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.

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

I agree 100%. But who sets the agenda here? How is it done in the executive rooms behind the scenes? For example, when would antinatalism ever be a topic even something like a public radio would take up vs. CRT or any other topic.. (and public radio does provide room for a larger gamut of topical interests if compared to a CNN). Does there have to be some sort of "incident".. A weird brawl breaks out and antinatalism is somehow thrown in the mix.. then it gets coverage because if it bleeds it leads? I mean the topic of antinatalism seems bizarre enough to the "average folk" to spark interest and emotion, even if it is outrage or flabbergast. Even if it will be outrage to a bastardized version of it (sheared of all nuance) similar to how CRT was treated and shorn of its original ideas based in law school theory.

But who sets the agenda here? How is it done in the executive rooms behind the scenes? — schopenhauer1

To a certain extent, I think scum rises to the top and then you have a circle jerk. You see a lot of the same names running the circuit. First they have to prove their bona fides. Sometimes that means they actually believe what they say and they are zealots about it. Other times they are smart and know what plays, and so they make their living that way. 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. Then you have your Rogan, Carlson, Limbaugh, Jones, et al.

They create an environment where these tools are seen as gatekeepers of truth and if a guy or gal cannot hold their own against these idiots, then they become fresh meat for the grinder. More ratings. If one side of a two-sided fight starts to win too much, then that side is marginalized until the other side keeps up. In short, nobody wants to see anybody knocked out in the first round. We want a 15 round bloody, savage fight. Once side can be thoroughly trashed, so long as they stay on their feet and take the beating. But the media has no use for a loser. Those in the fight know this, and keep punching even when they've lost. It's good for the team. Fuck the truth. Brass knuckles are fine. Hell, toss in a gun and it's even better. Why, I could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and no one would care! If the person I shot was "on the other side" then great! More ratings. Higher poll numbers. That's the ticket!

The fucking dummies love that shit. Entertainment becomes existential. To hell with health and welfare.

The fucking dummies love that shit. Entertainment becomes existential. To hell with health and welfare. — James Riley

Certainly like a dystopian novel come to life.

You see a lot of the same names running the circuit. — James Riley

This is certainly true.. It's like hired guns that they bring out with predictable talking points necessary for the 5 minute commentary needed to push the story along in the pre-determined direction.

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

That seems to be what is happening. I'd agree.

What would it take for a topic to get legs? CRT got legs because it had to do with race and it went nicely with the George Floyd incident and the structural racism theme. Was this out of ratings? Market testing? Or a genuine concern for structural racism? 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?

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

It's not real. But when we venerate critical thinking without analytic thinking, we get dummies gravitating toward the word "critical." When we use the word "race", there is a trigger there for the insecure. And of course, when we use the word "theory", those who don't understand what a theory is (evolution) will jump on it critically as mere non-racist opinion.

In other words, those same people we talked about above ($/ratings) don't care one way or the other. They just know it will fire up the dummies. The agent provocateurs in marketing probably search the interwebs for the spitballing of wags, steal their work, and feed it to the clowns to run with it. We know Tucker Carlson is not smart enough to dream up an attack on his own. There are rooms full of little conservative members of the Federalist Society, sitting around drinking beer and laughing like comedians working up a skit/routine and then feeding it to their bosses who hand it off to Tucker. Someone like an AT&T board member is behind the scenes, providing the payroll for the kids, or even funding their education.

Yep, this all makes sense. Can't add too much more to that surrounding CRT. It was hatched in a think tank and people followed the message, both left and right.

Ok, so let's take topics like antinatalism, veganism, antiwork philosophies, what would it take for people from these movements to be interviewed in media? 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.

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.

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.

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

They want good little consumers and producers. Not thinkers. Hell, if they wanted thinkers then they'd teach thinking in school.

Trying to make this conversation a little more constructive; not to say that anything that was mentioned here was false:

How do you think we could improve/sustain knowledge translation so that it's relayed in a simple, non-biased manner?

How do you think we could improve/sustain knowledge translation so that it's relayed in a simple, non-biased manner? — john27

Teach Liberal Arts in school. Start at kindergarten and carry through the next 16 + years. Make a virtue of necessity by using the written word. (It's like the blind trials on "The Voice". If you can't see how ugly the person is, you can focus on their voice.) If you can't see the emotive clown dancing around on T.V. then you can focus on his thoughts. If you can't hear the emotive clown yelling on the radio, then you can focus on his thoughts. If his thoughts are illogical shit, then you can dissect them. But if he went to school steeped in Liberal Arts, then his thoughts are less likely to be shit.

The problem is, mom and dad hate it when little Billy and Sally come home from school and roll their socks in argument at the dinner table. So they don't vote for the mill levy to support the school. Because they want their kids to be like them. And anyone who doesn't think like them is a commie libtard. They don't really want a better life for their kids.

But a real parent is not afraid to learn from the kid and engage him, and school him with the wisdom of life experience. That takes love and patience. But fuck that. A new F-350 pick up is better.

Determine the actual issue at hand, and discuss that. Remove anyone from the conversation that tries to lead the discussion away from the main issue.

Example: I live in an expensive area of town, homes run about a $1.5 million each, on 3.5 acre spreads. Everyone in the area is well educated and earns an appropriate income to support this kind of lifestyle. A new resident (single, family, etc. Not really important) moves in and begins to shit on our lawns. Not the dog, the Resident is shitting on our lawn. All the affected people have a problem with this behaviour. 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.

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.

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

But wait, what if I can film it and put it up on the web and it goes viral and I get a bunch of hits and make even more money! Don't be a turd burglar Book. Let me make some money before you solve the "problem."

I admit, the lawn-shitting video would go viral, which is sad commentary on our time, but you prove the point: the video, and resulting money, would detract from the problem, and likely, because of the "success" of the video, result in more of the same problem, solving nothing.

And some bastard would bring race into it, because that somehow matters.

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

I know, right? I often wonder about all the folks from my generation that complain about the generation they made. Somehow it's always someone else's fault. One of my favorite memes says something to the effect "If you want someone else to suffer because you suffered and you turned out all right, guess what? You didn't turn out all right."

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.

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.

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

I think there is a relevant distinction between bias and conflict of interest. The truth has a definite bias which should not be tempered by mediocrity or splitting the baby. But yes, conflict of interest should be, at the very least, transparent. Some folks get paid for that which they are invested in, and we might ought to know that. But I wouldn't kick them out just because they get paid to do science or whatever.

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

:blush:
I'd like to see a pic.

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:

I'd show you one or two, but I can't upload from the puter. Has to be another web site. :grin: — James Riley

Then show it already! :blush:

Right. I'll admit I was a little flamboyant on the "temporary exile", but transparency was the initial goal.