Have we lost the ability to engage in public discourse/ reasonable debate?

brianlux

Let me say at the start, the following quote speaks to me.  I'm certain that, at times, I have been guilty of the assertions made here.  Perhaps some of you have been as well.  Thoughts welcome, especially thoughts couched in reasonable debate. 

"It began with frustration that everything I was hearing began to sound alike, that it didn't matter if I was in a public hearing or a phone interview, and it didn't matter if I interviewed left or right, logger or tree hugger, people simply read me their bumper stickers.  There was a precast set of notions and tenets that set terms of debate, or rather no real debate, no discourse that furthered understanding.  In the case of run-of-the-mill politics, I suppose we can get by like this, a lot of chatter and beneath all that, a few plodding bureaucrats who see that the streets are plowed and the sewers run.  But I was now writing about the environment, about nature, and this was a far bigger matter.   Science derives from the laws of nature; science ought not to exist to simply rehash talking points, but to arrive at answers, and nothing I was seeing in the public debate was taking advantage of those answers.  Everyone talked about what they believed; no one talked about what they knew."

Richard Manning; It runs in the Family, p. 203 

my2hands

Sounds like some commy shit to me

brianlux

my2hands said:

Sounds like some commy shit to me

Well, but of course!   Too bad the book wasn't free!

Bentleyspop

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

Sounds like some commy shit to me

Well, but of course!   Too bad the book wasn't free!

When the SOCIALISTS take power in 2020 ALL books will be FREE

cincybearcat

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

Sounds like some commy shit to me

Well, but of course!   Too bad the book wasn't free!

When the SOCIALISTS take power in 2020 ALL books will be FREE

I’ve already covered this with Brian. No books cause no cutting down trees

Gern Blansten

I would say yes when one side of the argument is being made by an ignorant fool.

my2hands

Books are commy shit too... so are trees

bootlegger10

24/7 cable news is part of the problem as they have to drum up faux controversy to fill air time.  The are so many sources for news now that people gravitate to the news that fits their worldview and they get more and more polarized that way.  Campaign laws are ridiculous and politicians spend most of their time fundraising instead of governing. 

mickeyrat

......

brianlux

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

Sounds like some commy shit to me

Well, but of course!   Too bad the book wasn't free!

When the SOCIALISTS take power in 2020 ALL books will be FREE

(Except the ones I sell.)

cincybearcat said:

Bentleyspop said:

brianlux said:

my2hands said:

Sounds like some commy shit to me

Well, but of course!   Too bad the book wasn't free!

When the SOCIALISTS take power in 2020 ALL books will be FREE

I’ve already covered this with Brian. No books cause no cutting down trees

LOL... 

Seriously though, I can't wait until  hemp becomes the common paper on use.

"Hey man, are you done with that book?"

"Yeah, wanna borrow it?"

"Ah, well man, I was gonna suggest we smoke it!"

brianlux

Gern Blansten said:

I would say yes when one side of the argument is being made by an ignorant fool.

Do not both sides say the same thing?  (But , yeah, I get where you're coming from.)

bootlegger10 said:

24/7 cable news is part of the problem as they have to drum up faux controversy to fill air time.  The are so many sources for news now that people gravitate to the news that fits their worldview and they get more and more polarized that way.  Campaign laws are ridiculous and politicians spend most of their time fundraising instead of governing. 

The big problem with news is that's it's not news anymore.  It's all bought up by corporations that keep a tight reign.

(Or is it rein?  Fuck spelling.  Spelling is commie bullshit!)

oftenreading

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I would say yes when one side of the argument is being made by an ignorant fool.

Do not both sides say the same thing?  (But , yeah, I get where you're coming from.)

bootlegger10 said:

24/7 cable news is part of the problem as they have to drum up faux controversy to fill air time.  The are so many sources for news now that people gravitate to the news that fits their worldview and they get more and more polarized that way.  Campaign laws are ridiculous and politicians spend most of their time fundraising instead of governing. 

The big problem with news is that's it's not news anymore.  It's all bought up by corporations that keep a tight reign.

(Or is it rein?  Fuck spelling.  Spelling is commie bullshit!)

Don’t buy into the myth that “news is not news anymore”. It’s perfectly possible to get accurate news, with careful selection of sources. 

oftenreading

And careful selection of sources includes some non-American sources. 

brianlux

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

Gern Blansten said:

I would say yes when one side of the argument is being made by an ignorant fool.

Do not both sides say the same thing?  (But , yeah, I get where you're coming from.)

bootlegger10 said:

24/7 cable news is part of the problem as they have to drum up faux controversy to fill air time.  The are so many sources for news now that people gravitate to the news that fits their worldview and they get more and more polarized that way.  Campaign laws are ridiculous and politicians spend most of their time fundraising instead of governing. 

The big problem with news is that's it's not news anymore.  It's all bought up by corporations that keep a tight reign.

(Or is it rein?  Fuck spelling.  Spelling is commie bullshit!)

Don’t buy into the myth that “news is not news anymore”. It’s perfectly possible to get accurate news, with careful selection of sources. 

I don't know the current statistics but I do know that in 1960, corporations controlled 32 % of the U.S. newspapers, and by 1986, their share was up to 70 % and by 1990 it was 80%.  I don't suppose that number has gotten smaller since then. 

And then there is perspective.  I have seen a film that illustrates how news is biased.  That film showed footage of the exact same incident as reported by two different news stations.  When seen side by side, that single incident appears very different- as though it were two separate incidents.  It was like reading a modern day version. of Akutagawa's Rashōmon.

For good reason, I don't fully trust any news source.  Culled from them (including, of course, non-American news sources), I try to piece together from various perspectives what makes the most sense.  And it's a lot of work to make some semblance of sense out of the chaos. 

bootlegger10

It is scary.  I have read a few articles lately and told myself that you can’t take them at face value anymore (which is good but more so bad).   

brianlux

bootlegger10 said:

It is scary.  I have read a few articles lately and told myself that you can’t take them at face value anymore (which is good but more so bad).   

Yeah, I very much agree.  News and journalism is on the decline.  If you look at even just the quality of the writing from years past to what's out there today, that alone is an indication of the decline. 

oftenreading

There is still high quality journalism out there. 

oftenreading

Let me try again, since I don’t think my last response was all that helpful  

A while back I was also wondering which journalistic sources were regarded as more accurate and less biased, so I did a bit of a search on that. Of course, by the nature of these things the results are biased, but in any case I started looking at different news sites. I currently am routinely looking at Reuter’s (terrible display, though), Associated Press, Al Jazeera, and the BBC world news, in addition to CBC which I was always reading. I also like the Guardian, which is more left. There are other sites I read for fun but not so much for news. 

njnancy

Mistrust of journalism feeds right into Trump's narrative. 

Don't believe any of them - fake news. That's scary.

I got my degree in Journalism and there are dedicated journalists all over the world who are just trying to find out the truth - while they're being called the enemy of the people by the President of the United States. Don't label the journalists as bought out by corporations. People want to be journalists, for the most part, to hold the powerful accountable. Many give their lives in that pursuit. 

brianlux

njnancy said:

Mistrust of journalism feeds right into Trump's narrative. 

Don't believe any of them - fake news. That's scary.

I got my degree in Journalism and there are dedicated journalists all over the world who are just trying to find out the truth - while they're being called the enemy of the people by the President of the United States. Don't label the journalists as bought out by corporations. People want to be journalists, for the most part, to hold the powerful accountable. Many give their lives in that pursuit. 

I don't mistrust good, honest journalism or good, honest journalists (some of them are my favorite authors) Nancy, but I do mistrust much of what gets passed off as "news".  

And my feeling and beliefs about news and journalism have absolutely zero to do with Trump's narrative. 

I certainly had zero intention of labeling journalists as bought out by corporations though many certainly have been.  Several of my favorite writers are journalists (or started out as journalists).  Here are a few of them:

Further in the past:

John Steinbeck (journalist for the San Francisco News in the 30's)

George Orwell (started out as a journalist writing about Paris and London, among other things.)

Mark Twain (started out as a journalist writing for  Virginia City newspaper, the Territorial Enterprise.)

James Baldwin (started out in journalism.)

Truman Capote (famous for fictional journalism)

Nat Hentoff- one of the pioneers of great music writing/ journalism

and more recently:

Jon Krakauer (started as as a journalist for Outside magazine.)

Dan Rather- (one of our outstanding elder journalists.)

Bill Moyers- (journalist extraordinaire.)

Terry Tempest Williams  (one of our finest women/nature/current events writer-journalists)

Barbara Ehrenreich- (a true hero of women writer-journalists.)

and of course, Richard Manning who at quoted at the top.

oftenreading said:

Let me try again, since I don’t think my last response was all that helpful  

A while back I was also wondering which journalistic sources were regarded as more accurate and less biased, so I did a bit of a search on that. Of course, by the nature of these things the results are biased, but in any case I started looking at different news sites. I currently am routinely looking at Reuter’s (terrible display, though), Associated Press, Al Jazeera, and the BBC world news, in addition to CBC which I was always reading. I also like the Guardian, which is more left. There are other sites I read for fun but not so much for news. 

You did a "bit of a search" on which journalistic sources were regarded as more accurate and less biased?  And you're fairly sure that the sources you used for your search  were relatively unbiased? 

I'm not trying to harass you or give you a bad time, often, and I like some of the journalistic sources you mentioned myself, but I'm not so sure how much I would trust "a bit of a search" into something like that.  I think we're better off by reading everything and every source with a critical eye, maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism- or at the very least, caution- and reading and talking as much as possible about what is known (that's where science comes in) and not so much about what other people think and how they feel.  So much journalism today sounds like supposition and believe rather than what is known; sensationalism and feelings rather than reporting truly important matters based on knowledge. 

I recently told my wife that I like to read the reviews on Netflix to get an idea of weather or not we will like a certain movie.  She said, "Yeah, but how can you tell from reading those?"    I said, "I can't be certain, that's for sure, but what I do, in order to get as good an idea as possible, is to read and give more credence to  the reviews that are intelligently written.  Good writers tend to be fairly intelligent, so at least I'm bumping up our odds of finding better movies to watch."  

That's how I see journalism.  If it's well written and the writer seems intelligent, that's at least a good start.  Then from there I hope to find more verifiable information and less supposition and opinion.  And we all know what they say about opinions! 

rgambs

I think it's more that we've lost the desire than the ability.

my2hands

bootlegger10 said:

24/7 cable news is part of the problem as they have to drum up faux controversy to fill air time.  The are so many sources for news now that people gravitate to the news that fits their worldview and they get more and more polarized that way.  Campaign laws are ridiculous and politicians spend most of their time fundraising instead of governing. 

Agreed!

Spiritual_Chaos

my2hands said:

Books are commy shit too... so are trees

my2hands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/05/11/declassified-cia-documents-shows-agencies-control-over-mainstream-media-academia/

oftenreading

brianlux said:

njnancy said:

Mistrust of journalism feeds right into Trump's narrative. 

Don't believe any of them - fake news. That's scary.

I got my degree in Journalism and there are dedicated journalists all over the world who are just trying to find out the truth - while they're being called the enemy of the people by the President of the United States. Don't label the journalists as bought out by corporations. People want to be journalists, for the most part, to hold the powerful accountable. Many give their lives in that pursuit. 

I don't mistrust good, honest journalism or good, honest journalists (some of them are my favorite authors) Nancy, but I do mistrust much of what gets passed off as "news".  

And my feeling and beliefs about news and journalism have absolutely zero to do with Trump's narrative. 

I certainly had zero intention of labeling journalists as bought out by corporations though many certainly have been.  Several of my favorite writers are journalists (or started out as journalists).  Here are a few of them:

Further in the past:

John Steinbeck (journalist for the San Francisco News in the 30's)

George Orwell (started out as a journalist writing about Paris and London, among other things.)

Mark Twain (started out as a journalist writing for  Virginia City newspaper, the Territorial Enterprise.)

James Baldwin (started out in journalism.)

Truman Capote (famous for fictional journalism)

Nat Hentoff- one of the pioneers of great music writing/ journalism

and more recently:

Jon Krakauer (started as as a journalist for Outside magazine.)

Dan Rather- (one of our outstanding elder journalists.)

Bill Moyers- (journalist extraordinaire.)

Terry Tempest Williams  (one of our finest women/nature/current events writer-journalists)

Barbara Ehrenreich- (a true hero of women writer-journalists.)

and of course, Richard Manning who at quoted at the top.

oftenreading said:

Let me try again, since I don’t think my last response was all that helpful  

A while back I was also wondering which journalistic sources were regarded as more accurate and less biased, so I did a bit of a search on that. Of course, by the nature of these things the results are biased, but in any case I started looking at different news sites. I currently am routinely looking at Reuter’s (terrible display, though), Associated Press, Al Jazeera, and the BBC world news, in addition to CBC which I was always reading. I also like the Guardian, which is more left. There are other sites I read for fun but not so much for news. 

You did a "bit of a search" on which journalistic sources were regarded as more accurate and less biased?  And you're fairly sure that the sources you used for your search  were relatively unbiased? 

I'm not trying to harass you or give you a bad time, often, and I like some of the journalistic sources you mentioned myself, but I'm not so sure how much I would trust "a bit of a search" into something like that.  I think we're better off by reading everything and every source with a critical eye, maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism- or at the very least, caution- and reading and talking as much as possible about what is known (that's where science comes in) and not so much about what other people think and how they feel.  So much journalism today sounds like supposition and believe rather than what is known; sensationalism and feelings rather than reporting truly important matters based on knowledge. 

I recently told my wife that I like to read the reviews on Netflix to get an idea of weather or not we will like a certain movie.  She said, "Yeah, but how can you tell from reading those?"    I said, "I can't be certain, that's for sure, but what I do, in order to get as good an idea as possible, is to read and give more credence to  the reviews that are intelligently written.  Good writers tend to be fairly intelligent, so at least I'm bumping up our odds of finding better movies to watch."  

That's how I see journalism.  If it's well written and the writer seems intelligent, that's at least a good start.  Then from there I hope to find more verifiable information and less supposition and opinion.  And we all know what they say about opinions! 

No, I said in my post that by their nature the results of my search were biased, but whatever. 

The Juggler

bootlegger10 said:

24/7 cable news is part of the problem as they have to drum up faux controversy to fill air time.  The are so many sources for news now that people gravitate to the news that fits their worldview and they get more and more polarized that way.  Campaign laws are ridiculous and politicians spend most of their time fundraising instead of governing. 

Yes. But I think social media plays a much larger role than cable news channels. Grand scheme of things, shows like Dr Pimple Popper still pull in higher ratings than the highest rated cable news shows.

With social media, people get further and further entrenched into their bubbles and it's tough to even engage with folks who don't agree with all of your points. 

Meltdown99

You should only engage in people who get their news from Facebook.  

my2hands

I think i'm going to have to start a thread about the media for a good discussion....

The long history of government and intelligence agency involvement with the media, including most if not all of the most respected media outlets in the country and abroad, is absolutely fascinating and eye opening, but nobody seems to know about it, including those among us that like to boast that they are well informed

For example, even if you know just a little of the history, your radar should be going off at the following: In 2013 the WORLDS wealthiest person, Jeff Bezos, purchased the Washington Post. In 2014 Amazon, owned by Bezos, inks a $600mm deal with the CIA.... The Post is known to have longstanding ties to the CIA, which includes outright manipulation and control....... soooooooo, yeah........ but Trump has toilet paper on his shoe...... just ask Alexa

HughFreakingDillon

there's simply just too many people waiting for their turn to talk and not listening. too much of wanting to be right instead of learning the truth. and it goes both ways. for instance, when someone brings up that Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet Chicago is a clusterfuck of gun violence, the left often just throw up their hands and yell "cherry picker!" or something of the like. How about "you're right, let's explore why that is"? 

there are just as many examples of the "other side" acting the same. this is not a partisan issue. 

many just aren't interested in debate where they might end up on the "losing" end. they need to be right so their interests are protected. 

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

there's simply just too many people waiting for their turn to talk and not listening. too much of wanting to be right instead of learning the truth. and it goes both ways. for instance, when someone brings up that Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet Chicago is a clusterfuck of gun violence, the left often just throw up their hands and yell "cherry picker!" or something of the like. How about "you're right, let's explore why that is"? 

there are just as many examples of the "other side" acting the same. this is not a partisan issue. 

many just aren't interested in debate where they might end up on the "losing" end. they need to be right so their interests are protected. 

Yes, it's definitely not a partisan issue.

As for not wanting to end up on the losing end- that's a great point.  Winning the game too often seems to take precedence over establishing the welfare of the people- not to mention the world that sustains us, and that requires making some sacrifices all the way around.

cincybearcat

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

there's simply just too many people waiting for their turn to talk and not listening. too much of wanting to be right instead of learning the truth. and it goes both ways. for instance, when someone brings up that Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet Chicago is a clusterfuck of gun violence, the left often just throw up their hands and yell "cherry picker!" or something of the like. How about "you're right, let's explore why that is"? 

there are just as many examples of the "other side" acting the same. this is not a partisan issue. 

many just aren't interested in debate where they might end up on the "losing" end. they need to be right so their interests are protected. 

Yes, it's definitely not a partisan issue.

As for not wanting to end up on the losing end- that's a great point.  Winning the game too often seems to take precedence over establishing the welfare of the people- not to mention the world that sustains us, and that requires making some sacrifices all the way around.

You know Brian one of the things I notice and appreciate the most about you is you are almost 100% of the time posing questions to learn...giving input but willing to listen to others.  You are very good at it...imo anyhow.

Now - you don't get my humor and that sucks...but I'd say you are in the majority!