Anyways, my question here though relates to how people are chosen for interviews.. — schopenhauer1
Ratings = $. Who is going to get more people watching/listening? Like reality T.V. That's why the orange fat ball was so successful. That's why the media gave him so much free air time. That's why they play "gotcha" and "whataboutism". Which sap is most likely to play into your efforts to trigger a ratings-favorable reaction? I could go on, but you get the point. It has zilch to do with a search for truth or enlightenment. It's a circus. — James Riley
But who sets the agenda here? How is it done in the executive rooms behind the scenes? — schopenhauer1
The fucking dummies love that shit. Entertainment becomes existential. To hell with health and welfare. — James Riley
You see a lot of the same names running the circuit. — James Riley
But they have to rise through the ranks, talk radio, local politics, etc. Once they've proven they can consistently be a troll or a clown or something that get's people going, then the "talent" scouts will ensure they aren't a 15 minute flash in the pan (like that dummy that shot Travon Martin) and the present the stable to the execs in the board room. I'm sure that "test marketing" is done and they weed out those who can't stand under pressure or stick to talking points, or get distracted by truth and facts. — James Riley
Is it that the topic of structural racism is being pushed, or is it market tested as the best ratings? What is wagging what here? — schopenhauer1
My bet is, only if it is involved in some incident that puts it in a bad light.. Then it will just be discussed because of a red herring incident unrelated to the actual philosophies at hand. — schopenhauer1
I think you are right. The media itself has a vested interest in marginalizing those causes because they hurt their bottom line/advertising, etc. Any incident will get a by-line and swept under the rug. If John Brown were alive today, he'd get a resounding "Meh" and then we'd move on. — James Riley
Exactly. If it is not entertaining, and especially if it makes people question existential deep topics, and especially if it might lead people away from the current business as usual, it will be ignored. — schopenhauer1
How do you think we could improve/sustain knowledge translation so that it's relayed in a simple, non-biased manner? — john27
When it is up for discussion, anyone that brings up anything other than the lawn shitting should be removed from the conversation, as no other aspect is actually relevant and detracts from the conversation, and the subsequent solution. — Book273
I want my kids to surpass me, in every respect. Learn everything I know, go forth, learn more and do more. Then come back for coffee and explain where I got things wrong, and, more importantly, why they are wrong.
Bloody inconsiderate wanting my kids to be just like me. Many days I don't want to be just like me. — Book273
Well, applying/teaching non-biased behavior is definitely a start. I would add that we need to identify conflict of interest when we talk about discussions, and if a conflict of interest appears within the interviewer/interviewee(anybody who's relaying information) they should be temporarily exiled from the topic. I wouldn't want someone defending a topic just because it makes him more money, I want someone to defend a topic because it's actually something he's invested in. — john27
:blush:I swear, I want to raise an eyebrow when I see a kid with his pant around his knees, listening to whatever. But I remember my hair and bell-bottoms and cowboy hat and chew and Hendrix and Hank. — James Riley
I'd like to see a pic. — Caldwell
I'd show you one or two, but I can't upload from the puter. Has to be another web site. :grin: — James Riley
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.