Skip to main content

View Diary: Sometimes MSNBC disgusts me. (99 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because you say so? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tporky, fcvaguy, Aquarius40

    Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

    Remember: A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:01:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Let me share with you a couple of things: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      4kedtongue, angel d, TheMomCat
      The 15 Rules of Web Disruption

      Demand complete, fool-proof and guaranteed solutions to the problems being discussed.   For example, if a reporter breaks the story that the big banks conspired to rig a market, ask “given that people are selfish and that no regulation can close all possible loopholes”, pretend that it’s not worth talking about the details of the manipulation.  This discourages people from reporting on and publicizing the corruption, fraud and other real problems.  And it ensures that not enough people will spread the facts so that the majority know what’s really going on.

      Research Study Explains How U.S. Media Brainwashes The Public

      Gonzaga University Master's Degree Thesis by Frank McCoy

      The more [concentrated] the media landscape becomes the greater risk of harm there is to the public interest. As powerful corporations grow increasingly wealthier, powerful, influential, and politically affiliated the greater risk there is to the political economy on a global scale. The risk inherent with affluential transcultural media corporations is the mass homogenization of content and, thus, propagandist reinforcement of corporate and political interests serving only the dominant elites and, in turn, harming and marginalizing non-elites. One would be grossly remiss of the tangible danger and malign effects to the public to simply abridge the issue examined in this study as a case of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.
      Without an awareness of the grave consequences involved with an increasingly concentrated media environment the public (i.e. non-elites) will continue to be systematically brainwashed by the propagandist arm of the government that is the mass media and will unknowingly acquiesce to the interests of the dominant elites.
      •  Most Masters Theses aren't worth the paper (0+ / 0-)

        they're written on.

        Skip Rope or Skip a Meal? A Theory Driven Examination of The Factors Contributing to Caloric Restriction and Exercise among University Students

        Ba Ba Bling: Personal Ornament and its role in Social Cohesiveness During the Late Iron Age in Northern France

        •  Noam Chomsky's Propaganda Model: (3+ / 0-)
          Propaganda Model

          The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that states how propaganda, including systemic biases, function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

          The theory posits that the way in which news is structured (through advertising, media ownership, government sourcing and others) creates an inherent conflict of interest which acts as propaganda for undemocratic forces.

          First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the "propaganda model" views the private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product—readers and audiences—to other businesses (advertisers) rather than that of quality news to the public. Describing the media's "societal purpose", Chomsky writes, "... the study of institutions and how they function must be scrupulously ignored, apart from fringe elements or a relatively obscure scholarly literature". The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media.

        •  More to the point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy

          the thesis doesn't even examine the question at the core of Mr. Pensador's assertion. He's citing a source that doesn't even analyze his claim, much less support it. See below.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:33:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm familiar with the 15 rules of web disruption (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, fcvaguy

        as you publicize them often -- and use them as bludgeons to engage in your own disruption and shut down critical examination of your claims. BTW:

        4. Suggest extreme, over-the-top, counter-productive solutions which will hurt more than help, or which are wholly disproportionate to what is being discussed.  
        Such as "Hide your eyes from all corporate media or they'll control your brain!"

        That aside, you have been asked to present evidence and you have, to your credit, done so. However, the study presents findings concluding that these media companies wield considerable political influence, particularly around the NBC/Comcast merger, and includes the assertion almost by fiat that media consolidation is detrimental to the public interest (but I won't quibble; I tend to agree with that point for reasons that are tangential to the study), the study offers, despite your assertions, no evidence that supports your statement:

        Watching the trash peddled by MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, NBC, CBS, ABC, impairs critical thinking abilities.
        Nor, in fact, does the study even seek to answer the question. Instead, it offers a quasi-answer to that question as a premise:
        Without an awareness of the grave consequences involved with an increasingly concentrated media environment the public (i.e. non-elites) will continue to be systematically brainwashed by the propagandist arm of the government that is the mass media and will unknowingly acquiesce to the interests of the dominant elites.
        But this assertion, within the study, goes without citation and without support  by the actual text of the study. Further, it speaks of the dangers of homogenization of the media by corporate influences (i.e. a very small number of corporate sources becoming the only available options for media consumption) rather than the dangers of exposure to these corporate sources irrespective of whether the consumer of media also consumes alternative (read: non-corporate) sources of information.

        So in short, the study doesn't prove what you claim it does, in fact it doesn't even EXAMINE the question of what you claim it does, but rather focuses on a question that is tangential to what you claim.

        Indeed, the only studies that have been out there (at least that I've found) that show a corporate media exposure reduces critical thinking skills conclude that one, and only one, of the corporate media sources correlate with impaired critical thinking skills: FOX News.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 10:33:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Fox and MSNBC Viewers Largely Misinformed" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          4kedtongue, TheMomCat

          All those words you wrote for nothing, grasping at straws!

          International Business Times: Fox and MSNBC Viewers Largely Misinformed: Fairleigh Dickinson University Poll

          •  Chris Hayes... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador, angel d

            ...is the exception.  His topics aren't always sexy, and his guests span the political spectrum.  He's engaged and displays an earnest interest in the topics he and his panels discuss.

            He talks issues and deftly peppers those discussions with politics.

            I agree with your premise, however.  TV 'news' whether coming from the Right or the Left, is, by and large, propaganda not meant to inform but meant to influence.  Thankfully, given MSNBC's ratings, The Left has little need for a filter.  I don't blame MSNBC for not being able to reach an audience as large as Fox -- much of The Left simply has no use for what MSNBC peddles.

            all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

            by 4kedtongue on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 11:27:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not for nothing, apparently (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fcvaguy

            because with some pressure you actually cited an actual study showing FOX and MSNBC viewers are more misinformed than average, which actually provides a measure of direct support for your thesis, unlike your earlier citations. This is a welcome improvement!

            Now here's a counterpoint:

            http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/...

            This shows MSNBC viewers were consistently better informed than other viewers on many issues, with a small number flagged as "less informed" -- but here's the question for which there's an important caveat:

            "It was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending foreign money to back Republicans."

            The correct answer is FALSE to this statement, but MSNBC viewers were far more strongly likely to answer TRUE.

            Two points on this:

            One, being misinformed in this manner is not in the interests of the so-called "corporate oligarchy"; and

            Two, replace "It was proven" with "There is clear evidence" and the statement becomes TRUE; this is therefore not a well-worded question because it lends easily to misinterpretation and misinformation.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 12:09:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Did you read the report or just the headline? (0+ / 0-)
            "Fox news viewers were 18 percentage points less likely to know that the Egyptian protesters had overthrown Mubarak and six percentage points less likely to know that the Syrian protesters had thus far failed to overthrow Al-Assad."
            "MSNBC viewers still knew less about the Arab Spring than people who didn't follow the news -- they were three percent less likely to know that the Egyptian protests had been successful and two percent less likely to know that the Syrian protests had been unsuccessful -- but they performed significantly better than Fox News viewers on those questions.
            Assuming the validity of the study it doesn't speak well for MSNBC only viewers but it's hardly the equivalent of Fox viewers that you would make it out to be.
          •  I see you have trouble getting past rhetoric (0+ / 0-)

            when faced with facts, this is the classical way you seem to respond.

    •  Don't be silly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      raptavio, fcvaguy

      By asking for evidence, you're engaging in the circular fallacy type thing. Baseless assertions will fuel the upcoming revolution.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site