Yo, Cho
Quotes are from Margaret Cho's blog, linked from http://www.livejournal.com/users/ffubbuff/
From 9/7
"There is this thing going around about the Pentagon. It is kind of an amazing piece of flash animation which really brings some 'facts' about the events of 9/11 into question. I feel really duped because I had some questions in my mind about what had happened at the Pentagon, and why so little media attention was focused on it."
From 9/8
"What is wrong with us as a nation that we would so readily believe something like this? Is this how we truly view our government? Do we immediately think there is a plot merely because someone put together a particularly jarring piece of flash animation? There is something terribly wrong with the system when we can go from zero to hysteria in the time it takes to load."
Uh, Margaret? How about a little introspection here? We are a nation of individuals. Never mind everyone else, why were you so quick to make the jump? It took about 3 seconds for me to think "snopes" type "www.snopes.com" and find the 9/11 section. 20 seconds later and...hey, not only is this BS, it's OLD BS.
Here's my big problem. The media is flawed. Absolutely, without doubt. I will meet my sister WAY past half way on this one. Just this morning I was wrote a pissed off email to WCVB because of errors in a story about the death of a former classmate ( http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3714872/detail.html ). Errors I see make me wonder about errors I don't see. All that being said, I make mistakes at work too, some of them doozies. I think that the vast majority of misinformation in the media arrises from honest errors, not from bias one way or the other.
The great thing about the internet is everyone can have their say. The bad thing about the internet is, everyone can have their say. Problems arise, though, because anyone with some basic computer skills can have a website that looks as impressive as CNN.com. Some flashy graphics, scrolling text, and vibrant color, and BOOM all of a sudden people are taking you seriously.
Another point, and this was in an editorial over the weekend-rather than seeking discourse on the topics of the day, and embracing the challenge of defending our views, we mainly seek to have our views reinforced by others who share them. So, if some flashy website comes down that kind of lines up with our worldview, we're inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt to some extent.
The final problem? When entertainers, be they names Sean Hannity, Margaret Cho, Rush Limbaugh, Jannene garrafolinwhateverthefuck, Mike Savage, or Al Franken are viewed as philosophers, political thinkers, or sources of news-whether said viewing is by themselves or others. You want news? Try CSPAN, All Things Considered, or The News Hour. You want to be entertained? Then stick with everyone else.
From 9/7
"There is this thing going around about the Pentagon. It is kind of an amazing piece of flash animation which really brings some 'facts' about the events of 9/11 into question. I feel really duped because I had some questions in my mind about what had happened at the Pentagon, and why so little media attention was focused on it."
From 9/8
"What is wrong with us as a nation that we would so readily believe something like this? Is this how we truly view our government? Do we immediately think there is a plot merely because someone put together a particularly jarring piece of flash animation? There is something terribly wrong with the system when we can go from zero to hysteria in the time it takes to load."
Uh, Margaret? How about a little introspection here? We are a nation of individuals. Never mind everyone else, why were you so quick to make the jump? It took about 3 seconds for me to think "snopes" type "www.snopes.com" and find the 9/11 section. 20 seconds later and...hey, not only is this BS, it's OLD BS.
Here's my big problem. The media is flawed. Absolutely, without doubt. I will meet my sister WAY past half way on this one. Just this morning I was wrote a pissed off email to WCVB because of errors in a story about the death of a former classmate ( http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3714872/detail.html ). Errors I see make me wonder about errors I don't see. All that being said, I make mistakes at work too, some of them doozies. I think that the vast majority of misinformation in the media arrises from honest errors, not from bias one way or the other.
The great thing about the internet is everyone can have their say. The bad thing about the internet is, everyone can have their say. Problems arise, though, because anyone with some basic computer skills can have a website that looks as impressive as CNN.com. Some flashy graphics, scrolling text, and vibrant color, and BOOM all of a sudden people are taking you seriously.
Another point, and this was in an editorial over the weekend-rather than seeking discourse on the topics of the day, and embracing the challenge of defending our views, we mainly seek to have our views reinforced by others who share them. So, if some flashy website comes down that kind of lines up with our worldview, we're inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt to some extent.
The final problem? When entertainers, be they names Sean Hannity, Margaret Cho, Rush Limbaugh, Jannene garrafolinwhateverthefuck, Mike Savage, or Al Franken are viewed as philosophers, political thinkers, or sources of news-whether said viewing is by themselves or others. You want news? Try CSPAN, All Things Considered, or The News Hour. You want to be entertained? Then stick with everyone else.