This one's for Matt...
-
I'm getting bored with the Daily Mail, calves with only 2 legs, racists coffee mug and, of course, Matt's musings on climate change. Surely there must be something of more importance, somewhere in the world, that might also merit exposure here. Let me see, what do I choose? No not that one, or even this one, that one will likely bore Matt...which one, which one....ya, this one is not too contentious and so will do nicely: How America Spreads Global Chaos – Consortiumnews[^] The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact. If you know nothing about US foreign policy then that is A-OK. In fact, one could argue the less one knows about the topic then the better this exercise will be. Have a read of this reference and then offer your critique of the extent to which you believe the article makes a serious attempt to provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter. The focus of this post is not about US policy and whether you conclude it is right or wrong. US policy is simply the subject content of this one article and I could have selected other topics offering comparable format and content-style. In your opinion, what would be the reasons that would lead you to believe this article is (or is not) an informative account on the subject matter? [EDIT] If you do not like this particular topic then I will select another one.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
I'm getting bored with the Daily Mail, calves with only 2 legs, racists coffee mug and, of course, Matt's musings on climate change. Surely there must be something of more importance, somewhere in the world, that might also merit exposure here. Let me see, what do I choose? No not that one, or even this one, that one will likely bore Matt...which one, which one....ya, this one is not too contentious and so will do nicely: How America Spreads Global Chaos – Consortiumnews[^] The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact. If you know nothing about US foreign policy then that is A-OK. In fact, one could argue the less one knows about the topic then the better this exercise will be. Have a read of this reference and then offer your critique of the extent to which you believe the article makes a serious attempt to provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter. The focus of this post is not about US policy and whether you conclude it is right or wrong. US policy is simply the subject content of this one article and I could have selected other topics offering comparable format and content-style. In your opinion, what would be the reasons that would lead you to believe this article is (or is not) an informative account on the subject matter? [EDIT] If you do not like this particular topic then I will select another one.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact
No, it is to determine if someone is as mentally unstable as you appear to be. :sigh:
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact
No, it is to determine if someone is as mentally unstable as you appear to be. :sigh:
You have such a simple way with words.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
I'm getting bored with the Daily Mail, calves with only 2 legs, racists coffee mug and, of course, Matt's musings on climate change. Surely there must be something of more importance, somewhere in the world, that might also merit exposure here. Let me see, what do I choose? No not that one, or even this one, that one will likely bore Matt...which one, which one....ya, this one is not too contentious and so will do nicely: How America Spreads Global Chaos – Consortiumnews[^] The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact. If you know nothing about US foreign policy then that is A-OK. In fact, one could argue the less one knows about the topic then the better this exercise will be. Have a read of this reference and then offer your critique of the extent to which you believe the article makes a serious attempt to provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter. The focus of this post is not about US policy and whether you conclude it is right or wrong. US policy is simply the subject content of this one article and I could have selected other topics offering comparable format and content-style. In your opinion, what would be the reasons that would lead you to believe this article is (or is not) an informative account on the subject matter? [EDIT] If you do not like this particular topic then I will select another one.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Quote:
provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter
There is no such thing, and neither should you expect to find it. What you should look for is an intelligent exposition of the writer’s point of view. Then, if you are interested in the subject, you should read around and find a few other writers giving alternative views, and come to (hopefully) a reasoned conclusion yourself. It won’t actually be as reasoned as you’ll like to think because, much as we all like to imagine ourselves capable of being objective and impartial, of course we are not. But never mind, just do the best you can. And never believe anyone that claims to a) be knowledgeable and b) impartial on just about any subject – especially those that have proponents with strong views on different sides (eg US foreign policy). If they are knowledgeable about it, they will have a view, and that view will come through no matter how much they pretend otherwise. The received wisdom is that the MSM should be objective and impartial, but I disagree on the grounds that, as stated above, it is impossible, and in fact leads to readers (or viewers) having a false perception – believing they’re getting a balanced view when they’re not. Instead, we should be better at teaching our children how to read critically, and widely, and not to rely on one source for opinions or facts. The constant pretence at being “fair and balanced” actually leads to silly and quite frankly objectionable pieces in the news, as editor fall over themselves to give a voice to people who are basically idiots but demand to be heard in the name of “balance”. Freedom of speech just means you have a right to speak without fear of reprisal – it doesn’t mean you have a right to speak on any platform you want, or that others have an obligation to listen to you. Never mind rights, if you want to be heard, all you have to do is say something interesting, and people will listen.
-
I'm getting bored with the Daily Mail, calves with only 2 legs, racists coffee mug and, of course, Matt's musings on climate change. Surely there must be something of more importance, somewhere in the world, that might also merit exposure here. Let me see, what do I choose? No not that one, or even this one, that one will likely bore Matt...which one, which one....ya, this one is not too contentious and so will do nicely: How America Spreads Global Chaos – Consortiumnews[^] The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact. If you know nothing about US foreign policy then that is A-OK. In fact, one could argue the less one knows about the topic then the better this exercise will be. Have a read of this reference and then offer your critique of the extent to which you believe the article makes a serious attempt to provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter. The focus of this post is not about US policy and whether you conclude it is right or wrong. US policy is simply the subject content of this one article and I could have selected other topics offering comparable format and content-style. In your opinion, what would be the reasons that would lead you to believe this article is (or is not) an informative account on the subject matter? [EDIT] If you do not like this particular topic then I will select another one.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
I'm getting bored with the Daily Mail
Stop reading it then. :) America got into the idea of Empire, being a new country, just when Europeans realised it wasnt all it was cracked up to be. Give them time, they are learning. (I hope).
-
I'm getting bored with the Daily Mail, calves with only 2 legs, racists coffee mug and, of course, Matt's musings on climate change. Surely there must be something of more importance, somewhere in the world, that might also merit exposure here. Let me see, what do I choose? No not that one, or even this one, that one will likely bore Matt...which one, which one....ya, this one is not too contentious and so will do nicely: How America Spreads Global Chaos – Consortiumnews[^] The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact. If you know nothing about US foreign policy then that is A-OK. In fact, one could argue the less one knows about the topic then the better this exercise will be. Have a read of this reference and then offer your critique of the extent to which you believe the article makes a serious attempt to provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter. The focus of this post is not about US policy and whether you conclude it is right or wrong. US policy is simply the subject content of this one article and I could have selected other topics offering comparable format and content-style. In your opinion, what would be the reasons that would lead you to believe this article is (or is not) an informative account on the subject matter? [EDIT] If you do not like this particular topic then I will select another one.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Have a read of this reference and then offer your critique of the extent to which you believe the article makes a serious attempt to provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter.
There's no such thing as objective and impartial views. See the edit-wars on Wikipedia :)
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
In your opinion, what would be the reasons that would lead you to believe this article is (or is not) an informative account on the subject matter?
Simple; see if it fits reality. Ignore the words and look at the actions. Libya, Irak, Syria, NK, Iran..
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Quote:
provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter
There is no such thing, and neither should you expect to find it. What you should look for is an intelligent exposition of the writer’s point of view. Then, if you are interested in the subject, you should read around and find a few other writers giving alternative views, and come to (hopefully) a reasoned conclusion yourself. It won’t actually be as reasoned as you’ll like to think because, much as we all like to imagine ourselves capable of being objective and impartial, of course we are not. But never mind, just do the best you can. And never believe anyone that claims to a) be knowledgeable and b) impartial on just about any subject – especially those that have proponents with strong views on different sides (eg US foreign policy). If they are knowledgeable about it, they will have a view, and that view will come through no matter how much they pretend otherwise. The received wisdom is that the MSM should be objective and impartial, but I disagree on the grounds that, as stated above, it is impossible, and in fact leads to readers (or viewers) having a false perception – believing they’re getting a balanced view when they’re not. Instead, we should be better at teaching our children how to read critically, and widely, and not to rely on one source for opinions or facts. The constant pretence at being “fair and balanced” actually leads to silly and quite frankly objectionable pieces in the news, as editor fall over themselves to give a voice to people who are basically idiots but demand to be heard in the name of “balance”. Freedom of speech just means you have a right to speak without fear of reprisal – it doesn’t mean you have a right to speak on any platform you want, or that others have an obligation to listen to you. Never mind rights, if you want to be heard, all you have to do is say something interesting, and people will listen.
I now look for and enjoy reading your comments. I see Matt too has responded to my OP. So I can now confess the intentions behind my OP were a wee bit mischievous. You have put some thought and effort into your response. Eddy too directly focuses on the subject topic and does not get distracted. Now, let's contrast that with how Matt responded. He is 'distracted' by the "I'm getting bored" bait. Next, despite being clearly stated "The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact", this is precisely what Matt responds to. Finally, he makes no effort to critique the article in regards to it being "objective and impartial views" (a red flag which both of you immediately picked up on). I have told Matt he needs to listen more and I believe this threads helps to illustrate the point.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
I'm getting bored with the Daily Mail
Stop reading it then. :) America got into the idea of Empire, being a new country, just when Europeans realised it wasnt all it was cracked up to be. Give them time, they are learning. (I hope).
You missed another opportunity to prove me wrong. Have a read of my response to A_Griffin.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Have a read of this reference and then offer your critique of the extent to which you believe the article makes a serious attempt to provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter.
There's no such thing as objective and impartial views. See the edit-wars on Wikipedia :)
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
In your opinion, what would be the reasons that would lead you to believe this article is (or is not) an informative account on the subject matter?
Simple; see if it fits reality. Ignore the words and look at the actions. Libya, Irak, Syria, NK, Iran..
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Thanks for the response. As said in my response to A_Griffin, you are focused and did not get distracted.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
I now look for and enjoy reading your comments. I see Matt too has responded to my OP. So I can now confess the intentions behind my OP were a wee bit mischievous. You have put some thought and effort into your response. Eddy too directly focuses on the subject topic and does not get distracted. Now, let's contrast that with how Matt responded. He is 'distracted' by the "I'm getting bored" bait. Next, despite being clearly stated "The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact", this is precisely what Matt responds to. Finally, he makes no effort to critique the article in regards to it being "objective and impartial views" (a red flag which both of you immediately picked up on). I have told Matt he needs to listen more and I believe this threads helps to illustrate the point.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
It was too long to read so I gave you MY opinion about US foreign policy, not in detail, but as an overview. A generalisation, a macro approach. Why isnt this a valid thing to do in your opinion?
-
You missed another opportunity to prove me wrong. Have a read of my response to A_Griffin.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Why do I want to prove you wrong on this? Perhaps I agree with you?
-
Thanks for the response. As said in my response to A_Griffin, you are focused and did not get distracted.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
I'm getting bored with the Daily Mail, calves with only 2 legs, racists coffee mug and, of course, Matt's musings on climate change. Surely there must be something of more importance, somewhere in the world, that might also merit exposure here. Let me see, what do I choose? No not that one, or even this one, that one will likely bore Matt...which one, which one....ya, this one is not too contentious and so will do nicely: How America Spreads Global Chaos – Consortiumnews[^] The purpose of this post is NOT to determine if you are intimately aware of US foreign policy and its impact. If you know nothing about US foreign policy then that is A-OK. In fact, one could argue the less one knows about the topic then the better this exercise will be. Have a read of this reference and then offer your critique of the extent to which you believe the article makes a serious attempt to provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter. The focus of this post is not about US policy and whether you conclude it is right or wrong. US policy is simply the subject content of this one article and I could have selected other topics offering comparable format and content-style. In your opinion, what would be the reasons that would lead you to believe this article is (or is not) an informative account on the subject matter? [EDIT] If you do not like this particular topic then I will select another one.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
In your opinion, what would be the reasons that would lead you to believe this article is (or is not) an informative account on the subject matter?
People that think that they can deterministically control or even understand large complex human problems are idiots. Doesn't mean that fear, power and even compassion (among many human emotions) will stop them from trying. After it happens one can only seek to document the damage. And provide a subjective view of what went wrong. However that itself is an attempt that breaks the above and thus is often stupid.
-
Quote:
provide an objective and impartial view of the subject matter
There is no such thing, and neither should you expect to find it. What you should look for is an intelligent exposition of the writer’s point of view. Then, if you are interested in the subject, you should read around and find a few other writers giving alternative views, and come to (hopefully) a reasoned conclusion yourself. It won’t actually be as reasoned as you’ll like to think because, much as we all like to imagine ourselves capable of being objective and impartial, of course we are not. But never mind, just do the best you can. And never believe anyone that claims to a) be knowledgeable and b) impartial on just about any subject – especially those that have proponents with strong views on different sides (eg US foreign policy). If they are knowledgeable about it, they will have a view, and that view will come through no matter how much they pretend otherwise. The received wisdom is that the MSM should be objective and impartial, but I disagree on the grounds that, as stated above, it is impossible, and in fact leads to readers (or viewers) having a false perception – believing they’re getting a balanced view when they’re not. Instead, we should be better at teaching our children how to read critically, and widely, and not to rely on one source for opinions or facts. The constant pretence at being “fair and balanced” actually leads to silly and quite frankly objectionable pieces in the news, as editor fall over themselves to give a voice to people who are basically idiots but demand to be heard in the name of “balance”. Freedom of speech just means you have a right to speak without fear of reprisal – it doesn’t mean you have a right to speak on any platform you want, or that others have an obligation to listen to you. Never mind rights, if you want to be heard, all you have to do is say something interesting, and people will listen.
A_Griffin wrote:
as editor fall over themselves to give a voice to people who are basically idiots but demand to be heard in the name of “balance”
That is a very good point.
A_Griffin wrote:
or that others have an obligation to listen to you
More importantly you do not have a right to be heard.