TheLeviathan

So you want us to talk more about the media? That's what I glean from this. Have you ever considered that since some of us have known each other for more than a decade, that these conversations have already happened? Or that while we consider these questions, we find other points more interesting to discuss? You are making the assumption that because we don't talk about them here, that the questions aren't happening. And that is a faulty assumption. It also seems to me that it's the entirety of what you are trying to contribute. Your premise seems to be one of assumption - you assumed a viewpoint would not be welcome here because you didn't see enough talk about something you are passionate about. That is a flaw in your reasoning. We can choose to be passionate about different things. We can talk about politics here and still wonder about truth and narrative in media. I can chew gum and walk at the same time. Just because this thread only has me chewing gum, doesn't mean I can't walk. And you have asserted, falsely, to the contrary. So, I'll repeat, I think your very premise is flawed if not pure bunk.

Yeah but those old white folks are scared of "The Technology". Chief being the exception to the rule of course, but he only does this as a break from keeping kids off his lawn.

Time to talk in more than vague generalities and answer that question:What sorts of discussions are not happening here that should be? Or, since the discussion here is a problem, describe what a less problematic one would look like. In detail. I think I will repeat that until you attempt to answer it. The more you respond with long, vague replies, the less I think you are making a genuine attempt. I think Ben is making a point similar to this.

It's precisely because I understand this, and skepticism about media, that I reject your premise. You waded into this discussion decrying the "one narrative" that didn't allow outside views. (Implying right leaning views) It's morphed now into some nationwide "narrative" in which we are all caught as blind or lemmings or whatever. So as Pseudo notes, we come back to square one. Without concrete examples of what is not done here or should be done here, we are back to the question I asked you from the get go: can you give an example of what should be done right? I don't think there is a lack of skepticism here. I don't think people are buying media stories 100%. I don't think people are only talking about what they are spoon fed. Those are your characterizations and, thus far, you haven't provided any evidence for that. Or evidence to the contrary to model what should be done. So I refer you back to my original question, that mike asked in the middle, I asked several times in the middle, that Psuedo just asked again, and I second for about the tenth time. Time to talk in more than vague generalities and answer that question: What sorts of discussions are not happening here that should be?

You couldn't. And part of what makes the concern about "narratives" silly is that these things happen all the time. The key in life is not to avoid such things, but learn how to cut through the noise the best you can. The more I reflect on this conversation, the more I feel like I'm trying to talk someone off the "You're just corrupted by the man!" argument. I don't know if you've ever had or seen such a conversation, but it goes in circles and lacks the specifics to be meaningful. Sounds good as a sound byte, not so useful as an actual contention.

I think you are equivocating several terms in your argument. Engaging with media and adhering to it are not necessarily the same thing. Using it as a jumping point for discussion is not being bound to it either. There are a number of gross exaggerations you try and pass off as fact, I'll try and label each of them: 1. No one is questioning you out of defensiveness. I'd suggest that's actually your defensiveness. Rather than look at whether you are posting with clarity, you project the question as defensiveness by us. You claim Psuedo understands you, but I think he's addressing the fringes of your points that he can address but the substantive core eludes us all. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but given my posts that he's liked and his responses, I think you are misreading his level of understanding. And it's taken us this many pages to even get past the surface. That, in and of itself, speaks to a lack of clarity. 2. I think the second paragraph is full of many gross generalizations I'm not even sure how you can claim it as true. Now, are our politics largely driven by two parties? Yes, they are. But many alternative voices and ideas are available. Including in this thread. That you dismiss or diminish them does not mean they don't exist. That is an over-exaggeration that is not true. And herein lies where you appear to be a victim of the very thing you claim you're lecturing us all on. Either we are wholly stuck in the "narrative" or not. That intelligent, aware people are either being led blindly or are "lemmings". You have reduced the complexity of discussion here into many subjective, binary camps. A claim of that magnitude requires evidence. Of yet you've provided none. 3. You say we abandon it and don't replace it, but then acknowledge that people do indeed replace it. News has existed for as long as people have. And corruption, spin, and all the negatives that go with it have as well. They are as inseparable as our flaws as human beings. And this should be obvious why - news/media is a human enterprise. And all human enterprises are subject to our strengths and flaws. So the idea that you simply drop it is not feasible. And you know this as well as I do, because later in that same paragraph you state as much: people go elsewhere. And, over time, these new sources of information will (if not already) be subject to the same problems. Your answer to this question, is simply not good enough. It speaks to what Psuedo said - the world is imperfect, we do what we can with this knowledge and persevere. That's what it means to be human. If the best answer you can provide to "better" is this, you have grossly misunderstood the complexity of humanity. That would explain a lot about your position.

Certainly, anything as large a topic like media is muddy. However, our conversations track with the news some, maybe even most of the time, but the stretch from tracking = led blindly/willingly is where the critique falls apart for me. If that is what is being said. I'm still unclear. And my concerns with the irony in how dichotomous his critique is about dichotomy grow with every post. He seems to be stuck in exactly the same kind of "narrative", just one of his own making.

I mean, if your point can be boiled down to: "be skeptical and cynical about major media"....sure. I'm skeptical and cynical about just about everything. Not sure many people would disagree with your claim. However, I don't think you have a solid foundation to say that any discussion that rings similar beats with media stories means that we are being driven by the same narrative. There is overlap, sure. But correlation is not causation.

Part one of simplifying or clarifying is to stop repeating the same terms. Your terms are nebulous. Read: they are not clear. This is not something I'm unclear on - Mike, Psuedo, Smerf, and I are not understanding you. As a teacher, when I see the majority of those I'm teaching misunderstanding the same point - I look at myself. That means something I'm doing or saying is confusing the issue. In this thread, for four prominent, intelligent posters to be confused should lead you to do the same. You need to restate what this "narrative" is in other terms and with more specifics. Same with what can be done "better". You might be speaking the most profound truth of all time. But right now it's mud.

With all due respect, the evidence suggests the contrary. Lots of intelligent, discerning people are stuck on the same point. Perhaps you should rewind and see why that is and try a different way to say what it is you're trying to say. At this point, I still couldn't bottle what you're saying into one or even two sentences. It is unclear at this point. And in response to Psuedo you say things can be "better" - how? Not in generalities please.

Calling it nebulous does not mean it has no merit. It means you seem to be dancing around the outside rather than speaking with clarity. This post does it again, it speaks in huge, sweeping generalities. These are not helpful and makes whatever point you're making difficult to consider. You are implying the narrative here is wrong/bad/incorrect/lesser - you pick the adjective. That implies there is a better one to be had....correct? You call it a "problem", that implies it is one that needs to be solved. How? You also imply this thread is poisoned by this problem, but I think the majority of us see it differently. But maybe we're wrong. I can't consider that however, until you approach making your point with more clarity and specificity.

I see discussions here well outside those parameters. So I don't agree anyone is going along with anything willingly or unwillingly. The conversations weave in and out of common and uncommon discussions. I feel no more bound to whatever "narrative" it is you think is better than the "media" one you are criticizing. In fact, I'd argue your very criticism sounds (ironically) like the narrative you are decrying. You think there is a right narrative to be had and a wrong narrative currently being engaged in. (Very limiting, frankly, like left-right) You use words like "the media", a term very common in exactly the paradigm you're criticizing. And, perhaps worst of all, you remain very nebulous and non-specific in a way that keeps the conversation less nuanced and more black and white. (This narrative is wrong, this other one is better. What the better one is? Well, let's talk about what's wrong with this one. We never get to...what is the better one?) Perhaps food for thought.

I don't know, I'm having trouble fully understanding your point because it's shrouded in generalities. If what you're saying is we view politics through the right/left poles and have a narrow view on political philosophies...sure! I think there is a wide spectrum of political possibilities and I think viewing it as a line is problematic. My politics are consistent by all over the map. If it's something else....I don't know. I feel like I'm having to guess too much. You keep implying there is a better narrative. What would that be or look like? (Perhaps with less nebulous examples for clarity purposes?)

I think that's true in general. I do not think that is true (most of the time) here. It seems as though that is your contention....right?

To the first paragraph - then perhaps you should be more self-critical. Your foray into the discussion here is welcome, but your first points seriously lacked clarity and were not well reasoned or argued. It took several pages to seem to make progress on that. Now, the second part I quoted here is a better attempt, so I'll respond. Since I'm no longer in MN that particular news is less a part of my every day life. I've read about it and I think it's right to condemn her. She has somewhat valid point, but she's making it terribly. I think some of her quotes were knowingly tip-toeing the line on being anti-semitic, I think others less so. I think some of the criticism is trying too damn hard to play "gotcha". But that's the world we live in. And the Israel/Palestine issue is one of the top ones for both sides being so polarized they are basically irrational. So that doesn't help.

I'm still perplexed by what you imply is not being talked about. Yes, the news shapes what we discuss, but what we care about (and discuss) also shapes the news. That's a two way street. You're being very nebulous and it'd help if you'd be willing to be more specific. What is it we are not talking about? What is outside the narrative that we (and all) should be talking about? It's becoming frustrating trying to pierce that part of the discussion. I'm struggling to contextualize your larger point without at least one example to help me see what you're saying.

Well, that depends what your certain observations are. I buck people here all the time and I get bucked too. We all need that. I enjoy busting up an echo chamber and I'm not afraid to wade into this discussion with any well-reasoned take I have. If you are, perhaps you aren't confident your reasoning is sound enough?

I struggle with that. Isn't healthcare, taxes, wages, criminal justice, morality and the myriad of other things we discuss items that are important to people? We're talking about things that matter to people in their every day life. Things that matter to us as people. I don't see us as CNN or Fox or MSNBC or NPR driven. I see us as driven by the things that matter in our lives. So I'm struggling to understand the criticism? What should we be talking about that we are not? I'm going to press politely here a bit, can you be more specific please? I'm trying to fully grasp your criticism but it seems so general that I can't quite get there.

Like I said, your actual position is one worth talking about to some degree. I just think it's important to make good arguments. As you've conceded, that first argument was not a good one. Part of our problem is we have a lot of bad reasons floating around for legitimate stuff. And I think ash pointed out very well just how bad that particular reason was. It was both non-analogous and insulting at the same time. We should call out bad reasons and people should back down from them when presented with it. That's really my only point and you seem to have done that.

So it seems it's the topics that bother you most? Is that correct? It's not so much how we're discussing, but what we're discussing?

The problem I'm having is that I agree in a general sense with what you are espousing. Where you lose me is when you think the general tone of discussions is the same here. I'm not sure why you think that? Do you think this is a generic right/left discussion taking place?

But then to support your opinion you used an example that is no where near helpful to the point you were making. Border security is the same thing. I think any rational person should support some form of border security, hashing out what makes sense should be relatively easy. But it becomes enormously difficult when one side says "Border Security = racism" and the other side says "We need a Game of Thrones Wall or it's open borders!" Saying immigrants can't vote for the same reason a 4 year old can't doesn't service your position. It does the opposite.

That's fine, but I think you undermine your point when you make a comparison that isn't at all fitting. The art of making good analogies or reasoning is really becoming lost. I can understand wanting a new person to this country to acclimate for X amount of time before voting. Like many policy positions, the position itself isn't necessarily the problem, it's the reasons behind it that undermine the success. Border security, as an issue, would be a really good example of this.

I don't think this is at all true of this forum's discussions.

Right, but you understand that the reasons it's 18 years for a child doesn't apply to a 30 year old right? I can understand some window wherein an immigrant can't vote, but help me make sense of comparing it to why we don't let a 3rd grader vote?