What is happening to our society?

Cooperhawk said:

Just keep in mind that I wrote that off the top of my head and I could have used better words and phrases if I had taken the time.  I notice some spelling mistakes as well.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think we can overlook the grammar and a few spelling errors, that is impressive!

Interesting conversation; great points of view.

I do question how much responsibility the media has for perpetuating division. After all, it's in their best interest. If they can keep their customer base cranked up, viewers will continue to watch the circus known as the 24 hour news cycle. That means higher ratings and the resulting revenue. I know people, both far left and far right, who thrive on the non-stop validation of their extreme views.

The talking heads know nothing of Journalism 101. It's all about shock value and being first with breaking news. Opinion is reported as fact; editorial content is not clearly identified as such. Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow must be rolling in their graves.

sightseers said:

regarding the history we were all taught in school....

There is some evidence that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen just to get the nation to go along with the war.

and IMO....The Warren Commission was less than truthful about the JFK assassination.

Click to expand...

Please, let's don't go there an destroy a good thread.

Bill

HappyWanderer said:

Interesting conversation; great points of view.

I do question how much responsibility the media has for perpetuating division. 

  Opinion is reported as fact; editorial content is not clearly identified as such. 

Click to expand...

What bothers me most about today's media reporting (and this is for both sides of the division) is that sources are more and more being identified as either 'anonymous' or 'reliable' or 'unnamed' or ' senior official.'  It is ridiculous that any media would publish something that is defamatory of anyone without identifying it's source(s) by name.  A person is entitled to face his accusers but not in today's world.  It carries over to social media where anonymity gives one license to slander and lie to their heart's content.  Our local newspaper will not publish a letter to the editor without the writers name and that name is published along with the letter (if their somewhat politically slanted editor chooses to allow it).  I used to be a prolific contributor but no longer after all of the hate phone calls and mail.  Now that I have a cell phone with no number published I may choose to have an input again.  But my point is that it is the responsibility of the media (newspaper or TV station) to verify the accuracy of op-eds or to at least publish the source of defamatory articles.

Bill

Bill N said:

What bothers me most about today's media reporting (and this is for both sides of the division) is that sources are more and more being identified as either 'anonymous' or 'reliable' or 'unnamed' or ' senior official.'  It is ridiculous that any media would publish something that is defamatory of anyone without identifying it's source(s) by name.  A person is entitled to face his accusers but not in today's world.  It carries over to social media where anonymity gives one license to slander and lie to their heart's content.  Our local newspaper will not publish a letter to the editor without the writers name and that name is published along with the letter (if their somewhat politically slanted editor chooses to allow it).  I used to be a prolific contributor but no longer after all of the hate phone calls and mail.  Now that I have a cell phone with no number published I may choose to have an input again.  But my point is that it is the responsibility of the media (newspaper or TV station) to verify the accuracy of op-eds or to at least publish the source of defamatory articles.

Bill

Click to expand...

For a long time, use of the 'anonymous source' was quite useful in ferreting out stories that couldn't have been printed without them; a most public example is Watergate. However, like many ideas with merit, it can be used abusively, and I think that we see that all too often today, where 'anonymous source' can mean anything from a reliable insider to a random rumor that has absolutely zero substantiation, other than that the writer/speaker wants to believe it.

There was a time when 'journalistic integrity' meant something; seems that for most major outlets, it's more of a rumor itself anymore... 

There was a time when 'journalistic integrity' meant something; seems that for most major outlets, it's more of a rumor itself anymore...

Click to expand...

I don?t know about ?journalistic integrity? Thomas Jefferson used to outwardly support President George Washington, but then write anti Washington articles in the newspaper under pseudonym.

What if we had lost WWII?  What if our armed forces had been forced to surrender?  How would the World be today?  Who would rule us?  Germany?  Japan?

We are  no more divided today than many times in the past.  During the Revolutionary War, very few of the actual population served in the Army. 
During the Civil War there were riots in NYC over the draft.  Yep, they had a draft back then. 
Prior to our entering WWII southern conservative Democrats blocked FDR on everything he wanted to do.  Did I just say Southern Conservative Democrats?  Yes, I did. 
Lots of dissension over Korea and Viet Nam as well.
Ever hear of the Teapot Scandal in the early 1900s?
Did you know that in our current population only six or seven per cent are serving or have served in the Military?

Why all this dissension?  Because we are Americans!  Because we can!  Because we have been taught we should question things we don't like or understand.  Because we're all allowed to have our own viewpoint.  Lastly because our Politicians use that as a tool to fight their opponents.

Keep in mind that in many countries in you question the authorities you can be jailed or even killed.  Hitler did not tolerate criticism, nor did Stalin.  Right now in Valenzuela you risk your life to speak out.  Even now in our good neighbor Canada you can get in big trouble for voicing certain opinions. 

So don't despair over our dissension.  It's the American way.  What I despair are the lies and destructive tactics that some politicians stoop to.  We can agree to disagree, but we can also do it in a civil manner.

Cooperhawk said:

So don't despair over our dissension.  It's the American way. 

Click to expand...

It would appear that maybe, the American way is changing. 

It is not only fear of litigation. With all of the scare tactics being used regarding MS-13 and such many people see an ambush just waiting for them. There is no way I could not stop and help, it is my nature. The wife and I have done it many times and will not surrender to fear in the future.
RichH

NY_Dutch said:

I agree, Bill, and would likely have checked on her, but in today's litigious society, I'm not surprised no one did.

Click to expand...

Well, I think that labeling dissension as being an 'American way' is a little much; it is, however, absolutely a human thing. We simply will never agree completely on anything, no matter the subject. Too many different viewpoints, too many personal ideals, too much everything. While we do have some freedoms that other countries may not, we as people are no different than anyone else.

I don't want that to sound as though I'm denigrating America, because that isn't the case. I've spent over 30 years in service to the U.S., so I hope that it isn't seen as unpatriotic, either, but I am not a believer in what sounded like 'American exceptionalism'.

If I read that wrong, I apologize...

From Day One here in America,  the printing press...(and now it's the mainstream media)  has been used as a political weapon.

I'm hoping the Freedom of the Internet will equalize what's become a one-sided political machine.

I say "thank you" to sites like Wikileaks. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?espv=1

sightseers said:

From Day One here in America,  the printing press...(and now it's the mainstream media)  has been used as a political weapon.

Click to expand...

That's a fact, in fact the Press in the US is often referred as the Fourth Estate.  The other Estates being Legislative, Judicial, and Executive.
In other countries such as Great Britain they might be Parliament, Clergy, and Commoners.
A free press is a powerful force and can be used for the betterment of a people, or for their destruction.

Cooperhawk said:

That's a fact, in fact the Press in the US is often referred as the Fourth Estate.  The other Estates being Legislative, Judicial, and Executive.
In other countries such as Great Britain they might be Parliament, Clergy, and Commoners.
A free press is a powerful force and can be used for the betterment of a people, or for their destruction.

Click to expand...

For most people they see the free press being used for the betterment of the people.  Only those on the extremes see it as their destruction.

A free press is a powerful force and can be used for the betterment of a people, or for their destruction.

Click to expand...

This is so true.  Back when I was a kid - more than a few decades ago - the press was valued and well regarded.  I recall the early days of television when people like Walter Cronkite were in our living rooms every evening and it felt like they were a member of the family.  Back then being a journalist or reporter was an honorable profession, but no longer.  I have heard so many of them twist what someone has said (I heard it first from the original person) or flat out lie that I'm a lot more selective these days in who I listen to or whose articles I  read.  It's such a shame!  And it worries me that some of these people seem to have no shame nor pride in telling the truth.  I don't know how to counteract this except to stop listening and reading so their listeners decrease or their readership declines.  But then I feel I'm the one losing out because I believe in the importance of a free press.  We are so lucky - when compared to so many other countries - and these people are taking it away from us in such a slow and subtle way.

ArdraF

PJ Stough said:

For most people they see the free press being used for the betterment of the people.  Only those on the extremes see it as their destruction.

Click to expand...

hmmm ...I kinda worry about things that are used on me for "The betterment" of the people.... (who's people? ).

Laws don't even matter.....The Freedom of Info. act is a political tool.  No legally released Classified document should have any redactions on it.

let the chips fall where they may. 

Well, this has morphed from stopping to help someone that has fallen to the benefits/detriments of the free press. I would certainly stop to help someone that has fallen. I would most likely stop to help with a flat tire if it looked like it was needed. If someone is broke down there would be nothing I could do. The only I could help is if I opened the hood and there was a big neon sign showing me the problem. Most folks have a cell,phone and roadside assistance. As for an accident, I have never been the first or really the fifteenth to get there. Besides my medical skills are worse than my auto repair skills. I would help extract victims from cars if need be.
As far as the press goes, I don?t believe much of anything I hear or read until i?ve done some research on my own.
I don?t think we are giving the younger generation enough credit. There are some really good kids out there the majority of whom go unnoticed. Yeah, there?s some bad kids and they are the ones getting the attention.

Oldgator73 said:

I don?t think we are giving the younger generation enough credit. There are some really good kids out there the majority of whom go unnoticed. Yeah, there?s some bad kids and they are the ones getting the attention.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I've worked with some youth groups through the VFW and other organizations and some of those young kids are AWESOME!

PJ Stough said:

For most people they see the free press being used for the betterment of the people.  Only those on the extremes see it as their destruction.

Click to expand...

I don' know that MOST people see the free press as being used for the betterment of anything.  I am not an extreme but I see the national press in a whole different light than I did as a younger person when I did not take much notice of anything beyond my military career.  But today when I read or watch my local media I can easily see that only the local non-political stories are fairly reported.  Anything political is liberal and this is basically a conservative area but the news paper is owned by Gannett (USA Today) and the TV receives it's national news for NBC, NY Times, CNN and the Washington Post as well as Reuters.  I recently wrote that local paper and asked if they could guide me to one positive story about our President or his achievements and, of course, I never received a reply.  Mass media on a national basis is weighted liberal in most cases but i have learned to tell how they skip any news that they may deem favorable to our elected officials and concentrate on the negative.  That of course is just my opinion but I see the free press is leaning to one side of the political coin much too far.

Bill

PS:  I started this thread with my wife falling down and I see that I myself am probably leading to it's demise by commenting on something that no doubt others will describe as political.  So be it.

Bill I couldn't agree more, the media is, in my opinion, not put there to spread the news. News is factual information. They certainly can't say with a straight face that they report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.