Does the extent to which people's opinons are so swiftly and discreetly altered and controlled by tv/radio media outlets disturb you?

Of course they respond with phrasing/ideas from TV. Most people don’t do real research on a topic – they find the noise they like and follow that noise, pro or con, on any given issue.

In general I would say yes, but it’s really just a symptom of a bigger issue, and that issue is that many people are content not having to think for themselves, they enjoy being told how to think and how to act. It’s quite sad actually seeing people choose not to use their brains. The only thing I can do about it is encourage thinking amongst the people I interact with and choose not to interact with the majority of the sheep out there.

Most people don’t come by their opinions in a purely rational, logical manner. Someone who is in favor of health care reform, for instance, probably didn’t start out having no opinion, look carefully at all the data, and then come to an objective conclusion; it’s more likely that his opinion on health care reform is based on other beliefs. For instance, someone who believes that it’s the government’s responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves is likely to be more in favor of health care reform than someone who believes that the government should do nothing not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Then, once they have that basic gut reaction, they look for people who support it, and listen to them. I don’t think that the basic reaction comes from Fox News or MSNBC; I think the basic reaction comes from somewhere else, and then people look to Fox News or MSNBC to rationalize their opinion after the fact.

This is one of the things that concerns me the most. The news media is owned by large corporations. They have their own interests, which are subtly presented in the mouths of nice looking, sincere looking reporters.

Beyond your observations of the telegraphic nature of the news, I am concerned about the general content of the news. STARS are not news. SPORTS is not news. Hype (exaggeration) is not news. Sitting at a table discussing different peoples opinions of other peoples opinions is not news. Remove that junk and there is practically nothing of substance discussed on television.

Yes. I’ve been hearing about the ruckus being whipped up in the US over the health care “debate” and it is very concerning. People have always been parrots, not bothering to think for themselves and adopting and repeating whatever talking point they heard most recently (After all, how was Bush re-elected in 2004?). But this latest reporting seems extreme. Is health care too complex an issue, so people are even more inclined to turn off their brains?

My favorite story, often repeated, about health care is the guy who told his congressman, “The gubmint better keep its hands off my Medicare.”

Yes, it disturbs me a lot. Frankly, I think Obama received many votes (if not the win) because of inappropriate and extensive media contamination and bias (to an extent that I NEVER saw before). It’s bad enough when someone watches television news and there’s a bias but it’s even worse when someone watches a show for entertainment (ex., “The O’Reilly Factor”, “Larry King”) and there’s the hidden bias. But I think the most repulsive of all is when someone can watch “The View” or “The Daily Show” or even the “Today Show” and ignorant viewers who don’t realize they’re being persuaded by their television heroes wind up supporting the position NOT because it’s good or bad, but because (ex.) they like Joy Behar and Joy Behar supports it!

@Quagmire I want to throw in a pardon for Jon Stewart. He, unlike anyone else on the screen these days, fully recognizes that he is not an anchor but rather a comedian with liberal tendencies. He (and colbert) is on a fake news show, and knows it. He frequently on his show and others, expresses the hope that people dont get the news from him exclusively. Whether they do or don’t is beyond his control. O’reily, Olberman, Hannity, etc… purport to be “truth seekers”, “culture warriors”, blah, blah, blah, which they are more than far from.

“a comedian with liberal tendencies”? You make my point.

It’s not the news you get from that show that’s the problem. It’s the “tendencies” people pick up from that show that’s the problem. People expect a funny fake news show to entertain, not (ex.,) slam George Bush (whether deserving or not). And many (not all) people who like Stewart and like the show will unconditionally believe what he says. That’s dangerous.

P.S. Why do I think YOU like the Daily Show a lot and it’s affecting YOUR objectivity??

@Rsam As much as I lurve Colbert/Stewart/Maher, I do think that the often-used line that “I’m just a comedian” is a poor excuse for not taking responsibility for their very real constituents. You see, these guys do have a devoted fan base. That fan base generally agrees with what they say. They will eventually take their word as truth.

Now, that’s not to say that these men are dishonest – not in the slightest. My main issue is when a conservative pundit will show distaste towards them and they hide behind the excuse of “I’m just a comedian, I’m not a journalist”, yet be willing to lay a awesome, hilarious smackdown on Jim Cramer. I think they walk a fine line between wanting to be taken seriously and wanting to make people laugh. On one hand, yes – it is not their responsibility to be held accountable for what they do and say; as Stewart says, “The show leading in to me is about hand puppets making crank calls.”

However, they also must realize that they are frequently quoted in the mainstream because they make good arguments. I mean, does the channel matter? If Colbert moved to CNN but entire show remained the same, would that mean that he has to start being held accountable for his words, on a political or journalistic level? Where does it start and end?

Regardless, they are awesome, funny, and intelligent hosts and shows.

I think they have reached a popularity level that makes their original intent moot. They should be seen as an accompaniment to real political news, not a centerpiece. All too often, I see people just regurgitating an argument they heard on The Daily Show the night before. That’s not to say I disagree with them, it’s just that they lack any sort of factual backing and depth in their argument.

Now, as for the actual question, yes, of course it bothers me. However, hearing someone recite an argument that Olbermann made the night before is significantly less troubling to me than hearing someone recite something that an anchor on Fox and Friends said. Not because I’m liberal or anything of the sort – it’s just, as the question said, it disturbs me that someone’s ideology is changed discreetly. Olbermann and Maddow are great at what they do because they are, you know, actual journalists with a sense of integrity. They present facts and, though fiercely liberal, it’s hard to get upset with a person that agrees with such an anchor.

Hell, I’m going to go out on a limb and group Rush Limbaugh, Beck (on his radio show), and Savage in there as well. Though I have serious issues with their talking points, I cannot get upset with someone that agrees with a pundit that fights back hard. Whatever my viewpoint is on the subject, the pundit themselves, dishonesty of the pundit’s material itself or whatever, at least the person (who I am discussing the subject with) has chosen a side. I may not agree with it, but I acknowledge that agreeing with a host that is very clear on their subject matter, intent and message is infinitely… “better”(?)... than agreeing with hosts that are factually devoid and morally dishonest, the ones that shape and manipulate the opinion of the masses. Though…

Gah, this is too long as it is. Hope it makes some sort of sense. I’ll be here arguing with myself all day if you let me.

I mean, what’s better? Having only propaganda from a dictatorship or no news at all? Hmm.