[onlooker]

this is a post that I think is pertinent to all the discussions we all have had on PO.com. the question is the source of the information. We know the Internet is a plethora of information. However, not all information is created equal. But even more provocative is that from my understanding , government , media and corporations have already an extensive record of distorting the truth or outright lying. Look at the fossil fuel industry and how they have distorted for some time the climate / energy debate. Look at cigarette companies who for years lied about the harmful effects of their product. Now in terms of government look at wars which have been started under suspicious circumstances and how in the US we have been told of the nobleness of US foreign policy when in fact it is anything but noble . Media they are servants of the powers that be and they spew news that is vetted information which almost always seems to be the official version of governments around the world. So they are just spokespersons of authorities or hired shills rather then groundbreaking journalists. My point being that I have reluctantly over time come to the conclusion that you cannot trust the powers that be or who have a vested interests in something. That includes Govt. Corporations and the Media. What say you?

[Newfie]

My point being that I have reluctantly over time come to the conclusion that you cannot trust the powers that be or who have a vested interests in something. That includes Govt. Corporations and the Media. What say you?

I think that's about right.

I'm reading a book that helps to explain this and why it is worse now.

"Amusing Ourselves to Death"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death
https://zaklynsky.files.wordpress.com/2 ... siness.pdf

Summary[edit]
Postman distinguishes the Orwellian vision of the future, in which totalitarian governments seize individual rights, from that offered by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, where people medicate themselves into bliss, thereby voluntarily sacrificing their rights. Drawing an analogy with the latter scenario, Postman sees television's entertainment value as a present-day "soma", by means of which the citizens' rights are exchanged for consumers' entertainment.

The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Thus rational argument, integral to print typography, is militated against by the medium of television for the aforesaid reason. Owing to this shortcoming, politics and religion are diluted, and "news of the day" becomes a packaged commodity. Television de-emphasises the quality of information in favour of satisfying the far-reaching needs of entertainment, by which information is encumbered and to which it is subordinate.
Postman asserts the presentation of television news is a form of entertainment programming; arguing inclusion of theme music, the interruption of commercials, and "talking hairdos" bear witness that televised news cannot readily be taken seriously. Postman further examines the differences between written speech, which he argues reached its prime in the early to mid-nineteenth century, and the forms of televisual communication, which rely mostly on visual images to "sell" lifestyles. He argues that, owing to this change in public discourse, politics has ceased to be about a candidate's ideas and solutions, but whether he comes across favorably on television. Television, he notes, has introduced the phrase "now this", which implies a complete absence of connection between the separate topics the phrase ostensibly connects. Larry Gonick used this phrase to conclude his Cartoon Guide to (Non)Communication, instead of the traditional "the end".

Postman refers to the inability to act upon much of the so-called information from televised sources as the Information-action ratio.

Drawing on the ideas of media scholar Marshall McLuhan — altering McLuhan's aphorism "the medium is the message", to "the medium is the metaphor" — he describes how oral, literate, and televisual cultures radically differ in the processing and prioritization of information; he argues that each medium is appropriate for a different kind of knowledge. The faculties requisite for rational inquiry are simply weakened by televised viewing. Accordingly, reading, a prime example cited by Postman, exacts intense intellectual involvement, at once interactive and dialectical; whereas television only requires passive involvement. Moreover, as television is programmed according to ratings, its content is determined by commercial feasibility, not critical acumen. Television in its present state, he says, does not satisfy the conditions for honest intellectual involvement and rational argument.

He also repeatedly states that the eighteenth century, being the Age of Reason, was the pinnacle for rational argument. Only in the printed word, he states, could complicated truths be rationally conveyed. Postman gives a striking example: The first fifteen U.S. presidents could probably have walked down the street without being recognized by the average citizen, yet all these men would have been quickly known by their written words. However, the reverse is true today. The names of presidents or even famous preachers, lawyers, and scientists call up visual images, typically television images, but few, if any, of their words come to mind. The few that do almost exclusively consist of carefully chosen soundbites.

