Problematic Stuff

Locked
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:46 pm

To be clear, if we're addressing Australia in particular, my understanding is that privately owned media have the bulk of the audience. Two companies, News Corp and Fairfax media control almost all print media in Australia. I think that is not great. It's too concentrated. It's like a news trust, and I would think it'd be best if there were more news sources that were separately owned by private citizens and associations of citizens. ABC and SBS are the public broadcasting units, which are state funded but editorial control is divorced from the State.

The set-up doesn't seem that different from what we have in the US. Privately owned press and media outlets, but in recent decades there has been an unfortunate conglomeration of news outlets so that only a few outlets control huge portions of the media. That is not a postive development, because it takes away from the competitiveness of the marketplace of ideas.

We in the US also have public broadcasting -- television has several PBS channels - radio has NPR (national public radio), etc. You find them on Satellite as well as terrestrial radio, and usually multiple television and radio channels in each major market.

I don't consider PBS and NPR to be "Pravda" even though they are not "independent" of the State. They receive State funds, and they have to obey some rules as to how they broadcast and their content. However, overall editorial control is not vested in the State. Most people respect NPR and PBS, and they tend to have more "serious" and less flashy news programs. If any complaint is to be had it's that they are politically biased toward the American left and the Democratic Party.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Hermit » Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:58 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:36 pm
Hermit wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:55 am
:roll:
Whatever, cheers!
Yeah, man. I made a serious effort to reply to your Gish gallop. What a waste of time that turned out to be, seeing you then proceeded to do a second lap around the same circuit. You're on your own now. Good luck.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:07 pm

That's unfair. I have not presented a single falsehood, much less a gish gallop. I've tried multiple times to explain my view on it. Not once did I call Australia's ABC news service to be "Pravda." The post that set you off was not referring to Australia at all, but your knee-jerk reaction was to pretend that I said that ABC was Pravda, when I did not. You mischaracterized my argument. But, that's not major crime, and I have attempted to address that by explaining to you in detail what my view on it actually is, rather than the cartoon caricature that you portrayed it as. You won't accept that. You rolled your eyes. My response to your eye rolling was to say "whatever, cheers!" What else am I supposed to do with your eye rolling?

In any case, I've set out quite clearly what I was talking about, and it bears no resemblance to what you are insisting that I really believe. I would hope that if there was a misunderstanding about a post, and I further elaborated on what I was talking about, that it settles the issue. Instead, you seem to be dead set intent on pretending that I think ABC is Pravda. Why? Why do you insist that? Plainly, I never said it. You inferred it from what I posted. I explained that your inference was wrong, and I elaborated more than once about what I was saying (in an exchange that originally did not involve you).

Do you think I have some reason to secretly think that ABC is the same as Pravda, but to deny it here? Why would I do that? Have you seen me shirk unpopular viewpoints here? Do you think taht if I really did believe that ABC was akin to Pravda, that I would have any hesitation in posting that position? Think about it. I can tell you, I would not. I don't care if every single person on this forum, or every single person in the world disagrees with me on an issue. That doesn't in the least bother me. The reality is that I don't think the ABC is Pravda, or like Pravda, and I don't think government funding means that a news outlet is a mouthpiece for the state. I never said it was, and I've explained that several times. I did say that government funding means that an enterprise can't say it's "independent." And, that is exactly true. It can't. Being "not independent" however does not mean that it's completely controlled and dominated editorially by the State. I've given examples. I've likened the public funding in Australia to the public funded news outlets in the US (funding, but separation of editorial control). That's not false, or part of a gish gallop - that's a rather accurate comparison, isn't it?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73016
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by JimC » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:49 pm

I think Hermit's only issue (with which he is like a dog with a bone ;) ) was your initial generalisation that government funding (with no exceptions mentioned) leads to broadcasters being Pravda-type servile spokesmen. You then expended much typing on explaining the exceptions to your initial generalisation...

You would have been much better off to simply say that your initial statement was too generalised, and move on...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:38 pm

Yep. But this is just a replay of hundreds of similar arguments with him over the years. He just can't see how he could be wrong, and refuses to do the simple thing like that (admit his initial statement wasn't clear or was imprecise), and then spends pages and pages trying to disown what he said. And if you stick with it, it always ends up at a point where he gets shitty and tries to blame you for the pages and pages of off topic shit, like it's your fault that he couldn't just own his words in the first place. I just can't understand how he can't see this. He's a real study in an utter inability to look at things objectively. Take my signature concerning him as a good example of that last point. He still thinks that we didn't criticise Obama, and that he wasn't wrong to say we were lying when we said we did. It's an incredible lack of objectivity. He should be studied in universities. It's truly mind boggling.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:56 am

There's a bit of a stink going on in Oz at the moment. It's the same stink that gets caused every time a woman gets murdered when alone at night. There was a horrible rape and murder of a young lady a couple of days ago in a park at night. The police commissioner (I think) when talking about the attack has said that people need to be careful about their surrounds when out at night alone. So this has brought out the usual accusations of "victim blaming", when it really isn't that at all. The argument always seems to be - it's either the man's fault, or it's the woman's fault because you said that people should be careful. But this is a false dichotomy. The commissioner isn't saying this is the woman's fault and that men don't have to change their behaviour. Of course the man is at fault. But that doesn't change the fact that everyone (not just women) need to be careful when they are out alone at night. Telling someone to be aware of their surroundings at night, and to look for potential dangers, isn't saying that such an attack isn't fully the responsibility of the attacker. It would be like saying - you can't tell people to wear seatbelts and that if they get hit by a drunk driver and they aren't wearing a seatbelt they might die.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:59 am

It would be like saying: I have the right to cross the road safely at a pedestrian crossing! Of course you do. But you don't just go out and cross the road when it's obvious a car isn't going to stop. Telling someone they should look at the road before walking out on a pedestrian crossing isn't saying that a driver that hits you isn't fully responsible for the accident.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73016
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by JimC » Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:51 am

I think what annoys women is the fact that it is largely them who need this defensive mind-set...

Having said that, pragmatically being safety aware is a wise move, even if it should be unnecessary...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by laklak » Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:01 am

No! I want to walk down 8 Mile in Detroit at 2:00 AM dripping in gold jewelry with cash hanging out of my pocket and wearing a MAGA hat! It's my RIGHT!
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:09 am

Yeah, this is the thing. No one, not the police commissioner or anyone else, is saying it's not your right to walk where you want. They are saying, though, that having the right to do something doesn't mean you'll come out the other end ok. So in the meantime take action to minimise any negatives, while we sort out the larger problem of men raping and killing women.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:47 pm

JimC wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:49 pm
I think Hermit's only issue (with which he is like a dog with a bone ;) ) was your initial generalisation that government funding (with no exceptions mentioned) leads to broadcasters being Pravda-type servile spokesmen. You then expended much typing on explaining the exceptions to your initial generalisation...

You would have been much better off to simply say that your initial statement was too generalised, and move on...
Except, in the very post where I made the reference to State media, I did, in fact, point out that funding alone, like in Public Broadcasting in the US, does not mean it's state controlled. The initial statement was not too generalized. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773761
I agree with the media concentration. A good utilization of anti-trust laws to prevent excessive mergers would be helpful. I find an informal "too big to fail" test to be helpful here. If a business enterprise is too big to fail, then it should be broken up, or if it will become too big to fail after a merger, then it should not be allowed to merge. No enterprise should be able to say to the government "bail me out, or I'm taking the economy/industry with me..." that includes media outlets.

I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government. However, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding, in the nature of funding of the arts and sciences, is certainly not an issue.

A State news agency, though, risks becoming Pravda. That doesn't help anyone.
Note - conspicuously - not a single reference to Australia. I agreed with pErvin's comment about the concentration of private media in too few hands. I specifically mentioned that the private enterprise media system has a significant problem in that respect. Further, I indicated a question about what pErvin meant about "assured government funding and strong/independent media organization." If the government pays for the news than it's not "independent" of government. That's rather apparent, isn't it? By definition? And, then IMMEDIATELY IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, I pointed out that a public broadcasting channel that refieves some government funding would certainly not be an issue. On the other hand, I pointed out that a "state news agency" RISKS becoming Pravda - not "is" Pravda - "risks becoming" Pravda - and it's a "state news agency" that "risks" becoming Pravda. I did not ever say that Australia's ABC is a "state news agency" (it isn't, actually) and I did not say that is like Pravda.

That's the post that set it off, and I do not have to say "the post was too general" because it wasn't. For some unknown reason it was taken as some sort of attack on Australia's broadcasting system which is, for all intents and purposes, a privately run system which is a private enterprise system. There are publicly funded outlets, like the ABC, but that's not the lion's share of viewership/readership, and the state doesn't exercise editorial control. So, it seems to me to be closer to public broadcasting -- and I specifically mentioned public broadcasting in my post.

If I was talking about Australia in particularly, certainly I would have been more in depth about the situation in Australia, but I wasn't talking about Australia. The exchange I had with pervin was a discussion of general concepts, not specific application by country. There are almost 200 countries in the world. What possible reason was there to think I was criticizing Australia, but not some other country?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:56 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:38 pm
Yep. But this is just a replay of hundreds of similar arguments with him over the years. He just can't see how he could be wrong, and refuses to do the simple thing like that (admit his initial statement wasn't clear or was imprecise), and then spends pages and pages trying to disown what he said. And if you stick with it, it always ends up at a point where he gets shitty and tries to blame you for the pages and pages of off topic shit, like it's your fault that he couldn't just own his words in the first place. I just can't understand how he can't see this. He's a real study in an utter inability to look at things objectively. Take my signature concerning him as a good example of that last point. He still thinks that we didn't criticise Obama, and that he wasn't wrong to say we were lying when we said we did. It's an incredible lack of objectivity. He should be studied in universities. It's truly mind boggling.
Look, it wasn't unclear or imprecise. It wasn't referring to Australia. The reaction to it, claiming I declared Australia's public broadcasting to be Pravda, was wrong. Why can't you or Hermit admit that?

Read the post I re-quoted above. What the hell, man?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Forty Two » Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:00 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:09 am
Yeah, this is the thing. No one, not the police commissioner or anyone else, is saying it's not your right to walk where you want. They are saying, though, that having the right to do something doesn't mean you'll come out the other end ok. So in the meantime take action to minimise any negatives, while we sort out the larger problem of men raping and killing women.
It's analagous to having locks on your doors. Theft is wrong, and everyone has a right to leave their doors and windows open to their house when they go away on vacation, and to announce that they'll be gone for a week and that they have no security cameras - they have every right to do that, and nobody has a right to take their stuff. But, it's fairly well inadvisable to do go out of town for a week and leave your home unlocked.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by Scot Dutchy » Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:55 pm

Membership here is problematic. There is no one well except you know who.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Problematic Stuff

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:00 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:47 pm
JimC wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:49 pm
I think Hermit's only issue (with which he is like a dog with a bone ;) ) was your initial generalisation that government funding (with no exceptions mentioned) leads to broadcasters being Pravda-type servile spokesmen. You then expended much typing on explaining the exceptions to your initial generalisation...

You would have been much better off to simply say that your initial statement was too generalised, and move on...
Except, in the very post where I made the reference to State media, I did, in fact, point out that funding alone, like in Public Broadcasting in the US, does not mean it's state controlled. The initial statement was not too generalized. http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1773761
I agree with the media concentration. A good utilization of anti-trust laws to prevent excessive mergers would be helpful. I find an informal "too big to fail" test to be helpful here. If a business enterprise is too big to fail, then it should be broken up, or if it will become too big to fail after a merger, then it should not be allowed to merge. No enterprise should be able to say to the government "bail me out, or I'm taking the economy/industry with me..." that includes media outlets.

I don't know what you mean by assured government funding and strong/independent media organization. If the government pays for the news, then it's not "independent" of the government. However, a public broadcasting channel that receives some government funding, in the nature of funding of the arts and sciences, is certainly not an issue.

A State news agency, though, risks becoming Pravda. That doesn't help anyone.
Note - conspicuously - not a single reference to Australia. I agreed with pErvin's comment about the concentration of private media in too few hands. I specifically mentioned that the private enterprise media system has a significant problem in that respect. Further, I indicated a question about what pErvin meant about "assured government funding and strong/independent media organization." If the government pays for the news than it's not "independent" of government. That's rather apparent, isn't it? By definition? And, then IMMEDIATELY IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, I pointed out that a public broadcasting channel that refieves some government funding would certainly not be an issue. On the other hand, I pointed out that a "state news agency" RISKS becoming Pravda - not "is" Pravda - "risks becoming" Pravda - and it's a "state news agency" that "risks" becoming Pravda. I did not ever say that Australia's ABC is a "state news agency" (it isn't, actually) and I did not say that is like Pravda.

That's the post that set it off, and I do not have to say "the post was too general" because it wasn't. For some unknown reason it was taken as some sort of attack on Australia's broadcasting system which is, for all intents and purposes, a privately run system which is a private enterprise system. There are publicly funded outlets, like the ABC, but that's not the lion's share of viewership/readership, and the state doesn't exercise editorial control. So, it seems to me to be closer to public broadcasting -- and I specifically mentioned public broadcasting in my post.

If I was talking about Australia in particularly, certainly I would have been more in depth about the situation in Australia, but I wasn't talking about Australia. The exchange I had with pervin was a discussion of general concepts, not specific application by country. There are almost 200 countries in the world. What possible reason was there to think I was criticizing Australia, but not some other country?
You are the only one who has said anything specifically about Australia. Jim's post you are referring to doesn't mention Australia at all. No one cares if you are specifically attacking Australia or not. The point is that you implied that fully state funded media could be like Pravda. Australia's ABC is an example of a fully state funded media organisation, so your claim was addressed from that angle.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests