Can the media dictate who wins elections?

[jrry32]

Unconsciously? Yeah, I don't know what to do with that. Sorry.

Which is why we need to wise up and start addressing the elephant in the room. It's unconscious because many people refuse to believe it exists.

 

[beej]

This is just my opinion but there is always going to be injustice in the world. When you fix one you create another. And I think that about 99 percent of us can find some in our own lives. Some more than others. But on an individual basis we can rise above it. Some of us have to work harder than others. I know that sucks. I've had to in some ways. And my kids have had to as well.

But my experience with federal laws is that more often than not they make things worse or at least exchange one injustice for another.

 

[Ramhusker]

Which is why we need to wise up and start addressing the elephant in the room. It's unconscious because many people refuse to believe it exists.

See, that's the problem, it doesn't at my house. Other than your prison example, I don't know what we are talking about. I'm not into the magic of reading people's unconscious thought processes. I don't believe in any thought control, reprogramming one's mind even if I had tangible evidence of some kind of cerebral unconsciousness that existed culturally. It's all too Orwellian for me. It just gives you the creepy feeling that the "thinkpol" are in town. [/QUOTE] Hey, that kind of brings us full circle, back to the MEDIA. (see what I did there?)

 

[bluecoconuts]

See, that's the problem, it doesn't at my house. Other than your prison example, I don't know what we are talking about. I'm not into the magic of reading people's unconscious thought processes. I don't believe in any thought control, reprogramming one's mind even if I had tangible evidence of some kind of cerebral unconsciousness that existed culturally. It's all too Orwellian for me. It just gives you the creepy feeling that the "thinkpol" are in town. Hey, that kind of brings us full circle, back to the MEDIA. (see what I did there?)

Biases are present everywhere, even among the academic world. Female scientists struggle getting their research papers published unless they have gender neutral names or use initials. Some companies are more hesitant to hire various groups of people for these biases, even veterans are having issues now.

Take an article written by OAF Nation (a group of former/current Special Operations members) about self destruction of veterans. In one paragraph he writes.

"For example, an acquaintance of mine used to work HR at a national department store chain. She and I got into a discussion a few years ago about veterans issues. She brought up the point that she was being pressured by higher to put the resumes of veterans at the bottom of the pile or toss them completely. When I asked why, she told me how there’d been several instances of veterans going apeshit on customers and managers, even assaulting them in one case. She said corporate saw veterans as a potential liability to customer service. At the time, I blew up on her and vowed to single handedly bring down this national store."

http://www.oafnation.com/hitter-fee...-and-self-destruction-of-the-american-veteran

(great article by the way)


This is an example, where businesses are pushing away qualified people because of biases, even though that individual may be well qualified and might not have even deployed, or has and will never displayed any signs of PTSD or anything similar. I think most would agree that someone shouldn't be automatically put at somewhat of a disadvantage due to something that might not apply to them, even if he as a higher chance than someone that isn't part of that same group he is.

That's similar to where the notion of "white privilege" comes into place.

Often times a company may have two essentially identical resumes, same education background, same experience.. One is from someone named Mark. The other is from someone named Daquan, who has the higher chance of getting hired? That would be a case where Mark, by having a "white" sounding name, gets an extra boost over his peer.

While not everyone experiences the boost, and often times don't even realize if they do experience the boost, that's essentially an example where people's subconscious biases can influence something.

From my understanding that's essentially what "white privilege" or "male privilege" is about. There are statistics that do support that it exists, but it's hard for people to really say they have been a benefit of it. I can't pinpoint any period in time where my being white has directly given me a boost over anyone, but I couldn't say with 100% confidence that it hasn't.

I work hard, I feel I have earned what I have. I come from a very wealthy family, but I pay for my own things, my parents haven't given me money since I joined the Army at 17, I used the military to help pay for college, I work 100 hours a week to keep a roof over my head, food in my stomach, gas in my car, and the opportunity to get my doctorate in a field that I love working in. Did me being white influence that? I don't know, but in all honesty according to statistics it's probable.


Then again I could be way off, that's just from what I've gathered it is, I never really pay attention to that stuff really.