[onlooker]

thanks Newfie, for sharing this book and quote. It seems to me very instructive just from reading this quote. Just great analysis. That is why they call it the boob tube. From the definition of -----1965-70; rhyming coinage, from the notion that television programming is foolish, induces foolishness, or is watched by foolish people. Certainly of all things television is not, it is not a medium that is very good for the transmission of complex ideas or concepts.

[Pops]

Everyone has an axe to grind. The trick is understanding them is us.

Believing everyone else is corrupt and lies (or is at the least deluded) but I'm pristine in my understanding of the truth, is the height of self delusion.

Ditto thinking that this or that media is better or worse, what difference is watching some inane TV show from reading some inane post at PO.com or believing some potboiler political commentary because it is on paper?

[Plantagenet]

My point being that I have reluctantly over time come to the conclusion that you cannot trust the powers that be or who have a vested interests in something. That includes Govt. Corporations and the Media.

So before now you've trusted what Government, Corporations and the Media have been telling you?

Gosh....if you continue thinking independently, then who knows what could happen next? You might start doubting religion....or even question the policies of the Federal Reserve Bank!

[onlooker]

My point being that I have reluctantly over time come to the conclusion that you cannot trust the powers that be or who have a vested interests in something. That includes Govt. Corporations and the Media.

So before now you've trusted what Government, Corporations and the Media have been telling you?

Gosh....if you continue thinking independently, then who knows what could happen next? You might start doubting religion....or even question the policies of the Federal Reserve Bank!

When I was younger I wanted to believe the scoundrels. Maybe because we all want some order in our lives. Yep the truth has set me free, do not trust anybody now not even my own shadow

[onlooker]

No Pops I certainly do not think I am a paragon of virtue however the question is to be raised because supposedly these people in power are there to serve us. "A government of the people for the people and by the people" It has never been true nor is it now. But what is disturbing is their outright lying of their true motives and intentions.

[Pops]

It has never been true nor is it now.

See that is a belief you hold, you don't even pretend to need to back it up.

So what then is the point? If I show you a place where a scoundrel didn't lie, will it make you belief less true?

No, it is a belief.

[Newfie]

Everyone has an axe to grind. The trick is understanding them is us.

On this I agree.

Believing everyone else is corrupt and lies (or is at the least deluded) but I'm pristine in my understanding of the truth, is the height of self delusion.

I didn't say anything remotely along these lines.

Ditto thinking that this or that media is better or worse, what difference is watching some inane TV show from reading some inane post at PO.com or believing some potboiler political commentary because it is on paper?

Actually there is quite a bit of difference. Well, maybe not a lot if you limit your data input to the sources listed. I don't watch TV, I gave up on NPR last year, I gave up on politics a few years before that. Yes there are many inane posts here on PO, but not all, unless you are including yourself in that cauldron.

"Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see." Remember that oldie?

I do tend to read and I do personal observations. That is easier or harder depending upon what subject you are discussing. I have a penchant for understanding human behavior. Why? Not a clue, probably because they scare me half to death. Best to know your enemy. But I do read about it a fair bit, one way or another. And it is observable, there's plenty of the buggers around. Climate Change? I look at the Canadian Ice Service charts, and listen to some wonks like Jennifer Francis. PO? Well, I listen to you.

I can assure you that reading Chruchill's history of WWII is different from watching Hogans Heroes. But reading Jarad Diamond's "The World Before Yesterday" is immensely helpful in understanding the Balkans or Syria.

There does seem to be a fair amount of research that points to our media actually altering the brain structure so that kids (like mine) who grew up addicted to TV have different brain wiring patterns than I do, who did not.

There there is Marshall McLuhan and the above quoted gentleman.

[Newfie]

It has never been true nor is it now.

See that is a belief you hold, you don't even pretend to need to back it up.

So what then is the point? If I show you a place where a scoundrel didn't lie, will it make you belief less true?

No, it is a belief.

Man, you are getting grumpy.

[vtsnowedin]

Well onlooker I'm glad to see you have left school and got a job and have just made out this years taxes. Brings things into focus doesn't it?

[onlooker]

Naw, Newfie , Pops is not grumpy , just blunt. I enjoy reading his rather long narratives. I will say though that my belief as it were is based upon some research and a little understanding of the human psyche which I should have considering I am not so young. So what I am saying is the human condition is such that those who attain power and/or wealth seem either to become morally bankrupt or already are and that is why they seek those honors. It just seems so logical to me and so consistent with what history has shown to be the case. Now it terms of me being a judge of moral character, well granted that I have no qualification per say to be however at some point one should address morality as having an objective basis rather than just subjective.

[Pops]

Believing everyone else is corrupt and lies (or is at the least deluded) but I'm pristine in my understanding of the truth, is the height of self delusion.

I didn't say anything remotely along these lines.

I didn't remotely say you did

man, you are getting sensitive

LOL

[Newfie]

at some point one should address morality as having an objective basis rather than just subjective.

E. O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth. You have to wade through a lot of background and explanation of why he has changed his mind before getting to this bit. But get to it he does. He describes "moral" behavior as that which some social critters have developed that puts the survival of the hive (tribe, city, culture) ahead of the survival of the individual. It also lays down some rules that make the peaceable social interaction of individuals in a dense social environment possible.

Thus, in short form, morals are codes which allow us to live peaceably together.

[Outcast_Searcher]

at some point one should address morality as having an objective basis rather than just subjective.

Well, that's interesting. Ayn Rand made that exact point in her 1957 Magnum Opus, "Atlas Shrugged". Naturally, the far left redistibutionist class hated her all the more for it, for calling them out on the "we're good because we whine and cry for "change", but the comapnies that produce things people want and need (for "greedy" profit) are bad.

And here we are 58 years later, and for the most part, the redistributionist left is more popular, and still produces ... wait for it .... a constant cry for more wealth redistribution and more taxes -- as long as it favors THEIR agenda and hits the people THEY don't like, of course.

So those like Ayn Rand and me who would argue, for example, that just whining about Monsanto (one of the four most hated corporations in the world), for actually doing something about global hunger and for a PROFIT yet, and wants farmers to actually pay for the Monsanto seeds they crave -- may be lots of "fun", but until the whiner class actually does something meaningful about world hunger -- why again is it that the productive class should actually take them seriously?

And by the way, there are plenty of laws, regulations, and regulators which Monsanto has to deal with, so it's no like they get to do whatever they want for "evil" profits, but let's not talk about THAT.

[onlooker]

thanks for that other link Newfie, well their you go, common ground found in that a tribe , group etc agree that the welfare of the whole is more important then that of any one member. Also, that living peacefully together is important. You can then extrapolate from that that living in harmony in also good for everyone, meaning nobody trying to harm anybody's else interests or get on their nerves. So then it really may not be so hard for all members of a group to agree on a set of morality codes if these codes are understood to favor all and not discriminate against any segment of the group. By the way I hope I have not got on anyone's nerves in my posting here hehe

[Pops]

The only thing that gets on my nerves is people don't understand my every utterance is a veritable trove of cosmic truth, irrefutable fact & deep philosophical insight — wrapped in a humble and self-deprecating vernacular.

[Timo]

The only thing that gets on my nerves is people don't understand my every utterance is a veritable trove of cosmic truth, irrefutable fact & deep philosophical insight — wrapped in a humble and self-deprecating vernacular.

I'm not sure i quite understand what you're getting at. Could you provide more insight to your cosmic utters?

[onlooker]

yeah Pops we should have some light hearted fun with these bedeviling subjects, I say have fun while you can until the day you leave this Earth. That is my bit of enlightened council or if you wish babble.