Elysian Shadows

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-ne ... chter.html

just interesting, im sure you can find articles that say different.

The news is nearly impossible to get anything worthwhile out of. If I care enough about something I'll look up the story online, otherwise it more than likely does not pertain to me anyhow. I hate television.

avansc wrote:I sincerely apologize.
maybe i was rash to assume a post like,

"Sooo.....Fox news reports another "fair and balanced"(<--sarcasm) news piece.

Maybe I am just a cynic, but why does this surprise any of you? It is not like they haven't done a lot worse before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_C ... troversies"

was from someone that tends to lean left and is possibly a democrat in nature.

fairness is doing something in accordance with rules.. who makes these rules.. is it "fair" that they make rules and impose them.
then about balanced. well that would be in even proportion, but to what.. having one conserv view and one dem view does not mean balanced. balanced to whom.
these are not things you can define. thus, FNC might be unfair and unbalanced to you, but to say that they are as if it was fact it just not right.

Yes, you were extremely rash, considering I am not even from the USA. I also do not think such simplistic terms as left-wing/right-wing, republican/democrat, tory/labour have any place in a free thinking society. There are many issues in the world and it is naive to think that we can extract any meaningful data out of the current 1D model of political beliefs.

Just for fun here is a 2D model...http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2...and even that doesn't come close to modelling the complexity of all the possible issues that one can have an opinion on. So when it comes to news reports I want facts. I can make up my own mind. Not some propaganda piece pushing someone else's political beliefs/ideals.

The Forbes piece was interesting, but unsurprising. As pretty much all news is biased in one way or the other.

avansc wrote:killian documents...

What? Red herring? This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I'll assume this is in response to my comment on Roger Ailes. You should try disproving that one, before accusing me of believing that the killian documents are real. Then linking that to the overwhelmingly "liberal" media... and so forth.

avansc wrote: "I am being completely objective when I say that news story was ridiculous. It went from "Don't buy this gift for your child because it is capable of accessing porn".."
clearly you are objective, because they never said that.. and no on is not objective.

anyways...

And clearly you left out the rest of my quote on purpose. They said "hidden dangers" of buying this hand-held. Would you want to buy your child something dangerous? Why is it dangerous? Because it can access porn? See the connection. Everything is blown out of proportion. Then they throw in clips of people chatting online, typing on full QWERTY keyboards. Yea, that's relevant. I laughed without bias. It's ridiculous. How are you objective in thinking otherwise? They could have just stated the news: "There have been issues with teens using PSP's to view porn. When buying this gift for your child take precaution in setting up parental controls on the unit." Done. That's all they had to do.

No, i did not leave anything out on purpose. A hidden danger, yes that does exist especially since its being targeted the specific mobile device for porn,
and they never said "Don't buy this gift for your child because it is capable of accessing porn" or implied that. you paraphrased something you thought they said, but which they did not.

again, you have sighted no evidence why this article is ridicules other than your OPINION about what is news worthy and what is relevant.

anyways, lets just agree to disagree. you don't have to watch the news story if its ridicules to you.

but if Fox news was so bad.. why are they the most watched news channel?

and mind you not by a bit.

Did I really just read that?

Why is Jerry Springer (er, insert whatever has replaced it these days) so popular?

Why are the Madea movies so successful?

(sorry, late to the party)

ummm dont know who or what madea is. im assuming you mean this. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1142800/
does not look like they do that well or are that popular.

and even though you might be able to make an argument for a news station to be entertaining, i dont think it even falls remotely close to a jerry springer kinda show, they are two very different genres of TV. news tv is not entertainment. i certainly am not amused or feel enjoyment when i watch any news channel.

avansc wrote:ummm dont know who or what madea is. im assuming you mean this. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1142800/
does not look like they do that well or are that popular.

and even though you might be able to make an argument for a news station to be entertaining, i dont think it even falls remotely close to a jerry springer kinda show, they are two very different genres of TV. news tv is not entertainment. i certainly am not amused or feel enjoyment when i watch any news channel.

I had never heard of the Madea movies (er, Tyler Perry movies in general) either, until I learned that they regularly open at #1 in the box office.

Are you really arguing that TV news stations are not entertainment? Have you seen the stories they disproportionately focus their attention on? Sensationalism is a huge part of the programming, and the polarized, heated debate shows in which each side has a stubborn agenda are the best at drawing attention. I'm not saying they can't actually include legitimate news, but the fallacy that I often hear from my libertarian friends is that the cream will rise to the top. In other words, the people will vote with their remote control which news station is the "best". The problem is that "best" in no way implies "most accurate, most thorough, most objective, etc." People will tune to what they're most willing to watch, and by and large we're drawn to sensationalism. There's a reason why NPR shows don't draw the same audiences as Howard Stern. News stations know full well that to get ratings, they have to reach in the gutter often. In this gutter, they find the likes of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and now Sarah Palin. These are polarizing figures, not reasonable, rational ones. And this polarization draws out our emotions, good or bad, and that's what grabs and keeps our attention.

vargonian wrote:

avansc wrote:ummm dont know who or what madea is. im assuming you mean this. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1142800/
does not look like they do that well or are that popular.

and even though you might be able to make an argument for a news station to be entertaining, i dont think it even falls remotely close to a jerry springer kinda show, they are two very different genres of TV. news tv is not entertainment. i certainly am not amused or feel enjoyment when i watch any news channel.

I had never heard of the Madea movies (er, Tyler Perry movies in general) either, until I learned that they regularly open at #1 in the box office.

Are you really arguing that TV news stations are not entertainment? Have you seen the stories they disproportionately focus their attention on? Sensationalism is a huge part of the programming, and the polarized, heated debate shows in which each side has a stubborn agenda are the best at drawing attention. I'm not saying they can't actually include legitimate news, but the fallacy that I often hear from my libertarian friends is that the cream will rise to the top. In other words, the people will vote with their remote control which news station is the "best". The problem is that "best" in no way implies "most accurate, most thorough, most objective, etc." People will tune to what they're most willing to watch, and by and large we're drawn to sensationalism. There's a reason why NPR shows don't draw the same audiences as Howard Stern. News stations know full well that to get ratings, they have to reach in the gutter often. In this gutter, they find the likes of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and now Sarah Palin. These are polarizing figures, not reasonable, rational ones. And this polarization draws out our emotions, good or bad, and that's what grabs and keeps our attention.

All i can say is wow.

Firstly, NPR is the most boring radio station known to man, its the reason aliens haven't come to earth. BUT, its one of my presets on my radio, and i refuse to listen to the filth of howard stern.

and im disgusted that in your opinion these people that you list are "gutter", on what basis, by what definition? just because they do not preach your politics? says a lot about your character. other than these people obviously not sharing your ideals and political ideas, give me examples of why these people are 1. polarizing, 2. not reasonable and 3. not rational.

avansc wrote:No, i did not leave anything out on purpose. A hidden danger, yes that does exist especially since its being targeted the specific mobile device for porn,
and they never said "Don't buy this gift for your child because it is capable of accessing porn" or implied that. you paraphrased something you thought they said, but which they did not.

again, you have sighted no evidence why this article is ridicules other than your OPINION about what is news worthy and what is relevant.

anyways, lets just agree to disagree. you don't have to watch the news story if its ridicules to you.

Well, they most certainly did imply that. Basically, you don't want to buy a potentially dangerous gift for your child. They didn't explicitly say that. Let's analyze the first 30 seconds:

"good clean fun right? So why are they also known by the name playstation-pornable. Fox 29's Robin Taylor has some information that will really open your eyes"

Summary: If the PSP is good clean fun then why is it also called the Playstation-Pornable.
This is what they are reporting. My only bias really comes from my knowledge that the device is not well received as being a portable pornagraphic viewing machine. If I hadn't known better, I'd believe that this is true. Which it is not. They have already started off by feeding the viewer false information.

"We don't want to spoil anybody's christmas, but there are hidden dangers parents should be aware of. I'm sure you wouldn't give your child pornography, but you just might be giving them access to it with today's most popular electronics."

Summary: Giving your child a PSP is like giving them porno.
They ease in with not wanting to "spoil the fun", but then they use words like "dangerous". That word has strong implications.

dangerous |ˈdānjərəs| adjective: able or likely to cause harm or injury.

If you look at the news article I suggested you will see that I have not made such an assumption:

"There have been issues with teens using PSP's to view porn. When buying this gift for your child take precaution in setting up parental controls on the unit."

This is straight news. There's no bull-shit. I'm not making false statements.

Anyway, I could go on to talk about the other parts of the story, but If you don't see my point here then it's pointless. I don't feel like the news story is ridiculing me personally. I do think it's ridiculous. If you don't, and can't see why I think that. Then we can agree to disagree.

Oh, and I completely agree with vargonian on sensationalism in the News.

http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingrevie ... 5/06/67759
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news210405playboypsp

yes.. very false information..

" "We don't want to spoil anybody's christmas, but there are hidden dangers parents should be aware of. I'm sure you wouldn't give your child pornography, but you just might be giving them access to it with today's most popular electronics."

Summary: Giving your child a PSP is like giving them porno. "

hahah, wow, great summarization skills.

maybe try this one for size..

Summary: Giving your child a popular electronic device, could enable them to view pornographic material.

later they also describe what precautions to take, which dont include not buying it.

avansc wrote:http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingrevie ... 5/06/67759
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/news210405playboypsp

yes.. very false information..

" "We don't want to spoil anybody's christmas, but there are hidden dangers parents should be aware of. I'm sure you wouldn't give your child pornography, but you just might be giving them access to it with today's most popular electronics."

Summary: Giving your child a PSP is like giving them porno. "

hahah, wow, great summarization skills.

maybe try this one for size..

Summary: Giving your child a popular electronic device, could enable them to view pornographic material.

later they also describe what precautions to take, which dont include not buying it.

Yes, there are articles on the name. Mainly due to the porn industry using this name. However, it is not widely synonymous with PSP. That's what the story wants you to believe.
I'm glad that you were able to catch how they used "popular electronics device" in place of PSP. However, they were talking about the PSP. That was the target of the news article. Also they directly compare giving porn to your child with "you just might" give them access to it. That's why I say "like" giving them porn. I could be more literal and say "access to porn", but that's not the analogy they wanted to draw. They are implying that a kid with a PSP is going to look at porn. You still haven't managed to come up with a reason my story wouldn't suffice.

i watched it again, they used the term "popular electronics". just wanted that cleared. yes they focused on the PSP because its being targeted as the mobile device of choice for the porn industry. and yes, if you give a child a "unmanaged" PSP, you are enabling them to have access to porn where ever they can find a wifi connection.

" I could be more literal and say "access to porn", but that's not the analogy they wanted to draw. ", that my friend is purely your opinion and is what i suspect is the manifestation of your bias.

"They are implying that a kid with a PSP is going to look at porn"

not that i personally think thats what they meant, i think they meant, "porn is being marketed on the PSP, and anyone, including a kid can get access to it if the psp has no parental control setup." but lets assume they did, what do you think the chances are a teenaged boy is NOT going to look at porn if he has the freedom to? kids will be kids. but being savvy and knowing how to protect them is important. if the story was, "kids can get access to porn on computers if there are no parental controls setup" what would you have said. or netbooks. or whatever. but keep in mind that the porn industry have targeted the PSP as a potential decide to specifically market material for.
"You still haven't managed to come up with a reason my story wouldn't suffice."

Im sorry but im not sure what this is in reference too. if you let me know i'll try and answer it.

avansc wrote:and yes, if you give a child a "unmanaged" PSP, you are enabling them to have access to porn where ever they can find a wifi connection.

Yea, and they don't say anything about needing a wifi connection until about 45 seconds in, when it is briefly mentioned. In fact most of the article is really not related to the PSP, just about computers that are connected to the internet. They completely switch focus onto online predators and online games.

avansc wrote:" I could be more literal and say "access to porn", but that's not the analogy they wanted to draw. ", that my friend is purely your opinion and is what i suspect is the manifestation of your bias.

Actually this is directly from the context, " I'm sure you wouldn't give your child pornography, but you just might be giving them access to it with today's most popular electronics." is a direct quote. They did draw that analogy. If they said "I'm sure you wouldn't allow your child access to pornography" that's different. There's a different decision involved. They use the word "give", and they put "access to" in the latter statement making it this way, I may be nitpicking here, but there's a distinction.

avansc wrote:"porn is being marketed on the PSP, and anyone, including a kid can get access to it if the psp has no parental control setup."

This is the conclusion that is drawn, and rightfully so. The way the story goes about arriving to this conclusion is cheap and not to the point.

avansc wrote:if the story was, "kids can get access to porn on computers if there are no parental controls setup" what would you have said.

I would have said, "Why is that news?". I thought that was well known. Besides that, It's more about their presentation of the facts. If it were done in a straight forward manner, I wouldn't think anything of it.

avansc wrote:"You still haven't managed to come up with a reason my story wouldn't suffice."

Im sorry but im not sure what this is in reference too. if you let me know i'll try and answer it.

This was my version of their news story.

Innerscope wrote: "There have been issues with teens using PSP's to view porn. When buying this gift for your child take precaution in setting up parental controls on the unit."

It could be embellished a bit more- maybe discuss how porn is now being distributed in UMD format. I think that would have been perfectly legitimate.
Not that you should feel obligated to fight against that, because it sounds like you would agree with it.

I don't understand why you feel so strongly about defending the way they presented this story. Once again, I guess this boils down to "agree to disagree".

"I would have said, "Why is that news?". I thought that was well known. Besides that, It's more about their presentation of the facts. If it were done in a straight forward manner, I wouldn't think anything of it."

i was just using that as a comparison as to focusing on the porn part and not the device part. i dont think these people wanted to attack sony or their products. there is no gain for them from doing it.

"There have been issues with teens using PSP's to view porn. When buying this gift for your child take precaution in setting up parental controls on the unit."

yes they could have said that.. however i dont think it does it justice giving something important like this 10 seconds. there are many aspects that people are interested in.

it be like just reporting. obama is the new president. and in further news it will be a sunny 76 tomorrow. people tend to wanna know a bit about the details.

i have no interest in defending fox or any other news organization or entity for that matter, how ever i do feel that just jumping on them 1. because you personally think its messed up based on nothing factual, and 2. because some how this is because they are right wing wackadoos, that is something i feel is wrong, shit and i should just not care, but i do, idkw. I find it highly repulsive that some choose to slander the news organization but not even say a single word about the porn industry targeting the PSP, a device known to be for minors. i mean does it not urk you a bit that they are doing that?

now im not saying you should ban porn, shit that would piss me off. but im an adult. idk what the solution is. i guess its just to let things be like they are and educate the parents... and thats all the news reel was doing. but whatever.