Originally Posted by redefiler
They are ALL "entertainment channels". Televised journalism is the 7 eleven hot dog of news meats. Singling out Fox, is to ignore that what you're eating is a parasite infested, pseudo-meat log that's got the clerk's hair, skin flakes and shoe print baked into the surface.
You can't get good journalism in 30second to 5 minute televised bursts, neither can you get it from 200-300 word articles in daily periodicals (also known as newspapers). These mediums have always been quick, low quality, rash and shoddy outlets for journalism, they are basically little more than simplistic headline feedbags strapped to the faces of the lazy. The commercials themselves are more reliable sources of fact and truth.
There's no intellectual upside of moral superiority to finding fault with one channel vs another. It's just a symptom of hysterical political wonkery, where the eternal slap fight between team D and R is supposed to be the primary reason for all existence.
Let's also table this TV "science" nonsense, it's sciencish entertainment fodder at best. If you're science diet is TV reporting, then you're feeding your brain garbage. Doesn't matter if its BBC, NBC, Fox or whoever. Watching TV does not make you smart. Learning takes real effort (as in "work") not sitting on your couch wind-bagging about the relative "truth" of daily televised entertainment.
I dont agree with some of your points.
I would not describe some newspapers or news sites or news TV as entertainment. They neither amuse me, nor do they provide me with enjoyment. The possible use of chemical weapons on some of the people in Syria is certainly none of these.
Its too bad that you think that there is NO good journalism in 30 sec or 5 minute televised bursts, as you say. Given so many reporters have lost their lives trying to bring us this news.
Who said anything about an intellectual upside. Some news channels are more biased than others. Some science storys reported on TV NEWS provide insight, no one is suggesting that any science based article is worthy of 'peer' review. Im an Engineer, and I got me a couple of degrees, electronics and Physics, but quite often a science story provides me with knowledge i never had.
"Watching TV does not make you smart" I agree mostly - it can provide knowledge, not really increase your IQ. However, the brain is muscle (sort of) and getting it to think about things has quite a lot, and quite frequently has been shown to improve synaptic response, and thus, i would infer, have the potential to increase ones"IQ"?
every couple of weeks I drive about 2 hours with my Wife and youngest son (almost 16) SInce my wife quickly falls asleep during the journey, my son and I engage in conversations about all sorts. REcently it was about time, and quasars, atomic clocks etc. He knew more than I had forgotten, some of which was provided by spending time learning, and almost ALL of which was started because he saw a news article on the BBC NEWS site about a new, more stable clock. So perhaps indirectly, that news provided hime with a good deal of knowledge,.
Without newspapers how would we have won the second world war, or decided that men ( and women) of color had equal rights in the USA?
I heartily agree that learning takes real effort. But honestly, i spend that effort learning things i need (and want) to be good at (mostly engineering related). Many of us hardly have time, or the energy to spend significant time learning about poverty in India, or the killing and torturing of children in some african countries, because they 'are' witches.