Are you easily propagandized?

[soliloquy]

It just seems like nowadays everything, even the sources that are supposed to be completely nonpartisan such as the news or newspapers, is siding to the left or right, and along with that the issues each party stands for, making it impossible to get truly 100% accurate and unbiased information from any single source.  It seems like that due to this constant barrage of political propaganda, people are becoming more and more unable to decide what is right and wrong based on their own beliefs or logic, and are simply only able to cite things they've heard on say, a Republican-leaning Fox News broadcast, or a Democratic-leaning political journal.  Do you think that most people actually seek out information from both sides, or prefer to just tune in to their own, familiar, comforting well of mis/information, and if so, do you think they are purposefully avoiding the other side's arguments, or is it subliminally or simply out of habit?  If they are doing it purposefully, is it because they do not want to have their current beliefs refuted, or is it that they have been convinced that anything coming out of [insert opposition's] mouth must be and can only be a lie?

But more importantly, what about you specifically?  Do you often actually study something, looking over various sources from both extremes of an argument along with any possible middle before using your own brain to make a decision, or do you generally just go with the flow of what you're being told is true from whatever source of news or information you either stumble across first and/or stumble across the most?

[prometheus]

People like to listen to someone that they already agree with.

[soliloquy]

People like to listen to someone that they already agree with.

Do you fall into this category?

[pianistimo]

i'd rather read about a subject than listen to the news about it.  although, BBC world news tends to give out more information in a faster way.  no commercials and trivial bits of entertainment news that waste time.  usually, i only have time to read in the doctor's office - or in the bathroom.  so - as an alternate source - i suppose i do watch a bit of tv to find out what's going on.  although, my children like to change the channel - so i hear the first bit of news flash and never find out what fully happened. 

after watching pianowolfi - i think the best way to be informed about the world is to travel.  i can't believe the miles he puts on his bike.  i wish i spoke several languages.  how can you really know what's going on if you don't speak one or two other languages?  it's very helpful.  hmm.  my children are learning more in school here than i did in terms of languages - and it's required - which i'm happy about.  languages are more easily gained in the early years.

about the news?  somehow it seems rather depressing.  like we need a button to just fast forward it and get it to where it's supposed to be.  where families are making headway instead of going backwards financially at an alarming rate.  where crime is down.  environmental disasters cleaned up.  where people become more responsible about personal actions.

i could be easily propagandized on the jewelry mart sales on tv.  the tourmaline is especially nice - and i listened to how they described the 'color' in it.   also, at the mall i am easily propagandized by lotion and perfume sellers.  i bought 'obey your body' natural sloughing lotion and some hand creme last december and then it ended up my daughter absconded with it.  trying new things can be good.  too much of it - and you might not have any skin left.

[thalbergmad]

The only things i believe in the newspapers are the Football results. Most now seem to be heavily biased one way or the other.

100% accurate information from a single source is not possible and probably never has been.

I like to read as widely as possible and then make up my mind. Once i have made up my mind, i would take some shifting.

Thal

[pianistimo]

'wisely' or 'widely' - and if it is the former...how do you read wisely.  with glasses vs no glasses.  or do you use yellow highlighter and reread sections so you remember which part doesn't contradict another part of the article.  (just kidding)  but, seriously - sources are important.  say one reads 'the enquirer.'  can you wisely separate fictionalized fact from fact?  it's hard when there are enough lies that you can only find one truth in the entire thing.  say a person's name is left unfettered.  anyways - i don't read 'the enquirer' - but i think also the author's knowledge of a subject is important.  how much have they studied the subject?  if it's not much - then why read it?  unless it's comedy. 

[thalbergmad]

What are you on about now?

[pianistimo]

i thought shifting was for people who had problems sitting on piano benches without getting 'youknowwhats.'  anyways...  go ahead - shift.  positions.  no harm in that.

barak obama is dangerous to me - slightly.  because he seems like a well read and able debater.  when i watched one of the early democratic debates he was not flustered much or unable to give himself lots of wiggle room because he knew a lot of facts off the top of his head.  i suppose being well read and able to give a sense of dignity and composure to things is different than military background, though.  militaries don't typically only go with fact - but mission.  the mission is the 'thing.'  i'm not being 'i told you so-ish' - but - i think we jumped the gun and are now attempting to pedal forwards and backwards at the same time. 

propaganda will probably be used to set the world into a one world order.  a sort of coming together of school textbooks around the world.  you know - everyone accepting that no one nation is special.   perhaps we'll start with israel.  divide it up into two or three sections and then with that incentive - do it to a few more countries.

[thalbergmad]

Well done, you did it again.

Thal

[pianistimo]

God uses me for propaganda purposes.

[ahinton]

God uses me for propaganda purposes.

For what fee? I hope that you're not overcharging Him. I would also like to know what He thinks of the results.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I spoke to soon

[pianistimo]

the results are not in yet.  i do not wish to charge any sort of fee. 

the military has used 'tracts' in the past to propagandize democracy.  but, i suppose you have to have some sort of first hand experience with the people who write the tracts to believe what they say.  and, some experiences are bad because of circumstance.  so - it's like the SPCA.  you get a cat - for instance.  the cat has expectations.  the new owners have expectations.  neither truly knows the background of the other.  some trust is necessary.  perhaps a sudden unexpected happening (such as an older cat suddenly terrorizing the scene) and all the trust is broken.  the person or cat goes back into it's 'shell' and doesn't want to experience or know what the other side has to offer because it's 'dangerous.' 

perhaps news is situational.  even propaganda.  to each area of population.  what is true for one area - may be completely useless to another.  take rhubarb for instance.  is rhubarb important to the french?  why would taking over the world's export of rhubarb have any affect on french citizens thought.  it would have to appear as a sort of inclusion into a world secret society of rhubarb growers to have any appeal or effect.  a sort of inclusion in a small minority of people that would then have control within 30-50 years of all the rhubarb in the world.  although, this is a bad analogy because the british have already thought of this.

[chidi]

Propagandas are just transforming common sense to complicated sense.

-Chidi

[chidi]

"I prefer to study both sides of the argument, maintaining skepticism until i reach my own conclusions"

What is this? By the time you've reached a conclusion or have made a decision, you'll be dead.  I do agree with studying both sides, though maintaining skepticism will just create more skepticism, in my opinion.

-Chidi

[counterpoint]

God uses me for propaganda purposes.

 

[counterpoint]

I'm unbelievable 

I will not believe anyone 

[ahinton]

I spoke to soon

Who is this "soon"?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

the results are not in yet.

OK - so when will they be in? - and does God know when they will be in?

i do not wish to charge any sort of fee. 

Have you assured God of that fact in your contract with Him? - and has that contract first been passed both by your PA lawyers and God's own legal department?

Best,

Alistair

[arensky]

Well first,

"I prefer to study both sides of the argument, maintaining skepticism until i reach my own conclusions
"

But then

"....when I decide on something, it would require extensive debunking of what I believe in to turn me"

Do you really think anyone will select the first option? 

I think the news and the political information contained in it have always been slanted one way or the other, but today people are so overscheduled and distracted by the amount of information available to them, and by the zillion different things they have to do everyday that many of them do it off the top of their heads, using simple criteria based on what they already believe, as Prometheus has pointed out. What they believe depends on who has conditioned and taught them, or perhaps who has broken that conditioning, in a life period of change and rebellion.

I think the real problem is that many people don't read anymore and instead rely on TV news, which increasingly consists of simplistic sound bites; since many people react to these the politicians and their puppet masters often leave it at that, since that is all that's needed to make an impression and hopefully win the election or sway the popular opinion.

If you look at journalism and political reporting from the 18th, 19th and early 20th century you won't always find a lot of deep open-minded content there either, but absorbing information by reading as opposed to hearing or watching it requires a function of the intellect that the latter do not provide, and so the reader will make the better informed descicion, providing of course that they read more than one point of view on the matter at hand.

[prometheus]

Do you fall into this category?

I think we all do. But we have to realize all this. And then we can compensate a little.

[lichristine]

the other day, i watched a commercial for bottled water that said:

"Try waking up handcuffed to a satisfied orangutan."

And I was like, dude get me some of that water, it must be some pretty powerful stuff.

[soliloquy]

I think the current voting trend is mildly hilarious.  Big egos on this forum to uphold, eh?  Even though it's anonymous >>

[ted]

As far as mundane current events and the ordinary decisions of life are concerned, I find the most frustrating aspect to be that, owing to the increased prevalence of economic game-playing, the whole truth is rarely available in time for analysis anyway. In other words, whatever decision I make seems to be made using a worrying proportion of probability and hunch rather than reasoning from objective truth. With deeper matters of personal philosophy and direction all this risky rush at a hasty decision, or any decision at all,  is unnecessary and I probably proceed much more slowly and thoughtfully than most people.

[rc]

Absolutely!  I eat burger king even though it gives rotgut, because the commercials are funny.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I choose beliefs that are useful to what I want to do.  If the belief isn't going to be used, it's just trivia, or perhaps baggage.