• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama bemoans 'diversions' of IPod, Xbox era

I think Obama made some good points there.

IMO, never before has humanity had such access to information on such a massive scale as they have today, information is instant... and never before have people been as ignorant as they are today. People today who refuse to see facts and truth over hysteria and lies, are truly ignorant beyond belief.

Ignorance is bliss, so be happy with it if it's your choice.
 
WOW, thanks for adding something helpful to the conversation.

Just pointing out the typical hypocrisy. Obama is increasingly frustrated in his inability to CONTROL the message. It was so much easier to do so in Chicago.
 
This is an excellent point. From what I see in this thread, it is the extremists... in this case the conservatives, who are doing nothing but spinning the issue in order to fit their partisan hatred and demonization.

Everyone can be tempted into smugness and intellectual superiority. When Democrats become more popular, Republicans become tempted to blame the media for making people stupid (i.e. disagreeing with them). When Republicans become more popular, Democrats become more tempted to blame the media for making people stupid (i.e. disagree with them). Libertarians and other fringe ideologies can be in this state perpetually.

Conservatives may disagree with Obama now - IMO, rightfully - but as soon as the Democrats become popular, all the talk about modern distractions and partisan pundits shaping opinion will start coming from them. Though even then some liberals might be inclined to agree, since their ideology is more elitist to begin with.
 
Just pointing out the typical hypocrisy. Obama is increasingly frustrated in his inability to CONTROL the message. It was so much easier to do so in Chicago.

That's not what he's saying at all. By his logic, if what you believe to be true, than you should agree with him...

You see, if you believe Obama is a marxist, then what he's saying is, you gotta be able to sift through all the information and find the truth, and if that's what you did to find the truth on rightwingnutjobs.blogsspot.commie than you actually followed his advice... :mrgreen:
 
Everyone can be tempted into smugness and intellectual superiority. When Democrats become more popular, Republicans become tempted to blame the media for making people stupid (i.e. disagreeing with them). When Republicans become more popular, Democrats become more tempted to blame the media for making people stupid (i.e. disagree with them). Libertarians and other fringe ideologies can be in this state perpetually.

Conservatives may disagree with Obama now - IMO, rightfully - but as soon as the Democrats become popular, all the talk about modern distractions and partisan pundits shaping opinion will start coming from them. Though even then some liberals might be inclined to agree, since their ideology is more elitist to begin with.

What I'm saying though, is two things. Firstly, it doesn't matter where it's coming from. The presentation that there is a lot of information out there and one must look at it all critically, regardless of what your political lean is, is essential. Secondly, look at some of the folks in this thread. People claiming that Obama is trying to control the media by his statement. This is clearly a falsehood, but when folks start spinning things like this, there will be extremists who, because of their own cognitive dissonance at believing anything that doesn't agree with their narrow view, will buy into it, no matter how inaccurate it is. What I and others are suggesting is to think and examine critically, regardless of your lean.
 
You read incorrect. I cannot make this any clearer, I seriously don't know what your problem is.


I honestly don't have a clue as to why you choose to attack me, then expect that I am supposed to just lay down and take yours or anyones word that uses these passive aggressive tactics seriously. I thought we were having a conversation, not you jamming your opinion down my throat in a bully fashion.....Ah well. :doh


It was not ok for any of them to do so.

Ok, granted. good point. but they are gone. What would you like to do dig them up and beat them publicly? or address the here and now?


If we keep getting lost on the path of hyperpartisanship we'll only bitch when the other guy is in charge. How the Republicans howled when Clinton was in charge (for good reason), but that howling stopped when Bush was in charge even though he was doing the same if not worse things. The howling started up again when Obama got in charge. But where did that howling lead us? Nowhere better. We're still worse off. We've been blinded by the "other guy" for so long that we don't see that "our guy" is just as bad. You have to think, you have to look at the whole picture. If you don't then there's no point to even trying.


Well, I am not much for giving up on things so easily, especially when it involves my liberty. I do however think that you are wrong about the back and forth when different parties are in power. It is true enough that some of that goes on but, if you really look closely many supported Bush on issues concerning the wars, but not in the domestic arena. TARP bailouts sparked the TEA parties for heavens sake.


The information we are fed is full of spin, hyperbole, and entertainment.


Yep, and multiple takes on any particular story is warranted in this day and age. Which is why I find it troubling that the President would take the time to single out outlets unfriendly to him and target them publicly.


It's up to the viewer to disseminate all that and withdraw the information. To compare it to other information, to objectively analyze the actions of the government, to intelligently learn about the various branches and tools of government.


Ever watch or listen to the man on the street interviews about politics? Many are so caught up in their own lives and so busy trying to make it every day they have little time, or the will to even care beyond the half hour nightly news to do what you say. Which is troubling. Hell, look around here and see how many think that Jon Stewart is a credible source.....


We have to stop thinking of this as R v D and understand that it is The People, our freedom, our liberty, our rights v the Government.


AMEN BRO!!! You're singin' my tune! Think that Senator from Utah was a fluke? Just keep watchin'


That is a serious responsibility and duty. Now enough of this hyperpartisan BS.

Begin with name calling, end with name calling....You need some people skills bro.


j-mac
 
The president can go about whining as much as he wants about the oversaturation of technology/information/ideas, but as soon as he attempts to stop access to these things- that's when the feces hits the AC.

It's true that there's a whole heck of a lot of ideas out there which is why SEO and the like are becoming new careers, now that everyone has a sounding board it's up to us to decide who is the idiot and who isn't so essentially, in order to survive people will need to learn to think for themselves and if the president is afraid of a little competition then that is scary
 
It is interesting to see so many people attach a conspiratorial attitude towards this speech, when it is essentially what many people are saying on their own.
 
What is 'elitist' about saying that technology has actually made people more prone to misinformation? This has been true since the day mass print was perfected. Can anybody name a single medium of conveying information that hasn't been used to bombard people with misinformation? Nothing to do with wanting to control a medium. Just a social commentary. The internet is the perfect example of just what a society can do with a global medium for transferring information. 90% of the internet is made up of porn and the other 10% is used for miscellaneous crap. More people are misinformed because it is so easy to simply go online and type what you want to hear instead of the truth.

You will find websites, video games, movies online validating misinformation. All the Alex Jones videos seem to be online. All filled with massive lies about governments. You have David Ike online conducting chat sessions with thousands and putting out articles about the vaccines the evil lizard race is creating to control us all. These are just examples of the amount of misinformation there is on the internet.

Obama is absolutely right, technology has made humanity stupid. We're lazy. We have no desire to learn about the past from people who've studied it. We'd rather hear it from some kid on YouTube. Critical thought is dying one brain cell at a time.

The elitism is in equating the increased openness of information, both true and untrue, with the spread of untrue information overtaking the spread of true information. Besides requiring a view of people in general as too stupid to ever discern truth from lies in the first place, it can only conclude that information must be controlled if humanity is to survive. Which is pretty much the definition of elitism.
 
The elitism is in equating the increased openness of information, both true and untrue, with the spread of untrue information overtaking the spread of true information. Besides requiring a view of people in general as too stupid to ever discern truth from lies in the first place, it can only conclude that information must be controlled if humanity is to survive. Which is pretty much the definition of elitism.

Where did Obama say information needed to be 'controlled'? Is that what you think he's saying?

Here are the quotes from the article:

"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter,"

"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,"

"some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

"All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

"We can't stop these changes... but we can adapt to them,"

"Education... can fortify you, as it did earlier generations, to meet the tests of your own time,"


"A black woman, in 1929, refusing to be denied her dream of a college education,"

"Refusing to be denied her rights, refusing to be denied her dignity, refusing to be denied... her piece of America's promise."

"What Jefferson recognized... that in the long run, their improbable experiment -- called America -- wouldn't work if its citizens were uninformed, if its citizens were apathetic, if its citizens checked out, and left democracy to those who didn't have the best interests of all the people at heart.

"It could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged, if we held our government accountable, if we fulfilled the obligations of citizenship."

I welcome you to point out where he 'concludes' in any way that information needs to be controlled. If anything he asks the people using the information to use critical thinking when looking through the information. Instead of listening to the stories they've heard from their uncles or cousins or whatever other horses they happen to have their ears next to. Sorry Lil'Dave. Your conclusion and accusations of elitism fail to be substantiated by the evidence.
 
Where did Obama say information needed to be 'controlled'? Is that what you think he's saying?

Here are the quotes from the article:



I welcome you to point out where he 'concludes' in any way that information needs to be controlled. If anything he asks the people using the information to use critical thinking when looking through the information. Instead of listening to the stories they've heard from their uncles or cousins or whatever other horses they happen to have their ears next to. Sorry Lil'Dave. Your conclusion and accusations of elitism fail to be substantiated by the evidence.

I never said that anyone concluded anything. I only said that such a position can only conclude this, i.e., it is the logical conclusion of that position. Most people stop just short of admitting this, and thus they don't conclude such a thing, but it's true: if untruth becomes dominant over truth in an uncontrolled, open information environment, the only hope for society is for access to information to be controlled.
 
I honestly don't have a clue as to why you choose to attack me, then expect that I am supposed to just lay down and take yours or anyones word that uses these passive aggressive tactics seriously. I thought we were having a conversation, not you jamming your opinion down my throat in a bully fashion.....Ah well. :doh

It's not an attack. I seriously laid it out all very clear like. I don't see how there could be confusion.

Ok, granted. good point. but they are gone. What would you like to do dig them up and beat them publicly? or address the here and now?

Yes and yes. I think it is high time we start holding all our elected officials to the standards of the office and to the law of the land. We can't use the treason of the past to excuse the treason of the present and we should recognize that which happened in the past as inexcusable behavior by the individuals whom wield our power and sovereignty.

Well, I am not much for giving up on things so easily, especially when it involves my liberty. I do however think that you are wrong about the back and forth when different parties are in power. It is true enough that some of that goes on but, if you really look closely many supported Bush on issues concerning the wars, but not in the domestic arena. TARP bailouts sparked the TEA parties for heavens sake.

I can't see anything but the back and forth. I think out system has degraded significantly to the point that both parties know they'll never fully be thrown out of power. The only thing one party has to do is bitch about the other party. They will teeter-totter back into power eventually and the roles will reverse. Meanwhile, no matter who is in charge, the power, strength, and scope of the government continually expands.

Yep, and multiple takes on any particular story is warranted in this day and age. Which is why I find it troubling that the President would take the time to single out outlets unfriendly to him and target them publicly.

I think ultimately Obama has a valid point on this one. But we shouldn't pretend this is only perpetrated by one side of the isle.

Ever watch or listen to the man on the street interviews about politics? Many are so caught up in their own lives and so busy trying to make it every day they have little time, or the will to even care beyond the half hour nightly news to do what you say. Which is troubling. Hell, look around here and see how many think that Jon Stewart is a credible source.....

The average person is caught up in their life. It's not to be unexpected. But if you want to know where I lay the ultimate blame both for the condition of the government and the press, then we shall look no further than the mirror. It's ultimately our fault for becoming lazy and detached. Yes our normal lives our important, but so are our freedom and liberty. For that, we must always remain vigilant, informed, and participating.

As for Jon Stewart, I say that sadly he is one of the best sources for political commentary. It's not to say that with him there isn't spin or an ideal that he comes from. But of the "media" (and I know the Daily Show is a comedy, but for sake of argument...), Jon Stewart has the most fair assessments and allows for some level of dialog to occur. It's sad that it's one of the better sources of actual political commentary and opinion; it just shows the state of our actual news media.

AMEN BRO!!! You're singin' my tune! Think that Senator from Utah was a fluke? Just keep watchin'

I'll believe it when I see it

Begin with name calling, end with name calling....You need some people skills bro.

It's not name calling. The partisan BS has to stop. That's a statement of fact. It's enough, we don't need to make our jobs any tougher by supporting and proliferating this all out partisan hackery. Enough is enough.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a good point to the article and what Obama is saying. With all the information out there, and with some much commentary and editorial being misrepresented as information, what I get that he is saying is that people have to be very discerning with what they are hearing and need to be evaluators. In this day and age, many expect news and information to be handed to us, forgetting that the source of where that information is coming has a huge impact on what that information actually means.

I think it is important for us to recognize that what the President says, in this situation, holds value. Too much information is just info-tainment.

But you see, this is the irony of a statement like this coming from a guy like Obama.

This man used the same media he is chastizing, to paint a false picture of himself in a political campaign. So now, that the media has turned a little on him, we all have to be careful about what we listen to. :rofl: Yeah, whatever Obama. How is WhiteHouse.gov doing these days? Still throwing out false info or is it even up and running anymore?
 
Last edited:
But you see, this is the irony of a statement like this coming from a guy like Obama.

This man used the same media he is chastizing, to paint a false picture of himself in a political campaign. So now, that the media has turned a little on him, we all have to be careful about what we listen to. :rofl: Yeah, whatever Obama. How is WhiteHouse.gov doing these days? Still throwing out false info or is it even up and running anymore?

You are not listening. It's irrelevant as to whether or not the media has turned on him or not. His point is valid. A critical analysis of information is key when there is so much information out there.
 
You are not listening. It's irrelevant as to whether or not the media has turned on him or not. His point is valid. A critical analysis of information is key when there is so much information out there.

No, it is very relevant, b/c the only reason he is saying this, is b/c he doesn't like them critcizing him.

What he said really, is basic knowledge. But whatever.
 
No, it is very relevant, b/c the only reason he is saying this, is b/c he doesn't like them critcizing him.

What he said really, is basic knowledge. But whatever.


True that. Then the next day...(today) the WH is unveiling an new ipod ap....How very Orwellian.


j-mac
 
they are the new media that Obama and Ikari just railed against.

Nobody railed. I challenge you to quote the "railing" portion. What Obama said was that more information is now available than ever before, and people have to exercise personal common sense in using it.

I strongly believe you are rejecting the message purely because it was delivered by Obama. Which, frankly, is just hypocritical.
 
Nobody railed. I challenge you to quote the "railing" portion. What Obama said was that more information is now available than ever before, and people have to exercise personal common sense in using it.

Maybe "railed" was the wrong word. Anyways, I'm all for exercising personal common sense with information, but the message seems to be that it's more crucial- and difficult- to do so now than it was before, which I just don't agree with.

I strongly believe you are rejecting the message purely because it was delivered by Obama. Which, frankly, is just hypocritical.

I've acknowledged that many people are like that. I'm not. I'll agree with Obama where he's right, but I've thought what he just said was wrong since long before he said it.
 
Maybe "railed" was the wrong word.

Maybe? :lol:

Anyways, I'm all for exercising personal common sense with information, but the message seems to be that it's more crucial- and difficult- to do so now than it was before, which I just don't agree with.

I don't know how you are able to make a comparison, given that the current information culture is normal to you. It isn't to those of us who are older. We remember the advent of the internet, and what it was like in the olden days when we had to read actual books to conduct research (and sometimes, visit several different libraries).

I've acknowledged that many people are like that. I'm not. I'll agree with Obama where he's right, but I've thought what he just said was wrong since long before he said it.

You have an inaccurate perception of what he said (railed) based upon your negative perceptions of him. You may not see it, but the rest of us do. When was the last time you thought Obama was right about something? Name the issue.
 
Last edited:
How very Orwellian.

What book did Orwell write that coined this term, J-mac. See if you can answer me without googling. :roll: If you had read it, you'd realize that your comments are absurd.
 
Unfortunate, but not surprising. Elitists hate that what was once an elite-run industry - the information industry - is now becoming open for all to use and contribute to. While everything in a newspaper can be unquestionably accepted as fact, those darned untamed masses can now post anything they want to and people might not be smart enough to check it. If they aren't, though, the ones we have to blame are the ones who treated the news media as the word of God in the first place and created such an attitude.

Ironically, thanks to the openness of the new media, it is now easier than ever to double-check a claim presented by the news media, which didn't even use to be really possible.

Also... XBOX? Where the heck does that come in?

Of course, the better proof is that people don't know what an "elitist" is and throw the word around as if they actually know.

And the proof of that is that you think that people posting stuff is actually information and not just more opinion.

We have all the opinion we want; it doesn't actually add "information" to anything.

You realize that 99% of what we do here is share opinion, right?

That's not fact or information. It's just people spouting off. But too many people think of it as fact. If I get one more email from my father-in-law about Obama that is supposedly "fact", I'm gonna slap him, God love him.
 
True that. Then the next day...(today) the WH is unveiling an new ipod ap....How very Orwellian.


j-mac

Wow, did they really? :spin:

Don't forget, they are from the government and they are here to help b/c the government never has alternate motives.:roll:
 
I don't know how you are able to make a comparison, given that the current information culture is normal to you. It isn't to those of us who are older. We remember the advent of the internet, and what it was like in the olden days when we had to read actual books to conduct research (and sometimes, visit several different libraries).

Sorry Catz, but when I read this all I can think of is the old people of the 60s who thought that rock and roll and premarital sex would destroy society. Yeah, the kids of the 60s and 70s didn't have a direct comparison to an earlier time. But that doesn't mean that they were wrong.

You have an inaccurate perception of what he said (railed) based upon your negative perceptions of him. You may not see it, but the rest of us do. When was the last time you thought Obama was right about something? Name the issue.

Issue-wise, there is very little where I agree with him. But that doesn't mean I automatically disagree with all of his statements. For example, his Nobel Prize acceptance speech was spot-on.
 
True that. Then the next day...(today) the WH is unveiling an new ipod ap....How very Orwellian.


j-mac

And further proof that people don't know how to use information or terminology.

Last time I heard, no one was forced to download an Ipad application - especially those who don't have an Ipad, Ipod, or Iphone. Which was be the vast majority of Americans.

BUT - when you're a conservative, anytime THIS White House offers an option to get information from them, it's the equivalent of Orwellian control.

You do know that one of Orwell's biggest complaints was the misuse of language, right?

Thus, using "Orwellian" - meaning government control - and mixing it up with an offered option that anyone can choose not to use - is, in fact, Orwellian in and of itself and is used due to the propaganda of right-wing television & radio.
 
Back
Top Bottom