 

[Mackeyser]

@jrry32 is speaking of "white privilege" which is a macro problem. It's societal, although it can be felt very keenly on a micro or personal level.

@Ramhusker is asking questioning "white privilege" on a micro level, which while valid in some respects, limits the scope of the discussion.

Neither is right or wrong. It's entirely possible that Ramhusker hasn't seen much "white privilege" if he's lived mostly in white areas because "white privilege" denotes both conscious and unconscious privileges, benefits, behaviors and social constructs available to whites that aren't readily available to others. I dunno. I dunno his situation.

I know I've lived in areas that are pretty white where the issue wouldn't really be encountered because there'd not the be opportunity for differentiation or the opportunity to offer or not offer something different or less to someone else who's not white.

As an example: a white person works his butt off and gets an interview. This person aces the interview and gets the job. They work their butt off and get a promotion.

Where could the white privilege be?

It could be in the resumes that end up in the trash without ever being considered because the person has a "black sounding name". It could be in the interview that's rude or openly hostile or asks blatantly illegal questions that they'd never ask a white interviewee. It could be in a promotion process that simply won't consider the non-white workers. That doesn't inherently change anything about how hard the white worker has worked. That person hasn't

Of course, that's not every place or every time. Of course it isn't. However, like in football, it's amazing how even very small shifts can have huge results. Investigative news teams have sent out nearly identical young men to get an apartment, one white and one black into several cities. The young black man actually had a slightly better application with better credit. Slightly. At the very least, overall, the number of accepteds should have been a toss up. It wasn't. The white male got the apartment every time. Every. Time. Often, the black male was told out right the apartment was already rented and later, the white male came and they agreed to rent to him.

It's being followed around a store even when you're a professional. It's being asked for ID on a $30 credit card purchase when the 3 people in front of you who are white were NOT asked for any ID and they purchased significantly more goods.

It says, "the white people don't steal, so we don't need ID from them." I know for a fact my credit score is lower than my wife's because I chose "other" rather than white even though she has no income and everything else is exactly equal. I know because we spent more than a year going over both our credit histories prior to buying our house. The difference in my case is 12 or 22 points (I can't remember exactly which). Normally, I'd have a higher credit score because I'm a male (males get a preference...true story), so even with identical credit and even though I have income and she doesn't... because I chose "other" and she chose "white", her credit score is higher.

It's stuff like that. Does any one white person who just lives their lives purposefully further "white privilege"? Not usually. And usually it's so baked into the social, market and institutional structures that it would be difficult if not impossible to say "no" to it even if you saw it and wanted to refuse it.

Does it exist? Yes. It just does. There is too much empirical evidence for us to deny it, whether we've every personally experienced it. I mean, I've never personally seen the Aurora Borealis, but it's real.

I'll close with this. I think if the goal is to treat every man, woman and child with grace, dignity and respect, then addressing areas of social or institutional inequity don't need to pit people against people. I just don't see it that way.

I just see it as Christ's message: that everyone deserve's Love. Now, as a Christian, I see it as God's love, but I can also downshift and see it as a human love and everyone deserves that, too. I don't see it as needing to put anyone down, but rather lifting everyone up.

 

[jrry32]

This is just my opinion but there is always going to be injustice in the world. When you fix one you create another. And I think that about 99 percent of us can find some in our own lives. Some more than others. But on an individual basis we can rise above it. Some of us have to work harder than others. I know that sucks. I've had to in some ways. And my kids have had to as well.

But my experience with federal laws is that more often than not they make things worse or at least exchange one injustice for another.

Sounds defeatist. I'm not willing to ignore injustices because we might cause another by fixing it. And the bold is a bit unrealistic.

 

[Ramhusker]

@jrry32 is speaking of "white privilege" which is a macro problem. It's societal, although it can be felt very keenly on a micro or personal level.

@Ramhusker is asking questioning "white privilege" on a micro level, which while valid in some respects, limits the scope of the discussion.

Neither is right or wrong. It's entirely possible that Ramhusker hasn't seen much "white privilege" if he's lived mostly in white areas because "white privilege" denotes both conscious and unconscious privileges, benefits, behaviors and social constructs available to whites that aren't readily available to others. I dunno. I dunno his situation.

I know I've lived in areas that are pretty white where the issue wouldn't really be encountered because there'd not the be opportunity for differentiation or the opportunity to offer or not offer something different or less to someone else who's not white.

As an example: a white person works his butt off and gets an interview. This person aces the interview and gets the job. They work their butt off and get a promotion.

Where could the white privilege be?

It could be in the resumes that end up in the trash without ever being considered because the person has a "black sounding name". It could be in the interview that's rude or openly hostile or asks blatantly illegal questions that they'd never ask a white interviewee. It could be in a promotion process that simply won't consider the non-white workers. That doesn't inherently change anything about how hard the white worker has worked. That person hasn't

Of course, that's not every place or every time. Of course it isn't. However, like in football, it's amazing how even very small shifts can have huge results. Investigative news teams have sent out nearly identical young men to get an apartment, one white and one black into several cities. The young black man actually had a slightly better application with better credit. Slightly. At the very least, overall, the number of accepteds should have been a toss up. It wasn't. The white male got the apartment every time. Every. Time. Often, the black male was told out right the apartment was already rented and later, the white male came and they agreed to rent to him.

It's being followed around a store even when you're a professional. It's being asked for ID on a $30 credit card purchase when the 3 people in front of you who are white were NOT asked for any ID and they purchased significantly more goods.

It says, "the white people don't steal, so we don't need ID from them." I know for a fact my credit score is lower than my wife's because I chose "other" rather than white even though she has no income and everything else is exactly equal. I know because we spent more than a year going over both our credit histories prior to buying our house. The difference in my case is 12 or 22 points (I can't remember exactly which). Normally, I'd have a higher credit score because I'm a male (males get a preference...true story), so even with identical credit and even though I have income and she doesn't... because I chose "other" and she chose "white", her credit score is higher.

It's stuff like that. Does any one white person who just lives their lives purposefully further "white privilege"? Not usually. And usually it's so baked into the social, market and institutional structures that it would be difficult if not impossible to say "no" to it even if you saw it and wanted to refuse it.

Does it exist? Yes. It just does. There is too much empirical evidence for us to deny it, whether we've every personally experienced it. I mean, I've never personally seen the Aurora Borealis, but it's real.

I'll close with this. I think if the goal is to treat every man, woman and child with grace, dignity and respect, then addressing areas of social or institutional inequity don't need to pit people against people. I just don't see it that way.

I just see it as Christ's message: that everyone deserve's Love. Now, as a Christian, I see it as God's love, but I can also downshift and see it as a human love and everyone deserves that, too. I don't see it as needing to put anyone down, but rather lifting everyone up.

Good points but I must argue the point that the "white" is singled out because? more whites? because there are bias of all kinds. Blacks got extra points on a point scale used to hire US Postal workers because they were black. Women get cheaper car insurance rates and life insurance rates. Many grants and scholarships are awarded to different classes of people because they belong to a specific class. I've been overlooked at checkout counters because I was not the color of the cashier and other patrons happened to be. Women are given preferential treatment in just about every child custody case. Sure this kind of thing happens every day. Banks and Insurance companies stereotype all the time. That's about what an actuary's job is after all. Car dealers do it too. I've been ignored on car lots before because I went there straight from work in smelly, dirty clothes. I'd argue "class privilege" carries much more weight in an established bias contest. I think it's pointless to try and single out a race and then sing fairness doctrine at the picnic. Does that make sense to anybody?

 

[beej]

Sounds defeatist.

Is the opposite of defeatist. But I don't know what that word would be. Triumphant, maybe.

 

[beej]

And the bold is a bit unrealistic.

The bold came from my own real world experience, through a prison ministry I'm involved with.

 

[jrry32]

Is the opposite of defeatist. But I don't know what that word would be. Triumphant, maybe.

I don't see how giving up on correcting injustices because it would cause more injustices is triumphant. It sounds cynical and defeatist to me. But you're entitled to your opinion. My thoughts are just an opinion.

