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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.


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.

>> ^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.

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).

@TheSluiceGate Those people probably died. I'm glad they cut away so we didn't have to watch them drown.

The guy who's talking in Japanese at the beginning is yelling at the workers still by the water:

"What the hell are they doing?!? Get out of there, run!"

Also, shameless plug for my own Sift of newly discovered tsunami footage: http://videosift.com/video/New-Amazing-Dashcam-Footage-of-3-11-Tsunami

>> ^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

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.

>> ^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.

@NetRunner it seems to me that you may be confusing libertarianism with objectivism, or that I might have a more narrow view of libertarianism than is common. I'm thinking of ye olde Liberal, like Adam Smith and such. Already there I guess I make a "pick and choose" already, and cut away the crazier elements.

Charity is not an immoral thing in libertarianism, the thing is that you have to choose to be charitable. By my inaction I can cause a lot of suffering, sure, by not giving all my money to poor people, I "cause" them to stay poor and suffering. There are incentives to helping them, though, personally I can feel better about myself (that's why most people donate to anything anyway) for instance. The "free" part just means that we have a choice and are not forced.

If the government or someone else mandates that I give a poor guy some of my money, then it could be considered immoral, theft etc. Because I no longer have the choice, I am forced.

So I come back to, suffering is an unintended consequence of libertarianism - there is an inherent inequality, yes, some people win some people lose, but winners are perfectly allowed to be charitable all they like. Because we are free, we are also free to not share, that's the consequence.

On your example: It makes perfect sense if people are not products. I wouldn't say that people are products, are you saying that? Because the contradiction is only there when people can be bought and sold. Even when children are not emancipated yet (over 18 or however you get considered an adult) the parents are only your guardians, not your owners.

There was something unsettling about his use of that knife, as though it had also helped "cut away all those impurities".

Interesting stories... anybody willing to share if they explored any other religions after losing faith in Christianity? Anybody here who is an atheist that belonged to a religion other than Christianity before converting?

In my own case, I personally attended Mormon, Catholic, and Protestant churches as a child--my family considered themselves non-denominational Christians. In addition to the Protestant and Catholic Christian friends I had growing up, I also had friends who were Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu. My best friend's dad was a Unitarian pastor. At a very young age it was clear to me that none of the religions could be completely right, but even until today I don't agree that that fact means they all must be completely wrong. Rather, I see certain commonalities in all the faiths and think that each one expresses a kind of truth about our experiences as humans--just from different perspectives.

A pastor at Stanford I talked to once likened it to looking into a room from the outside through a window. You can only see part of the room through one particular window, and looking from other windows reveals other aspects of the room. In the end though, looking through the window is never the same thing as being inside the room and able to verify what's in there for yourself.

So I consider myself both religious and yet agnostic at the same time. I don't know if there is a divinity or divinities. I've heard lots of anecdotal evidence from people from a variety of faiths, but have never seen any empirical proof one way or the other. I certainly don't believe in the monotheistic Judeo-Islamic-Christian "God."

And yet, I don't dismiss religion completely. I'm convinced from my own (subjective) experiences and a growing body of research in the psychology of religion that it can be a very useful tool for improving both individuals and society (although it can be a terrible and dangerous weapon when misused). Going into the future, I would like to see the world's major religions transform themselves--to cut away that which is clearly being abused and to explore more fully that which helps people to bring out their full potential.

By the way, please don't construe that to mean that I think everyone must be religious to bring out their full potential. Like I said, I feel religion is like a tool--it certainly isn't the only one available and might not be right for all people under all circumstances.

I'm pretty sure you're cutting away a lot of taste with that. Also how do you make onion rings with that technique?

So here's what I'm finding suspicious. Why would they go to interview the boy in a small room right outside of a dark open room. I know Jamaica sucks, but that's a crap place to do an interview. Also, watch the foot placement of the boy before they cut away from that angle. His feet are below him. Now, I tried to move place my feet like his and move my chair like that and I was unsuccessful, however I am 180 lbs. and I'm on a rolling office chair on top of carpet. The other option is a string/rope tied to the back of the chair and held by somebody in that back closet.