Quake3World

syp0s wrote:What I'm saying is that I don't believe any of the newspapers are actually TRYING to be "serious mediums" these days

[...]

Every single one of them wants to be taken seriously

Isn't that contradictory?

As I see it, mainstream media does want to uphold this image of being a credible source, something worth the people's time. If they lose that image, no one would read it anymore. The problem is that this image conflicts with the way many of them work. They have their agenda's, either forced upon them by commercial interests or self-inflicted through some sort of (political) conviction. They should just be more open and clear about the behind-the-scenes processes.

That obviously is an utopian idea because everyone will simply think they're getting away with it anyway, but we have to reach for what we think is right and not give up on that simply because reality is dictated by assholes.

i can see an evolution about you from 10 years ago for sure.

fb of course you disagree, you need your answers from the news.

feedback wrote:It's also an unfortunate reality that there really isn't one singular news source that you can trust for news without a bend, so you have to read 3-4 articles from specialty sources just to get decent information on anything other than recipes for food.

Then you're confirming what I'm saying by agreeing that there is no one credible news source. I'm merely one step more extreme by suggesting that even piecing together the news is still only giving you a lens view that can't necessarily be trusted.

Eraser wrote:
Isn't that contradictory?

As I see it, mainstream media does want to uphold this image of being a credible source, something worth the people's time. If they lose that image, no one would read it anymore. The problem is that this image conflicts with the way many of them work. They have their agenda's, either forced upon them by commercial interests or self-inflicted through some sort of (political) conviction. They should just be more open and clear about the behind-the-scenes processes.

That obviously is an utopian idea because everyone will simply think they're getting away with it anyway, but we have to reach for what we think is right and not give up on that simply because reality is dictated by assholes.

Of course it's not contradictory. I want my girlfriend to stop calling me messy, but that doesn't mean I'm about to stop kicking my shoes off as soon as I walk through the door. I'd love to be perceived independently of how I act, that would be the ultimate achievement.

Of course they want to be seen as credible, but the paradigm for what constitutes credibility is shifting. Justice as an ideal is shifting, and people accept that justice is in the eye of the beholder. I'll shrug and continue my day if Cameron takes an early dirt nap, but I'd totally understand if a conservative newspaper played it off like it was a world stage tragedy. Both viewpoints contain an inherent truth relative to the holder of that truth. I don't get angry because a celebrities tit falling out of a dress makes the front page, because I'm not deluded into thinking the free press represents a moral or absolute truth.

I think the point you're making about nobody reading it once credibility evaporates is misguided, given that news circulation spikes through the ceiling following trivial or mundane celebrity-based content. It's sobering to know that on a story-by-story basis, a plane crash will likely spike traffic around the same amount as unretouched Beyonce photographs. People aren't looking for actual news anymore, they're looking for something that loads fast, reads fast, preferably in list format, and basically tells them nothing.

Would I prefer it your way? Yeah, I'd love there to be one credible news source, but there isn't. If it costs to produce it, then there's an agenda behind it. 100% of the time.

plained wrote:i can see an evolution about you from 10 years ago for sure.

That's a really kind thing to say. Even if the evolution is a negative one, to know that there has been growth or change palpable enough for another to notice is a lovely feeling.

Thank you.

If I'm still following this correctly, the discussion is about you being surprised at people getting angry over this whole ordeal at the Telegraph, with you basically saying that those that get riled up over this are probably just ignorant.

I don't think that's necessarily true because people can get angry over something they already know. It can be disappointing to once again get confirmation that you are right about something depressingly negative.

No, Im definitely not saying that, because that would be rude. I think I only referenced that in regard to people who actually experience ongoing ire from the revelation that news media in the west doesn't shoot straight.

Eraser wrote: It can be disappointing to once again get confirmation that you are right about something depressingly negative.

Yes, optimism is dangerous, and after a while, quite stupid.

This is just heart-warming

For what it's worth, the fact that news outlets refer to everything they report as a story is enough to cement to me that they are not reporting objectively. Everything has a slant. I only spend perhaps an hour at most reading the news per day, and I enjoy reading the same story from multiple sources, but you can easily discern that everything has a slant. Even views I agree with strongly often strike me as possessing a rabid vehemency that is actually offensive even though I agree with them strongly, often to the point of my fucking blood pressure going up just from reading.

I would say it is actually impossible for any human being to do a single thing 100% objectively. Every single action is tainted by subjectivity to some degree, because to suppose otherwise pretty much negates the notion of personhood in general.

Everything is relative. I think it's nice to hope for mostly objective reporting, and even to strive for it, but you have to be a realist, especially in today's world. It's dog eat dog, money is changing hands. Keep things in perspective, do your own homework, otherwise just take what you read as a fun little story. Even if reading it makes you want to rip your hair out and jump out of a 20-storey building into a freeway.

syp0s wrote:

plained wrote:i can see an evolution about you from 10 years ago for sure.

That's a really kind thing to say. Even if the evolution is a negative one, to know that there has been growth or change palpable enough for another to notice is a lovely feeling.

Thank you.

ey yw yea its positive

imo anyways