The bold came from my own real world experience, through a prison ministry I'm involved with.

Being capable of rising above it and it being realistic are very different things. I'm capable of making a billion dollars. That also isn't a realistic expectation.

 

[Mackeyser]

Good points but I must argue the point that the "white" is singled out because? more whites? because there are bias of all kinds. Blacks got extra points on a point scale used to hire US Postal workers because they were black. Women get cheaper car insurance rates and life insurance rates. Many grants and scholarships are awarded to different classes of people because they belong to a specific class. I've been overlooked at checkout counters because I was not the color of the cashier and other patrons happened to be. Women are given preferential treatment in just about every child custody case. Sure this kind of thing happens every day. Banks and Insurance companies stereotype all the time. That's about what an actuary's job is after all. Car dealers do it too. I've been ignored on car lots before because I went there straight from work in smelly, dirty clothes. I'd argue "class privilege" carries much more weight in an established bias contest. I think it's pointless to try and single out a race and then sing fairness doctrine at the picnic. Does that make sense to anybody?

The existence of white privilege doesn't obviate other biases. It can in some cases mitigate or offset (black and wealthy v white and poor for example) and in other cases exacerbate (white and wealthy v black and poor).

Actuarial risk management is certainly an area in which we can agree that unfair bias had occurred across the board for all races, genders and ages. The only fair part is how equally we've all been screwed.

So, the discussion of the one thing, white privilege, doesn't obviate or negate the reality of other very real types of bias. It's not an exclusionary type of thing.

 

[RAMSinLA]

"Can the media dictate who wins elections?"
not to me they can't.

I’ve stayed away from this thread because this is a Rams board and for me it is an escape from politics but I’ve read some very thoughtful postings here and it keeps popping up to the top of the board so I guess I will put my two cents in.

First of all I hope like hell the current media does not have the power to influence an election. In my opinion the people that are supposed to be our watch dogs of government have morphed into guard dogs for the government.

They are overpaid and overly compensated beyond belief for what they do and for their level of education AND... they have NOTHING in common with me or my family. So why would I allow myself to be dictated to or to be influenced by them about anything?

 

[Yamahopper]

I think the media has always influenced the elections.
But much less than it did in the past. Now there's a plethora of media sources to glean information from.

Back in the day, pre WWII the only sources were papers and local radio,unless you had a really good antenna to pickup distant broadcasts you might only get the perception of the candidates the local source wishes you to hear.

Before radio it was even worse . Just the news the local "Bernie " wants you to hear.

So information influence is nothing new

 

[Ramhusker]

I think the media has always influenced the elections.
But much less than it did in the past. Now there's a plethora of media sources to glean information from.

Back in the day, pre WWII the only sources were papers and local radio,unless you had a really good antenna to pickup distant broadcasts you might only get the perception of the candidates the local source wishes you to hear.

Before radio it was even worse . Just the news the local "Bernie " wants you to hear.

So information influence is nothing new

I agree you exponentially have more outlets of brainwashing available to you today than in the past but I'm not sure that makes the influence less. The media has stepped up its attempts to make you see it their way. Seems in the past, they just reported the news as it happened. Now, it seems all so "hollywood" in its presentation. Maybe that perception has changed because I'm now more educated, wiser, less gullible?

 

[Yamahopper]

I agree you exponentially have more outlets of brainwashing available to you today than in the past but I'm not sure that makes the influence less. The media has stepped up its attempts to make you see it their way. Seems in the past, they just reported the news as it happened. Now, it seems all so "hollywood" in its presentation. Maybe that perception has changed because I'm now more educated, wiser, less gullible?

While there are many thousand more outlets for news and propaganda now.It's possible for a person to do his own research and make up his own mind.

Back in the day there was no alternative sources with out riding a horse for a week to see a different paper to see another opinion .
A person had to physically be at an event to know what happened.
If a person lived in a one paper area how else would he have a clue that's what being reported has any truth to it.

Media sources then had agendas just as they do now.

 

[beej]

I don't see how giving up on correcting injustices because it would cause more injustices is triumphant. It sounds cynical and defeatist to me. But you're entitled to your opinion. My thoughts are just an opinion.

What I'm talking about is not giving up. It's a different approach. It's working one on one, mentoring, training, educating. It works 2 ways.
1) working with white people to treat everyone equally
2) working with minorities, to rise above their circumstances. And it can realistically be done.

you find what your looking for. If you spend time looking for racism, you will no doubt find it. If you spend time looking for injustice, absolutely, it's there.

If you spend time bettering yourself, educating yourself, not taking no for an answer in your quest for a career or education or promotion, you will find that too.

Look! I'm not black, I'm a white male and so all of this is probably easy for me to say. but if there is white privilege which I'm sure there is to some degree, my personal belief is that it comes from confidence not the color of our skin. Racism will stop you in your tracks only if you let it.

And I do have one strong example of this. My daughter is black. She's grown into a very fine young woman now. I'm really proud of her. After reading this thread, I asked her last night if she has ever encountered much in the line racism here in Missouri, especially growing up in a rural area and she said that she never has. She said maybe she was just oblivious to it, because she never looked for it. She said that the only thing she has ever really noticed was that some people will start to say something and correct themselves for fear that what they said might be politically incorrect and hurt her feelings. And she wished people felt more at ease talking around her, but she said that goes away as she get's to know a person better.

 

[Ramhusker]

While there are many thousand more outlets for news and propaganda now.It's possible for a person to do his own research and make up his own mind.

Back in the day there was no alternative sources with out riding a horse for a week to see a different paper to see another opinion .
A person had to physically be at an event to know what happened.
If a person lived in a one paper area how else would he have a clue that's what being reported has any truth to it.

Media sources then had agendas just as they do now.

That's funny. That's just about how I feel today. It's hard to take anyone's account of an event today. There's always an angle.

 

[Rynie]

The media has been dictating social and political policy for decades now. They long since stopped being reporters of the news and now just push an agenda.

This. Especially the social. This country is now back in the F'ing 1960's racially because of the media. There are too many weak - minded individuals that don't question what they hear, and basically let the media make up their minds for them.

 

[beej]

interesting from Politico
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/new-york-times-alters-clinton-email-story-211176.html

New York Times alters Clinton email story
By DYLAN BYERS


7/24/15 4:58 AM EDT

The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive reportabout a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.

The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

The Times also changed the headline of the story, from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account," reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton's possible role. The article's URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.

As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, notification, clarification or correction regarding the changes made to the article.

One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said in an email that Clinton always followed “appropriate practices.”

“Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials. As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted,” Merrill said.

The inspectors general request comes after their assessment that Clinton’s private email account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The Times' report notes that it is not clear whether the contents of the emails were marked as classified by the State Department when then-Secratry of State Clinton sent or received them.

Clinton's use of a private email account at the State Department has been a subject of intense scrutiny by both the media and Republican adversaries for months. No news outlet has been more aggressive in its coverage of that issue than the Times.

The Times' report also includes the following error: It states that a hearing in Washington about the State Department's refusal to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests had taken place on Monday. That hearing took place last week.

 

[Greg Stone]

As to the actual question posed by the OP, it's a mixed bag.

George Washington, the essential man of the American Revolution, named Tom Paine as the essential man, that his writings mobilized feelings in the colonies towards revolution. If you read the personal writings of the founders you find that they had a low opinion of public knowledge, most colonists couldn't even read proficiently. They used exaggerated propaganda, like the so called Boston Massacre to inflame public opinion and even then half the colonists were against the revolution.

So I don't think the basics have changed that much. The other Republican candidates start screaming about Trump and the screaming becomes a story which lacks context because media outlets are pouring out more and more content with fewer and less proficient people. It's a big change from the idealism of news in the 50's but in historical terms is a return to the norm. Media companies will do whatever makes them money. Even Fox news, run by a former head of the Republican party who all the potential Republican candidates go to to kiss his ring, couldn't do what his does if the business model wasn't producing huge profits. News is now entertainment and the political parties vie to create story lines to be repeated by an impotent press.

People now are like people have always been, so caught up in their personal challenges that they spare little thought for the big picture.