Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26

Thread: Media Bias

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    10,258

    Default

    which leads one to believe that lots of people have no core convictions
    No bad thing in itself, I'd like it if people voted according to policies rather than the name of the side.... voting for what The Sun tells them to is worse than either though.
    Agreed re Telegraph, I think my parents still read it.
    With Climate Change denial I have two thoughts - one, there is a problem with Greta becoming this massive figure-head in that it allows people to concentrate on attacking her, what with her being an angry insane puppet who ought to be in school and so on, instead of engaging with the science which surely doesn't change whoever is saying it. Two - I don't get Climate Change Denial, I mean, I understand those who read that Telegraph article and believe it, but the people behind it, the scientists paid by Shell or whatever, the ones who know they are repeating discredited arguments and so on. Don't they care at all about what's going to happen? Do they have no children or friends who might outlive them and might be affected... do they think that it will be good to be rich when the world is on fire etc? It seems absolutely crazy to me.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdleRich View Post
    No bad thing in itself, I'd like it if people voted according to policies rather than the name of the side....
    but core convictions are what you believe, as opposed to just following direction from a side.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    10,258

    Default

    Sure. I mean to say I don't have a problem with people changing party to the one whose policies best reflect their views. I even don't have a problem with people interrogating and possibly changing those views with careful consideration although not just twisting in the wind obviously.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,974

    Default

    ah, ok. but I get the sense sun readers didn't change their minds en mass after hours of deep conptemplation. they most likely just changed their mind because of what they read in the sun, which means they didn't have any core convictions of their own.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    10,258

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    18,746

    Default

    To play devil's advocate, we all receive information (and probably some amount of disinformation) about the world via media channels, whether traditional ones like newspapers and TV news, stuff on the internet or whatever. Even if it's just people's opinions on Facebook or right here on Dissensus. So what do we mean by 'core convictions'?

    In other words, it's easy to dismiss someone who thinks "Jeremy Corbyn was in the IRA" because they've got a distorted memory of something they read in the Sun that was already pretty biased and perhaps inaccurate. But each of us has a store of opinions and facts, or things we think are facts, that we've read or heard somewhere else. Perhaps these ideas are more accurate and complete for having been picked up from the Guardian or the New Statesman or New York Times or whatever than those garnered from the Sun - I'd certainly hope so, at least - but the basic principle is the same, isn't it?
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    10,258

    Default

    I took convictions to mean something more than facts. More like principles eg "people all deserve the same rights" or "people should get what they earn and taking it away from them in the form of tax is evil" etc

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to IdleRich For This Useful Post:

    Leo

  9. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    6,350

    Default

    Worth pointing out wrt to climate change:

    The BBC has improved massively in terms of "impartiality" on this issue and generally doesn't give space to deniers now "for balance". I assume as a result of scientists patiently explaining it all to them.

    The Telegraph no longer denies that climate change is real, but it has a particular bee in its bonnet about Greta and ER's sense of urgency about it all. The "Extinction" bit of Extinction Rebellion.

  10. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    6,350

    Default

    It's complicated with media really because it is a relationship and not just one way traffic.

    The media claims that it just reflects the views of its readership and the angry lefties sometimes portray the readers as brainwashed.

    Actually neither of these things is true - and there are other factors at work.

    People, I think, do have core convictions, but it is hard to discern what they are. Like they might not be Political in the traditional sense. For example "my children are really important to me and I want to do everything I can to protect them and make sure they have a good life". Which can then be spun in all sorts of directions in terms of policy.

  11. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    18,746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IdleRich View Post
    I took convictions to mean something more than facts. More like principles eg "people all deserve the same rights" or "people should get what they earn and taking it away from them in the form of tax is evil" etc
    Oh right, well I see what you mean. Yeah, agreed then.
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

  12. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    18,746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •