The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: A couple of blogs.
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:16 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 12:18 am
Posts: 1134
Location: Idaho
News you'll not see on American, Canadian or European TV.

From Iraq. http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

From Egypt. http://bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/

_________________
Fandemonium!
August 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2014

"I am a machine. I am a weapon of war. I am a destroyer of life in the service of life, the sword and shield of my human creators." Bolo Invincibilus, Mark XXIII, Model B (Experimental) 0075-NKE "Nike".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:23 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 12:18 am
Posts: 1134
Location: Idaho
Has anyone looked at this yet? Or do you simply want to continue only reading and watching only the bad news spewed out by the news media?

Or do the Democrats here just realize that their view of Iraq and Afghanistan, as told to them by the biased media and people like Michael Moore is mostly wrong when they read what real people who live there have to say?

Four more years of "We wuz robbed!" whining and embracing even further left wing Democrat candidates won't win you any sympathy.

_________________
Fandemonium!
August 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2014

"I am a machine. I am a weapon of war. I am a destroyer of life in the service of life, the sword and shield of my human creators." Bolo Invincibilus, Mark XXIII, Model B (Experimental) 0075-NKE "Nike".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:51 am 
Bad news is more fun.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:01 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
I like pie.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:19 pm 
Since when are blogs more of a credible source then the news?

Keeep digging...I'm sure there's good news in there somewhere...

Secondly, as BBlalock stated, bad news is more fun. If given a choice between "Sweet lady rescues kitten" and "OMG EXPLOSIVEZ!" most people will chose the explosives(z). It isn't a liberal media, it isn't a conservative media, it's a sensationalistic media.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:30 am 
DarkShadowed0 wrote:
Since when are blogs more of a credible source then the news?

I'd laugh if this didn't look sincere. Meh, I'll still laugh. ;)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:47 am 
Raif wrote:
DarkShadowed0 wrote:
Since when are blogs more of a credible source then the news?

I'd laugh if this didn't look sincere. Meh, I'll still laugh. ;)

These days, you can't trust either one, as neither group, as a group, is policing itself properly. You have to establish the credibility of every source on a case by case basis.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:58 am 
Berken wrote:
These days, you can't trust either one, as neither group, as a group, is policing itself properly.

Bloggers shouldn't. Period. That's a great deal of the point.

Quote:
You have to establish the credibility of every source on a case by case basis.

Since when has this not been true about everything?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:35 am 
Raif wrote:
Berken wrote:
These days, you can't trust either one, as neither group, as a group, is policing itself properly.

Bloggers shouldn't. Period. That's a great deal of the point.

Standards of accuracy and integrity are always a useful social mechanism. Bloggers, of course, exist outside the social sphere of the mainstream press. As you say, that's a great deal of the point; that "establlishment" social clique is ethically suspect and culturally corrupt. People get their news from blogs because the media establishment can't be trusted. However, blogs are no use as a substitute for it if all they are just another suspect group.

Raif wrote:
Quote:
You have to establish the credibility of every source on a case by case basis.

Since when has this not been true about everything?

In the most general sense, you are correct about every information source, including asking the guy who just walked in the front door how the weather is today.

However, Enlightment cullture (and the democratic systems it fosters) was founded on exchange of information across class and cultural lines, said exchange creating an international middle-class "Western" culture capable of accumulating and assimilating new knowledge faster than older cultures. Without this exchange we would still be a society of impoverished peasant farmers ruled by self-centered warrior elites and superstious priests.

It isn't possible for every person to have the same level of intellectual training and devote the same amount of time to cross-referencing it. There is too much information in motion and most of us have other work to do to keep society functioning. There have to be more or less trustworthy systems of exchange, some standard of information flow that is culturally or socially enforced on a day to day basis, or the experiment fails.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:50 am 
First, I'd trust the blogger to know about circumstances in which he is a daily participant far more than I would trust your average media outlet to do it for him. You're forgetting that the strength of this type of 'reporter' is that they can specialize in what they know, whereas the more mainstream reporters aren't allowed to (it shows, as they all too often dabble in information they don't remotely understand). Further, not all internet news sources are blogs. Many of them are small professional operations in a very specific (read specialized) sphere.

As for this standardized system of exchange, there is no way to accomplish this... the cure would be worse than the disease, by far. You seem to use a lot of words in that second part of your post to say very little. Care to say what you mean? 'Media needs to be controlled!' is the message I'm getting, and I don't like it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:26 pm 
Raif wrote:
As for this standardized system of exchange, there is no way to accomplish this... the cure would be worse than the disease, by far. You seem to use a lot of words in that second part of your post to say very little. Care to say what you mean? 'Media needs to be controlled!' is the message I'm getting, and I don't like it.

Nope, not really. That's just the opposite of what I was trying to say. I was speaking, not of a legal system to be created, but of a cultural structure that has been in existence and evolving for some five hundred years, since the rise of the Humanist movement during the Renaissance. The Humanists created an international dialogue, an exchange of ideas and information, existing outside traditional strictures of government agencies and religious hierarchies. This dialogue carried fundamental cultural standards, inherited from Greek philosophy, of mutual honesty and emotional and political restraint. Without this particular structure of cultural restraints, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution, and modern democracy could not have occurred.

Obviously, governments, churches, social establishments, and individuals violate this cultural standard all the time. Humans are self-centered creatures and will do that with any cultural structure. However, the standard exists and even the letters of complaint in this forum routinely refer to it.

When you note that certain bloggers know their subjects better than certain reporters, your statement carries three important assumptions:

-- First, you believe that getting information from a well-informed source is more important than getting it from a less-informed source of higher social standing, say, the President's spokesman, the New York Times, or the local High Priest of Tiamat.

-- Second, you are assuming that the better-informed source is going to more or less try to tell you "the truth" by some abstract standard, and not alter his information for personal reasons or to

-- Third, you are assuming you have a right to secure trustworthy, useful information for your own use, and that you can make use of it without it being filtered through your social superiors in the church, political party, or government.

DarkShadowed0’s statement contains the assumption that “news” is something that is supposed to be transferred for the purpose of enabling informed decisions rather than entertainment, reassurance, or control.

Bizzybody’s original comments assume that information provided about a statistically complex topic should be “balanced” in the sense of representing a variety of descriptions if a single one does not represent an accurate view of the whole topic; also that it be “fair,” in that it should favor what he considers a statistivally more important description over the more dramatic or politically favored ones.

Cholisose, in the "G. Bush vs. the World, Round 2" topic, expresses his dislike of “argument,” by which he seems to mean the emotionally unrestrained version of the discussion, in which people choose words and statements to bully, gloat, and batter their targets, trying to “win the fight” rather than resolve issues.

No time here to provide more examples, both good and ill, but they should be easy to pick out of the current political morass or any historical one. The key point is that we would not be having this conversation if there were not a cultural concept of such a conversation, and that there is a cultural standard for it that we all recognize by complaining about someone else violating it. Professional standards in the media, group standards among bloggers, personal tastes, laws and regulations, are all based on the cultural standard of honest dialogue. If it didn’t exist, the conversation would be unnecessary, or, more likely unrecognizable.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:15 am 
Berken wrote:
-- First, you believe that getting information from a well-informed source is more important than getting it from a less-informed source of higher social standing, say, the President's spokesman, the New York Times, or the local High Priest of Tiamat.

Correct.

Quote:
-- Second, you are assuming that the better-informed source is going to more or less try to tell you "the truth" by some abstract standard, and not alter his information for personal reasons or to

Usually this is the case. By contrast, people with social standing more often than not are quite comfortable being as dishonest as they please to keep it. This is obvious to anyone who even lightly follows politics.

Quote:
-- Third, you are assuming you have a right to secure trustworthy, useful information for your own use, and that you can make use of it without it being filtered through your social superiors in the church, political party, or government.

I damn well better. :)

Quote:
The key point is that we would not be having this conversation if there were not a cultural concept of such a conversation, and that there is a cultural standard for it that we all recognize by complaining about someone else violating it.

In other words you grant all of what you say are my predicates and therefore you grant my conclusion. If this isn't the case, you need to mince fewer words.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:19 am 
Raif wrote:
Quote:
-- Second, you are assuming that the better-informed source is going to more or less try to tell you "the truth" by some abstract standard, and not alter his information for personal reasons or to

Usually this is the case. By contrast, people with social standing more often than not are quite comfortable being as dishonest as they please to keep it. This is obvious to anyone who even lightly follows politics..

Well, I'd say that virtually any one might have a sound reason to feed you false "news." Higher social class would be slightly more likely to lie to keep you ignorant, lower social class would be more likely to pass on their ignorance.
Raif wrote:
Quote:
-- Third, you are assuming you have a right to secure trustworthy, useful information for your own use, and that you can make use of it without it being filtered through your social superiors in the church, political party, or government.

I damn well better. :)

That's the spirit! Remember that, while this assumption is embedded in Enlightenment thinking (and hence in the American constitution) it is not all that common in human societies world-wide. In particular, governments (like the current American administration) and other oligarchal groups (the Beltway social clique, the traditional Catholic church and many other state churchs) prefer to feed their supporters a created, simplified reality to keep them supportive while leaving the leadership free to take necessary actions. Often with the best of intentions. When the Bushies fed us that line of bull abouit Saddam being an threat requiring immediate action, that he had tons of WMDs, and that he was linked to Wahadist terrorists, they were doing that for our own good.

Raif wrote:
Berken wrote:
The key point is that we would not be having this conversation if there were not a cultural concept of such a conversation, and that there is a cultural standard for it that we all recognize by complaining about someone else violating it.

In other words you grant all of what you say are my predicates and therefore you grant my conclusion. If this isn't the case, you need to mince fewer words.

I believe you are taking about some sort of legal structure that might inhibit free speech. I'm talking about cultural standards to protect free speech, including a standard of rational honesty. I do feel that professional rules and legal standards for the exchange of "news" are necessary. However---and I'm pretty sure we agree on this---rules and standards of this sort also constantly threaten to restrict free speech and communication.

This is an irony we just have to live with. It is similar to the contradiction of a free society having police agencies and a military. We need them to protect us from brigands and foriegn invaders, but far more democracies have been destroyed by their own military than have ever been conquered by barbarians, pirates, and foriegn armies.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 12:13 am 
Berken wrote:
I'm talking about cultural standards to protect free speech, including a standard of rational honesty. I do feel that professional rules and legal standards for the exchange of "news" are necessary. However---and I'm pretty sure we agree on this---rules and standards of this sort also constantly threaten to restrict free speech and communication.

Bingo. I'm not willing to risk the former on account of the latter. So long as there is freedom of speech, there will be people who use it honestly. Weeding out is left as an exercise for the reader.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group