Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PhillyB

False equivalence: how 'balance' makes the media dangerously dumb

Recommended Posts

In what way does having several parties which represent fewer people's views make the government better?

 

does the current govt fully match ALL of the peoples views?

 

the US is split right down the middle in every demographic in every city on every issue/topic?

 

the two party system is a dumb, dead model. there are just too many people with too many dif views to keep shoe horning them into the Dems or the Reps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening. “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck,” Hannity announced, “and six of them are here tonight to tell us their stories.” Three married couples were neatly arranged in his studio, the wives seated and the men standing behind them, like game show contestants.

As Hannity called on each of them, the guests recounted their “Obamacare” horror stories: canceled policies, premium hikes, restrictions on the freedom to see a doctor of their choice, financial burdens upon their small businesses and so on.

----

Tl;dr: He lied. And due to the misinformation people are probably endangering their health.

But we need fairness and balance like Mr. Scot said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does the current govt fully match ALL of the peoples views?

 

the US is split right down the middle in every demographic in every city on every issue/topic?

 

the two party system is a dumb, dead model. there are just too many people with too many dif views to keep shoe horning them into the Dems or the Reps.

Looking at countries that have multiple parties, do they really function any better?

Are you suggesting we move to a parliamentarian style of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at countries that have multiple parties, do they really function any better?

Are you suggesting we move to a parliamentarian style of government.

 

A parliamentarian style might offer some hope of reducing the time and expense of political campaigning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at countries that have multiple parties, do they really function any better?

Are you suggesting we move to a parliamentarian style of government.

 

Scotland's BNP (white supremacist party) ended up with some seats a few years ago because they got 15,000 votes.

 

That's exactly what we need. Every weirdo group in the country that can muster up enough votes to fill a WNBA game gets to have some control of the government. What could go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland's BNP (white supremacist party) ended up with some seats a few years ago because they got 15,000 votes.

 

That's exactly what we need. Every weirdo group in the country that can muster up enough votes to fill a WNBA game gets to have some control of the government. What could go wrong?

 

I'd rather have that type of group out in the light of day where the general public cannot deny its existence. 

 

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant"  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

 

 

It might also inspire the "other half" of all eligible voters, who don't bother to vote, to get off their butts and participate in our "great experiment".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening. “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck,” Hannity announced, “and six of them are here tonight to tell us their stories.” Three married couples were neatly arranged in his studio, the wives seated and the men standing behind them, like game show contestants.

As Hannity called on each of them, the guests recounted their “Obamacare” horror stories: canceled policies, premium hikes, restrictions on the freedom to see a doctor of their choice, financial burdens upon their small businesses and so on.

----

Tl;dr: He lied. And due to the misinformation people are probably endangering their health.

But we need fairness and balance like Mr. Scot said.

 

easy to see how people get caught up in a single-minded narrative as directed by power structures through media outlets and then let "common sense" operate within the constraints of that particular representation of reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many different parties might a parliamentarian form of government give birth to in this country?

 

We have a rather diverse population, with several distinct regions. 

 

Potentially it could give a political voice to many who feel disenfranchised in our two party system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many different parties might a parliamentarian form of government give birth to in this country?

 

We have a rather diverse population, with several distinct regions. 

 

Potentially it could give a political voice to many who feel disenfranchised in our two party system.

In countries with a number of parties, certain parties have to join together to form a government. And imo, that really isn't much different than what we have now. Both parties have conservative, moderate, and liberal wins (relatively). The one and only advantage of a parliamentary system imo is that one party or coalition of parties controls the executive and legislative groups. Right now, that might be a good thing. A few years from now, maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In countries with a number of parties, certain parties have to join together to form a government. And imo, that really isn't much different than what we have now. Both parties have conservative, moderate, and liberal wins (relatively). The one and only advantage of a parliamentary system imo is that one party or coalition of parties controls the executive and legislative groups. Right now, that might be a good thing. A few years from now, maybe not.

 

One advantage that comes to mind right off the bat, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party.  Typically a seasoned veteran with years of experience.  Not someone coming out of left field to win an election

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In countries with a number of parties, certain parties have to join together to form a government. And imo, that really isn't much different than what we have now. Both parties have conservative, moderate, and liberal wins (relatively). The one and only advantage of a parliamentary system imo is that one party or coalition of parties controls the executive and legislative groups. Right now, that might be a good thing. A few years from now, maybe not.

 

I like the idea of the party that gains the most votes may not have a ruling majority and is compelled to team up with a smaller party to maintain control.  It can have a moderating effect on the ruling coalition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the more popular parties in multi-party systems tend to just be single-issue focused versions of the same idealogy. Using Scotland as an example again just cause it's what I know, 4 out of 5 of their current parties with parliamentary seats are basically the same thing. SNP are liberals who want independence, Green are liberals for the environment, Lib Dems are liberal federalists, Scottish Labour are liberal unionists. They all have just about the same ideas with different order of importance to them,

 

Basically it would be like having Democrats for Pro-Choice Party, Democrats for Peace Party, Democrats for Equality Party, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the more popular parties in multi-party systems tend to just be single-issue focused versions of the same idealogy. Using Scotland as an example again just cause it's what I know, 4 out of 5 of their current parties with parliamentary seats are basically the same thing. SNP are liberals who want independence, Green are liberals for the environment, Lib Dems are liberal federalists, Scottish Labour are liberal unionists. They all have just about the same ideas with different order of importance to them,

 

Basically it would be like having Democrats for Pro-Choice Party, Democrats for Peace Party, Democrats for Equality Party, etc.

 

Try telling the Scottish that there is no difference between their political parties, you might get their Irish up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland's BNP (white supremacist party) ended up with some seats a few years ago because they got 15,000 votes.

 

That's exactly what we need. Every weirdo group in the country that can muster up enough votes to fill a WNBA game gets to have some control of the government. What could go wrong?

 

yeah because we certainly haven't had any white supremacists in congress who may have warned us of the dangers of the "fleet footed *****"

 

keep in mind ted cruz recently said that the senate needs 100 senators like jesse helms. the BNP landed seats a few years ago and hey iirc quite a few teabagging dipshits did the same and as it turns out they had enough "control of the government" to literally shut it down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/

I happened to turn on the Hannity show on Fox News last Friday evening. “Average Americans are feeling the pain of Obamacare and the healthcare overhaul train wreck,” Hannity announced, “and six of them are here tonight to tell us their stories.” Three married couples were neatly arranged in his studio, the wives seated and the men standing behind them, like game show contestants.

As Hannity called on each of them, the guests recounted their “Obamacare” horror stories: canceled policies, premium hikes, restrictions on the freedom to see a doctor of their choice, financial burdens upon their small businesses and so on.

----

Tl;dr: He lied. And due to the misinformation people are probably endangering their health.

But we need fairness and balance like Mr. Scot said.

 

Much better to have a unified media message telling us all what to think, right?

 

Like NBC telling us about exploding gas tanks and CBS having documents showing how W dodged the draft (miraculously written with MS Word before it was invented).

 

Sounds great :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×