[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[markhsmit]

Hey Platt,

What I try to look for is "what is the intention of that which is being
presented."  It seems the media has become more involved in
influencing news than reporting it.  Facts have become opinions.

I do not see much difference between the front page and the
editorial page.

Cheers,
Willblake2

On Oct 18, 2009, at 5:53:04 AM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
From:   plattholden at gmail.com
Subject:    Re: [MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society
Date:   October 18, 2009 5:53:04 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hey Willblake,

Your analysis and criticism of Wiki is correct. It is easily manipulated to 
promulgate outright lies, a recent case being false quotes attributed to 
Rush Limbaugh and repeated by the liberal press with the sole purpose 
of demonizing a conservative voice. 

Whatever the "mainstream press" says is true the opposite is probably 
the case, a classic example being the current drumbeat about global 
warming. "Truth" is hard to come by these days.

Platt 



On 17 Oct 2009 at 23:56, markhsmit wrote:

> 
> On Oct 17, 2009, at 10:24:42 PM, "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [WillBlake]
> However, selective specific references in Wiki which is explaining the meaning
> of anti-intellectualism, as examples, has no place in an encyclopedia that is
> now being considered a quotable reference.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Can you give me an example?
> 
> Hi Arlo,
> In the encyclopedia's description of anti-intellectualism, which I thought referred  to
> dictators who remove intellects from the country because they are 
> threatening.  This would be like China after the second world war, and
> all that anti-intellectualism.
> 
> However this article takes it much further and is full of opinions, conjectures, and falsities.
> The more I read it objectively, the worse it gets.
> For example:
> 
> "In the US 2000 Presidential Election, the media (particularly late night comics)
>  portrayed Candidate Al Gore as a boring "brainiac" who spoke in a monotonous
>  voice and jabbered on about numbers and figures that no one could understand.
>  His supposed "claim to have invented the Internet"[9] was widely ridiculed. 
> It was the classic stereotype of a pompous, out-of-touch intellectual, and this 
> perception arguably hurt Gore in the election. In the years since, debate between 
> the left and right in America has often centered on the relation of the intellectual class 
> to the public as a whole.
> Conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh 
> commonly argue that conservative politicians, particularly Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush,
>  and Sarah Palin have been attacked by media as being "incompetent" - this can 
> be understood as an accusation of intellectual snobbery by the media. O'Reilly in 
> particular is well known for having a hostile attitude towards what he calls the 
> "Ivy League Elite" despite being a graduate of Harvard himself. Both O'Reilly 
> and Limbaugh, as well as other conservative hosts such as Tucker Carlson 
> and Joe Scarborough, are frequently accused of having anti-intellectual atmospheres 
> on their shows, evidenced by their frequent interruption of guests who try to put 
> forward complex arguments. Scarborough once commented that, "If my guest is 
> allowed to speak uninterrupted for more than 15 seconds, then I'm not doing my job."
> 
> [wb2 again]
> If this article is supposed to give students an accurate description of what anti-intellectualism
> is, don't you think that this is a bit much?  Or are we presently suffering from a scourge of
> anti-intellectualism?  Who says that Gore lost the election because of his
> intellectualism.  Who says that the media has intellectual snobbery?  Who has
> accused O'rielly as having an anti-intellectual atmospheres?  These are not facts.
> 
> Now I know you know this, but lately, I have seen high school kids referencing
> Wikipedia as though it were a real encyclopedia!  I remember when Wikipedia
> started.  I thought, "that's an interesting idea, an encyclopedia that anybody can
> add to."  Somewhere along the line (very quickly) is became a source of truth.
> Maybe I am old fashioned, but Wikipedia is no Encyclopedia.  It's hard to know
> if what is read is established truth, or just somebody's opinion.  Anybody can edit.
> Certain people like Jimmy Wales have more power than others.
> 
> It is easy to google Wikipedia to see how much false stuff is actually put on
> it (if you trust Google).  Interestingly, Google is also open to manipulation.
> At my last job, to increase sales, we were able increase the hit ratings of that 
> company through several tricks once we understood the Google search algorithm, 
> which has been published, although it changes all the time.  Once you know
> how Google works, it is possible to place your name as the first hit.
> Jimmy Wales himself has said that any search engine is political.  I
> see the application to politics getting worse and worse.  If you control the
> media, you control the country.
> 
> Anyway, beware of the internet when looking for truth (whatever that is).
> 
> Willblake2

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/