of the side-effects of college education is that people overestimate their own authority to speak on a subject.  Just look at all the people who make bogus economic arguments because they took ECON 101 as a gen-ed.  Something about taking ECON 101 convinces people that their political beliefs are no longer political beliefs, that they honestly know better than their opponents---even if their opponents are similarly college educated, or themselves economists.

For that matter, we observe that a lot of the idiots who withhold vaccinations from their kids are college-educated or better.  Their education seems to be part of the reason they decide to override the opinion of their doctor.  We may be converging to a population that lacks the humility of ignorance, and lacks the natural inclination to turn to an authority to get answers to factual questions.
2014-02-20 11:55:55 AM
1 votes:

Dhusk: The propaganda wing of one of the political parties has so relentlessly filled the skulls of the gullible with so much partisan bullshiat that a significant portion of the population has become completely disconnected from reality and all common sense.


Common sense is a synonym for "wrong" to me, at least.

But yeah, the reality-fox disconnect for fox is so strong that Fox news viewers are less informed than non-news viewers.
2014-02-20 11:48:08 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: neversubmit: ikanreed: neversubmit: Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.

Yeah, you're just crazy.  The fact that you think of yourself as magically more aware of shiat than others just makes you crazy.   Like there isn't a crazy-sucker dichotomy, there's just a crazy flag.

There's always been a lot going on in the world, not all of it just and right, and there isn't some elaborate conspiracy to "wake up to".

Be a good biatch and suck it! LOL

You realize his quote applies to virtually everything on the Internet right?


I would say that quote applies much more to their paranoid "I know about the conspiracy; wake up sheeple!" than it does the rest of us.
2014-02-20 11:27:02 AM
1 votes:

ikanreed: //The best thing about morons is that they're always so sure how smart they are.


Just like how crazy people are absolutely convinced of their own sanity.
2014-02-20 11:20:12 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: must admit, I'm always impressed by your ability to type with all those GOP cocks in your mouth. Do you wait between loads to do some editing, or are you just a good touch typist?

Fark Libs are so bad at taking any criticism.

"You have to understand that I'm coming to these things as a member of the most pessimistic and ironic generation that has ever roamed the earth. When I hear millennials getting hurt by "cyber bullying", or it being a gateway to suicide, it's difficult for me to process. A little less so for my boyfriend, who happens to be a millennial of that age, but even he somewhat agrees with the sensitivity of Generation Wuss. It's very difficult for them to take criticism, and because of that a lot of the content produced is kind of shiatty. And when someone is criticised for their content, they seem to collapse, or the person criticising them is called a hater, a contrarian, a troll," Bret Easton Ellis.

If you say anything that isn't straight fark lib echo chamber, you must be a troll.  Until 1997 or so, there was no Fox News.  There was no conservative alternative to liberal spin.  The news has always been spun by the people who deliver it.  There is spin inherent in the prioritization and emphasis given to the stories you report and the stories you choose not to report.



Digging a little into your comments, what I find there is a profound cynicism. I see a faith that claims that there is no such thing as a verifiable fact, no such thing as a historical event, nothing in the universe that could possibly be undeniably true for everyone. Not in history, not in philosophy or religion or science or anywhere... so why not just give up and consume whatever infotainment we find that makes us feel good, whatever doesn't challenge any of our treasured myths and preconceived notions?

Call me old-fashioned, but I think there's a thing called 'reality'.
2014-02-20 11:17:07 AM
1 votes:

neversubmit: ikanreed: neversubmit: Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.

Yeah, you're just crazy.  The fact that you think of yourself as magically more aware of shiat than others just makes you crazy.   Like there isn't a crazy-sucker dichotomy, there's just a crazy flag.

There's always been a lot going on in the world, not all of it just and right, and there isn't some elaborate conspiracy to "wake up to".

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x850]

Be a good biatch and suck it! LOL


Yeah, thanks, I already knew you didn't have a defense for your position, and were fundamentally acting on an appeal to authority.  You didn't need to remind me.

//The best thing about morons is that they're always so sure how smart they are.
2014-02-20 11:10:36 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


Even you can't be that stupid. That young, maybe, but outside of actual leftist rags like the Nation, MoJo, and PWW, there's no such thing as a liberal media.

What you're thinking of is a normal news media that wouldn't join in on your Clinton hate.
2014-02-20 11:09:36 AM
1 votes:

neversubmit: Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.


Yeah, you're just crazy.  The fact that you think of yourself as magically more aware of shiat than others just makes you crazy.   Like there isn't a crazy-sucker dichotomy, there's just a crazy flag.

There's always been a lot going on in the world, not all of it just and right, and there isn't some elaborate conspiracy to "wake up to".
2014-02-20 11:04:04 AM
1 votes:

Kuta: Article is bunk. There never EVER was a "consensus" on the news. There was just "NEWS". You know, facts. Sober reporting. It was boring, but most importantly it was informative. Sure, there were only 3 networks doing the news, but that doesn't mean there was a liberal bias, despite what some would have you believe.

Then Fox News came along and decided to hearken back to the days of yellow journalism and sensationalize conservative opinion on television. That, and the internet, got us to where we are today.


The whole "liberal bias" comes back from the days when Agnew tried to work the refs when reports of his corruption started to come to light. It's been a time honored tradition with Republicans ever since because enough rubes believe it.
2014-02-20 11:01:51 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.



Just a second, I'm almost finished masturbating to your post.
2014-02-20 10:59:40 AM
1 votes:

neversubmit: No not Fox "News" the internet is why we are starting to wake up.


Crazy person detected.
2014-02-20 10:57:57 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


Only where liberal means "fact-based"

//Destroy all 24 hours news networks, but fox most of all.
2014-02-20 10:52:35 AM
1 votes:
Article is bunk. There never EVER was a "consensus" on the news. There was just "NEWS". You know, facts. Sober reporting. It was boring, but most importantly it was informative. Sure, there were only 3 networks doing the news, but that doesn't mean there was a liberal bias, despite what some would have you believe.

Then Fox News came along and decided to hearken back to the days of yellow journalism and sensationalize conservative opinion on television. That, and the internet, got us to where we are today.
2014-02-20 10:52:07 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Well, I don't think Bill O'Reilly would be confused for a "news show", he's pretty much the very definition of a talk show about the news, not actual news reporting.


Not on O'Reilly no, but what the "news" portions of Fox News do is present the same exact thing, but frame it as news. O'Reilly will say something like:
"I think Obama may actually be a Socialist-Muslim"
That's easy to see as opinion, but then on the "news" shows you will see something like:
"Some people are now questioning whether Obama is really a Christian capitalist"

That's presenting an opinion as News. It's the same exact thing that O'Reilyl is speculating about, but trying to frame it so it looks like news. It's pushing a definite angle. There's no journalism there, there's no fact finding and presenting evidence. It's speculation, plain and simple.
2014-02-20 10:52:02 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


I must admit, I'm always impressed by your ability to type with all those GOP cocks in your mouth.  Do you wait between loads to do some editing, or are you just a good touch typist?
2014-02-20 10:49:43 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


This is what mouth breathers actually believe.
2014-02-20 10:49:32 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


...reporting from Derpistan, SlothB77, our John Birch Society correspondent.
2014-02-20 10:41:24 AM
1 votes:
People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.
2014-02-20 10:26:34 AM
1 votes:
Much in the same way that a debate between the Chair of Immunology at Johns Hopkins and ConcernedMommy2KheylytynandJheydyn is a debate, the difference between real news coverage and "Some are saying Obama ordered the Benghazi attacks personally to cover up his torrid underage affair with the Al Qaeda boss assigned to Libya back when the two met in art class at their atheist madrassa" is easy to see for the non-potato.
2014-02-20 10:22:10 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Rain-Monkey: Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion.

Well, a convincing fake consensus would do that, or even a not-so-convincing fake consensus without any opposing viewpoints being aired.

We should celebrate the diversity we have now, because no one ideology or viewpoint has a 100% lock on the truth.  *THIS* is the Golden Age of news reporting now, not back when it was filtered long before you saw it, with little or no alternative viewpoints on the events of the day being aired.


I would agree with you that this is the golden age of journalism if they actually practiced journalism and not just pass op-eds off as "fact finding"

Investigative journalism meant something and was long and costly but the end-product was infinitely worth it. What we have now is a bunch of dittoheads pushing their own political agendas instead of actually trying to report on news. You want actual news, you have to look at BBC or Al-Jeezra America. In the US, only NPR goes out of their way to actually do real news.
2014-02-20 10:20:05 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Rain-Monkey: Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion.

Well, a convincing fake consensus would do that, or even a not-so-convincing fake consensus without any opposing viewpoints being aired.

We should celebrate the diversity we have now, because no one ideology or viewpoint has a 100% lock on the truth.  *THIS* is the Golden Age of news reporting now, not back when it was filtered long before you saw it, with little or no alternative viewpoints on the events of the day being aired.


"Viewpoints" on news shouldn't be televised as news.  Back when it was "filtered" we had the news, then we had talk shows about the news. Facts are facts.  Bill O'Reilly's interpretation of those facts has no bearing on them, and shouldn't be projected in such a way.  There aren't two sides to everything, and opinion is something that should rest on the viewers' shoulders.  They've taken your opinion away, fabricated a dichotomy, and framed the situation in a way that you must pick one of the two. Do you see the ethical problem here?
2014-02-20 10:02:40 AM
1 votes:
I read that as "the lies of Fox News". Same outcome, I guess.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report