View Full Version : How Reliable is Anything?
Note: This thread is not necessarily inspired by The Matrix, though it might address somewhat similar themes.
Basically, we live in a world in which "controlled environments" are increasingly the norm. As urban civilization continues to progress, the average human being finds him/herself spending less and less time in connection with nature and more and more time in artificially contrived settings or environments. In the modern world, reality is less and less readily perceptible and truth is more and more easy to conceal and distort.
A while ago, I posted this note in the thread on Movie Obsession:
I think it boils down to an issue of perception--more specifically, the human perception of reality.
I would argue that, on the average, about 25% of individual perception of reality is related to a direct, first-hand experience of reality, and about 75% is related to an indirect, second-hand experience of reality, which derives from word-of-mouth, media sources, literary sources, reference documentation, artistic representation, etc. The reason for this is that direct, first-hand experience of reality is inherently severely limited and restrictive, and if one were to rely exclusively on it, one's knowledge and perception of the universe would inevitably be as limited and restrictive. For example, we know that the world is spherical because we are so instructed by our schoolteachers and text books--indirect, 2nd hand experience. If we were to rely exclusively on direct, 1st hand experience, we would, in all probability, be convinced that the earth is flat.
With 2nd hand experience of reality, which, as I noted above, probably accounts for about 75% of an average individual's experience of reality--of the universe he/she inhabits--there are two fundamental issues: reliability and persuasiveness. The most reliable sources, such as reference documentation, etc., are not necessarily the most persuasive, while the most persuasive sources, such as art, propaganda, cinema, etc., are not necessarily the most reliable.
Cinema is, arguably, the most persuasive and least reliable of all such second-hand sources. It is the most persuasive, especially at a subliminal level of acceptance, because it almost creates a virtual reality, almost reproducing one's experience of reality through visual and auditory stimuli. It is the least reliable owing to the fact that the director has a free hand in doing what he likes with the camera lens--with modern digital special effects, especially, but also through selective editing and the selective process that constitutes cinematic photography--the selective camera lens. Thus, cinema is not necessarily an accurate representation of reality and, more often than not, it is a fabrication, ergo, deceptive and unreliable, albeit entertaining and diversionary.
The question is--can we be sure of anything anymore in the modern world? Can we take ANYTHING at all for granted? Can we rely on anything? We live in a world in which genetic manipulation is a reality--it is already widespread in farming and is becoming a possibility with human beings. We live in a world in which digital special effects can produce completely contrived scenarios in a cinematic context. We live in a world of virtual reality.
For most people, their "window into reality" is the TV or monitor screen. As I noted above, our perception of reality is largely dictated and, hence, CONTROLLED by second-hand sources. Most people get their news by watching it on TV or reading the newspaper or, increasingly, from the internet--as opposed to experiencing it first-hand. These are, supposedly, the "reliable sources of information"--documentary reference. But how reliable are even these sources? Can we really take them for granted? Only recently, the New York Times, supposedly the bastion for reliability in the news media, had to sack one of their prominent journalists for contriving news stories. This led to the resignation of several of their leading management. How objective and reliable are the supposedly reliable sources of information in our Information Age?
We graduate from school and university with a certain body of knowledge upon which we base our subsequent lives, to a great extent. But how reliable is this knowledge? Text books are written by human beings, after all. Where do you draw the line between objective information and subjective interpretation--even in supposedly objective sources of information such as university text books and reference documentation? Just how objective and neutral and free from bias are these supposedly reliable, objective sources of information? If you read the supposedly objective scientific documentation and news sources of the 19th century and early 20th century, for example, you will find that it is loaded with a colonial bias which would be extremely offensive to the modern sensibility, yet it was the norm back then because pretty much everybody accepted it and took it for granted. Just as they took racial discrimination for granted before the Civil Rights movement, and the fact that the earth was flat for granted before Columbus and Magellan proved otherwise.
This is a short one-act play I posted a while ago in another thread:
Is the World Flat?
A One-Act Play
By Uday Gunjikar
(Scene: Christopher Columbus addresses the "Flat Earth Society" in 15th Century Genoa, Italy)
Columbus: . . . And so, as you can see, my mathematical calculations and scientific observations clearly and indisputably prove that the earth is a sphere. Any questions?
(Onlooker in front row raises his hand)
Columbus: Yes?
1st Onlooker: But what does it all mean?
Columbus: Well, in layman’s terms, it means, simply, that the world is round.
1st Onlooker: The world is round??!! That’s ridiculous! Are you trying to tell us that the world we live on is round?
Columbus: As a matter of fact, yes.
1st Onlooker: What? Like a ball?
Columbus: Yes.
(Everybody laughs. Another onlooker from the back row speaks up.)
2nd Onlooker: But that’s totally absurd! I mean, look around you. Does the world even look like it’s round? Look at the ground. Does it look like a sphere? I mean, common knowledge clearly demonstrates--the facts clearly demonstrate--that the world is as flat as a pancake. How could it be otherwise?
Columbus: But my mathematical calculations and scientific measurements clearly prove otherwise.
2nd Onlooker: Is that so? Are you trying to tell us that some obscure mathematical calculations (quiet snickering and muffled laugher) and scientific measurements are more reliable than the collective opinions of all of us? I mean, we are the "Flat Earth Society"--our very existence is based on asserting the obvious, indisputable fact that the world is flat. And you come here with your mathematical calculations suggesting otherwise?
Columbus: In a word, yes.
(Another onlooker pipes up from the middle of the crowd).
3rd Onlooker: Let’s have a quick show of hands, shall we? Who believes that the earth is flat?
(Everybody raises their hand except Columbus)
3rd Onlooker: So you see, Signor Columbus? The consensus is clearly overwhelmingly opposed to you. What do you say to the fact that you are in a minority of one? To the fact that the entire population of the known world clearly knows, for a fact, that the earth is flat, whereas all you have to present us with are some whacko, way-out mathematical calculations and scientific measurements to try and prove otherwise? I mean, who’s going to believe something as ridiculous, as absurd as that?
(Another onlooker pipes up)
4th Onlooker: Tell us, Signor Columbus, how do you explain the fact that no one agrees with anything you say?
Columbus: It’s very simple. The truth is that all of you have been deceived by the enormous size of the earth and the result that the curvature of the earth is so small as to be almost invisible to the naked eye. To say nothing of the earth’s uneven terrain--hills, valleys, and so forth. However, if one takes the time and trouble to make a few careful observations, the curvature of the earth becomes indisputably apparent. A few simple experiments can prove this.
4th Onlooker: Look, I won’t even pretend to understand any of this gobbledegook you just said. All I’m saying is, "When are you going to quit making a public fool of yourself and simply fall in line with the rest of us, who know for a fact that the earth is flat?" I mean, all you have to offer us are some way-out calculations and stuff. How convincing is that?
(Another onlooker speaks up)
5th Onlooker: Just how comfortable is it being in a minority of one, Signor Columbus? When you pretty much have the whole world against you while all you have to offer are some mathematical calculations that no one understands, you have to wonder whether maybe you are being just a tad schizophrenic and out of touch with reality, wouldn’t you say?
1st Onlooker: Yeah, and besides all that, we, the Board of Directors of the "Flat Earth Society," personally have a great deal of money invested in continuing the proposition that the world is flat. So if you refuse to fall in line and accept what we tell you, we will feel compelled to relentlessly hound you and mercilessly persecute you until you cave in to our demands!
(At this point, the room erupts with jeers and cries of consent to the 1st onlooker’s words. A few audience members begin chanting the anthem of the "Flat Earth Society":
"The world is flat,
As we all know,
And that is that!
So get on with the show!")
Columbus: Oh yeah? So you expect me to fall in line with the rest of you so that I can proudly claim to be as deluded, ignorant and flat-out mistaken as the members of the "Flat Earth Society," while all along I happen to know better? Not likely! You see, there’s a little ocean voyage that I plan to take to prove you all wrong! Just you wait and see!
(The crowd continues to boo and jeer as Columbus makes his exit.)
Chorus: . . . And the rest, as they say, is history!
THE END
Point is, in my opinion, what we need more and more of in today's modern world--the world of the 21st Century--is a HEALTHY DOSE OF SKEPTICISM--what can we be sure of, anymore?
Sir Toose
06-14-03, 02:55 PM
You are correct, of course. We cannot rely on anything as we really don't understand the 'big picture'. We have our world/universe that is beginning to make some kind of sense, but not really... for all our knowledge we are still shooting into the dark and hoping to hit something.
For me, I'm not sure skepticism is any better than just going with the flow. I don't think being skeptical will reveal any further truths as we are simply not equipped/ready etc to know more than we do.
Being that we are not at all on solid ground with anything (except what little science we have, that's fallible at best) how can we ever judge what's worth or worthy of being skeptical about?
I think there's a balance we can't see. positives/negatives, blacks/whites, switching to skepticism is really just swapping sides on a teeter-totter.
Well, my point is--we need to know what the certainties are and what is pure fiction and fabrication. It's one thing to be fumbling in the dark, unsure of anything, and being AWARE of that. It's another thing to be fumbling in the dark and to have one's mind set on believing as certainties, things that are, in actuality, completely fallacious. One has to acknowledge the uncertainties and know where to draw the line otherwise one runs the risk of becoming another member of the "Flat-Earth Society", so to speak--believing to be certain things that are completely untrue. One has to know what is truth/reality and what is a lie. Are you saying, in effect, that "ignorance is bliss" and that it is better to be deceived that to know the truth? In answer, I quote the Bible: "The truth shall set you free."
The Silver Bullet
06-14-03, 10:41 PM
"...because thy truth shalt bake a cake with a shovel inside it."
Good grief, Matt! What possesses you to mess up every serious discussion on this forum with your irrelevant remarks? If you have something of value to contribute to the discussion, by all means, do so. Otherwise, your remarks are completely pointless. They add nothing of value to the ongoing dialog and only pollute the intellectual atmosphere with irritating irrelevancies! Sorry for coming down on you so hard, but you are seriously getting on my nerves!
I would just like to add another quote from a post I made in the Movie Obsession thread, that expands on my prior post, in which I suggested that 75% of the average person's concept of reality comes from second-hand sources, while only 25% comes from direct, first-hand experience:
Naturally, these figures do not derive from any sort of scientific study--they come from common, day-to-day experience. In actual fact, I would argue that my figures are far too generous. For the average member of modern urban society, the break-up is probably more like 10% vs 90% or even 1% vs. 99%. What leads me to make such radical claims, you ask? Okay, consider the following (Einsteinian) thought experiment. Take any news item one might read about in the newspaper. Say, for example, the following news item from msnbc.com: "Iraq ambushes injure 4 U.S. troops." 99.999% (roughly) of the worlds population would only know of this information through a media source--a second-hand source--assuming they know of it at all. Of the remaining 0.001%, 99% (roughly) would only know of it through word-of-mouth or a military dispatch. The only people who would know this piece of information first-hand would be the people directly involved in it and eye-witnesses--a tiny minority. Even the news sources that report this information to us only get the information second-hand themselves, very often. Either they interview eye-witnesses or they rely on a dispatch of some sort or a press-conference or word-of-mouth. So the fact remains that, regardless of the percentages, the vast majority of our knowledge and experience of reality comes from second-hand sources. And even our first-hand experience of reality is invariably chaotic and fragmentary, so that one can only make sense of it in the context of other, second-hand sources that paint a more complete picture of events (or, at least, seem to do so). So, my point is that, considering our overwhelming dependence on second-hand sources, how reliable are these sources and, consequently, our perception of the universe we live in?
Sir Toose
06-16-03, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Django
Are you saying, in effect, that "ignorance is bliss" and that it is better to be deceived that to know the truth? In answer, I quote the Bible: "The truth shall set you free."
No. I'm saying you and I don't know what the 'truth' is. I'm saying that by being overly skeptical about everything you may miss something. How do you really know what is truth and what is fiction? You don't. I don't. None of us do.
The Silver Bullet
06-16-03, 10:03 AM
...but you are seriously getting on my nerves!
Isn't it ironic? Don'tcha think?
Originally posted by Sir Toose
No. I'm saying you and I don't know what the 'truth' is. I'm saying that by being overly skeptical about everything you may miss something. How do you really know what is truth and what is fiction? You don't. I don't. None of us do.
I agree--by being overly skeptical, you do miss something--that's why I recommended a healthy dose of skepticism. We all live on faith, essentially, but there is something called "blind faith"--being a "true believer"--being excessively gullible and naive, for instance. My point is that discernment is essential--we need to be able to determine what is truth and what is a lie or deception if we want to have productive lives. There are ways of discerning the truth from the lie. My point is that perhaps not enough people are really trying to exercise discernment--that in modern society, we become conditioned to accept certain things as true, taking them for granted, as it were, and not questioning them sufficiently. In the 21st century, we cannot afford to take anything for granted.
Originally posted by Django
What possesses you to mess up every serious discussion on this forum with your irrelevant remarks?
Um, you're rather the last person who should be accusing someone of that.
And (completely ignoring our past scuffles) that little Columbus play is, in all honesty, completely God awful. I haven't the faintest idea what you see in it that leads you to believe it is clever, witty, funny, interesting, or any of the things that a play ought to be.
Just FYI.
Originally posted by Django
Are you saying, in effect, that "ignorance is bliss" and that it is better to be deceived that to know the truth? In answer, I quote the Bible: "The truth shall set you free."
I'd hate to turn this thread into another religious debate, but I'd argue that "the truth" as it's referred to in the Bible is God's love (or maybe Jesus's sacrifice. I'm no theologian.) And, as history has taught us, the religious are usually the ones responsible for distorting the truth and spreading ignorance.
Originally posted by Yoda
Um, you're rather the last person who should be accusing someone of that.
And (completely ignoring our past scuffles) that little Columbus play is, in all honesty, completely God awful. I haven't the faintest idea what you see in it that leads you to believe it is clever, witty, funny, interesting, or any of the things that a play ought to be.
Just FYI.
Wow, so in reply, you have more irrelevant remarks to add to this discussion, huh? Like I said, if you have something of value to add, by all means do so. If all you want to do is pollute the intellectual atmosphere with irrelevant remarks, kindly butt out of the discussion, with all due respect.
Regarding the Columbus play--whatever its artistic merits, I wrote it to make a point, and I think it makes the point pretty effectively. I was not so much concerned with writing Shakespearean verse as simply making a point.
Originally posted by Steve
I'd hate to turn this thread into another religious debate, but I'd argue that "the truth" as it's referred to in the Bible is God's love (or maybe Jesus's sacrifice. I'm no theologian.) And, as history has taught us, the religious are usually the ones responsible for distorting the truth and spreading ignorance.
I agree with what you said about the fact that religion is often responsible for distorting truth and perpetuating ignorance. Case in point, Christopher Columbus, who had to contend with Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition! Regarding what is referred to as "truth" in the passage quoted above--yes, it refers to God's truth and God's love--to Jesus as well (as in his quote "I am the way, the truth and the life")--but, I would argue, to any truth in general--to any fact or reality. Thus, the quote not only has a religious/spiritual level of meaning, but, I would claim, a practical one as well.
Originally posted by Django
Wow, so in reply, you have more irrelevant remarks to add to this discussion, huh? Like I said, if you have something of value to add, by all means do so. If all you want to do is pollute the intellectual atmosphere with irrelevant remarks, kindly butt out of the discussion, with all due respect.
I hardly think pointing out that you are insanely guilty of the thing you're complaining about qualifies as an irrelevant remark. You're the last person on the face of this earth who has anything resembling solid footing from which to criticize someone for not having anything to contribute, as you've made a habit of carrying on multi-page discussions with nary a fact behind your long, opinionated diatribes.
Originally posted by Django
Regarding the Columbus play--whatever its artistic merits, I wrote it to make a point, and I think it makes the point pretty effectively. I was not so much concerned with writing Shakespearean verse as simply making a point.
That's all well and good...I'm not looking for poetry. But if something is not to be aesthetically pleasing, it ought to be intellectually pleasing. What great insight does your play give us? If your point is that people are sometimes resistant to controversial ideas, you've scored about a 9.8 on the Duh-O-Meter. Throw in the fact that it's written with contemporary hindsight (think of the "I think World War II just started!" line from Pearl Harbor), and I don't have much use for it.
You know, I really couldn't care less about your critical remarks here. The fact is that I am TRYING to carry on a discussion with a specific topic in mind and you are INTRUDING with your RUDE and IRRELEVANT COMMENTS.
So, with all due respect, if you have nothing to say pertaining to the topic at hand, I request you to BUTT OUT of the discussion!
P.S. Your allegations against me are completely unfounded and fallacious, but this is not the place to go into them. If you have a gripe against me, start a new thread. Please REFRAIN from CLUTTERING this thread with your POINTLESS and IRRELEVANT observations.
It's time to grow up.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Django
You know, I really couldn't care less about your critical remarks here. The fact is that I am TRYING to carry on a discussion with a specific topic in mind and you are INTRUDING with your RUDE and IRRELEVANT COMMENTS.
Originally posted by Django
Please REFRAIN from CLUTTERING this thread with your POINTLESS and IRRELEVANT observations.
"I hardly think pointing out that you are insanely guilty of the thing you're complaining about qualifies as an irrelevant remark."
Originally posted by Django
It's time to grow up.
Fine advice, were it to come from someone who didn't routinely ignore facts and twist truths (I can construct a small list of the infractions, if necessary) to avoid ever admitting they'd simply made a mistake. The day you give me advice on constructing hollow arguments made of nothing but unfounded opinion is the day I shall heed you.
Originally posted by Yoda
"I hardly think pointing out that you are insanely guilty of the thing you're complaining about qualifies as an irrelevant remark."
Irrelevant to the topic currently being discussed.
You know, during the days/weeks when you were gone from the forum, things were so quiet and peaceful! I was actually able to communicate with people here and get my point across, to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas and foster mutual understanding and constructive dialog. I really made a lot of progress, without your incessant intervention. It made me forget just how intrusive and irritating you are, with your endless, predictable refrain--the same old song, again and again and again, like a stuck record from hell!
Now that you're back, with your inflated ego, your bad blood and your penchant for being rude, irritating and downright obnoxious, completely ignoring the subject under discussion, with a compulsive need to prove yourself right regardless of what exactly the issues are, your mindless obsession with irrelevant trivialities while totally ignoring the substance of the topics being discussed, your compulsive need to ruin any constructive commentary or intelligent debate I attempt to initiate, I guess things will probably return to the way they used to be--with you encouraging the juvenile delinquents (like Silver Bullet) and undermining any prospect for intelligent discussion.
Originally posted by Yoda
Fine advice, were it to come from someone who didn't routinely ignore facts and twist truths (I can construct a small list of the infractions, if necessary) to avoid ever admitting they'd simply made a mistake. The day you give me advice on constructing hollow arguments made of nothing but unfounded opinion is the day I shall heed you.
Again, the same old song! God, how old this has become! On and on and on, like some nagging fisherwoman!
Have you made a SINGLE COMMENT relevant to the topic under discussion so far?
Originally posted by Django
Irrelevant to the topic currently being discussed.
Not really. My observation operates as a sort of character witness. It's inane to not consider the speaker when pondering what's been spoken.
Originally posted by Django
You know, during the days/weeks when you were gone from the forum, things were so quiet and peaceful! I was actually able to communicate with people here and get my point across, to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas and foster mutual understanding and constructive dialog. I really made a lot of progress, without your incessant intervention. It made me forget just how intrusive and irritating you are, with your endless, predictable refrain--the same old song, again and again and again, like a stuck record from hell!
If my memory serves, you managed to alienate another person while I was away. Didn't Pidzilla say something about understanding why so many people have had trouble with you? Sorry to break it to you, but Toose saying he doesn't hate you doesn't exactly qualify as "progress."
That said, it's very telling that your idea of "hell" really just amounts to someone forcing you to own up to your mistakes, or provide evidence for your array of careless claims.
Originally posted by Django
Now that you're back, with your inflated ego, your bad blood and your penchant for being rude, irritating and downright obnoxious, completely ignoring the subject under discussion, with a compulsive need to prove yourself right regardless of what exactly the issues are, your mindless obsession with irrelevant trivialities while totally ignoring the substance of the topics being discussed, your compulsive need to ruin any constructive commentary or intelligent debate I attempt to initiate, I guess things will probably return to the way they used to be--with you encouraging the juvenile delinquents (like Silver Bullet) and undermining any prospect for intelligent discussion.
You know, I'll bet I could find quotes from your posts exhibiting each one of items in your little comma delimited list. But, as we've already established, it doesn't matter if you engage in all the practices you speak out against, so what's the use?
I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that maybe the majority of us have a perfectly rational reason for disliking you?
Originally posted by Django
Have you made a SINGLE COMMENT relevant to the topic under discussion so far?
God help you if you can't see how pointing out your hypocriscy is relevant to the discussion.
Anyway, the various discussions we've had might not carry over into others like this if you didn't make such a habit of shirking them (along with any related verification).
Sir Toose
06-16-03, 07:16 PM
Sorry to break it to you, but Toose saying he doesn't hate you doesn't exactly qualify as "progress."
Hi Chris, welcome back.
I never said I hated him or didn't hate him. I DID say he was focusing less on himself and arguing his beliefs (until now).
Damn good to see you!
(oh...maybe I did say that, now that I think about it.... I really meant I liked his attitude better...I don't know him to hate him).
The Silver Bullet
06-16-03, 08:53 PM
You know, I really couldn't care less about your critical remarks here. The fact is that I am TRYING to carry on a discussion with a specific topic in mind and you are INTRUDING with your RUDE and IRRELEVANT COMMENTS.
[list=a]
You do not own the threads you start, and thus cannot monitor what gets posted within them.
In attacking everything that anyone says when it does not comply with your own personal opinions of yourself, the world and live, you too are being rude. The very thing you keep saying we are. So, practice what you preach.
The topic at hand does, will and can change. And currently, the topic at hand is you, and the way you think your threads are part of an untouchable Oasis. They're not.[/list=a]
Yoda, Silver Bullet, QUIT CRAPPING ON MY THREAD!!!
How many times do I have to repeat this before it finally sinks into your head?
About Pidzilla, what possesses you into believing that I have alienated him from myself? I get along just fine with Pidzilla! I don't know what exactly your problem is, Yoda, but if I need a nanny or chaperone, I can look up the Yellow Pages, thanks!
Now, back to the topic under discussion . . .
Does anyone have anything to add that is RELEVANT to the subject at hand?
Piddzilla
06-17-03, 12:44 PM
:bawling: Can't we all just get along??? :bawling:
NexijunRodent
06-17-03, 07:37 PM
*craps on dijango's thread and leaves*
Wow...Django giving me thread etiquette lectures. I wonder if I can hire Marlon Brando as my personal trainer while I'm at it.
A word of genuine advice: you will not regain the respect you so utterly lost site-wide by dodging accountability and refusing to discuss the (valid) gripes people have with you. It is only by owning up to your mistakes and altering your behavior for the better that you'll be afforded the kind of consideration you so rabidly demand.
No thread is an island. Your statements in one can and will be applied and considered in others.
Originally posted by Django
How many times do I have to repeat this before it finally sinks into your head?
Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that I hear you just fine, but have chosen to disobey your "order."
Originally posted by Django
About Pidzilla, what possesses you into believing that I have alienated him from myself? I get along just fine with Pidzilla! I don't know what exactly your problem is, Yoda, but if I need a nanny or chaperone, I can look up the Yellow Pages, thanks!
"I am starting to understand why people here are so frustrated with you."
-- Pidzilla
He doesn't seem to despise you, but the above is a step down from his earlier (seeming) indifference on the matter.
Piddzilla
06-18-03, 05:20 AM
I have actually reach the point where I am so influential on this board that people cites me!! I did it!! I'M A MOFO CELEBRITY!!! :laugh: :love:
Sir Toose
06-18-03, 09:22 AM
Well of course you are, dingleberry. That new sig and avvie are really quite cool if I haven't mentioned it before.
Piddzilla
06-18-03, 06:14 PM
Well thank you, huckleberry. You hadn't but now you have. Do you love me again?
Sir Toose
06-18-03, 06:25 PM
I always love you... even when I want to kill you.
You were right, by the way. I shouldn't have said it was boring without reading it through. You were right to nail me for it.
Piddzilla
06-18-03, 06:33 PM
AARRRRGGGHHH!!!! Don't do that!! I like you better when you're an *******!!
Beale the Rippe
06-18-03, 06:36 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:Chris vs. Django=comedy gold:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Yoda and Silver Bullet:
HERE (http://www.movieforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=4477) is a thread especially designed for the two of you.
Feel free to move there and crap all you like!
I'm just trying to keep my own thread clean, crap-free and smelling sweet!
Anyone out there wanting to actually debate the issues about the reliability of our sources of information in this, the Information Age? Anyone out there with a contribution to make that is relevant to the subject matter? Just wondering!
Dear Buds,
Don't know how relevant my remarks EVER are, but . . . there are some things that can be verified by our own senses and our own experiences. (Note that I don't buy that stuff about "am I an emperor dreaming I'm a butterfly?")
I think it's true that our governments (the US in my case, but it applies to all governments) lie to us a whole lot -- sometimes on purpose to acheive a specific goal, but often just for the hell of it. And sometimes just because they're mistaken & don't know the dif between what's true & what's not.
And of course the media lie because somebody had paid them to lie. Why else would Saudi Arabia NOT have a bad press? (BAD idea to reduce the number of owners of radio stations/TV broadcasters & print media! VERY bad!)
And sometimes men and women lie to each other
And sometimes we lie to ourselves.
But if we are thoughtful and watchful, we can often tell in our real lives what's true and what's not, though as you say, it's sensible to be a little skeptical.
But maybe not always knowing which "truths" are untruths helps us to stay alert and thinking. And continuing to think is a good remedy for a lot of the world's troubles, don't you agree?
Love,
Jozie
But unless you and 'Chris are really good friends and are just playing, I think that all that name-calling and four-letter wording is a real waste of time. There are better things to do with your lives, pals!
Jozie
Hi, Jozie! Your remarks are always welcome and always relevant! Thanks for your comments addressing the topic!
About my feud with Chris--I agree, it is a waste of time! Let's hope things change for the better in the future.
