Is Entertainment the New Motivation for Watching the News?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    News
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the changing motivations for watching the news, particularly the perception that entertainment has become a primary driver over informative reporting. Participants explore various news sources, their biases, and the quality of reporting, with a focus on how these factors influence viewer preferences and behaviors.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that many news agencies prioritize entertainment over quality reporting, leading viewers to seek out more engaging content rather than informative news.
  • Others express frustration with reporters who inject personal opinions into news coverage, suggesting that this detracts from objective reporting.
  • A participant mentions a shift in their news consumption habits, moving from CNN to Fox due to perceived bias in reporting, particularly around significant events like elections.
  • Concerns are raised about the quality of NPR's reporting, with some participants describing it as featuring "fringe" content.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of relying on news agencies for context and fact-finding, suggesting that individuals cannot become experts on every news story.
  • There are claims that PBS, while often seen as a reliable source, is not free from bias, with some participants questioning its funding sources and the implications for its reporting.
  • Some participants express a preference for satirical news sources, indicating a reliance on figures like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for their news consumption.
  • Discussions include references to studies suggesting PBS is viewed as a trustworthy source, yet this is contested by others who argue it cannot be considered unbiased.
  • One participant critiques the notion that entertainment should be compared to serious journalism, arguing that misinformation poses a significant threat to political discourse.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the motivations for watching the news or the biases of various news sources. Multiple competing views remain regarding the quality and reliability of different news outlets, as well as the role of entertainment in news consumption.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific events and shifts in news reporting over time, indicating that their views may depend on personal experiences and the evolving media landscape. There are also mentions of differing perceptions of bias based on political affiliations.

  • #121


Al68 said:
Are you freakin' kidding with this? That's just bizarre. You can throw around hateful, insulting, and derogatory phrases like "slave to moneyed interests" and "servitude to the wealthy" and even dare to mention "decent discourse" and "casting aspersions"?

Then you yourself refer to social security and other countries' health care programs as "socialist", then object to me using the word "Marxist" to describe the economic ideology of Democrats? Are you as confused about what the words "socialist" and "Marxist" mean as much as you are about "conservative" and "neo-con"?

You have yet to explain how my use of the word "Marxist" is indecent in any way, much less a "political slur", while your posts are consistently hateful and insulting and derogatory in a self-evident and obvious way.

Seriously, dude, this is bizarre. :confused::confused::confused:
It would be really nice if someone who is a mentor recognized how twisted it is to allow you to keep calling people Marxist with no justification apart from your Rush Limbaugh world view. Seriously, we don't all live there. You might want to watch a bit of the news that is carried by actual news sources. If you want to investigate "Hateful and insulting and derogatory statements, you might start a bit closer to home. People who are progressives, moderates, or liberals, seem to be a little bit less inclined to sling crap on others. There is room to discuss differences of opinion, but when name-calling and nastiness intrude, it's harder for people to keep cool and be nice. Do you get that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122


Al68 said:
You have yet to explain how my use of the word "Marxist" is indecent in any way, much less a "political slur", while your posts are consistently hateful and insulting and derogatory in a self-evident and obvious way.

I believe it is the use of the term "Socialist", which most people equate with the term "Marxist", at least here in the States, by the members of the entertainment channel that neither you nor I do not watch, that has re-popularized the term, in an "indecent" way. It really doesn't matter that you and I understand that Marxist and Socialist are simply political terms. But it does matter to the 34% of the people who would vote for Palin over Obama, that "Marxist" is a ******* term. So when you use it as a careless joke, we take it as you so jokingly intended it, as an insult.

BTW, where are you from? 6 years on the forum, and still hiding your whereabouts? Where's that Assange guy when you need him? :devil:
 
  • #123


turbo-1 said:
It would be really nice if someone who is a mentor recognized how twisted it is to allow you to keep calling people Marxist with no justification apart from your Rush Limbaugh world view. Seriously, we don't all live there. You might want to watch a bit of the news that is carried by actual news sources. If you want to investigate "Hateful and insulting and derogatory statements, you might start a bit closer to home. People who are progressives, moderates, or liberals, seem to be a little bit less inclined to sling crap on others. There is room to discuss differences of opinion, but when name-calling and nastiness intrude, it's harder for people to keep cool and be nice. Do you get that?
It seems to me that a good way to objectively determine if a political label is derogatory is whether or not political groups use the label to describe themselves. That's common for the word "Marxist". How common is it for "slave to the wealthy"?

Instead of repeatedly just asserting that the word "Marxist" is derogatory, why not just explain why you object to the word "Marxist"? I don't mind using the word "socialist" instead, like you have, but you are not the only other member here, and others object to the word "socialist" with reasons that are lame, but far better than the lack of a reason you have provided.

I have no problem refraining from using the word "Marxist", if there is any logical reason for anyone to construe it as a "political slur". But at this point, I am far more interested about the reason for the objection than about any future use of the word.
 
  • #124


Marxist is going to be nixed as a slur, tea bagger, neocon, also no longer allowed.

So, err on the safe side for now and stop using terms that can be considered derogatory.
 
  • #125


Comparing someone to Rush Limbaugh is a slur.

Maybe.

I need to get out an official list. I will accept submissions for consideration.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 253 ·
9
Replies
253
Views
28K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K