The channel was CNN.
All you monkeys need to get the fuck off my planet. :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
TVS ARENT CANDLES YOU CANNOT LIGHT THEM
KAI CAN
WITH A BLOWTORCH.
fuck yeah.
Actually, I said "lit" because "turned on television" sounded awkward and sexual.
all you need to say is television, all TVs are always on at all times as the assumed default condition.... welcome to the modern world
or kill me
I rent DVDs. They make life livable. Well, at least :lulz:-able.
Quote from: Kai on September 19, 2009, 03:21:49 AM
fuck yeah.
Actually, I said "lit" because "turned on television" sounded awkward and sexual.
It is far better to have your appliances sound intoxicated than to have them sound sexually aroused.
Quote from: Nigel on September 19, 2009, 04:18:28 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 19, 2009, 03:21:49 AM
fuck yeah.
Actually, I said "lit" because "turned on television" sounded awkward and sexual.
It is far better to have your appliances sound intoxicated than to have them sound sexually aroused.
Why not both at the same time?
Then your blender can be a date rapist!
"...and that's when Kai's television shared a bong hit with the couch before having sex with the toaster."
I thought this thread would be about a television on fire
:cry:
Quote from: Fredtastic! on September 19, 2009, 02:59:33 AM
TVS ARENT CANDLES YOU CANNOT LIGHT THEM
TRY HARDER FRED!!!!
CNN International is actually passingly good. Not in the same league as BBC World or Al-Jazeera English, but not bad.
Quote from: Cain on September 19, 2009, 01:05:40 PM
CNN International is actually passingly good. Not in the same league as BBC World or Al-Jazeera English, but not bad.
It looked and sounded like a Democrat version of Fox. Not liberal, as there are no liberals anywhere in this damn country, just democrat.
Thats (P)MSNBC, actually. CNNI is probably one of the most decent news shows on television at present. And the Lehrer Newshour as well.
Quote from: Jenne on September 19, 2009, 08:31:42 PM
Thats (P)MSNBC, actually. CNNI is probably one of the most decent news shows on television at present. And the Lehrer Newshour as well.
Lehrer news hour is one of the few news shows I will watch. I haven't seen CNNI, only the CNN 24 hour news, so I can't speak on it. I can stand watching Olbermann Colbert Stewart, and the two other ones often mentioned around here once in a while. The rest, aside from BBC (I haven't seen Al-Jazeera English) are just plain horrible shill, to quote Shakespeare, tales told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
For example, I fucking HATE Larry King Live. :argh!:
Oh yeah, LKL is not anything but a waste of time. You'd probably dig CNNI if you like Lehrer Newshr, Kai. BBC cracks me up because it tries HARD to be both froth and substance. When they get to the frothy pieces I just tune out. We do watch BBC America most days.
Al-Jaz Eng is annoying--it's CCN, basically, just a, uh, different "cast"...
Newsworld International was pretty good before Al Gore shat all over it.
Quote from: Jenne on September 19, 2009, 11:28:16 PM
Oh yeah, LKL is not anything but a waste of time. You'd probably dig CNNI if you like Lehrer Newshr, Kai. BBC cracks me up because it tries HARD to be both froth and substance. When they get to the frothy pieces I just tune out. We do watch BBC America most days.
Al-Jaz Eng is annoying--it's CCN, basically, just a, uh, different "cast"...
I happened to be at a motel when the tv was on, had to stay over night somewhere for my research assistantship. My advisor was there and watching CNN, and I realized it was /exactly like Fox/, just with different people and opinions. Then LKL came on and I just out and said I HATE television news. My adviser asks me, where do you get your news then? I say, several locations on the internet, because at least I can READ it, I don't have to listen to the talking heads.
I don't think he believes I'm well informed. :/
I refuse to turn on television news until someone informs me that a "Spider Jerusalem News Hour" exists, and what time it's on.
I don't see the problem in not having a "liberal" news station.
Far more of a problem is in having something other than an accurate news station. FOX News wouldn't be half as objectionable if it could seperate opinion pieces from its factual reporting (which I realise is none, but that aside...). I enjoy puff opinion pieces that flatter my political leanings as much as anyone, but what I really want is hard factual information about what is going on, which I can then make up my own mind on. Liberalism's nominal alleigance to positivism, as opposed to the New Right's postmodernism, helps with that, but its not as good or as useful as it could be.
Quote from: Cain on September 20, 2009, 07:55:25 PM
I don't see the problem in not having a "liberal" news station.
Far more of a problem is in having something other than an accurate news station. FOX News wouldn't be half as objectionable if it could seperate opinion pieces from its factual reporting (which I realise is none, but that aside...). I enjoy puff opinion pieces that flatter my political leanings as much as anyone, but what I really want is hard factual information about what is going on, which I can then make up my own mind on. Liberalism's nominal alleigance to positivism, as opposed to the New Right's postmodernism, helps with that, but its not as good or as useful as it could be.
This. I can stand some news hours for the above reasons: 1) liberal leanings (more flattering)2) accurate leanings (more informative) 3) satirical leanings (the truth). Honestly I still prefer print (not newsprint, though, it's just more soundbites).
The break room tv at work is always on either FoxNews or CNN-Headline News. :horrormirth:
make a cardboard hat that says LIAR and put it on the break room TV.
(http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/dunce-cap-for-california-voters.jpg)
Quote from: Regret on September 21, 2009, 10:25:46 AM
make a cardboard hat that says LIAR and put it on the break room TV.
(http://www.ihatethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/dunce-cap-for-california-voters.jpg)
this
The bottom line is that TV-news is a form of entertainment. They present the story their viewers would most like to hear.
I was reading the local weekly paper this morning, which is extreeeeeeemely liberal. To the point that I don't trust its opinion because its agenda is taking down our county government by any means necessary. Which is a good cause! But feh, just the facts ma'am. I know you don't think I can be trusted to arrive at a conclusion all by myself, but quit spoonfeeding me your opinions under the guise of journalism!
Nassim Nicholas Taleb (author of Black Swan) says you shouldn't ever read the paper or watch the news. Because they're reporting directly on an event, you have no choice but to inherit their filter/opinions/framing. Much better to hear about the news from your friends, who have already aggregated what they think is important.
I feel like I'm missing some key element of that line of reasoning... anybody?
I think we've all heard that idea that when two people are arguing or talking about a particular event, neither one is actually right and the truth is most likely somewhere in between. So, I think if someone is going to get their news from TV, internet, newspapers, wherever, it is best to keep that idea in mind.
Additionally, thinking about this through a Discordian lens....if we understand that the reporting we see is informed by the originator's reality grid, BIP, whatever, we can attempt to "filter" that out. That is, discerning between the actual fundamental events of the story, and the part of the reporting that is the judgement/interpretation of the journalist. And so if we are able to learn how to separate those two things from any source of news reporting, we're in fairly good shape to then make our own conclusions as to what happened.
So when Fox News says Obama is screwing the US! And MSNBC says Obama is saving the US! The best bet, and probably most accurate take, is that he is treading water.
true, but also seems to invite the middle ground fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html)
Quote from: Cainad on September 20, 2009, 03:20:37 AM
I refuse to turn on television news until someone informs me that a "Spider Jerusalem News Hour" exists, and what time it's on.
THIS.
The lunch room at work has a TV which is on CNN constantly. I usually turn it off whenever I walk in. No complaints from anyone else about this yet.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 21, 2009, 02:21:24 PM
I feel like I'm missing some key element of that line of reasoning... anybody?
You have to take into account the context that it was made in; that is, related to Black Swan events.
If you read the newspaper as a way of predicting what is or will be important, you won't be able to be very accurate, as the news reports on the
past.
Or something like that. I was up late last night, and am a bit fuzzy this morining.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 21, 2009, 02:32:55 PM
true, but also seems to invite the middle ground fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html)
Yeah, that is a good point. Perhaps, the better way to think about it, is that the middle ground, if you can discern it, is the starting point. It shouldn't be the conclusion because a conclusion would be where we stop, well we all know the rest.
Quote from: LMNO on September 21, 2009, 02:35:47 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 21, 2009, 02:21:24 PM
I feel like I'm missing some key element of that line of reasoning... anybody?
You have to take into account the context that it was made in; that is, related to Black Swan events.
If you read the newspaper as a way of predicting what is or will be important, you won't be able to be very accurate, as the news reports on the past.
Or something like that. I was up late last night, and am a bit fuzzy this morining.
I finished Fooled By Randomness recently; that's pretty much it, except for a few points:
1) Many journalists are dunderheads who barely know what they're writing about
2) Getting a rapid-fire stream of information (i.e. reading the business news every day) will drive you nuts with anxiety because losses are more emotionally painful than an equivalent gain can make up for, by a significant margin.
3) Something else that I also am forgetting
Quote from: Cramulus on September 21, 2009, 02:32:55 PM
true, but also seems to invite the middle ground fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html)
The American media is guilty as hell of this, at least as a mode of operation. No-one is really right, or wrong. Just pick two narrow, yet opposed viewpoints and treat them as equally valid, with the truth elevated as some sort of mystery that probably lies between the two, but can never be discovered for sure.
Which is how you end up with Birthers being treated as serious debaters, on a level with people involved in making public policy.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 21, 2009, 02:21:24 PM
Nassim Nicholas Taleb (author of Black Swan) says you shouldn't ever read the paper or watch the news. Because they're reporting directly on an event, you have no choice but to inherit their filter/opinions/framing. Much better to hear about the news from your friends, who have already aggregated what they think is important.
I feel like I'm missing some key element of that line of reasoning... anybody?
The thing I get there is that there is (from reading an article of his and an interview of him) that so much shit is reported in the news, most of which is either a) unimportant or b) just being repeated (ignoring the whole opinion side of things), that following all the news is just a waste of time, and you can get by on just what your friends are talking about. Kinda like the Brave New World thingy, drowning out all the important information in a sea of unimportant stuff.
Of course if all your friends did this it would just become a game of Chinese whispers.
dont read article or interview, read "fooled by randomness". it's good stuff.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 21, 2009, 02:21:24 PM
Nassim Nicholas Taleb (author of Black Swan) says you shouldn't ever read the paper or watch the news. Because they're reporting directly on an event, you have no choice but to inherit their filter/opinions/framing. Much better to hear about the news from your friends, who have already aggregated what they think is important.
I feel like I'm missing some key element of that line of reasoning... anybody?
Hm. Obviously Taleb is not endorsing/talking about
group polarization...
I guess all the discussion and satire that ensues helps parse information, so by the time a story makes its way to you by way of your friends, it is divorced from the strictures of the news broadcast, converted into free-floating fact(oids).
One more thing to consider is, there's tons of shit going on in the world constantly, and most of it doesn't make the news. Even the act of deciding whether something is newsworthy introduces a fundamental bias.