Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] not a monopoly on the news



On 03/26/2012 08:59 AM, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
bc thinks JD was ink blotting.

That's an insightful description of the situation. However, I didn't
do it intentionally. It really wasn't what I wanted to talk about.

"Ink blotting" is a nice colorful term. I'll have to remember that one.

As another metaphorical way of saying the same thing: I left a shoe
lying around. I half-expected some people to try it on, but I did
not expect anyone to wear it around in public.

On 03/25/2012 06:49 PM, David Marx wrote:
I take issue with your presumption that conservatives only get their news from one source.

1) I did not mention conservatives or any other group by name. What
you see in the ink blot is entirely up to you.

2a) I never said the members of this-or-that political group get their
news from only one source. I don't even think this is true.

2b) What I said and what I meant was a watered-down converse of the
above: If someone gets all their news from one source, then you can
"fairly well" make some predictions about other traits, including
income level, education level, whether they keep the edge of their
lawn neatly trimmed, et cetera.

Please do not confuse a statement with its converse.

3) I didn't make any sweeping categorical statements about anybody.
There are correlations. The correlations aren't 100%, but they
are not zero, either.

4) What I said is not based on assumption or opinion. The sociological
studies have been done.

There are two kinds of people in the world, those that make ASSumptions, and those that don't.

Physician, heal thyself x4.



On 03/26/2012 10:37 AM, R. W. Tarara wrote:

If the whole point is that you can't trust single or
even a few 'media' sources...well duh! I've known that since the 60's when
I read everything available on the Viet Nam war--from all sides--and found
almost zero agreement on facts.

Yes, that's close to being main point I wanted to make, and yes, Vietnam
was a wake-up call for a lot of people. I remember the "secret bombing"
of Cambodia.
++ The Cambodians knew we were bombing Cambodia.
++ The Russians knew we were bombing Cambodia.
++ The Chinese knew were were bombing Cambodia.
++ The Vietnamese knew were were bombing Cambodia.
++ Every newspaper in Mexico had stories about it.
-- None of the newspapers in the US had stories about it.
It was a "secret".

There is however something here that IMHO rises above the "duh" level.

Back in the bad old days, in some places there was only one local newspaper,
and very limited availability of other information. In contrast, nowadays
most folks have easy access to a multitude of disparate sources of information
... but this is a two-edged sword! The rich get richer while the poor get
poorer:
-- There are some people who actively look for sources of new information
and ways to cross-check old information.
-- Meanwhile, there are some people who actively seek out sources that
reinforce their pre-existing beliefs. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond
of saying everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their
own facts ... but now it has gotten to the point where quite a few people
feel they are entitled to their own facts!

This has been going on to some extent since time immemorial, but I think
it has gotten worse lately.

Note that when I say "sources" I mean to include TV channels, radio channels,
and web sites. There is also a treeemendous amount of information -- good,
bad, and/or ugly -- that gets spread by email.