I see your points, but my intention was not so much to advocate a conspiracy theory as to simply point out that only about 25% (if you take a generous view) of the average person's worldview or perception of reality is actually based on 1st hand experience. The VAST majority of anybody's concept of the universe they live in--anything from 75% to 99%, I would argue--is based on 2nd hand sources. Considering this fact, the issue becomes--how reliable are any of these second-hand sources? Fact is, most of what we accept as truth and fact remains unverified by us--because, quite simply, we don't have the time. We turn to supposedly reliable sources for our information--reputable media outlets, for example, or reliable documentary sources. But how reliable are theses sources really? Quite apart from the possibility of contrivance or fabrication is the issue of cultural or social bias or prejudice, or any other factor that compromises strict factual objectivity. Like the example I cited earlier, if you take any arbitrary news item from, for example, msnbc.com, and strictly analyse it, the truth that comes to light is that 99.9999% of the world only are aware of that piece of information through some second-hand source (and this invariably includes the journalists reporting the story) and the only people who experience it first-hand are the eyewitnesses and others actually involved in the story--around 0.0001% of the world! That's a sobering thought--to me, at least! How reliable, then, is ANY news story? Of course, these statistics are not based on any scientifice study, but are only rough, hypothetical figures that I'm using to illustrate my point. And, of course, they wouldn't apply to something like 9/11, which was witnessed by pretty much everyone--but even an event like that is only witnessed by a few people first hand, strictly speaking. Most people see it only on TV--live, perhaps, but that's still second hand. And even the people who experience it 1st hand only experience a small part of the entire event.
If you imagine yourself locked in a tiny room with only a TV or radio or internet access as your only outlet to the outside world, there would be no way for you to know whether or not everything you watch or listen to or read was totally fabricated or not--no way for you to ever corroborate any of your sources. And that is how most of us live our lives with relation to the media.That's why when a reporter from a reputed Newspaper like the New York Times gets fired for fabricating news stories, leading to the resignation of several of the management at the institution, it raises some serious questions about the reliability of modern journalism. That's just my take on the issue.
shooot.em.down.
06-22-03, 12:04 AM
i think that we should remember that conflict is a part of our lives these days, and that yes, it is a waste of time yelling at someone and being mad at them, but it is also necessary. why, i don't know;) but if everyone was perfect, how boring would everything be?
i rest my case.
Originally posted by Django
That's why when a reporter from a reputed Newspaper like the New York Times gets fired for fabricating news stories, leading to the resignation of several of the management at the institution, it raises some serious questions about the reliability of modern journalism. That's just my take on the issue.
The firing of the reporter and resignation of several of those in management should instill a little more faith in the institution of journalism, not cause us to be MORE skeptical. It's nice to know that things like this don't go on without penalty. This reporter was caught because it was inevitable that people with first-hand experience would expose the lies he tried to pass as truth (in his case, the origianl journalist who wrote the article he plagerized). The skepticism, to an extent, should have been present in all of us in the first place. We should always be analytical thinkers when presented with "facts," but to discard all faith in journalism because someone was caught and punished for unscrupulous acts would be like losing faith in your religion because of something immoral in which the pastor/priest/rabbi of your church may have been involved.
Journalists can get away with fabricating the truth to an extent, and governments can manipulate media, I agree, but I don't think it is necessary to experience first-hand the things we except as truth. Faith, trust, common sense, and the scientific method make up our analytical thinking and help us decide in our own minds what is truth and what may have been fabricated.
If the media tells me it is 93 million miles to the sun, I can accept that without first-hand experience. I trust that all the scientists in the world would not conspire to fabricate this figure.
Should we be skeptical? Yes. Should we use common sense? Yes. Should we trust respectable news sources? Yes, because it is inevitable that reporters who fabricate stories will become exposed.
Beale the Rippe
06-22-03, 12:31 AM
Apple Pie and Baseball.
Originally posted by Mark
The firing of the reporter and resignation of several of those in management should instill a little more faith in the institution of journalism, not cause us to be MORE skeptical. It's nice to know that things like this don't go on without penalty. This reporter was caught because it was inevitable that people with first-hand experience would expose the lies he tried to pass as truth (in his case, the origianl journalist who wrote the article he plagerized). The skepticism, to an extent, should have been present in all of us in the first place. We should always be analytical thinkers when presented with "facts," but to discard all faith in journalism because someone was caught and punished for unscrupulous acts would be like losing faith in your religion because of something immoral in which the pastor/priest/rabbi of your church may have been involved.
Journalists can get away with fabricating the truth to an extent, and governments can manipulate media, I agree, but I don't think it is necessary to experience first-hand the things we except as truth. Faith, trust, common sense, and the scientific method make up our analytical thinking and help us decide in our own minds what is truth and what may have been fabricated.
If the media tells me it is 93 million miles to the sun, I can accept that without first-hand experience. I trust that all the scientists in the world would not conspire to fabricate this figure.
Should we be skeptical? Yes. Should we use common sense? Yes. Should we trust respectable news sources? Yes, because it is inevitable that reporters who fabricate stories will become exposed.
For every one reporter who does get exposed, how many thousands, or even millions, remain unexposed? Who knows? And this was an extreme case, regarding a journalist who completely contrived his stories, apparently. But what about others who may not necessarily contrive their material, but may compromise on its objectivity, to some degree, adding a personal bias to it or distorting the facts in some way? How is there any possible way to verify any of what goes on here? Not without corroborating the sources or channels of information, and given the speed of the information highway, who has the time or capability to do something like this? It's hardly the same thing as religion. It is serious because we, as citizens of the world, deserve to know whether or not the worldview that is being presented to us in the media is an accurate picture of reality or has been distorted in some way, if not wildly inaccurate. Whether governments are responsible, or corporations or other vested interests is besides the point. The question is how accurate a picture of reality does the media present to us and what means do we have of corroborating any of their claims? I don't see how common sense or intuition can help you discern the facts from the lies. Of course, in some cases, when the claims made defy logic or experiential reality, one can contest them and make them out to be fallacious. In most cases, however, there is really no way of discerning reality from fantasy, when it comes to the media. That is disturbing to me, and that is why I'm advocating a healthy dose of skepticism, as opposed to complete paranoia.
The Silver Bullet
06-22-03, 05:44 AM
For every one reporter who does get exposed, how many thousands, or even millions, remain unexposed?
Millions? Zuh?
Blind skepticism is no better overall than blind acceptance.
More importantly, I don't believe your behavior is consistent with your claims. If you're so high on first-hand information, why do you so often shirk even the most basic of verification and research?
I think you ARE advocating paranoia. And frankly, I think the reason for it is based in part in your desire to believe what you will no matter what evidence (be it a statistic or a news item) is presented to the contrary. Your rampant distrust of the news is a crucial component in any philosophy whose first priority is not truth, but self-preservation.
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Millions? Zuh?
I said the same thing to myself. Probably more of Django's trademark "exaggeration."
Sexy Celebrity
06-22-03, 03:22 PM
How many millions of his personalities go unexposed? :confused:
Originally posted by Yoda
More importantly, I don't believe your behavior is consistent with your claims. If you're so high on first-hand information, why do you so often shirk even the most basic of verification and research?
:yup::yup::yup:
First of all, Yoda, I just want to say that I have nothing against you personally and welcome your relevant comments to the issue under discussion on this thread. By all means contribute to the topic and add your unique point of view to the general opinion. That said, let me add that you strike me as an extremely arrogant, pompous, self-righteous jerk with an inflated opinion of his own uprightness, which is the main reason I feel put off by you.
Anyway, now to address your comments in turn:
Originally posted by Yoda
Blind skepticism is no better overall than blind acceptance.
Now what, in God's good name, may I ask, is "blind skepticism"??!! Is this just a clever use of words with no real concept or meaning in mind? Please elaborate on what you are referring to here.
Originally posted by Yoda
More importantly, I don't believe your behavior is consistent with your claims. If you're so high on first-hand information, why do you so often shirk even the most basic of verification and research?
When I feel compelled to substantiate my claims, I do, indeed, provide substantial evidence for the claims I make. I have done so on numerous occasions. However, this is a movie board, not a goshdarned Ph.D. thesis. As such, I don't have the leisure or inclination to verify every single nitpicky, irrelevant item of trivia that you might raise, claiming it is a "major issue". There are other things that take priority in my life, quite frankly. Things like that, which strike me as pointless and irrelevant, I choose, quite simply, to ignore.
Originally posted by Yoda
I think you ARE advocating paranoia. And frankly, I think the reason for it is based in part in your desire to believe what you will no matter what evidence (be it a statistic or a news item) is presented to the contrary. Your rampant distrust of the news is a crucial component in any philosophy whose first priority is not truth, but self-preservation.
Firstly, I think YOU are the one advocating paranoia here--concerning my words on this message board. I personally believe that you feel personally threatened by my presence on this forum, which is why you feel compelled to relentlessly hound me and dissect everything I say in an ongoing attempt to undermine my credibility and alienate me from the affections of most people on this forum. To this end, let me briefly make mention of the tactics you have either implicitly endorsed or else explicitly engaged in in the past: deletion of my threads, editing of my posts, relentlessly antagonizing me with irrelevant comments and pointless arguments, etc. Secondly--no, I am in no way advocating paranoia. I am merely questioning the nature of the things that everyone takes for granted in our society. I think it is a relevant line of questioning and, in a free society, such as ours, in the interests of truth and justice, I think it is a crucial issue. Just how reliable IS the media anyway, and the documentary sources that we are expected to accept on faith. I don't see how this qualifies as a "rampant distrust" of anything--because, as I said, I am not advocating the theory that the media is all lies and propaganda. If I was, then your remarks would be justified. As it stands, it is an example of YOUR penchant to distort everything I say and take it out of context, exaggerating it, and make it out to be something it is not. As I said, what is called for is a healthy dose of skepticism--nothing more, nothing less. Finally, if my primary concern was, indeed self-preservation, would I be busy raising controversial issues (in a peaceful, non-threatening vein) that challenge the mainstream opinion? Would I not, rather, be collaborating with the mainstream--kind of like you are doing? On the contrary, my primary concern here is truth and justice, which is why I have been addressing controversial issues while putting at risk my credibility and social standing on the forum--a fact that you have been hard at work exploiting and turning against me.
Originally posted by Yoda
I said the same thing to myself. Probably more of Django's trademark "exaggeration."
Hardly an exaggeration if you consider the entire history of modern journalism all over the world, and also include all the historical documentation of the past (journalism today = historical documentation tomorrow). And also if you consider that I am referring not simply to outright contrivance or tabloid journalism but, rather, also to subtle, unwarranted editorializing which compromises the objectivity (and integrity) of the content by adding a subjective bias to it.
The Silver Bullet
06-22-03, 08:23 PM
And also if you consider that I am referring not simply to outright contrivance or tabloid journalism but, rather, also to subtle, unwarranted editorializing which compromises the objectivity (and integrity) of the content by adding a subjective bias to it.
What is your point? The whole world compromises the integrity of everything it says by adding subjective bias. You cannot be without bias, it is a human trait, the unavoidable result of having lived.
Every post you have ever made here has engaged in unwarranted editorialising, for example. You alter facts and exaggerate just as much as the next guy to make your point. We all do it. I am not saying that to do it isn't wrong, in or out of journalism, but you making a stand against it, considering the nature of your contribution to this site, is just plain hypocritical.
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
What is your point? The whole world compromises the integrity of everything it says by adding subjective bias. You cannot be without bias, it is a human trait, the unavoidable result of having lived.
Every post you have ever made here has engaged in unwarranted editorialising, for example. You alter facts and exaggerate just as much as the next guy to make your point. We all do it. I am not saying that to do it isn't wrong, in or out of journalism, but you making a stand against it, considering the nature of your contribution to this site, is just plain hypocritical.
Well, if I do editorialize, then I do so unwittingly, because I try to be objective and unbiased in what I say. My point is that journalism is about TRYING to be objective. It may not always succeed, and some journalists may be more or less objective than others. But, at least, the journalistic ideal is complete, unbiased objectivity. The other extreme is total fabrication, which led to the expulsion of the New York Times journalist. Now, if I unwittingly editorialize while attempting to be objective, unbiased and honest, I don't think you can fault me for being hypocritical. You may fault me for being less than perfect, but not for hypocrisy. In any case, the issue here is to foster awareness of editorial bias in all media and documentary sources, however great their claim to objectivity. It exists everywhere and is an inevitable consequence of human subjectivity. Nevertheless, no one has the complete monopoly on the truth, and even the best of sources inevitably have a bias that compromises strict objectivity. I think it's vitally important for people to realize this, because what is at stake is our very concept of the universe we live in. How distorted is it, whether intentionally or unintentionally so? The first step towards rectifying the issue is awareness of the issue. "The truth will make you free." Where does the truth lie and how can we get to it? That's the issue at hand.
First of all, Yoda, I just want to say that I have nothing against you personally and welcome your relevant comments to the issue under discussion on this thread. By all means contribute to the topic and add your unique point of view to the general opinion.
I don't by any means require your approval to add my point of view, but better to have it than not.
hat said, let me add that you strike me as an extremely arrogant, pompous, self-righteous jerk with an inflated opinion of his own uprightness, which is the main reason I feel put off by you.
Seeing as how you're virtually alone in every one of those feelings, and seeing as how you're probably just lashing out at me for exposing a number of your argumentative inadequacies, I can't bring myself to take your view seriously.
However, even if I am arrogant, pompous, and self-righteous, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Now what, in God's good name, may I ask, is "blind skepticism"??!! Is this just a clever use of words with no real concept or meaning in mind? Please elaborate on what you are referring to here.
It's the opposite of blind acceptance. Instead of doubting too little, it is doubting too much. Doubt should be educated and reasonable...which means you can go too far in either direction. It's a simple two-word phrase...there's not ROOM to be "clever" or tricky in it.
When I feel compelled to substantiate my claims, I do, indeed, provide substantial evidence for the claims I make. I have done so on numerous occasions. However, this is a movie board, not a goshdarned Ph.D. thesis. As such, I don't have the leisure or inclination to verify every single nitpicky, irrelevant item of trivia that you might raise, claiming it is a "major issue". There are other things that take priority in my life, quite frankly. Things like that, which strike me as pointless and irrelevant, I choose, quite simply, to ignore.
It is quite convienent that the issues you deem irrelevant are always those on which you are asked to produce evidence for. Don't ask me to believe that that's a coincidence.
And, please, enough with the exaggerations. Asking you for a SOURCE or a simple shred of actual evidence in no way constitutes a dissertation. As I have stated before (in a post that has as of yet gone unanswered, I might add), don't dive into controversial political arguments if you intend to make reckless claims to whose truth you cannot even BEGIN to speak.
Firstly, I think YOU are the one advocating paranoia here--concerning my words on this message board. I personally believe that you feel personally threatened by my presence on this forum, which is why you feel compelled to relentlessly hound me and dissect everything I say in an ongoing attempt to undermine my credibility and alienate me from the affections of most people on this forum.
I'd defy you to name a single reason I have to feel threatened by you. It can't be because you question me -- other folks have done it worse. It can't be because you challenge me -- the consensus is that you're generally in over your head, and I've surely squared off against better (than you OR me).
And, for the record, I don't dissect half the things you say. As I stated before (again, in the unanswered post I mentioned above), you are in direct control of how often I "hound" you -- it is proportionate to how often you invent facts, skew truth, exaggerate claims, and dodge arguments.
To this end, let me briefly make mention of the tactics you have either implicitly endorsed or else explicitly engaged in in the past: deletion of my threads, editing of my posts, relentlessly antagonizing me with irrelevant comments and pointless arguments, etc.
I have given reason for every deletion, you've never shown Silver's editing to have so much as mildly dented your "reputation," and there's nothing at all pointless or irrelevant about asking you to back the arguments you so willingly offer.
Secondly--no, I am in no way advocating paranoia. I am merely questioning the nature of the things that everyone takes for granted in our society. I think it is a relevant line of questioning and, in a free society, such as ours, in the interests of truth and justice, I think it is a crucial issue. Just how reliable IS the media anyway, and the documentary sources that we are expected to accept on faith.
You're misunderstanding. Posing the question is not paranoid. But I think answering it the way you've chosen to IS. Again, you exaggerate (I imagine you do it without even realizing half the time): just because I don't like your answer, it doesn't mean I don't think anyone should've asked the question.
I don't see how this qualifies as a "rampant distrust" of anything--because, as I said, I am not advocating the theory that the media is all lies and propaganda. If I was, then your remarks would be justified. As it stands, it is an example of YOUR penchant to distort everything I say and take it out of context, exaggerating it, and make it out to be something it is not. As I said, what is called for is a healthy dose of skepticism--nothing more, nothing less.
As I stated before, I think what you call for and what you practice may be two different things. I hear you loud and clear...but your actions speak much louder than your words, and they suggest that you are only intent on questioning things which do not agree with your ideology. When you question the war, or the administration, it is patriotic. When we question you, it is nitpicky and irrelevant, even though the questioning is often done with explicit knowledge that your statement is false.
Finally, if my primary concern was, indeed self-preservation, would I be busy raising controversial issues (in a peaceful, non-threatening vein) that challenge the mainstream opinion? Would I not, rather, be collaborating with the mainstream--kind of like you are doing?
You're misunderstanding again. Self-preservation in regards to your ideology, not your popularity. Denying the validity of major statistics and news sources allows you to go on believing what you will regardless of the facts.
That said, I find it rather amusing that you make it sound as if I'm associating with sordid characters when you say "collaborating with the mainstream." Since when is this a bad thing, inherently? Sometimes the mainstream is mainsteam because it's true. In regards to the rest: I'll ignore your doubtful claim that you made you always make your cases in a peaceful, non-threatening way. Before you attempt to start a coup, you were content with patronizing everyone who disagreed with you.
On the contrary, my primary concern here is truth and justice, which is why I have been addressing controversial issues while putting at risk my credibility and social standing on the forum--a fact that you have been hard at work exploiting and turning against me.
For at least the fourth time: can you name a single person I have turned against you maliciously?
Hardly an exaggeration if you consider the entire history of modern journalism all over the world, and also include all the historical documentation of the past (journalism today = historical documentation tomorrow). And also if you consider that I am referring not simply to outright contrivance or tabloid journalism but, rather, also to subtle, unwarranted editorializing which compromises the objectivity (and integrity) of the content by adding a subjective bias to it.
As Silver already pointed out, there is not avoiding subtle bias in anything short of an android...and even then, its creator's bias is potentially a roadblock.
That said, trying to take into account the whole of journalism and record-keeping of all forms throughout history and boil it down to a simple percentage as to what is reliable is stunningly arrogant. I don't know that a single person on this earth (and I'm guessing you have no unique expertise on the matter) is qualified to make so much as a guesstimate on this matter.
Originally posted by Django
Finally, if my primary concern was, indeed self-preservation, would I be busy raising controversial issues (in a peaceful, non-threatening vein) that challenge the mainstream opinion? Would I not, rather, be collaborating with the mainstream--kind of like you are doing?
I don't think you're challenging the 'mainstream' at all. You've firmly allied yourself with the forces of reaction on a number of issues, especially the intervention in Iraq. On that subject, you've debated me on ideological grounds rather than contest what I say about Saddam's reign of terror, which proved endlessly annoying and indicates a whole lot about your style of argument.
Mass graves and charred bodies are being dug up daily by relief workers and you're expecting a sympathetic ear to your schoolboy tiff with Chris, claiming censorship and whining like a brat. You need a reality check.
Yoda, :yawn: . . . you bore me, man! I will get back to you later . . . some day
Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Every post you have ever made here has engaged in unwarranted editorialising, for example. You alter facts and exaggerate just as much as the next guy to make your point. We all do it. I am not saying that to do it isn't wrong, in or out of journalism, but you making a stand against it, considering the nature of your contribution to this site, is just plain hypocritical.
I just want to add a point to what Silver Bullet said earlier: this movie forum is not a newspaper. What I am posting here is not journalism--not remotely. As such, I have no obligation to strict objectivity--I am free to editorialize. I am posting my own opinion and I'm not denying that--it is a subjective opinion, but because of the context in which it is posted, namely this movie board, it is okay. If, however, this were a newspaper and I was editorializing, that would be a whole different story and then your allegations vis a vis hypocrisy and personal bias would be valid. I am expressing my personal concern about the objectivity of the mainstream media.
Originally posted by Steve
I don't think you're challenging the 'mainstream' at all. You've firmly allied yourself with the forces of reaction on a number of issues, especially the intervention in Iraq. On that subject, you've debated me on ideological grounds rather than contest what I say about Saddam's reign of terror, which proved endlessly annoying and indicates a whole lot about your style of argument.
Mass graves and charred bodies are being dug up daily by relief workers and you're expecting a sympathetic ear to your schoolboy tiff with Chris, claiming censorship and whining like a brat. You need a reality check.
Saddam's reign of terror was terrible--no denying that. The fact that he has been deposed is a good thing--no denying that. HOWEVER, Iraq is a nation on the other side of the globe (figuratively speaking). What I am saying addresses what is going today in the USA! It certainly is a controversial issue and one that does challenge the mainstream. I haven't aligned myself with anyone. I agree with the forces of "reaction" on some issues, and with the mainstream on other issues. I'm just expressing my point of view--take it as you will. I just think that what is happening in the US today is more relevant, in my eyes, than what is happening on the other side of the globe, because of where I live. Sure, the world is full of terrible despotic regimes, but I don't think it's my business to go around telling responsible adults how to live their lives--not unless I have a personally vested interest in it. It's not so much an issue of ideals vs. personal selfish interest--it's an issue of respecting the sovereignty of nations and people and not telling others how to run their lives--not unless I have a vested interest in it. What it comes down to is--is it my business? Where do I draw the line between a necessary course of action determined by personal ideals and/or personal interest, vs. an unwarranted intervention in a business that does not concern me at all?
A postscript: I don't understand why, in God's name, you feel compelled to hold me accountable for this "schoolboy tiff" with Yoda. I personally don't have anything against him. He's the one getting in my face. Which is why I had to start a new thread exclusively dedicated to his personal gripes against me. Speaking of which, Yoda, I'd appreciate it if you could kindly restrict your hostile comments concerning me to that thread. I will answer each of them in turn (some day!). Thanks! :D
Caitlyn
06-23-03, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Django
It is serious because we, as citizens of the world, deserve to know whether or not the worldview that is being presented to us in the media is an accurate picture of reality or has been distorted in some way, if not wildly inaccurate.
and
In most cases, however, there is really no way of discerning reality from fantasy, when it comes to the media. That is disturbing to me, and that is why I'm advocating a healthy dose of skepticism, as opposed to complete paranoia.
and
In any case, the issue here is to foster awareness of editorial bias in all media and documentary sources, however great their claim to objectivity.
Strange that you should question the validity of journalist when you used a journalist’s article from The Guardian Unlimited and one Jessica Mathews, who granted has served on several impressive committees, but is also a journalist for the Washington Post to substantiate several of your claims in another thread on here…
Two completely unrelated issues, but if it pleases you, feel free to question the authenticity of any journalistic evidence I have presented in the past. Of course, in doing so, you need to provide evidence to back any of your claims.
Originally posted by Django
Saddam's reign of terror was terrible--no denying that. The fact that he has been deposed is a good thing--no denying that. HOWEVER, Iraq is a nation on the other side of the globe (figuratively speaking). What I am saying addresses what is going today in the USA! It certainly is a controversial issue and one that does challenge the mainstream. I haven't aligned myself with anyone. I agree with the forces of "reaction" on some issues, and with the mainstream on other issues. I'm just expressing my point of view--take it as you will. I just think that what is happening in the US today is more relevant, in my eyes, than what is happening on the other side of the globe, because of where I live. Sure, the world is full of terrible despotic regimes, but I don't think it's my business to go around telling responsible adults how to live their lives--not unless I have a personally vested interest in it. It's not so much an issue of ideals vs. personal selfish interest--it's an issue of respecting the sovereignty of nations and people and not telling others how to run their lives--not unless I have a vested interest in it. What it comes down to is--is it my business? Where do I draw the line between a necessary course of action determined by personal ideals and/or personal interest, vs. an unwarranted intervention in a business that does not concern me at all?
I guess what it comes down to is a question of citizenship: are you content with just being a citizen of the US? I prefer to think of myself as an internationalist instead of a citizen in a country. I think that if someone is torturing and murdering and commiting genocide then it's everybody's business, regardless of where you live. If you or Noam Chomsky or Pat Buchanan thinks differently, then I'm gravely sorry and I wish you happy trails in whatever it is you concern yourself with. If you don't think it's your business, then why do you care what the US government does? I suppose being able to shrug off massacres has its advantages, Django, but please: do you honestly think that saying 'it's none of our business' is a defensible argument?
A postscript: I don't understand why, in God's name, you feel compelled to hold me accountable for this "schoolboy tiff" with Yoda. I personally don't have anything against him. He's the one getting in my face. Which is why I had to start a new thread exclusively dedicated to his personal gripes against me. Speaking of which, Yoda, I'd appreciate it if you could kindly restrict your hostile comments concerning me to that thread. I will answer each of them in turn (some day!). Thanks! :D
I'm not sure what God thinks, but I know that your animated responses to his (mostly reasonable) gripes walk a knife edge of comedy and stupidity - kind of funny, really, since I don't think you're going for either of those reactions. Just leave it and get on with whatever it is you do that's so important.
Originally posted by Steve
I guess what it comes down to is a question of citizenship: are you content with just being a citizen of the US? I prefer to think of myself as an internationalist instead of a citizen in a country. I think that if someone is torturing and murdering and commiting genocide then it's everybody's business, regardless of where you live. If you or Noam Chomsky or Pat Buchanan thinks differently, then I'm gravely sorry and I wish you happy trails in whatever it is you concern yourself with. If you don't think it's your business, then why do you care what the US government does? I suppose being able to shrug off massacres has its advantages, Django, but please: do you honestly think that saying 'it's none of our business' is a defensible argument?
I don't think it has anything to do with citizenship. It has, in my opinion, to do with a) a question of priority, and b) an issue regarding respecting the sovereignty of nations. First of all, I don't buy the line (that you apparently do) that the Iraq war was primarily (if not purely) ideologically motivated. The way I see it, it was pure politics, commerce and opportunism. But then, perhaps, I am extremely skeptical about all political motives. Hopefully, though, I am not cynical. Anyway, my point is that it is not the role of the US to be the international police force. It is the UN's business to deal with international affairs, such as Bosnia, Iraq, South Africa, etc. I'm not saying that we should ignore these issues--the UN was created for this very purpose--to address such international issues. The US is one nation among many--let it work through the UN and abide by its resolutions. I'm opposed to a unilateral military campaign against anyone and everyone perceived to be "nasty" in any way. It just doesn't make sense. Like I said, if the US doesn't have a vested interest in the region, it should not have a unilateral presence in the region. Let the UN deal with the situation, and let the US participate as a member of the UN.
Originally posted by Steve
I'm not sure what God thinks, but I know that your animated responses to his (mostly reasonable) gripes walk a knife edge of comedy and stupidity - kind of funny, really, since I don't think you're going for either of those reactions. Just leave it and get on with whatever it is you do that's so important.
I don't know how God figures into the equation (other than my invoking His name figuratively), but my point is that you really need to be telling Chris to lay off. I am getting EXTREMELY irritated and annoyed by the biased attitudes of people like you who seem to enjoy holding me accountable for EVERY DARN THING that happens to go wrong in this forum! I'm getting TIRED of being the butt of never-ending baseless criticism from all directions! And especially when it has been Chris, all along, who has been hounding me relentlessly with his absurd allegations. I honestly do not see how you can possibly call his claims "reasonable". You talk of "comedy and stupidity"--I personally see comedy and stupidity in Chris' claims and allegations made against me, and in your blindness to their absurdity and your single-minded, repetitive requests to lay off Chris! Tell him to lay off! I really couldn't care less about what he thinks or says! I don't have the patience to address all his never-ending, petty arguments. I am on this forum to discuss issues of interest to me, not quibble over idiotic niceties with single-minded antagonists! I don't mean any offense here--I respect your opinions and comments--but I am extremely tired and irritable right now and I have long since run out of patience. Sorry.
Okay, back to the topic of this thread:
originally posted by Django
For every one reporter who does get exposed, how many thousands, or even millions, remain unexposed? Who knows? And this was an extreme case, regarding a journalist who completely contrived his stories, apparently.
I don’t understand your logic here. This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction that hasn’t been thought out. Did you read the articles regarding the firing of the New York Times reporter, or are you just familiar with the headlines? I’m not asking to patronize you, it just seems that if you were more familiar with the circumstances you would know that it wasn’t an extreme case. It was a very simple case. Because it was a very simple case, and he was caught in a very simple manner, the point I was trying to make was that reporters who conduct themselves in the same manner would be caught just as easily. So this should instill confidence that it’s not happening widespread. If it were, the others would be caught in the same manner. There are too many watch dogs, competing journalists, and first-hand witnesses to events that would prevent any credible news source to fabricate stories and get away with it
originally posted by Django
How is there any possible way to verify any of what goes on here? Not without corroborating the sources or channels of information, and given the speed of the information highway, who has the time or capability to do something like this?
All it takes is one person, like in the case of the New York Times reporter. A reporter from a local newspaper in a small town 2500 miles away from N.Y. recognized a human interest story in the New York Times as a story she had written for her paper. After that, the shirt hit the fan.
originally posted by Django
It's hardly the same thing as religion.
It’s hardly the same as Columbus, either, but I understood the point you were trying to make. At least understand the point I was trying to make. I used the example that a clergyman conducting himself in misdoings has nothing to do with the religion or anyone else involved in the religion. The reporter from the N.Y. Times has nothing to do with the principal of journalism or other journalists involved in the profession. The fact that he was caught so easily and in such a simple manner doesn’t prove that “thousands, or even millions” have slipped through the cracks. If fact, it proves otherwise.
originally posted by Django
I don't see how common sense or intuition can help you discern the facts from the lies.
I never said intuition. Common sense and intuition are two different things. I merely said that common sense is a part of our analytical thinking process. I don’t know on what scale of news you are suggesting we become skeptical about, but it’s common sense to accept a report that an earthquake leveled buildings and killed thousands of people in Mexico City if several competing news sources are reporting the same thing.
originally posted by Django
In most cases, however, there is really no way of discerning reality from fantasy, when it comes to the media. That is disturbing to me, and that is why I'm advocating a healthy dose of skepticism, as opposed to complete paranoia..
The first part of this statement contradicts the second part of this statement. Advocating a healthy dose of skepticism is nothing new. This is what college is all about. I could probably name every single one of my college professors who taught this concept. However, “there is really no way of discerning reeality from fantasy, when it comes to the media” leans more toward paranoia, not skepticism.
originally posted by Django
My point is that journalism is about TRYING to be objective. It may not always succeed, and some journalists may be more or less objective than others. But, at least, the journalistic ideal is complete, unbiased objectivity.
The principle of journalism is to report the news and events in an objective manner (this is why television reporters in the early days of TV were referred to as “Talking Heads” ; because they had no opinion on what they were reporting). However, columns, human interest stories, editorials, and documentaries are presented with the understanding that there is bias. The person taking in this information knows this, and the journalist knows they know it. It’s the journalists job to be persuasive enough to convince the public of the journalist’s opinion. Editorials are opinions. Columns are opinions. Human interest stories have a biased presentation. Documentaries have a biased presentation. This is no secret, and it’s a healthy way for the institution of journalism to operate.
originally posted by Django
In any case, the issue here is to foster awareness of editorial bias in all media and documentary sources, however great their claim to objectivity. It exists everywhere and is an inevitable consequence of human subjectivity.
Professors across the world have been teaching this for ...I don’t know how long.
originally posted by Django
I think it's vitally important for people to realize this, because what is at stake is our very concept of the universe we live in. How distorted is it, whether intentionally or unintentionally so? The first step towards rectifying the issue is awareness of the issue.
I hardly think the concept of our universe is at stake. There are enough intelligent people in the fields of history, science, and mathematics to sort out what is truth (or as close to it as possible) and what’s fiction.
Originally posted by Mark
I don’t understand your logic here. This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction that hasn’t been thought out. Did you read the articles regarding the firing of the New York Times reporter, or are you just familiar with the headlines? I’m not asking to patronize you, it just seems that if you were more familiar with the circumstances you would know that it wasn’t an extreme case. It was a very simple case. Because it was a very simple case, and he was caught in a very simple manner, the point I was trying to make was that reporters who conduct themselves in the same manner would be caught just as easily. So this should instill confidence that it’s not happening widespread. If it were, the others would be caught in the same manner. There are too many watch dogs, competing journalists, and first-hand witnesses to events that would prevent any credible news source to fabricate stories and get away with it
All it takes is one person, like in the case of the New York Times reporter. A reporter from a local newspaper in a small town 2500 miles away from N.Y. recognized a human interest story in the New York Times as a story she had written for her paper. After that, the shirt hit the fan.
Well, I watched an interview with the offending journalist on TV in which he confessed to personal problems, esp. relating to substance abuse, which led him to do what he did. What finally caught up with him, apparently, was a simple case of plagiarism in which his offense was found out. Again, this was, as you pointed out, an extreme case. Was it revealed in a "simple" manner, though? The way I see it, it was a case of pure happenstance--the competing journalist whose story was plagiarized happened to get wind of what he had done and report the crime, which led to his dismissal. In a scenario with thousands upon thousands of news stories being churned out every day from thousands upon thousands of competing journalists, what are the chances of this happening on a regular basis? Furthermore, whereas extreme cases, such as this one, may be exposed, how many cases of subtle bias have gone unexposed? The scenario painted by you sounds idyllic, but the reality is far more chaotic. The fact of the matter is that once a news item is published, the damage has been done. Even if a retraction is subsequently published denying the validity of the item, most people probably won't make the connection. People are far too busy to worry about niceties like this--only the professionals in the business are aware of them. Most people, reading the newspaper, go on faith. For all we know, everything published in today's paper may well be fiction (hypothetically) and then be retracted in tomorrow's paper, but we still won't make the connection and it will probably not occur to us.
Originally posted by Mark
It’s hardly the same as Columbus, either, but I understood the point you were trying to make. At least understand the point I was trying to make. I used the example that a clergyman conducting himself in misdoings has nothing to do with the religion or anyone else involved in the religion. The reporter from the N.Y. Times has nothing to do with the principal of journalism or other journalists involved in the profession. The fact that he was caught so easily and in such a simple manner doesn’t prove that “thousands, or even millions” have slipped through the cracks. If fact, it proves otherwise.
Well, this incident really raises questions in my mind concerning the reliability of journalism as a whole because this particular journalist was able to get away with publishing fiction for a long, long time before he was exposed. In fact, he was a really popular journalist who was, apparently, pretty highly acclaimed. How could an institution like the New York Times have permitted something like this to carry on, requiring outside intervention to expose what was going on, resulting in the dismissal of several of the higher management? This is a really serious issue. I totally disagree with your attempts to dismiss it as irrelevant. Like I said, this was an extreme case which was only exposed by chance. That sure as heck does not inspire confidence in me vis-a-vis the general reliability of the journalistic mainstream.
Originally posted by Mark
I never said intuition. Common sense and intuition are two different things. I merely said that common sense is a part of our analytical thinking process. I don’t know on what scale of news you are suggesting we become skeptical about, but it’s common sense to accept a report that an earthquake leveled buildings and killed thousands of people in Mexico City if several competing news sources are reporting the same thing.
Okay, I admit that competition does resolve a substantial chunk of the problem, but it does not eliminate it. Again, logistics plays an important role. In many cases, journalists rely on the same source--a press conference, an official dispatch, an eye-witness account. What enters here may not be conscious conspiracy (I have never alleged as such) but, rather, the logistical issues pertaining to the reliability of source material, distortion of the facts in the course of the reporting process, an unconscious subjective spin introduced into the matter, etc. What often happens is that journalists transcribe from other media sources--newspaper journalists sometimes get their stories from TV and radio sources and vice versa. Again, what we see here is a chain reaction--the same story passing through numerous channels inevitably gets distorted. The same is applicable to historical documentation. Documents are invariably based on predating reference material. Of course, a critical analyst will invariably compare and contrast competing source material in an attempt to come to a better understanding of the truth, but even then, what we get is a subjective interpretation derived from a comparative study of numerous subjective interpretations--never an objective first-hand experience of the facts. What I'm trying to do here is promote awareness of these considerations, in my own little way.
Originally posted by Mark
The first part of this statement contradicts the second part of this statement. Advocating a healthy dose of skepticism is nothing new. This is what college is all about. I could probably name every single one of my college professors who taught this concept. However, “there is really no way of discerning reeality from fantasy, when it comes to the media” leans more toward paranoia, not skepticism.
I don't think it amounts to paranoia because your case study, which, you claim, debunks my statements, assumes a careful academic study of daily journalism. In the Information Age, with the explosion of media sources on the internet, and the fact that news stories get outdated by the minute, the policing of journalism in the interests of reliability is strictly an impossibility, for all interests and purposes! The main reason being that by the time the fallacy is exposed, the damage has already been done! Well, perhaps this is an extreme view--fallacious journalism will obviously never qualify as historical documentation, but in an age in which information travels at the speed of light, the sheer logistics of the speed of the information superhighway undermines the possibility of effectively policing it. But, on the other hand, the positive side is that errors can be swiftly exposed and rectified. I guess it's a complicated issue, and it's certainly worth studying and examining in depth. Anyway, my point essentially is that for the average man on the street, there is no real way, offhand, for all intents and purposes, to verify the sources of the news media he is exposed to--at least not at the time when it really matters, i.e. when the news is relevant, and not without extra effort on his part. Let's say, for example, a stockbroker gets the news that he has lost all his vast fortune in a terrible stockmarket crash and, in despair, he commits suicide. Then, ten minutes later, comes the news that there was an error in reporting--that the stockmarket crash was exaggerated and that he only lost a few thousand dollars. Well, it's too late! The stockbroker is already dead! The point is that when the news is RELEVANT there is no way to effectively determine its reliability, and by the time it can be verified, it is outdated anyway. The upside is that it won't qualify as historical documentation, but that is not the whole story. The damage is already done, as far as impressing a certain worldview on the vast section of the population exposed to the news item.
Originally posted by Mark
The principle of journalism is to report the news and events in an objective manner (this is why television reporters in the early days of TV were referred to as “Talking Heads” ; because they had no opinion on what they were reporting). However, columns, human interest stories, editorials, and documentaries are presented with the understanding that there is bias. The person taking in this information knows this, and the journalist knows they know it. It’s the journalists job to be persuasive enough to convince the public of the journalist’s opinion. Editorials are opinions. Columns are opinions. Human interest stories have a biased presentation. Documentaries have a biased presentation. This is no secret, and it’s a healthy way for the institution of journalism to operate.
Absolutely, and I have already pointed that out in my comments on unbiased journalism vs. editorializing. Editorializing is fine as long as we are aware that what we are reading/viewing is a subjective interpretation. However, in the case of strict journalistic reporting, what is required is complete objectivity--simply the statement of the facts without any sort of interpretation or slant added to it at all. These are two completely different things.
Originally posted by Mark
Professors across the world have been teaching this for ...I don’t know how long.
Maybe, but not everyone has the opportunity to go to journalism school! Certainly not the vast section of the populace that constitutes the "masses" and which is the most susceptible to the media.
Originally posted by Mark
I hardly think the concept of our universe is at stake. There are enough intelligent people in the fields of history, science, and mathematics to sort out what is truth (or as close to it as possible) and what’s fiction.
Are they? Do you think? I certainly hope so. I guess, that is what science is about, essentially--a determination of what the facts really are. Anyway, my point, basically, is that when the information is the most RELEVANT, that's when one's capacity to verify one's sources are the most limited. And by the time one has managed to adequately verify one's sources, the information is often outdated. The point is that people's impressions of the universe are largely dictated by these narrow time-frames in which the information is the most relevant. And if the information they receive during this time-span is flawed, and then, subsequently, retracted or debunked, the impression created by the flawed, fallacious information is not entirely erased. And the average individual's worldview largely consists of such sensory impressions, not so much based on clinically verified facts. As such, our concept of the universe we live in certainly is at stake.
Sexy Celebrity
06-23-03, 08:40 PM
Django - sorry if this has already been answered, I don't read through these threads, though I just read a great chunk - may I ask why are you interested in this subject of false journalism and beliefs in distortions of *gasp!* our great universe? Puzzling minds wait.
Originally posted by Sexy Celebrity
Django - sorry if this has already been answered, I don't read through these threads, though I just read a great chunk - may I ask why are you interested in this subject of false journalism and beliefs in distortions of *gasp!* our great universe? Puzzling minds wait.
I don't know. It's just something that occurred to me in the wake of recent news events, namely the sacking of the New York Times journalist (your namesake, incidentally) and a reflection on our overwhelming dependence on the news media in the 21st century.
Sexy Celebrity
06-23-03, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Django
the New York Times journalist (your namesake, incidentally)
At first I thought you were saying that the journalist was named Sexy Celebrity, but then, d'oh! - I realized you meant Jason.
C'est vrai, mon ami! His name is Jason Blair.
Originally posted by Django
Yoda, :yawn: . . . you bore me, man! I will get back to you later . . . some day
Uh, yeah. I'm sure.
Originally posted by Django
I don't see how common sense or intuition can help you discern the facts from the lies.
...unless the common sense is your own, and the issue is unemployment, right?
Originally posted by Yoda
...unless the common sense is your own, and the issue is unemployment, right?
What I said pertaining to employment had to do with a personal testimony from personal experience. I fail to see the connection between my personal testimony and what you are referring to above--there is no association whatsoever!
Sexy Celebrity
06-24-03, 11:29 PM
You use a lot of exclamation points to make your point, joint.
Who??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Me????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guys! guys!
You're breakin' my heart! One of the things I can't believe is YOUGUYS!
I don't want to be humorless here, but . . . how can you let EVERY discussion deteriorate into a fistfight! Life is too short!
To get back on-topic -- I think there are certain types of information we can trust (or at least trust, as correct to the present state of our knowledge). The 93 million miles, give or take an inch or two, is the best we can do -- and it's an average figure of course. But, like most scientific fact, it's generally verifiable. And verified.
But when you have tobacco companies telling you that cigarettes are good for your throat . . . we must be aware that they have a financial stake in our believing the truth of that statement. And when we have statistics quoted in political speeches by speakers who have a political axe to grind, we are right to be cautious.
Nevertheless, there is a huge gray area in which we DON'T KNOW whether the writer has an interest in influencing us -- or at least some part of his/her audience. And that is where we are vulnerable. So at that point we need to check to see who the writer is, where the material is sourced, what backup information is available . . . and do a whole host of little cross-checks. And still sometimes we are fooled. The US Census is generally reliable, and yet about seven years ago, somebody dropped a decimal point and their figures were WAY off and they had to eat crow and retract them about six months after they were published.
Mistakes happen. Clever people with hidden interests try to mislead us. And -- very important -- we smetimes misinterpret what we read and hear. The whole world is star-studded with errors.
And yet, MOST PEOPLE DO TRY TO TELL THE TRUTH. And although we need to be skeptical, we also need to be trusting.
All of which takes me back to the fact that we owe it to ourselves to stay alert. To look at the facts, to the degree that we can find them. To keep our eyes and our minds open. And not not to get too angry too quickly when we ARE fooled, either by accident or on purpose. Life consists of picking up yesterday's broken pieces and fitting them into whatever is happening today.
So grin and live with it, chums.
And make peace with each other forpetesake!
All my love to you all,
Jozie
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.