Which of these statements describes reality more accurately:
1. Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid and evil. 2. Anyone who disagrees with me is evil and stupid.
It's not a sensible question.
Certainly there are some individual positions where I'm on the same side as Stewart, and some where I'm on the same side as Beck. I haven't done a survey to see which one is more common. (And there are some issues where they agree with each other.)
But even when I'm on the same side as them, the arguments they use are silly. They aren't saying "Here are the reasons you should agree with me." They're saying "Here's why anyone who disagrees with me is a poopy-head. You don't want to be a poopy-head do you? Then you better agree with me."
That kind of argument is obnoxious no matter which side it's coming from.
Of the two of them, I'd say I'm more disturbed by Stewart, simply because he's much more effective at using humor to make his viewers stop thinking and influence them without them realizing they've been fooled by propaganda.
The only people watching Glenn Beck or Keith Olberman are the kinds of people who choose to watch Glenn Beck or Keith Olberman. They've already made a commitment to stop thinking and treat those who disagree as sub-human, so Beck/Olberman aren't influencing them so much as cheering on their bigotry.
But most people don't realize Stewart is no different from the known propagandists. So rather than choosing not to think, his viewers get tricked into not thinking.
I don't understand why you're confused by the notion that propagandists are propagandists.
If a particular fact supports their point, they'll report it accurately. If it doesn't, they'll either spin it to mean something different or ignore it.
Do you believe that all commentators have the same ratio of true/false statements
Of course not. And I haven't done a formal survey to determine exactly how often Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart intentionally spread misinformation. But for both of them, it's often enough that watching them will only reduce your understanding of any issue.
I don't know the relative frequencies that psychics, astrologers, and feng shui consultants stumble upon the truth, but I don't really care. If I get sick, I'm not going to listen to any of them, and instead will go to a real doctor. Just as if you want information, you shouldn't concern yourself with which propagandist will manipulate you slightly less, and instead go to a real news source.
Which of these statements describes reality more accurately:
1. Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid and evil.
2. Anyone who disagrees with me is evil and stupid.
It's not a sensible question.
Certainly there are some individual positions where I'm on the same side as Stewart, and some where I'm on the same side as Beck. I haven't done a survey to see which one is more common. (And there are some issues where they agree with each other.)
But even when I'm on the same side as them, the arguments they use are silly. They aren't saying "Here are the reasons you should agree with me." They're saying "Here's why anyone who disagrees with me is a poopy-head. You don't want to be a poopy-head do you? Then you better agree with me."
That kind of argument is obnoxious no matter which side it's coming from.
Of the two of them, I'd say I'm more disturbed by Stewart, simply because he's much more effective at using humor to make his viewers stop thinking and influence them without them realizing they've been fooled by propaganda.
The only people watching Glenn Beck or Keith Olberman are the kinds of people who choose to watch Glenn Beck or Keith Olberman. They've already made a commitment to stop thinking and treat those who disagree as sub-human, so Beck/Olberman aren't influencing them so much as cheering on their bigotry.
But most people don't realize Stewart is no different from the known propagandists. So rather than choosing not to think, his viewers get tricked into not thinking.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
If a particular fact supports their point, they'll report it accurately. If it doesn't, they'll either spin it to mean something different or ignore it.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Of course not. And I haven't done a formal survey to determine exactly how often Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart intentionally spread misinformation. But for both of them, it's often enough that watching them will only reduce your understanding of any issue.
I don't know the relative frequencies that psychics, astrologers, and feng shui consultants stumble upon the truth, but I don't really care. If I get sick, I'm not going to listen to any of them, and instead will go to a real doctor. Just as if you want information, you shouldn't concern yourself with which propagandist will manipulate you slightly less, and instead go to a real news source.
Reply
Leave a comment