An article about media bias we can all agree on

[monkeyman]

Worry About the Right Things (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20118) by John Stossel (ABC)

For the past two weeks I've written about how the media -- part of the Fear Industrial Complex -- profit by scaring us to death about things that rarely happen, like terrorism, child abductions, and shark attacks.

It's a good article...I like it.

Some of his other stuff is really interesting too, if you have the time to read.

[uni57]

Well, yes, I mostly agree. But...

This same kind of writing can be used when they don't want us to worry about something that we should be worrying about. If you can follow the money, you can see through the disinformation.

I like this article, but second-hand smoke? While perhaps collectively we are at a very low risk, what about the child of a mother who chain smokes? That person is in danger. I have memories of going to my sister's house and sitting in a cloud of second-hand smoke. She was always smoking, so there was always a cloud of smoke. By the way, she died five years ago at age 50 from a heart attack. So don't smoke.

And I'm still waiting for someone to create driving statistics adjusted for age, capability, and other driving habits. Flying is safer? At least my car is designed to crash. Do they test-crash airplanes? They all fly apart and burst into flames. I'm not a 16-year-old driver. I don't drink and drive. Most of my driving is on familiar roads (with familiar hazards). I'm careful and very attentive. I'm not driving a 30 year old Pinto with bald tires. You can't lump me in with the inexperienced drivers and the drunk drivers and the sleep-deprived drivers and the reckless drivers. What if I lived in a town that satisfied all my needs? All the roads have a speed limit of 25. I rarely leave town. I drive every day. But I'd be safer five miles up in the air? Hardly. How many (sick/old/whatever) people die in their sleep? Are they going to say that flying is safer than sleeping in your bed?

A statistic can be applied collectively. But individually, your mileage will vary considerably.

[Gilby]

I don't know... socialists, collectivists, neocons, fascists... I doubt they would agree with that. They love fear. They live on fear. It's hard to argue with the facts, so they resort to fear. This video is funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9IVi4jiRQI).

BTW, John Stossel was apparently mentioned by Ron Paul (http://ronpaul2008.com) to be a possible running mate. Walter Williams (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/) was too.

[monkeyman]

I don't know... socialists, collectivists, neocons, fascists... I doubt they would agree with that. They love fear. They live on fear. It's hard to argue with the facts, so they resort to fear. This video is funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9IVi4jiRQI).
Haha, I've only seen the one where it's a 1:30 of a bunch of clips of them saying "Ronald Reagan".

[Jethro]

So are you saying I wasted all that money that I spent buying the emeregency preparedness kits (http://www.usprepared.com/Kits.html) that Art Bell told me to buy?

[UniBrier]

When it comes to worry, I was trained as a 60's youth by guru Alfred E. Neuman and his timeless words: "What, me worry?:

[BluntRM]

Stosseled. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stossel)

[Gilby]

Stosseled. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stossel) The second definition on that page falsely calls Stossel a neocon... far from the truth. Neocons are the far left side of the Republican party, which includes the current administration and 9 out 10 of the GOP presidential candidates (maybe 8, as Tancredo might not be a neocon). Stossel is a libertarian, practically the opposite of a neocon. Fiscal conservative, and socially liberal... or as the libertarians call it, economic freedom and social freedom.

[kington99]

So are you saying I wasted all that money that I spent buying the emeregency preparedness kits (http://www.usprepared.com/Kits.html) that Art Bell told me to buy?


And it's a lot of money, seems like total kit for the family of four would run to $900 ish!

[Jethro]

But if it ptotects my family from whatever holocaust the martians, ghosts, religious right, and other extra terrestrials have in store for us, it will be worth it.

I wonder if I should have gotten the bigfoot upgrade?

[johnfoss]

what about the child of a mother who chain smokes? That person is in danger.Yes, I have (had) a friend who died around age 30 from lung cancer. She never smoked, but grew up in a house where others did. Don't smoke around other people.

Flying is safer? At least my car is designed to crash. Do they test-crash airplanes?I know you're being a little silly, but yes, flying is about 100 times safer, on average, than car trips. The problem is there aren't flights to your local 7-11. Airplanes are designed to crash also. Drop your car from 2000 feet and it won't hold up much better than an airplane. The difference in amount of damage is, in large part, what makes the airplane light enough to fly. They even test-crash airplanes!

Most of my driving is on familiar roads (with familiar hazards).This is where most people have most of their accidents. Not because of the familiarity of those roads, just because of the greater percentage of driving time spent there.

You can't lump me in with the inexperienced drivers and the drunk drivers and the sleep-deprived drivers and the reckless drivers.They can if you have bad credit; then apparently anything goes.... :(

[banjo_gun_snake_wheels]

And I'm still waiting for someone to create driving statistics adjusted for age, capability, and other driving habits. Flying is safer? At least my car is designed to crash. Do they test-crash airplanes? They all fly apart and burst into flames. I'm not a 16-year-old driver. I don't drink and drive. Most of my driving is on familiar roads (with familiar hazards). I'm careful and very attentive. I'm not driving a 30 year old Pinto with bald tires. You can't lump me in with the inexperienced drivers and the drunk drivers and the sleep-deprived drivers and the reckless drivers. What if I lived in a town that satisfied all my needs? All the roads have a speed limit of 25. I rarely leave town. I drive every day. But I'd be safer five miles up in the air? Hardly. How many (sick/old/whatever) people die in their sleep? Are they going to say that flying is safer than sleeping in your bed?


you are missing the point. he was talking about driving cross country instead of taking a plane ride.
twice my family was involved in a car accident while on a road trip vacation (both times were unavoidable and were not my father's fault). after that we decided it was safer to fly.

[johnfoss]

he was talking about driving cross country instead of taking a plane ride.No, I think he was making a joke, while you're missing the reality. Statistically, most accidents happen within a few miles of home. But again, they're not as interesting, so they don't get the attention of a family far from home, etc.

My story of our station wagon getting rear-ended in Tucson, AZ on our National Lampoon's Vacation (the movie was copied from my family's 1977 family vacation out west) is a much more interesting story than a fender-bender in my town.

What does "unavoidable" mean anyway? That the other guy was unavoidably drunk? Very few traffic accidents are unavoidable if you consider all the drivers involved. Yes, mistakes by other drivers can leave you cornered with no options, but sometimes that can be a driving mistake as well.

Having now read the article, I thought it was a cute piece by Stossel. That's what he seems to do on TV also, cute pieces. He points out that the media like to hype things, which is nice an honest of him. Unfortunately it does nothing to fix the problem. How I'd love to have a news program, on TV or radio, that's not ratings-dependent, but rather is judged on how well it reports news. Stuff that matters, not "day four of Paris in jail." That's not news. Even a news program that debunks the other news programs and hype out in the world. Instead of focusing on Lindsey Lohan's embarrassing problems, maybe it could focus on how to not let this happen to yourself or your kids. How to spot the lies in offers from your cable or phone company. What you can really do to stay healthy, rather than what's trendy or who is promoting a new book. Etc.

[monkeyman]

Having now read the article, I thought it was a cute piece by Stossel. That's what he seems to do on TV also, cute pieces. He points out that the media like to hype things, which is nice an honest of him. Unfortunately it does nothing to fix the problem. How I'd love to have a news program, on TV or radio, that's not ratings-dependent, but rather is judged on how well it reports news. Stuff that matters, not "day four of Paris in jail." That's not news. Even a news program that debunks the other news programs and hype out in the world. Instead of focusing on Lindsey Lohan's embarrassing problems, maybe it could focus on how to not let this happen to yourself or your kids. How to spot the lies in offers from your cable or phone company. What you can really do to stay healthy, rather than what's trendy or who is promoting a new book. Etc.

John, if you did that, I might actually start watching the news.

[uni57]

I wasn't making a joke or being silly. Well, not this one time.

I don't drive drunk. I'm not an inexperienced driver. I'm a cautious, attentive driver. I think about driving almost constantly (while I'm driving). I see what's happening around me. Sometimes I'm moving out of the way before a problem in another lane becomes a crisis. I don't tailgate or speed. I leave an out. I often leave the other guy an out, too.

Compare me to the guy who speeds and drives drunk all the time (in his 1970 Pinto with bald tires). We are not at the same risk of an accident. He is skewing the statistics. In order for the average to stay the same, there has to be someone else equally far on the opposite side (a low-risk driver).

That's my point -- statistics are valid when applied in aggregate, but we are individuals. Each and every one of us. (okay, a moment of silliness) Collectively, we have a certain risk of having a heart attack. But they always break the risk down by age, race, whether you smoke, whether you are overweight or obese, etc. People are at different risks. Same with driving. We are not all at the same risk -- because of differences in age, driving attitude, driving aptitude, experience, caution, vehicle crash-worthiness, etc.

I want the breakdown. Don't just say I am 100 times more likely to die in an automobile than in a plane. Don't lump me in with the high-risk drivers. Insurance companies don't, for sure. Because their money is on the line. I want the statistics by age group. Do those statistics exist? (I'll get around to Googling it, but if anyone is ambitious...)

[uni57]

An article about media bias we can all agree onIt just occurred to me that there is probably NOTHING we can all agree on. :)

[dudewithasock]

It just occurred to me that there is probably NOTHING we can all agree on. :)

-1;

~Unicycling is cool.

~Aussies are weird.

~ShaunJ is gullible.

~BTM is an android.

Just proved you wrong. :p

[uni57]

-1;

~Unicycling is cool.

~Aussies are weird.

~ShaunJ is gullible.

~BTM is an android.

Just proved you wrong. :pUnicycling is FUN. It's way NOT cool.

Aussies are cool. Texans are weird.

BTM is from outer space. He's not an andriod.

[monkeyman]

Unicycling is FUN. It's way NOT cool.
I disagree. Chicks dig it, therefore by the standards of [most] guys, it's cool.

Aussies are cool. Texans are weird.
Y'all just don't know what you're missin'.

[dudewithasock]

Unicycling is FUN. It's way NOT cool.

Aussies are cool. Texans are weird.

BTM is from outer space. He's not an andriod.

You didn't refute my ShaunJ accusation...cause we all know it's a true. ;)

[uni57]

You didn't refute my ShaunJ accusation...cause we all know it's a true. ;)Actually, I don't know who he is. I've heard the name before.

And since you didn't disagree with any of MY statements, I have to assume you are in agreement: Texans are weird.

[uni57]

I disagree. Chicks dig it, therefore by the standards of [most] guys, it's cool.No, it's effective. It's still not cool.


Y'all just don't know what you're missin'.Why don't you talk like that?

[wobbling bear]

"An article about media bias we can all agree on"
wrong title: I just don't buy the argument!
it'll be slightly long to explain in a post but roughly there are differences between different facets of "media" : some matter should be "directly educational" (such as "risks you face at home") and some are bound to the exceptional. Is the exceptional, trendy, something the media should avoid? certainly not: the ancient greeks built their religion and part of their education on that. for sure there are laughable excess (I am directly thinking of some newspapers here) but there may be reasons why we are fond of the exceptional and statiscally unprobable and those are not necessarily trash to be reviled and hidden!

[monkeyman]

Actually, I don't know who he is. I've heard the name before.

He's unifreak (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59585&highlight=charlie).

Why don't you talk like that?
Because I'm not a hick, or a cowboy. I actually don't really have an accent at all...the only identifying thing is that I say y'all. Besides that, you wouldn't be able to tell where I'm from by my voice.

[monkeyman]

"An article about media bias we can all agree on"
wrong title: I just don't buy the argument!
it'll be slightly long to explain in a post but roughly there are differences between different facets of "media" : some matter should be "directly educational" (such as "risks you face at home") and some are bound to the exceptional. Is the exceptional, trendy, something the media should avoid? certainly not: the ancient greeks built their religion and part of their education on that. for sure there are laughable excess (I am directly thinking of some newspapers here) but there may be reasons why we are fond of the exceptional and statiscally unprobable and those are not necessarily trash to be reviled and hidden!

I almost completely disagree. People have an extremely overactive sense of danger because of the sensationalist media, yet they ignore the big stuff. It's like the joke about people who go to McDonald's and buy the triple cheeseburger, large fries, and a diet coke.

[wobbling bear]

well the subject for our philsoploy dissertation today is this:
news picked at random: "man get a 179 Euros fine for abandoning a cookie pack on the seat of a train"
why is that "news"? what do you think of the circumstances? what does it tell us about human behaviour? is it important to you?:rolleyes:

(I read carefully the news and realised that in fact that was a really interesting situation, for sure that has nothing to do with "cookie pack" not even with cleanliness or security in a train ... but this absurd and extraordinary story tells us something: the eye-catching title is in fact covering a very interesting and common problem .... so what? -is that bad media?-)

edit: I wanted to write philosophy and ended up with "philsoploy" interesting

[monkeyman]

well the subject for our philsoploy dissertation today is this:
news picked at random: "man get a 179 Euros fine for abandoning a cookie pack on the seat of a train"
why is that "news"? what do you think of the circumstances? what does it tell us about human behaviour? is it important to you?:rolleyes:

(I read carefully the news and realised that in fact that was a really interesting situation, for sure that has nothing to do with "cookie pack" not even with cleanliness or security in a train ... but this absurd and extraordinary story tells us something: the eye-catching title is in fact covering a very interesting and common problem .... so what? -is that bad media?-)

Depends, I think. If it's online, in some section similar to Yahoo's "Odd News" section, then it's alright. If it's in a serious section, or reported on TV, it's bad journalism. It's not important, and it affects very few people. If it's not actually newsworthy, and if it doesn't affect a significant amount of people, it's bad journalism to put it on the news as a serious issue.

[wobbling bear]

, it's bad journalism to put it on the news as a serious issue.
except that this exemple could be cited in an article on yobbishness and how people are getting on each other nerves (the traveler and the controler of the raliway were at odds with each other) : constant stress in human interaction is a serious subject that affects the lives of millions: so is this example statistically not correct?

[monkeyman]

except that this exemple could be cited in an article on yobbishness and how people are getting on each other nerves (the traveler and the controler of the raliway were at odds with each other) : constant stress in human interaction is a serious subject that affects the lives of millions: so is this example statistically not correct?

If it were an article about yobbishness, and if there were more examples than just this one, then yes, that would be ok.

[wobbling bear]

If it were an article about yobbishness, and if there were more examples than just this one, then yes, that would be ok.
an interesting side-note (or so I think): in classrooms they conduct news reading group comments where from such a superficial raw news they try to raise interesting questions . Children are often born journalists and analysts!

[dudewithasock]

...the only identifying thing is that I say y'all. Besides that, you wouldn't be able to tell where I'm from by my voice.

That's actually enough for most people in the U.S. to tell where you're from.

[monkeyman]

That's actually enough for most people in the U.S. to tell where you're from.

But I said you couldn't tell from my voice/accent.

[johnfoss]

I don't drive drunk. I'm not an inexperienced driver. I'm a cautious, attentive driver. I think about driving almost constantly (while I'm driving). I see what's happening around me. Sometimes I'm moving out of the way before a problem in another lane becomes a crisis. I don't tailgate or speed. I leave an out. I often leave the other guy an out, too.This makes you an "invisible" driver. That's where you want to be. The invisible drivers are the ones who don't stand out because they're not doing stupid, impatient, inattentive or other sloppy things when they drive. They just go with the flow and they're not in your way.

Compare me to the guy who speeds and drives drunk all the time (in his 1970 Pinto with bald tires). We are not at the same risk of an accident. He is skewing the statistics.Actually he is merely contributing to those statistics more than you are. The problem is, when you have an accident it's likely to involve him, so it's his accident too.

Don't just say I am 100 times more likely to die in an automobile than in a plane. Don't lump me in with the high-risk drivers. Insurance companies don't, for sure. Because their money is on the line. I want the statistics by age group. Do those statistics exist?Good question. The hard part is, as I mentioned, the likely combination of good and bad drivers in a given accident. There are only two "official" ways to rate whether a driver is good or bad. That's the police record (tickets and accidents) and your insurance company. The insurance company, which is probably only going to share this information through a court order, probably uses your age, police driving record, claims record, sex, the choice of car you drive and your zip code to determine how much of a "risk" you are. It would be an interesting study to see what types of accidents are most related to what types of drivers. But the generalized statistics, like comparing to airplane fatalities, are going to stay blurry because so many traffic accidents involve multiple vehicles with multiple levels of driver competence.

I used to deliver the Sunday New York Times when I lived on Long Island. I'd get up every Sunday morning and pick up my papers at 5:00. I loved having the nearly-empty roads almost all to myself, though I was aware of the seeming abundance of drunk drivers around me. Later on I was amazed to read statistics that told me that the *majority* of people on the roads at that hour (on a Sunday) are probably above the legal limit. Scary!

[pete66]

This makes you an "invisible" driver. That's where you want to be. The invisible drivers are the ones who don't stand out because they're not doing stupid, impatient, inattentive or other sloppy things when they drive. They just go with the flow and they're not in your way.

Actually he is merely contributing to those statistics more than you are. The problem is, when you have an accident it's likely to involve him, so it's his accident too.

Good question. The hard part is, as I mentioned, the likely combination of good and bad drivers in a given accident. There are only two "official" ways to rate whether a driver is good or bad. That's the police record (tickets and accidents) and your insurance company. The insurance company, which is probably only going to share this information through a court order, probably uses your age, police driving record, claims record, sex, the choice of car you drive and your zip code to determine how much of a "risk" you are. It would be an interesting study to see what types of accidents are most related to what types of drivers. But the generalized statistics, like comparing to airplane fatalities, are going to stay blurry because so many traffic accidents involve multiple vehicles with multiple levels of driver competence.

I used to deliver the Sunday New York Times when I lived on Long Island. I'd get up every Sunday morning and pick up my papers at 5:00. I loved having the nearly-empty roads almost all to myself, though I was aware of the seeming abundance of drunk drivers around me. Later on I was amazed to read statistics that told me that the *majority* of people on the roads at that hour (on a Sunday) are probably above the legal limit. Scary!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtEp5yc-g3A

[uni57]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtEp5yc-g3ALOL, penis tax!

[monkeyman]

LOL, penis tax!

I laughed at that part too...it's sad because it's true. :(

[uni57]

John,

I understand that bad drivers and drunk drivers may crash into me. My ability to dodge them can't last forever. Knock on wood. I am extremely vigilant, however.

And, after all that I've said about safety, I have to explain that I'm actually NOT, as you call it, an invisible driver.

May I direct you to my new thread (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61621)?

[uni57]

Because I'm not a hick, or a cowboy. I actually don't really have an accent at all...I hope you know that I definitely was NOT implying that you were a hick or a cowboy. Or that you had an accent.

I was just curious what your answer would be. Such as (for example)...

- the world is homogenizing due to ubiquitous global communications and media
- I am not a hick or a cowboy
- educated people don't talk like that
- smart people don't talk like that
- they only talk like that in Alabama

[monkeyman]

- they only talk like that in Alabama

I'm in Alabama right now...aside from the people who work in the "smart" places, they really do talk like that. :(

[monkeyman]

I just found this (http://www.violentacres.com/archives/137/the-government-who-cried-wolf)with StumbleUpon, and I think it fits in with the subject of sensationalism...not just in the media, but just about everywhere.

My husband’s youngest child has developed a bit of a lying problem...

I tried to explain to him that lying is probably one of the worst things a person can do. I expected him to accept my morality as fact and not question my Supreme Adult-like Assessment of his Bad Behavior.

Instead, he asked me, “Why? What’s so bad about it?”
...
For a minute there, I was just as confused as my husband’s son. Then I closed my eyes tightly and desperately searched my memory for what my Father told me. This is what I finally came up with:

“Because, someday, you are going to be telling the truth and you’ll need someone to believe you. But no one will.”
...
I consider myself to be quite the Average Joe when it comes to politics.
...
I don’t want to be ignorant. I want to make informed, solid, confident decisions. However, the more I read about the people in power, the more I have a sneaking suspicion that everything they say is all bunch of bullshit.
...
I consider myself an Average Joe in that I have lost faith in it all. I have turned my television off and I have canceled my subscription to the newspaper. I have lost the will to sift through partial truths, minor falsities, purposeful deceptions, and bald face lies. Instead, I have focused all of my attention on My World and I pay little mind to what goes in The World.

But, someday, I wonder what will happen if some vital information was suddenly stumbled upon. Perhaps the politicians will try to warn us and we will all sneer at them in disgust. Maybe the media will frantically attempt to report the news…to billions of people who only roll their eyes in response. Scientists and Activists may beg us to believe them only to be met with bored, apathetic sighs.

[The UniSLAB]

Great article, actually made sense on a lot of levels. That deserves a fonzy face....:cool: eeeyyyyyyy

[monkeyman]

There is no greater honor, UniSLAB. I am forever indebted.

[The UniSLAB]

There is no greater honor, UniSLAB. I am forever indebted.

Eeeyyyyy:cool: