General discussion

Locked

Has libertarianism reached its peak?

By jardinier ·
The war in Iraq has caused me to divert much of my attention from local issues to international matters.

As I pondered over social mores in various countries ... especially Western democracies ... I realised that we have become to a great extent a dissolute society. Consider things which are now accepted as "normal" such as a high divorce rate, leading to single-parent families; the universal acceptance of homosexuality as "normal," even to the extent of allowing marriage between partners ofthe same sex; the escalating problems of drug abuse and juvenile crime; the "everything's acceptable" attitude expressed in movies and TV series; and so on.

We are seeing fundamentalist religious views gradually replacing the more liberal views to which we have become accustomed.

Is the pendulam starting to swing back to a more conservative overall approach to life?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

141 total posts (Page 1 of 15)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

My rant

by rickydoo In reply to Has libertarianism reache ...

I agree that we are becoming an "everything's acceptable" society, and worse, it's becoming unacceptable to consider some behaviour unacceptable. Consider the reaction to comments by Canadian member of Parliament Elsie Wayne: "Why do they have to be out here in the public, always debating that they want to call it marriage? Why are they in parades? Why are men dressed up as women on floats? If they are going to live together, go live together and shut up about it." These comments were met bydemands for her resignation, an apology, and outrage for her sheer gall to take a stance on the issue.
Television and Hollywood aren't a symptom of our modified outlook, they seem to be leading the battle when it comes to changing the parameters of"normal lifestyles". Not hard to do when so many of us plop down in front of the TV and soak up the message the second reality isn't demanding our attention.
It's perfectly acceptable to portray suggestive gay sex scenes on broadcast TV, a la "***** as folk" and "Kink", and it seems all TV shows are required to portray or at least suggest sex somewhere along the line, usually casual, almost always "out of wedlock". The only shows you won't see it in are labelled religious (7th Heaven, Touched by an angel, etc.). When did society switch polarity? One day we have "I love Lucy" and the next we have "I love everybody; You're next".
Disclaimer: I'm agnostic, I'm divorced, I rent the occasional X-rated "comedy". I'm not a prude, I'm just very, very concerned.

Is it really "all good"?

Collapse -

Media Follows?

by Oldefar In reply to My rant

An interesting counter to Julian, who sees a move in the opposite direction.

Now for the $64K question - who is following who? Julian appears to believe liberalism has peeked and a swing to more conservative social values is underway. You reference what appears to be an ever more liberal entertainment industry, in particular TV, and wonder how much further it will go. I have read a number of posts that imply that at least in America, the population is being led by the media.

Seems there is a contradiction some place. Does social change occur first in media, or first in the minds of the people?

Collapse -

Who is leading who?

by jardinier In reply to Media Follows?

As the choice of material presented on commercial television is apparently determined purely by ratings (viewer demands) it is obviously a case of the people leading this particular media.

On the other hand, we must remember that TV Dramas and Soapies are primarily used as escapism, so that while "the people" might want to watch the extreme and the bizarre to escape from the mundaneness; frustration; pain of their actual lives, it does not in any way logically follow that they either wish orintend to live out these fantasies in their own lives.

Collapse -

Does the principal follow with news?

by Oldefar In reply to Who is leading who?

The dramas and soap operas tend to reflect what their intended audience wants, and follows their lead. Since they exist primarily from advertising dollars, meeting the demand of the potential audience is natural. A feedback loop exists. Creative and unique expression finds an audience and associated funding difficult and so is an annomally on the air waves.

News programs also receive funding primarily through advertising dollars. Providing the news with a bias towards the beliefs of the intended audience again insures continued existence. Where news is state funded, it is the bias of the sponsor that is most likely reflected.

This supports the views expressed elsewhere that Americans receive a slanted perspective from CNN and the American networks. I suspect the same holds equally true, if with an alternate slant, with the news received by those in other countries. A true unbiased perspective from any news source is unlikely. Or so it seems to me.

Collapse -

I'm not holding my breath

by rickydoo In reply to Does the principal follow ...

One of the problems with gauging the bias of a news provider is that you can't really guarantee an unbias control group.
Some Americans have written to Canada's CBC news service to thank them for "unbiased coverage of the war in Iraq that they simply cannot get from American news services". This may be true, but considering that it is being reported by a news service in a country which refused to participate in that conflict, how unbiased can it really be? I trust the coverage more than CNN,but I have heard bias in coverage of domestic events in Canada, and can't know for sure if it is not just the opposite end of the pendulum swing.
Media giants which own multiple electronic media outlets have been buying up metropolitan newspapers like a firestorm lately, and many (often unemployed) editors and writers have been complaining of directives from on high steering editorial content towards the viewpoint of their new owners. Are they losing their ability to reports THE FACTS, or just swinging their bias from right to left wing?
Is there such a thing as a "spin-free" news outlet anywhere anymore? I don't know.

Collapse -

CBC international unbias - local bias

by Sullyman In reply to I'm not holding my breath

Canada?s non-involvement in the Iraq conflict has nothing to do with CBC?s unbiased or biased reporting. CBC has been recognized around the world as a trusted news source for unbiased information regarding international events for decades. Now, that being said reporting on local Canadian events is another story. CBC reporting and editorial usually reflects in the favor of the political powerhouse of the time, and that is the challenge in being a federally funded national broadcaster.

The ?Spin Free? news outlets that you ask about, are the local independent daily, weekly, and monthly papers. If you are looking for ?mostly? unbiased information, turn to your local independent.

Collapse -

Independent bias

by Oldefar In reply to CBC international unbias ...

In my opinion, independent news sources have their own type of bias. In order to differentiate their perspective from that of the media conglomerates they tend to have a consistent anti-establishment slant. If the commercial news stations are reporting a topic in a positive light, they take a negative light. Strangely, is the at large reporting is a bit negative, the independents go further with a negative angle.

Regarding CBC, this must be a change. I grew up watching CBC, ABC, NBC, andCBS since these were the only stations we had. I never noticed a difference in the CBC slant on world news, only sports and local content. I saw a greater difference in the papers - Detroit Free Press versus Detroit News. Of course, that was in the 60's and again in the 80's. The BBC was then considered the paragon of unbiased reporting, but what I saw during the 70's did not strike me as particulary less or more biased than US news sources.

Collapse -

Unfortuantly your right Oldefar

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Does the principal follow ...

The news is slanted to what the producers think we want to see and is mostly always bad news.

In the UK there was a news service that only broadcast Good News and it was canned in a very short time.

All the comerical stations transmitt contentthat they think we want to see and at the same time will mantain their revenue. But I di understand that we are only getting one mans views from each station {normally the owner as you very rearly see any news that puts their station in a bad light}even when they have lost a case it will not be reported on their channel.

Of course all this changes in a time of war then the stations only transmitt what they consider as correct from their own countries prespective which usually differ vastly depending on which country that you live in.

Collapse -

you read my mind

by Oz_Media In reply to Unfortuantly your right O ...

Colin, I agree 100%! Many people only view local news, and listen to local radio reports. As a result, they are subject to propaganda that is only one step from the Germans dropping flyers from airplanes in WWII. This creates a biased and singlkesided (most often incorrect) view of the world. I have bashed my head against the wall many times reading the one sided and biased (shall we say ignorant) opinions shared in this 'global' forum. I see you have had similar experiences with this site's most notorious leader too. Unfortunately, this same person seems to gether all information and knowledge from the internet, which we all know is jaded and simply one person's point of view. I think if people spent more time exploring other cultures and understanding how they really came about instead of what they are told happened. The world would be a better place. People wouldn't be forced into believing that their country is doing it's best for them, and would be able to form more logfical and accurate opinions based on what really happens in the world.

Collapse -

Ironic

by Oldefar In reply to you read my mind

When I posted the comment on biased news media, which Colin was agreeing with in his post, I had you in mind. Not from your technical postings, but from your recent discussions on world affairs and your poorly conceived experiment.

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?". Matthew Chapter 7

Back to Community Forum
141 total posts (Page 1 of 15)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums