Comments on: The Golden Mean http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:52:39 +0000 By: shifty http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-30406 shifty Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:45:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-30406 <blockquote> In a perfect world, there would be no reporters just cameras and televisions allowing anyone to freely express themselves without others creating bias.</blockquote> There is always personal bias, whether written or photographed. There is just as much editorializing in deciding what is and what is not shot, and which shots make it to air/published as there is in the written word. It would be far more effective to educate people so as to become sensitive to where they obtain their information, how it is gathered, who gathers it and how it is distributed. And to check as many sources as possible.

In a perfect world, there would be no reporters just cameras and televisions allowing anyone to freely express themselves without others creating bias.

There is always personal bias, whether written or photographed. There is just as much editorializing in deciding what is and what is not shot, and which shots make it to air/published as there is in the written word. It would be far more effective to educate people so as to become sensitive to where they obtain their information, how it is gathered, who gathers it and how it is distributed. And to check as many sources as possible.

]]> By: 2-D Man http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-30402 2-D Man Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:22:09 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-30402 Interestingly enough, there's an experiment running at the University of British Columbia called <a href="http://www.votermedia.org" rel="nofollow">Voter Funded Media</a>. Which will, hopefully, reduce this corruption of the media (and corporations in general) without resorting to the chaos of pamphleteering.To weigh in on the American & Canadian independence, I don't think it's as simple as to say that the Americans could have had a revolution without violence. In the case of Canada, the British were willing to make concessions because they didn't want to fight another revolutionary war, particularly because the Americans would have "liberated" Canada or Canada would have joined the United States. But in the case of the American revolution, there was no such option and Britain couldn't conceive of anyone defeating their military, so they stonewalled the requests for justice. Interestingly enough, there's an experiment running at the University of British Columbia called Voter Funded Media. Which will, hopefully, reduce this corruption of the media (and corporations in general) without resorting to the chaos of pamphleteering.To weigh in on the American & Canadian independence, I don't think it's as simple as to say that the Americans could have had a revolution without violence. In the case of Canada, the British were willing to make concessions because they didn't want to fight another revolutionary war, particularly because the Americans would have "liberated" Canada or Canada would have joined the United States. But in the case of the American revolution, there was no such option and Britain couldn't conceive of anyone defeating their military, so they stonewalled the requests for justice.

]]> By: theistscientist http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-29855 theistscientist Fri, 04 Jan 2008 04:22:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-29855 call me polyanna, but relatively speaking, i think western civilization has been relatively well served by its political,religious,economic, cultural, and yes, even its free thinking institutions. To quote "Cold Mountain"'everyone has their job to do' call me polyanna, but relatively speaking, i think western civilization has been relatively well served by its political,religious,economic, cultural, and yes, even its free thinking institutions. To quote "Cold Mountain"'everyone has their job to do'

]]> By: Patrick Craig http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-29099 Patrick Craig Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:45:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-29099 If an 'extreme' position is one that, without exception, accepts the moral nonbeliever equally with the believer, then I am an extremist. If an 'extreme' position is one that challenges attempts to re-impose religious control in the public schools thruogh the dishonest warping of science, then I am most certainly an extremist. But please don't ever ask me to join in a call for the complete downfall of religion in society. So long as any single individual desires to express a belief in the supernatural influence of their choice, they should have that right. Irrational beliefs do not <i>always</i> lead people to act stupidly. If an 'extreme' position is one that, without exception, accepts the moral nonbeliever equally with the believer, then I am an extremist. If an 'extreme' position is one that challenges attempts to re-impose religious control in the public schools thruogh the dishonest warping of science, then I am most certainly an extremist. But please don't ever ask me to join in a call for the complete downfall of religion in society. So long as any single individual desires to express a belief in the supernatural influence of their choice, they should have that right. Irrational beliefs do not always lead people to act stupidly.

]]> By: Barius http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-27788 Barius Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:09:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-27788 While I agree that the truth is rarely 'between two extremes', I don't think you're assertion that the media is 'too balanced' is necessarily correct. It is not the responsibility of the media to determine the truth of anything. The purpose of the media is simply to put a light to controversy. Regardless of whether a controversy is inherently wise or ridiculous doesn't matter. The media should treat all controversy with reserved non-judgement. In a perfect world, there would be no reporters just cameras and televisions allowing anyone to freely express themselves without others creating bias. While I agree that the truth is rarely 'between two extremes', I don't think you're assertion that the media is 'too balanced' is necessarily correct. It is not the responsibility of the media to determine the truth of anything. The purpose of the media is simply to put a light to controversy. Regardless of whether a controversy is inherently wise or ridiculous doesn't matter. The media should treat all controversy with reserved non-judgement. In a perfect world, there would be no reporters just cameras and televisions allowing anyone to freely express themselves without others creating bias.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-27768 Ebonmuse Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:58:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-27768 Two excellent quotes, Jerry. Thanks! Two excellent quotes, Jerry. Thanks!

]]> By: Jerry A. Pipes http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-27767 Jerry A. Pipes Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:51:57 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-27767 In this same vein, Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." And, of course, Ayn Rand said, "There can be no compromise between food and poison." In this same vein, Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." And, of course, Ayn Rand said, "There can be no compromise between food and poison."

]]> By: dpoyesac http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-24429 dpoyesac Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:55:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-24429 We no longer live in a world where we need to maintain the myth of "media objectivity." The yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst was based on large media empires — now that we have so many more choices (the internet, dozens of cable competing cable TV channels) we can lay to rest the mandated "objective" fairness that leads to misleading "balance." Human beings are naturally opinionated. Asking them to be "objective" is like asking them to walk on their hands instead of their feet. Take <i>The Economist</i>. They wear their political ideology on their sleeve. They are also completely upfront in their opinions. Sure, they strive to present a balanced view of the facts, but they always let the reader know which side they are on. And, like me, they are 'passionate extremists' in the service of — not relativism, not moderation, not blind, uncritical tolerance — but political pluralism above all things. We no longer live in a world where we need to maintain the myth of "media objectivity." The yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst was based on large media empires — now that we have so many more choices (the internet, dozens of cable competing cable TV channels) we can lay to rest the mandated "objective" fairness that leads to misleading "balance." Human beings are naturally opinionated. Asking them to be "objective" is like asking them to walk on their hands instead of their feet.

Take The Economist. They wear their political ideology on their sleeve. They are also completely upfront in their opinions. Sure, they strive to present a balanced view of the facts, but they always let the reader know which side they are on. And, like me, they are 'passionate extremists' in the service of — not relativism, not moderation, not blind, uncritical tolerance — but political pluralism above all things.

]]> By: Alex Weaver http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-24428 Alex Weaver Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:35:52 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-24428 There's no logical reason why presenting all viewpoints with any significant following needs to mean giving each viewpoint the same amount of screen time and pretending that all viewpoints are equally well-supported and logically consistent. There's no logical reason why presenting all viewpoints with any significant following needs to mean giving each viewpoint the same amount of screen time and pretending that all viewpoints are equally well-supported and logically consistent.

]]> By: Doug Purdie http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-24425 Doug Purdie Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:50:48 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/the-golden-mean.html#comment-24425 Can I assume, then, that you are against the so called "Fairness Doctrine" - a House bill sponsered By Dennis Kucinich? The Bill would require media organizations to present both viewpoints on any issue (as though there are always only two viewpoints to any issue) rather than let the reading/listening/viewing audiences choose which biased viewpoints they prefer. Can I assume, then, that you are against the so called "Fairness Doctrine" - a House bill sponsered By Dennis Kucinich? The Bill would require media organizations to present both viewpoints on any issue (as though there are always only two viewpoints to any issue) rather than let the reading/listening/viewing audiences choose which biased viewpoints they prefer.

]]>