I think we need a new channel on the sift that is a fusion of the oft combined Terrible, Politics and News:

*idiocracy

WTF?!? No comment on irrelevant, titillating, make-the-dems-look-bad bullshit? We're out of here!

Be sure to tune into FOX News [sic]!

So she decided that she would actually let him resign first before commenting on his resignation? And this is interesting because?

>> ^burdturgler:

So she decided that she would actually let him resign first before commenting on his resignation? And this is interesting because?


Because it's sad how the media very pointedly doesn't care about issues of substance, to the point where they'll literally cut away mid-sentence once it becomes clear their desire for crass titillation won't be satisfied.

You're saying that cable news channels broadcast based on ratings? I'm shocked. I thought they were all funded through C-Span.

Blame the idiots who devour this garbage. The vast majority is a shitty stew of stupid and doesn't give a fuck.

Well, I for one and glad you've gone from not understanding the point of the video, to thinking the point the video makes is so obvious that it's stupid to make a fuss about it.

I blame lots of people for lots of things, but "being stupid" isn't one of them. It's the smart people who know better, but are doing shit like this I'm mad about.

They're working very hard to make sure the stupid stay stupid, and sometimes it's so obvious it just makes me sick.

>> ^burdturgler:

You're saying that cable news channels broadcast based on ratings? I'm shocked. I thought they were all funded through C-Span.
Blame the idiots who devour this garbage. The vast majority is a shitty stew of stupid and doesn't give a fuck.

>> ^NetRunner:

Well, I for one and glad you've gone from not understanding the point of the video, to thinking the point the video makes is so obvious that it's stupid to make a fuss about it.
I blame lots of people for lots of things, but "being stupid" isn't one of them. It's the smart people who know better, but are doing shit like this I'm mad about.
They're working very hard to make sure the stupid stay stupid, and sometimes it's so obvious it just makes me sick.

Maybe you don't get the point of this video. Or any cable news video for that matter. Cable news is television. Not journalism. Television is driven by stupid people. If that needs clarification just check the amount of highly rated "reality TV" shows. Cable news is a ratings driven industry. It is solely, completely, 100% reliant upon ratings, period. Everything that is broadcast is based upon ratings, which directly impacts upon revenue. Is this shocking news for anyone?

So what's the problem? The vast majority of people watching are idiots. The news isn't making people stupid, they are giving a product to their audience (a.k.a. stupid people). Apparently people love reality shows. They love drama and bullshit and worthless crap and could hardly comprehend a complex job bill, assuming they could even read one. So the "news" has become a reflection of it's viewers, a bunch of fucking zombie-eyed, vote-texting, self-involved twittering imbeciles with an attention span of 10 seconds or less.

Can't blame the "smart" people in the "news" for doing exactly what they are supposed to do, keep the drooling masses from changing the channel. That's show business for ya.

Maybe all the "smart" viewers should write a letter of complaint and then just stop watching. Maybe then it would change. Until then, it's just supply and demand.

Ratings 1

Ratings 2

I'd rather have 100 Weiners sexting about than suffer listening to that despicable idiot crone (and crony capitalist).

hahahaha, QM said he wants 100 Weiners.

I think we've found our target audience...

>> ^quantumushroom:

I'd rather have 100 Weiners sexting about than suffer listening to that despicable idiot crone (and crony capitalist).

>> ^burdturgler:
Can't blame the "smart" people in the "news" for doing exactly what they are supposed to do, keep the drooling masses from changing the channel. That's show business for ya.

And my point is that's not what they're supposed to be doing.

News wasn't always this way. It used to be a public service, not purely an entertainment/corporate propaganda vehicle.

Mark it down as another one of the really nasty "unintended consequences" of making selfish pursuit of money the chief driving force of our society.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^burdturgler:
Can't blame the "smart" people in the "news" for doing exactly what they are supposed to do, keep the drooling masses from changing the channel. That's show business for ya.
And my point is that's not what they're supposed to be doing.
News wasn't always this way. It used to be a public service, not purely an entertainment/corporate propaganda vehicle.
Mark it down as another one of the really nasty "unintended consequences" of making selfish pursuit of money the chief driving force of our society.


You do what your boss tells you because he signs your checks. Who do you think signs their checks? It shouldn't be like this...but it is.

>> ^Yogi:

You do what your boss tells you because he signs your checks. Who do you think signs their checks? It shouldn't be like this...but it is.


I get the difference between what is, and what should be. But bosses are still human beings, capable of making their own moral choices.

They choose poorly! Often! And are rewarded for it!

We don't need to be resigned to this fact. This doesn't have to be the way the world works...

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^burdturgler:
Can't blame the "smart" people in the "news" for doing exactly what they are supposed to do, keep the drooling masses from changing the channel. That's show business for ya.
And my point is that's not what they're supposed to be doing.
News wasn't always this way. It used to be a public service, not purely an entertainment/corporate propaganda vehicle.
Mark it down as another one of the really nasty "unintended consequences" of making selfish pursuit of money the chief driving force of our society.


So it's the greedy people who are the problem, not the masses of idiots who throw their money/attention/viewership/trust etc at them and beg for more? What do you think is really the driving force NetRunner? The people who broadcast or the people who watch?

I don't think the professional publication of "news" was ever a public service. News is a product. It's paper sales. It's radio and television advertising money. It was and still is a commodity that is sold through different vehicles of distribution. It's quaint to think back on the good ol' days, but they were just as happy to print salacious bullshit headlines in the newspaper's of decades past. Why? Because it sold. The only reason "journalistic integrity" even became a concept was because news sources were/are so generally full of shit to begin with that people started giving recognition to bits of news that were actually reported honestly. That, in turn, helped create a new branding scheme for the product. "fair and balanced" .. "fit to print" .. "blah blah we are the most honest!"

The bottom line is, I take issue with you blaming the business selling the product, instead of blaming the people buying it. We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

Like I said, I don't blame stupid people for being stupid. No one chooses to be an idiot. Smart people with control over a major broadcast network, them I blame.

I reject the notion that people wouldn't be interested in topics of substance. I think people are hungry for it. I think that's doubly true if broadcasters actually tried to make what's important interesting, instead of trying to make what's sensational seem important. I seriously doubt their ratings would go down if their quality improved.

The real problem is that it'd cut into profit margins. It costs a little more to cover any of our 3 wars, or the economy than it does for someone to just peruse twitter and talk about the latest gossip. It wouldn't really cost all that much more, but it'd be more than nothing. But since their goal is only to make money, then the argument will basically be "why bother spending money you don't have to?"

Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?

>> ^burdturgler:

We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

"Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?"


I asked you the same question above. "What do you think is really the driving force NetRunner? The people who broadcast or the people who watch?" Clearly you think the broadcasters are most culpable for the problem we both agree exists.


But why would you blame the network? It's not their job to educate or inform people. They are not a community service. They are a corporation driven by profits. Apparently, they've run the numbers and garbage is what sells. You may think it wouldn't cause a significant drop in ratings to avoid hype, but that's because you would appreciate more substantial fare. Many people would. Unfortunately the vast majority doesn't and the proof is all over every form of media available. Is that shitty news for "news"? Sure is. But to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you.

I disagree that the only people with influence over this situation are those who have wealth and "power", and with your characterization of viewers as "powerless". In my mind it's the complete opposite. The viewers have all the power. The power to write. To call. To contact advertisers. To e-mail .. twitter, blog, petition, etc etc their unhappiness and unwillingness to partake of the "product". And most importantly, the power to change the channel, cancel subscriptions and so on.

I shouldn't have used the word "stupid". I'm not out their clubbing mentally challenged people like baby seals. It was a catch all phrase for what I tried to clarify as "a bunch of fucking zombie-eyed, vote-texting, self-involved twittering imbeciles with an attention span of 10 seconds or less." Those are the people I blame.

>> ^NetRunner:

Like I said, I don't blame stupid people for being stupid. No one chooses to be an idiot. Smart people with control over a major broadcast network, them I blame.
I reject the notion that people wouldn't be interested in topics of substance. I think people are hungry for it. I think that's doubly true if broadcasters actually tried to make what's important interesting, instead of trying to make what's sensational seem important. I seriously doubt their ratings would go down if their quality improved.
The real problem is that it'd cut into profit margins. It costs a little more to cover any of our 3 wars, or the economy than it does for someone to just peruse twitter and talk about the latest gossip. It wouldn't really cost all that much more, but it'd be more than nothing. But since their goal is only to make money, then the argument will basically be "why bother spending money you don't have to?"
Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?
>> ^burdturgler:
We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

>> ^burdturgler:

I disagree that the only people with influence over this situation are those who have wealth and "power", and with your characterization of viewers as "powerless". In my mind it's the complete opposite. The viewers have all the power. The power to write. To call. To contact advertisers. To e-mail .. twitter, blog, petition, etc etc their unhappiness and unwillingness to partake of the "product". And most importantly, the power to change the channel, cancel subscriptions and so on.

