5
5
0
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
"The opinion Obama is expressing is not unique to him. This is the way far too many liberals think."
Obama - "And some of the reason for that is … it used to be that in the United States, there were three television stations. Basically everybody watched the same thing. Everybody got their news from the same sources, and so everybody had, more or less, a similar view of the world. But today, because of first cable television and then now the internet, people have 500 channels to choose from, and they are able to find the news that fits their views instead of fitting their views to the news, so they are very biased in terms of how they see things, in a way that just didn't used to be the case."
When I first heard this comment by Obama, I laughed at the deliberate misstatement and use of factual information. I could not bring myself to believe that he was so naïve to believe the garbage that he was stating, so there had to be another reason behind his statements, because the conclusion is and was wildly inaccurate on the surface and underneath. What he and his cohorts are not telling you is that during the period of 'only' three television stations (factually an incorrect statement, since it was supposedly three networks, but that is incorrect also when you add 'public television'), that the counter balance was approximately 6,200 newspapers almost all local. There is a problem but not the one that he and his cohorts are stating or insinuating by their statements or comments. There is a problem yes, but it is over control of what news and what 'facts' are disseminated and to whom. The 'real' problem is that they (many liberals) want the control of the sources and dissemination channels (think conduits). They have already been in the long process of consolidation and taking control.
What was the cry during the financial crisis - They are too big to fail? Isn't that part of the problem?
Obama - "And some of the reason for that is … it used to be that in the United States, there were three television stations. Basically everybody watched the same thing. Everybody got their news from the same sources, and so everybody had, more or less, a similar view of the world. But today, because of first cable television and then now the internet, people have 500 channels to choose from, and they are able to find the news that fits their views instead of fitting their views to the news, so they are very biased in terms of how they see things, in a way that just didn't used to be the case."
When I first heard this comment by Obama, I laughed at the deliberate misstatement and use of factual information. I could not bring myself to believe that he was so naïve to believe the garbage that he was stating, so there had to be another reason behind his statements, because the conclusion is and was wildly inaccurate on the surface and underneath. What he and his cohorts are not telling you is that during the period of 'only' three television stations (factually an incorrect statement, since it was supposedly three networks, but that is incorrect also when you add 'public television'), that the counter balance was approximately 6,200 newspapers almost all local. There is a problem but not the one that he and his cohorts are stating or insinuating by their statements or comments. There is a problem yes, but it is over control of what news and what 'facts' are disseminated and to whom. The 'real' problem is that they (many liberals) want the control of the sources and dissemination channels (think conduits). They have already been in the long process of consolidation and taking control.
What was the cry during the financial crisis - They are too big to fail? Isn't that part of the problem?
(2)
(0)
Read This Next