The Republican Utopia

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

I agree; and what's equally frustrating is that there is often very little reasoning with people on these matters. Some people are going to operate that way regardless and a lot of it simply has to do with habits and pre-conceived notions.

 

As if right on time for this discussion...

 

Working paper finds increased Hannity viewership associated with increased number of Covid-19 cases and deaths at the county level. 

 

Hannity was one of the chief purveyors of misinformation early on during the outbreak. They hypothesize provision of misinformation  affects progression of a disease during a pandemic.

[BigRedBuster]

35 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

As if right on time for this discussion...

 

Working paper finds increased Hannity viewership associated with increased number of Covid-19 cases and deaths at the county level. 

 

Hannity was one of the chief purveyors of misinformation early on during the outbreak. They hypothesize provision of misinformation  affects progression of a disease during a pandemic.

OK, that's something I would need to read and study for about a week to even start to understand.  

So....correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying they looked at this at the county level and if more residents in that county watched Hannity and Tucker Carlson, the cases and deaths in that county rose two weeks later?

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK, that's something I would need to read and study for about a week to even start to understand.  

So....correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying they looked at this at the county level and if more residents in that county watched Hannity and Tucker Carlson, the cases and deaths in that county rose two weeks later?

 

Hannity downplayed the risks of the virus, which was the Trump playbook, for the first several weeks of February before shifting his position by the end of the month. Carlson warned folks from the get-go in early February.

 

Basically it looks like they found greater Hannity viewership relative to Tucker Carlson viewership was associated with greater county-wide prevalence and deaths from Covid-19. In other words, the guy peddling misinformation may have played a part in spread of the disease.

[Enhance]

@Danny Bateman I don't believe I'll ever understand why people waste their time with talk show style 'news' formats. I know it's largely because of the entertainment value, but I think television news (and information dissemination in general) would be in a better place without the likes of Hannity, Maddow, Lemon, Cooper, etc. Not that they're all on the same level of disillusionment. I simply dislike their work more than I like it (particularly Hannity - that man is an absolute clown; and, he's dangerous).

[RedDenver]

17 minutes ago, Enhance said:

@Danny Bateman I don't believe I'll ever understand why people waste their time with talk show style 'news' formats. I know it's largely because of the entertainment value, but I think television news (and information dissemination in general) would be in a better place without the likes of Hannity, Maddow, Lemon, Cooper, etc. Not that they're all on the same level of disillusionment. I simply dislike their work more than I like it (particularly Hannity - that man is an absolute clown; and, he's dangerous).

I agree. A strong separation between news reporting and opinion pieces would help a lot.

[FrantzHardySwag]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I agree. A strong separation between news reporting and opinion pieces would help a lot.

For sure!!!! Put a huge disclaimer on that stuff. 

[Enhance]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I agree. A strong separation between news reporting and opinion pieces would help a lot.

Precisely, particularly in television format. People often confuse the hosts of those shows and the content they produce with news reporting. In reality, it's often times more of a blend between editorial and reporting. And it's clear by their tones and word choices that they're trying to illicit certain emotions and responses from their viewers.

 

I beat this drum a lot, but, I believe there's far more to be gained as a citizen and a person by reading the news instead of watching it. I'm also a big supporter of local journalism. Sam McKewon wrote what I believe to be a perfect analogy one time by saying national news should be like the salad to your meal. And, it's almost always explicitly clear what's actual reporting and what is editorialism.

[BigRedBuster]

22 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I beat this drum a lot, but, I believe there's far more to be gained as a citizen and a person by reading the news instead of watching it.

Oh, I think this is huge.  If you are reading it, it takes out the emotional presentation of the information.  You can also spend a little more time, if needed, and digest what exactly you are reading.  You can also get an opinion of the type of site it's coming from.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Oh, I think this is huge.  If you are reading it, it takes out the emotional presentation of the information.  You can also spend a little more time, if needed, and digest what exactly you are reading.  You can also get an opinion of the type of site it's coming from.

There can be just as much blurring of the line between facts and opinions in print as on TV, so I'm not sure that really makes much difference.

[Enhance]

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

There can be just as much blurring of the line between facts and opinions in print as on TV, so I'm not sure that really makes much difference.

I don't want to speak for @BigRedBuster but I think what he's saying (and I agree with it, if it's the case) is that reading the news provides you more of an opportunity to apply critical thinking. You can re-read something a bit more easily and efficiently than you can watching something on TV. If you're reading online, you can also jump to other sites to see if the information is true/accurate.

 

And, FWIW, broadcasters are typically trained to write to a third grade reading level and shorter attention spans. It's a format well suited for confusion and manipulation, even if it's unintended.

 

Otherwise, I agree with your point too - facts and information can be blurred in print just as easily. 

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I don't want to speak for @BigRedBuster but I think what he's saying (and I agree with it, if it's the case) is that reading the news provides you more of an opportunity to apply critical thinking. You can re-read something a bit more easily and efficiently than you can watching something on TV. If you're reading online, you can also jump to other sites to see if the information is true/accurate.

 

And, FWIW, broadcasters are typically trained to write to a third grade reading level and shorter attention spans. It's a format well suited for confusion and manipulation, even if it's unintended.

 

Otherwise, I agree with your point too - facts and information can be blurred in print just as easily. 

I don't watch anything live where I can't rewind so I didn't even consider that aspect. But if you're watching your news online, then it's pretty similar to reading it IMO.

[Enhance]

14 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I don't watch anything live where I can't rewind so I didn't even consider that aspect. But if you're watching your news online, then it's pretty similar to reading it IMO.

I think this is pretty common practice for people under 45 because they've become comfortable with the DVR/rewind capabilities television programs now offer, but it's less likely for older audiences. When we did some TV market research on this a few years ago (I think 2015?) most users in the primary viewing audiences (i.e. people above the age of 55, watching through cable) said they never or almost never utilize DVR capabilities while watching TV. Granted, this was just for Nebraska and the data is five years old.

 

I guess the more important thing though (to me at least) is that reading is more of an active activity. Watching something is considered more passive. So, I tend to believe reading is more valuable. I haven't looked into the topic that closely though; however, I think there was an MIT study a few years ago that looked into it and found that the test group who read material vs. watching it had slightly improved retention and understanding of the concepts.

[BigRedBuster]

46 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I don't want to speak for @BigRedBuster but I think what he's saying (and I agree with it, if it's the case) is that reading the news provides you more of an opportunity to apply critical thinking. You can re-read something a bit more easily and efficiently than you can watching something on TV. If you're reading online, you can also jump to other sites to see if the information is true/accurate.

 

And, FWIW, broadcasters are typically trained to write to a third grade reading level and shorter attention spans. It's a format well suited for confusion and manipulation, even if it's unintended.

 

Otherwise, I agree with your point too - facts and information can be blurred in print just as easily. 

This is exactly what I'm saying.  

 

Also, coming from someone who used to be a Fox News addict, I used to just have it on constantly.  It mind numbing noise in the back ground but it still sinks in and affects your attitude towards everything.

 

Now, if I read something, I have to actively read it.  I have to consciously sit down and concentrate on reading what I'm seeing.  If I get 2 sentences into something and realize it's BS, I stop.  I'm not fed the BS for the next 30 minutes affecting how I'm thinking.

 

It's an active action instead of a subconscious indoctrination.  I can still get filled with misinformation.  But, it's not the same thing.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is exactly what I'm saying.  

 

Also, coming from someone who used to be a Fox News addict, I used to just have it on constantly.  It mind numbing noise in the back ground but it still sinks in and affects your attitude towards everything.

 

Now, if I read something, I have to actively read it.  I have to consciously sit down and concentrate on reading what I'm seeing.  If I get 2 sentences into something and realize it's BS, I stop.  I'm not fed the BS for the next 30 minutes affecting how I'm thinking.

 

It's an active action instead of a subconscious indoctrination.  I can still get filled with misinformation.  But, it's not the same thing.

Leaving TV or news on in the background is again something I don't do and didn't even consider. Thanks for your perspective.

[BigRedBuster]

Now...THAT would be must-see-TV.