And my point is that this kind of reasoning winds up being an easy excuse for virtually any decision anyone in power ever makes. It's sort of a "the masses didn't rise up in rebellion to stop me, so it must be okay" sort of philosophy.

Nobody wants the environment protected, because they haven't given up using electricity or gasoline.

Nobody wants to stop sweatshops from operating, because they keep buying cheap clothes at Walmart.

It's not the people watching Fox, buying gas, and tube socks who're spreading propaganda, playing fast and loose with safety on oil wells, and running sweatshops.

I agree, in theory collective action could stop all those things. But that's very different from saying the people running the companies cannot or should not be held responsible for the choices they're making about how they do business, because it's really their customers making all the moral choices.

What makes you think people 'in power' need an excuse?

You're comparing buying gas and clothes to watching cable news. They're not the same thing. People don't need to watch Hannity, they do it because THEY LIKE IT. The masses don't stand up to stop it because they're busy diving face first into the trough and gorging on it.

Yes, the corporations that produce "news" should be held accountable. But if not by their consumers then who?

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?

It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.

Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?

What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"

As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

>> ^burdturgler:

What makes you think people 'in power' need an excuse?
You're comparing buying gas and clothes to watching cable news. They're not the same thing. People don't need to watch Hannity, they do it because THEY LIKE IT. The masses don't stand up to stop it because they're busy diving face first into the trough and gorging on it.
Yes, the corporations that produce "news" should be held accountable. But if not by their consumers then who?

>> ^NetRunner:

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?
If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?
It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.
Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?
What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"
As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

"If you asked everyone...?


It's a loaded question. Of course, most people are going to respond that they don't want to be lied to. The problem is, it's not a lie if the person lying to you agrees with you. That's just affirmation.

Let's say there is a magical room that "everyone" can sit in. On the left side of this room there is serious debate being honestly reported and covered by good journalists over the fiscal solvency of social security. On the right side of the room is a Bugs Bunny cartoon (or a Jerry Springer episode, a Lady Gaga video, an Alex Jones bit .. ie. anything else). In which direction do you think most of "everyone" is looking?

Most people honestly don't give a shit, they are struggling with their own lives and a quick escape is what they're after. When it's time for news, they don't want honesty, they want the comfort of a voice that confirms their own beliefs. I don't think Hannity viewers (for example) are making a choice between "comforting lies" and "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?", I think they are comforted by lies because it confirms the easily digestible "truths" they already hold and they're either unwilling or unable to invest more time or intelligence to understand the complexity of reality further.

McCain/Palin got around 46% of the vote in 2008. That means 46% of people were comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin having the nuclear launch codes of the U.S. arsenal if McCain died (a real possibility considering his age). Don't overestimate people.

This is sort of a silly argument at this point, but I'd like you to understand one thing. I'm not defending the way news is handled. I've said several times that it's awful and shitty .. but it is reality. You don't want it to be reality. Neither do I. But the solution to changing it starts with the consumers, I guess that's where we disagree. The only reason they cut away was for ratings. Again! Yes! That sucks. But that is what a money making machine will do in response to ratings based revenue. Ratings. Ratings. People Watching. People. There's your problem.

>> ^burdturgler:

This is sort of a silly argument at this point, but I'd like you to understand one thing. I'm not defending the way news is handled. I've said several times that it's awful and shitty .. but it is reality. You don't want it to be reality. Neither do I. But the solution to changing it starts with the consumers, I guess that's where we disagree. The only reason they cut away was for ratings. Again! Yes! That sucks. But that is what a money making machine will do in response to ratings based revenue. Ratings. Ratings. People Watching. People. There's your problem.


Heh, it's funny, I originally was going to say something along the lines of "this is silly / you obviously don't understand..." in my last comment but decided against it.

