• 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!

Scott Adams explains why President Trump is right about the press

FreeWits said:
Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) explains why President Trump is correct about why the press is the enemy of the people, but possibly not for the reason you think: https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1PlKQrekEXYGE
Click to expand...

If the press is the enemy of the people, we should get rid of the press?

He can't be right because it's too broad a generalization. There are thousands of different news agencies each with their own policies.

Even if you target CNN or FOX News, you can't claim that all their anchors or stars are the same. You can't claim that all their stories are false.

What percentage of stories do you feel are false?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
If the press is the enemy of the people, we should get rid of the press?

He can't be right because it's too broad a generalization. There are thousands of different news agencies each with their own policies.

Even if you target CNN or FOX News, you can't claim that all their anchors or stars are the same. You can't claim that all their stories are false.

What percentage of stories do you feel are false?
Click to expand...

No, we should not get rid of the press. That much is pretty obvious. Improving the press would be good, though.
 
In 2007, Hugo Chavez shut down the RCTV and then made a televised address, on all channels, in which he branded the media group Globovision his next ‘enemy of the state.
Click to expand...

In 1997 Russian state media named Noyaya Gazeta-Mir Ludei (The New Newspaper-World of People), a small 15-member of staff paper that scrutinised the actions of the regional government, was called ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘enemy of the state’.

It was forced to vacate its premises on 31 December 2000, and the government even set up a rival paper with a similar name.
Click to expand...

In September 2014 the head of the military junta that rules Myanmar said the media was constantly:

"condemning and providing false information again, with some truths omitted, some issues exaggerated, and some news reported without scrutiny".
Click to expand...

https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-president-press-enemies-people-twitter-tweet-7586866

Trump just don't like people exposing his lies. If you're going to claim that press is dishonest, you're going to have to be an honest person. You can't be constantly be caught lying to the people.
 
Chomsky said:
How?


.
Click to expand...

By solving the problems. So, as Scott Adams states, the media is encouraged through a profit-motive to start wars. Removing the ability of our news to start wars would be a big upgrade. If you listen to his periscope, he brings up a number of other issues, too.
 
FreeWits said:
By solving the problems. So, as Scott Adams states, the media is encouraged through a profit-motive to start wars. Removing the ability of our news to start wars would be a big upgrade. If you listen to his periscope, he brings up a number of other issues, too.
Click to expand...
I must admit, I TL;DR the OP video. 45 mins was more than I was willing to invest. I just thought you had some idea you'd like to address. I was fearful you wanted to regulate the media.

Since a free media should be unencumbered, I'm not sure it can be "improved" other than allowing it to be free. I will admit I like NPR, so the idea of funding media with no strings attached, in an effort to enable it to be free of financial control, might have merit. But then it's still dependent upon government financing, which makes me kind of nervous.
 
Chomsky said:
I must admit, I TL;DR the OP video. 45 mins was more than I was willing to invest. I just thought you had some idea you'd like to address. I was fearful you wanted to regulate the media.

Since a free media should be unencumbered, I'm not sure it can be "improved" other than allowing it to be free. I will admit I like NPR, so the idea of funding media with no strings attached, in an effort to enable it to be free of financial control, might have merit. But then it's still dependent upon government financing, which makes me kind of nervous.
Click to expand...

I actually give you more props for admitting that, because 45 minutes is a lot of time to invest, and that is a pretty difficult thing to admit. If you feel like investing 10 minutes then you should get a lot of good information from 25 to 35 minutes, but if that's too long, I won't hold it against you. Scott Adams does have a lot of good information to give us, though, so I think the more of him you watch the more you will find useful.
 
FreeWits said:
Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) explains why President Trump is correct about why the press is the enemy of the people, but possibly not for the reason you think: https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1PlKQrekEXYGE
Click to expand...

Ummm, try this. Everything that guy says and does is in an effort to make him more money. If he also requires adulation, then he's more like Trump than, well, maybe he can replace DoJoT Jr.
 
FreeWits said:
I actually give you more props for admitting that, because 45 minutes is a lot of time to invest, and that is a pretty difficult thing to admit. If you feel like investing 10 minutes then you should get a lot of good information from 25 to 35 minutes, but if that's too long, I won't hold it against you. Scott Adams does have a lot of good information to give us, though, so I think the more of him you watch the more you will find useful.
Click to expand...
How can I not give up ten minutes, for Dlbert? :mrgreen:
 
FreeWits said:
Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) explains why President Trump is correct about why the press is the enemy of the people, but possibly not for the reason you think: https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1PlKQrekEXYGE
Click to expand...

I watched 10 minutes and it's just a lot of generalizing.

He claims the press in incentivized to push for war but why did we take so long to enter WWI and WWII? Did the press promote Vietnam? Why did the press publish the Pentagon papers if war is what they wanted?

The only thing I would say about the press is that it focuses on sensational stories. Bad news sells more paper than good news. Stories about crime are more interesting than stories about lower crime rates.

But the enemy of the people? Without the press, we would have only Trump to rely on for truth.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I watched 10 minutes and it's just a lot of generalizing.

He claims the press in incentivized to push for war but why did we take so long to enter WWI and WWII? Did the press promote Vietnam? Why did the press publish the Pentagon papers if war is what they wanted?

The only thing I would say about the press is that it focuses on sensational stories. Bad news sells more paper than good news. Stories about crime are more interesting than stories about lower crime rates.

But the enemy of the people? Without the press, we would have only Trump to rely on for truth.
Click to expand...

1) Nobody is saying there should be no press.

2) Scott Adams did do some generalizing in a way that applied to what is going on now because he wanted everybody to get something from it, not just pro-Trump people.
 
FreeWits said:
1) Nobody is saying there should be no press.

2) Scott Adams did do some generalizing in a way that applied to what is going on now because he wanted everybody to get something from it, not just pro-Trump people.
Click to expand...

If the press is the "enemy of the people" then surely we would be better off without the press. That's the natural implication of that kind of phrasing. Enemies try to destroy you. Everyone is better off without their enemies.

Maybe the press is not the enemy of the people? The press is not perfect but that doesn't mean they're the enemy of the people.

Can you define the word enemy in such a way that Trump's statement is true?
 
Chomsky said:
I must admit, I TL;DR the OP video. 45 mins was more than I was willing to invest. I just thought you had some idea you'd like to address. I was fearful you wanted to regulate the media.

Since a free media should be unencumbered, I'm not sure it can be "improved" other than allowing it to be free. I will admit I like NPR, so the idea of funding media with no strings attached, in an effort to enable it to be free of financial control, might have merit. But then it's still dependent upon government financing, which makes me kind of nervous.
Click to expand...
I plave my hope in places like the internet. Admittedly its like the wild west but it also allows voices to be heard with a low overhead.

Its encumbant on the consumers to vet the information they receive.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
The cable television news system in this country is by necessity a FOR PROFIT endeavor.
If an outlet cannot make a profit, it goes out of business.
That creates large distortions in its ability to provide objective and accurate news and information.

If you want a news outlet to be totally objective, you must be willing to turn the press into something of a public utility which provides a public service. At the very least, you must be willing to offer at least one outlet that can operate that way and make it available to the public, either for a set annual fee or finance it through taxation.
Naturally the former would probably be considered more palatable to our society, a flat fee financed operation that does not need to compete with other outlets for profits in order to stay on the air.

As it is today, in order to chase profit, news outlets must offer content that their perceived viewer demographic finds attractive.
They must offer what their demographic WANTS to hear, rather than offer what they NEED to hear.

Television news as a consumer product can not ever be objective.
 
Scott makes numerous references to something called "telemedicine".
The currently most popular telemedicine system right now is Teladoc.
My old company did the very first promo videos and commercials for Teladoc back in Texas in 2005.





Local TV even paid a visit to interview my wife:



But telemedicine in those early days was stuck with plain old telephone access and what Scott Adams is doing is urging the medical industry to move forward with smartphone capabilities that will provide data rich sensor environments and video-conferencing, things which smartphones are made to do well.

Also, telemedicine was regarded with suspicion by both the legislative and medical field, because it was new and disruptive.
Well, here we are, thirteen years later, and the sky hasn't fallen because a few hundred thousand were able to get their flu, sprained ankles or yeast infections diagnosed over the phone.

He's right, it's time to embrace the technology.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
If the press is the "enemy of the people" then surely we would be better off without the press. That's the natural implication of that kind of phrasing. Enemies try to destroy you. Everyone is better off without their enemies.

Maybe the press is not the enemy of the people? The press is not perfect but that doesn't mean they're the enemy of the people.

Can you define the word enemy in such a way that Trump's statement is true?
Click to expand...

No, if the press is the "enemy of the people" then simply changing the press will do the trick. How is it a good idea to have no press? That is never an implication.

Look at how we are better with the UK/Britain/England as our ally than without them existing at all. Look at how we are better with Germany and Japan as our allies than without them existing at all. Your thinking is simple-minded.
 
FreeWits said:
No, if the press is the "enemy of the people" then simply changing the press will do the trick. How is it a good idea to have no press? That is never an implication.
Click to expand...
If the press is “the enemy of the people” but the situation can be changed so they’re no longer an enemy, that suggests there isn’t anything fundamentally wrong with the press so maybe the problem is at least as much with “the people”. In general, the media is much less influenced by their own personal politics as they are by the demands and expectations of their customers. It’s all very well complaining about bad practices in the media but it’ll make no difference if the same people complaining keep on supporting it (if only the media guilty of the same bad practices, just feigning support of their political preferences).
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-president-press-enemies-people-twitter-tweet-7586866

Trump just don't like people exposing his lies. If you're going to claim that press is dishonest, you're going to have to be an honest person. You can't be constantly be caught lying to the people.
Click to expand...

Bull****....If you are going to make a claim then that claim gets judged on how right it is....FULL STOP.

Trump is right here, the failure of the journalists ranks right up there with the failure of the political class and the failure of the University in being the reason BIG PAIN is about to pay us a visit.





EDIT: It is time to relearn how to be adults, to relearn how to prioritize, to relearn what matters and what dont.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom