"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.

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.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Anthony Weiner, Twitter, Sext, Rachel Maddow, Republicans, Democrats, Cenk, Uygur' to 'Anthony Weiner, Twitter, Sext, Rachel Maddow, Republicans, Democrats, Cenk Uygur' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^bobknight33:

He is his own worst enemy. Pervert What a wanker.


Come on now, every man enjoys a nice game of rate my penis.

The same way you embarrass conservatives pretty much. Not sure if you knew this, but liberals and conservatives are human beings, and both are elected officials with similar desired qualities.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What's astonishing is Weiner actually stepped down. I mean, how you do embarrass a liberal? They're shameless.

Your video, The Best of Weiner, a liberal patriot!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

If you're going to be an attack dog like Weiner was you really need to keep you really have to have a moral standing well above everyone else. Technically he should be able to stand on well structured arguments, which is what I think he did while in the house, but unfortunately a good portion of the voting public value emotion and simplicity over logic and complexity.

>> ^WKB:

He was a real force of honesty in the senate. While he may have resorted to lies...

yeah... good one.

"patriot!"

ditto.

What's astonishing is Weiner actually stepped down. I mean, how you do embarrass a liberal? They're shameless.

Even I feel bad for Weiner, but only cause he couldn't get no play from a "former" pr0n star. Each time he sent a salacious 'sext' she "steered the conversation" back. Back to WHAT? Farm subsidies?

>> ^WKB:

Such a shame he stepped down. He was a real force of honesty in the senate house. While he may have resorted to lies to prevent his private life from being exposed, which is a shame and is hypocritical, he has done more to expose actual lies that effect this country than most if not all of his colleagues.
Lie and it causes innocent civilians and US Troops to die? Fine... just a misunderstanding... of course. Lie about your underwear and cause no damage outside of your personal life? BURN THE WITCH!1! Absurd. If you are a non US citizen, rest assured that the US cares MUCH more about some dudes underwear than you or your child being ripped asunder by our very own shrapnel.
If he had to step down... WHY oh WHY could he not at least have made David Vitter an example of this hypocritical nonsense in the same breath. He had such courage in his active senate career as congressman... If only he could have displayed the same on his way out.

Fixed.

The hipocrisy of the Republicans is astounding -- not calling for the resignation of David Vitter or John Ensign, but calling for the resignation of Anthony Weiner.

http://videosift.com/video/Rachel-Maddow-It-s-Okay-if-you-re-a-republican

Look, nobody really thinks Weiner has to lose his job over this.

Republicans see this as an opportunity to quash an opposing voice and Democrats feel compelled to feign outrage to appear non-partisan. It's the same ends-justify-the-means tribal bullshit that ruins everything in politics.

I'm not particularly a fan of Weiner (or weiner, for that matter), but there's just no reason he should lose his job over this. He didn't break any laws; he didn't violate any rules of the position. I could plaster my junk on a billboard and I wouldn't lose my job, so why should he?

If his constituents feel this is such a problem then he won't be reelected. All the idiots complaining that this is such a distraction; it wouldn't be if you'd shut up and get back to work. Or are we to believe that you're kept up at night thinking about Weiner's bulging undies?

>> ^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.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.