Again, I'll remind you that you came into this thread basically telling me that I shouldn't be making a fuss about this.

Now at least you're admitting there's a problem, but you're still hell bent on saying that blaming the people running the networks is off limits, as is suggesting any sort of regulation (e.g. it's false advertising to call Hannity "news"). I disagree with both of those assertions.

But the one solution you're supposedly okay with -- changing the minds of consumers -- was really what I was trying to do by posting the video and writing my comments saying "this is wrong".

At that stage, you got in my face, and have kept in it doggedly insisting I'm doing something wrong by saying they're doing something wrong!

Yes, I put the blame on the news organizations, because they're the ones doing it. Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices. Should my comment be "you stupid people out there are fucking up the news by still watching the news"?

I understand the entire mechanism you lay out. You don't seem to understand that I understand that, and have for a very long time. You don't seem to understand that it's not the only way the world has to work. It also won't ever change if you try to shout down the people who speak out and say "it doesn't have to be like this" by constantly saying "yes it does!"

Yes, I get that technically you're saying "well, maybe if you change human nature." But then you can't really change human nature. Especially if you go around telling anyone who tries that they just don't understand it's just the way the world is and you're not facing reality...

>> ^NetRunner:

Heh, it's funny, I originally was going to say something along the lines of "this is silly / you obviously don't understand..." in my last comment but decided against it.
Again, I'll remind you that you came into this thread basically telling me that I shouldn't be making a fuss about this.
Now at least you're admitting there's a problem, but you're still hell bent on saying that blaming the people running the networks is off limits, as is suggesting any sort of regulation (e.g. it's false advertising to call Hannity "news"). I disagree with both of those assertions.
But the one solution you're supposedly okay with -- changing the minds of consumers -- was really what I was trying to do by posting the video and writing my comments saying "this is wrong".
At that stage, you got in my face, and have kept in it doggedly insisting I'm doing something wrong by saying they're doing something wrong!
Yes, I put the blame on the news organizations, because they're the ones doing it. Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices. Should my comment be "you stupid people out there are fucking up the news by still watching the news"?
I understand the entire mechanism you lay out. You don't seem to understand that I understand that, and have for a very long time. You don't seem to understand that it's not the only way the world has to work. It also won't ever change if you try to shout down the people who speak out and say "it doesn't have to be like this" by constantly saying "yes it does!"
Yes, I get that technically you're saying "well, maybe if you change human nature." But then you can't really change human nature. Especially if you go around telling anyone who tries that they just don't understand it's just the way the world is and you're not facing reality...


We just have a different take on it.

When I said "silly argument", I didn't mean that you were silly or that you didn't get it, I meant that I felt the argument was silly because I agree with almost everything that you're saying here. I'm not trying to get in your face. I guess I'm just a little cynical lately because I feel that the "problem" begins and ends with the consumer. There is a lot of corporate crap in the middle of that shit sandwich, but in the end it's the consumers eating it. They are the ones choosing to increase ratings and they are the ones who refuse to stop watching. I'm not trying to tell you not to make a fuss about anything. I'm just telling you how I see things.

I feel like I'm being misunderstood here. Try not to read that as "you are incapable of understanding", because that isn't what I'm saying.

I don't think you can "change the minds of consumers". I think most people just don't care. And yes, most of them are just oblivious. I randomly asked someone today (a statistical analyst) "Who is the Secretary of State" and their answer was "Rumsfeld". I also think that most people prefer to have "news" reflected back to them that confirms their views.

Forget it, I don't want to rehash my opinion . I just want you to know that I'm not saying "yes it does" have to be this way. "Yes, consumers have the power to fix that with their own choices." For me, that sums it up, in your own words.

Like I said, I'm not trying to win anything here, not trying to sway you or get in your face .. just telling you what I think and I apologize if you think I was getting in your face. I honestly believe we agree 99% of the way here .. but for me the balance of culpability leans towards the consumers not the broadcasters. In other words, I place more hope in people than I do corporations, and although I'm universally disappointed by both, more so by the people.

I'm sorry you took offense to what I had to say here. I never wanted that. I'm not trying to shout you down or tell you you don't understand reality, I'm telling you my opinion of how I perceive the reality of the situation. That's all. I'm going to just drop it because like I said, it's silly to argue with someone that I basically agree with.