The media has a tendency to prioritize conflict and sensationalism over more constructive discourse, like conflict-resolution or cost-benefit analysis.
The press often breeds division and cynicism rather than fostering understanding and progress.
The attention economy of social media platforms (like Twitter and Facebook) rewards outrage, polarization, and misinformation over nuance, common ground, and truth.
"The press is the enemy of the people." - Donald Trump, illustrating how media polarization can erode trust in democratic institutions.
Limited Educational Value: The reluctance to link to comprehensive sources like Wikipedia suggests a preference for keeping users on-site for ad revenue rather than educating them.
Sensationalism over Substance: The media often prioritizes entertainment value over in-depth analysis, reflecting and perpetuating a cycle of low-information content consumption.
Misrepresentation and Bias: Instances where media outlets claim impartiality (e.g., "We report, you decide") but exhibit clear bias or selective reporting undermine their credibility.
Neglect of Comprehensive Analysis: The lack of effort to provide context or detailed examination of issues like gun control policies indicates a disinterest in conveying the full truth, favoring sensationalism instead.
I have compiled the truth on Mitt Romney's Gun Policy. I don't mean to sound arrogant. It wasn't that hard. I just found all of Romney's quotes and actions on the issue of Gun Control and put them in context. I will let you read the record from the raw press releases and make your own decisions. It is boring, but the truth is often boring. That is why it doesn't sell as well, as people calling each other names and yelling at each other. If the media was interested in finding the truth, they would link to this information. But they are not interested in finding the truth. They want to create a boxing match and charge admission to see the fights. I have seen about 5 talking heads on Fox News say that Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on guns. I thought they reported it, so let us decide. But no. They have chosen for us. We are too stupid to think for ourselves. Why not check out his gun control policy and determine if he has flip-flopped.
Key Resources (required reading to be knowledgeable in this subject):
"Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman: Critiques the impact of television and entertainment media on public discourse.
"Manufacturing Consent" by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky: Analyzes the economic and political factors shaping media content.
Top-rated Solutions:
Media Literacy Education: Teaching audiences to critically evaluate media content.
Support for Public and Independent Media: Encouraging models that are less dependent on commercial advertising.
Shared and Opposing Interests:
Shared: A desire for media that engages, informs, and benefits society.
Opposing: The balance between profit-driven content creation and the societal responsibility to provide quality, informative, and diverse content.
Underlying Issues:
Commercialization of Media: The impact of advertising and profit motives on content creation.
Audience Fragmentation: The challenge of serving increasingly niche audiences in a fragmented media landscape.
Quality vs. Engagement: The tension between producing high-quality content and content designed for maximum engagement.
Potential Costs of This Belief:
Cynicism Towards Information Sources: General distrust in media can lead to skepticism towards all sources of information, including credible ones.
Polarization: Dismissal of media as "stupid" may reinforce echo chambers, where individuals only seek out information that aligns with their preconceived notions.
Undermining Press Freedom: Broad-brush criticism of media can contribute to an environment hostile to press freedom, essential for a functioning democracy.
Potential Benefits:
Demand for Higher Standards: Criticism might push media outlets to strive for higher quality reporting and more ethical journalistic practices.
Promotion of Alternative Media: Encourages exploration of diverse and perhaps more reliable sources of information outside mainstream media channels.
Increased Media Literacy: Awareness of media flaws could lead to a more discerning audience capable of critical analysis of information sources.
Objective Criteria for Evaluating the Belief:
Quality of Reporting: Measure the depth, accuracy, and impartiality of media reporting across various outlets.
Audience Engagement: Analyze engagement metrics to determine if sensational content truly dominates consumer preferences.
Diversity of Sources: Evaluate the range of sources and viewpoints represented in media reporting.
Impact on Public Discourse: Assess how media practices influence public knowledge, opinions, and discourse on important issues.
Score: +5 (reasons to agree), +12/2 = 6 (reasons to agree with reasons to agree = 11
Aleister Crowley: Criticizes newspapers as unworthy of attention, advocating for more meaningful intellectual engagement. "To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter". - Aleister Crowley
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) has said; "All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else."
Essays that agree:
The News vs. the Truth? - Or - McCarthy Is Dead, So Get Him Back Into His Grave Already! 11-06-05
Whom Can You Trust in the Media? 01-04-04
Reporting Out of Context 11-14-04
The Fanatics Who Tell Us the News 05-30-04
Fair and Balanced: Who Else But Dennis Miller? 05-23-04
Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” Similarly, we won’t improve our country until we improve our level of public debate. On these pages I outline how we can automate conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis and solve our problems at a level higher than how they were caused.
To start, we will break our problems down into their sub-components, including beliefs, supporting, and weakening evidence, and arguments. This will allow thousands or millions of us to evaluate each part of an argument and evidence one at a time. We will group beliefs by topic and sort them by their positivity, strength, and level of specificity. This will prevent duplication and allow us to focus on one issue at a time.
The Idea Stock Exchange (ISE) proposes a groundbreaking framework for tackling complex issues, resolving conflicts, and fostering informed decision-making. Here's a detailed breakdown of its key features:
Evidence-driven: Prioritizes verifiable data and logical reasoning, ensuring well-informed conclusions.
Dynamic Ranking System: Inspired by Google's PageRank, it evaluates arguments based on the strength of their evidence, dynamically adjusting as new information emerges.
2. Multi-faceted Evaluation Metrics:
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Assesses proposed solutions by examining potential costs, benefits, likelihoods, and impact.
Argumentative Strength Assessment: Categorizes arguments based on logical consistency, evidence, relevance, and significance.
Maslow's Hierarchy Integration: Aligns the evaluation with fundamental human needs for a broader perspective.
3. Sophisticated Scoring and Ranking Protocols:
Precision Scoring Formula: Combines argument scores with evidence assessments to determine argument validity.
Evidence-Based Ranking System: Leverages algorithms to rank solutions based on predicted costs and benefits, with dynamic updates based on new information.
4. Uniqueness and Redundancy Scores:
Equivalency Score: Identifies similar arguments using semantic similarity metrics and machine learning, coupled with community feedback, to reduce redundancy and develop unique scores.
"Better Ways of Saying the Same Thing": Helps users find alternative expressions of the same idea, enhancing clarity and reducing duplication.
5. Logical Fallacy and Argument Evaluation:
Fallacy Detection: Implements algorithms to identify and flag potentially fallacious arguments, promoting rational discourse.
User-Contributed Evidence Assessment: Allows the community to contribute evidence supporting or weakening arguments for collaborative verification.
6. Technological Integration and User Interaction:
Database Tools: Proposes building tools to map conclusions, assumptions, and their relationships for deeper understanding.
Interactive Interface: Users can actively participate by submitting evidence, voting on argument strength, and suggesting alternative viewpoints.
7. Promoting Quality Debate:
Separating Argument Types: Distinguishes between truth, importance, and relevance arguments for a more nuanced debate structure.
Encouraging Constructive Dialogue: Aims to shift focus from emotional responses to evidence-based reasoning, fostering meaningful discourse over sensationalism.
8. Community-Driven Evolution:
Open-Source Development: Encourages community involvement in refining and evolving the platform, ensuring its adaptability and relevance.
Additional Considerations:
Data Quality and Bias: Implementing robust measures to ensure data accuracy and mitigate potential biases in algorithms and user contributions.
Transparency and Explainability: Providing clear explanations of scoring methods and decision-making processes to build trust and understanding.
User Engagement and Education: Fostering active participation and educating users on the platform's functionalities and responsible use.
We are a political party that organizes all the ideas and arguments by subject, and lets them battle in a survival of the fittest death-match.
We are a political party that supports candidates that promises to make their decisions based on online cost benefit and idea evaluation algorithms. They just have to use a forum that ties the strength of their conclusion to the strength of their assumption, so that when you strengthen or weaken an assumption you also strengthen or weaken conclusions based on the assumption.
We have had the technological ability to create a world based on logic for too long. It is about time we build a rational political party based on the assumption that we support plans, conclusions, activities, and policies that can gather evidence based support, and that we don't do things that don't stand up to analysis.
We will conduct open, online, cost/benefit analysis of each issue. It is about time.
Welcome to the website for the best political party of all time, and the future of reason based decisions making.
"No concept you form is valid unless you integrate it without contradiction into the sum of human knowledge."
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.