User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 71

  1. #41
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    I'm partially afraid to start this thread because I absolutely know who's going to come in and majorly derail it
    Oi, too late -_-.

  2. #42
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    I think they know their demographic and use communication styles that fit with those cultural styles. For example, they have a few commentators that use the television evangelist style of presentation complete with tears. There are a great many details in the way each commentator looks, their mannerisms, etc. that fit a cultural norm. They also focus the topics to appeal to certain demographics.

    Edit: This applies to more than just Fox, but news commentators typically communicate with greater degrees of arrogance. There is a way arrogance is becoming a cultural value, and unfortunately it is usually connected with making unsubstantiated, exaggerated comments. Few to no commentators appear neutral, but always present this aura of elitism even if they insert folksy words. My impression is that agreeing with an arrogant, cutting commentator makes the viewer feel empowered. The information is presented to invoke fear, but the commentator exhibits this inflated sense of personal control which make the viewer misinterpret this as someone to follow to make them safe and informed.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  3. #43
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    I'd agree with that article. Philosophically, libertarianism should naturally be more liberal on social issues and less connected with social conservatism. But libertarians have more of a political alliance with conservatives. That won't change anytime soon.

    Maybe you'll have to wait for social conservatism to be dead (as a political movement, it almost is) before the libertarian movement can become ideologically pure, and not just focus on economic issues. It will be good for the liberals and libertarians.
    The vast majority of libertarians I know aren't socially conservative at all. I would consider myself a "cultural" libertarian, but I don't think it is necessary as Howley seems to imply. I think it's perfectly OK to be old-fashioned and bourgeois PERSONALLY. As you know, I don't agree with Ron Paul on some issues, but I would still consider him to be a libertarian. I would be a "cosmotarian" and he would be a "paleolibertarian," but we're both still in the tent. There are lines of demarcation between libertarians and small-government conservatives, though, and they should remain there. The fault of the liberal/libertarian divide is not solely on the libertarians, though. Many libertarian activists (especially those involved with the founding of the Libertarian Party in the early-1970s) tried to make common cause with members of the New Left, but most of them weren't particularly interested. Reagan and Co. talked the libertarian talk and even installed a few libertarians in the Administration, but they definitely did not walk the walk. I HIGHLY recommend Brian Doherty's book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, which I would consider the definitive history of libertarianism in America. It is a dense and long read, though. It would be nice if more libertarians reached out to the less collectivist-minded members of the left, just as it would be nice to see liberals appreciate libertarians more for all the work they do in highlighting civil liberties violations, militaristic foreign policy, and so on.


    I don't understand INTPosers either.
    I don't see why one would want to be any one type over the other. I like being a hardcore E, I like being a J, I like straddling N/S, and I am rather indifferent to being a moderate F.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #44
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Why? Because for years the mainstream media was biased towards the left. It wasn't a huge bias, but it was present and it drove the right apeshit for decades.

    Then along came Fox News, and they tacked the opposite way and were able to capture a large number of people whose viewpoints better fit with the direction Fox News leans. Plus, as others have noted, they are far more entertaining than the other cable news networks.

  5. #45
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Why? Because for years the mainstream media was biased towards the left. It wasn't a huge bias, but it was present and it drove the right apeshit for decades.

    Then along came Fox News, and they tacked the opposite way and were able to capture a large number of people whose viewpoints better fit with the direction Fox News leans. Plus, as others have noted, they are far more entertaining than the other cable news networks.

    That bias has been less noticeable/virulent in the last 30 years. At least people aren't giving out Pulitzers to Stalinist fabricators like Walter Duranty these days.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #46
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    That bias has been less noticeable/virulent in the last 30 years. At least people aren't giving out Pulitzers to Stalinist fabricators like Walter Duranty these days.
    It's been on the decline for sure.

    I'd say the last ten years they've been so afraid of being called biased that they haven't been very aggressive at their jobs. See: Iraq.

  7. #47
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    That bias has been less noticeable/virulent in the last 30 years.
    I'm only 31, and I've only really been keeping up with the news for about fifteen years, yet I couldn't help but notice it. Recently, its gotten worse (i.e. coverage of Obama and Obama opponents). It must have been pretty friggin' bad 30+ years ago...

    Like I said earlier, whether a viewer is interested in diverse news sources or just conservative bias, Fox News has no T.V. competition for its audience. The other stations , meanwhile, are competing with each other for viewers seeking diverse sources (shared with Fox News) or viewers looking for a liberal bias.

  8. #48
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    They provide a counterbalance to the (accurate and otherwise) perception that the mainstream media in America slants center-left. Also, they have perhaps the most pleasing presentation in terms of graphics, program formatting, etc. MSNBC often looks splotchy, and CNN rather austere. Fox Business also looks good in comparison to CNBC and Bloomberg, which look like a business website threw up on television.
    This. I watch it because I am conservative, but my guess is others watch it for the reason stated above. I think some people prefer their news to be fairly simple and conservative looking in presentation and appearance. They watch but decide where they personally stand on the issues independently of the news. At least I hope so.

    My other guess is just pure curiosity. Liberals are probably curious about what the conservatives are saying/up to. They want to prepare for a fight with them!

  9. #49
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I think there is a big difference between watching the news and reading the news. If you're being very infromation curious, there's hardly a point in watching news these days. It's so much easier to just get exactly what you want from the internet. TV networks have been fearing for a long time, and they've tried to adjust.

    The best thing TV has over the internet(though this has been changing rapidly with streaming video) is the ability to give entertaining performance, and I think that's what Fox has over the other networks. Fox is more eyb-grabbing, more sensantional in its presentation. It has way more standout personalities going for it. I dare say it spends even more time on punditry and analysis than the other two 24 hour news networks. In short, Fox puts on a better show. I don't suppose its draw has much to do with its politics at all. I think it effects the politics of its viewers more than its politics effects who views it. And here's a way you can tell; While he's still got a long way to go, Keith Olbermann has been gaining popularity and becoming one of the most noticably parts of MSNBC. He's been on for many years too. His popularity has only gone up as he has become more blustery.

    In short, America would be tuning into a rabidly leftist channel as long is it packed a punch.

    Cable news=tabloids. If I want to know what the big issues are on Foxnews or Msnbc any given week, I just walk to the grocery store and look at Sun and the National Enquirer. If I want real information and real data, I'll go online and do some hardcore research. Same for talk radio, left or right, all fucking bs. ... lies to get you to hate the other team. wah wah, they won't play fair, I'm telling.

    Watching Fox news is like reading a tabloid, it's fun, sensational, but it's just entertainment.

    That might explain why non-republicans like it. It's funny, I'm not a Republican and I love it. When I was in high school I used to write down statistics that O'Reilly cited and I had a notebook full of them and when I had a movement, I would sit there and try to organize them and see how many different numbers his staff pulled out of their asses. Then, later on, I found out they have websites that do that......
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Why? Because for years the mainstream media was biased towards the left. It wasn't a huge bias, but it was present and it drove the right apeshit for decades.

    Then along came Fox News, and they tacked the opposite way and were able to capture a large number of people whose viewpoints better fit with the direction Fox News leans. Plus, as others have noted, they are far more entertaining than the other cable news networks.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm disappointed!

    The mainstream media is biased neither left nor right but to the status quo, and has been for years.

    One need only look at coverage of the Vietnam war. People will be up in arms over this claim, because, after all, "liberally biased" coverage of the war informed the public of its failings. But not once did the media question our right to be in Vietnam. It was always "this war is failing" (which was the truth) and not "we are the aggressors and we are in the wrong." It was always implicitly assumed that America had a right to be in Vietnam, after all, we couldn't let "communism" spread, now could we? Yep, good old team America coming in to tell the rest of the world how to live, oh and by the way we'll be taking your resources and slaughtering innocents while we're at it. And the media NEVER questioned our right to be in Vietnam, and they never even gave coverages to all of the successful imperialist enterprises.
    Ti = Ne > Fi = Ni > Te = Si > Fe = Se

    "I've never seen a child who didn't want to build something out of blocks, or learn something new, or try the next task. And the only reason why adults aren't like that is, I suppose, that they have been sent to school and other oppressive institutions which have driven that out of them."
    -- Noam Chomsky

Similar Threads

  1. Why is Fi the most devauled or unappreciated function?
    By Blackout in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 08-15-2016, 03:45 PM
  2. [ISTP] Is ISTP the Most Intuitive of All the sensors?
    By RaptorWizard in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 07-08-2014, 11:01 PM
  3. Which MBTI type is generally the most...
    By SingSmileShine in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-30-2011, 09:54 AM
  4. [ESFP] Is ESFP the most "diverse" type?
    By gmanyo in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-20-2011, 06:29 PM
  5. Why is 18 the 'adult' age?
    By Ming in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 12:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO