# Understanding of the world?



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

A good quote that I recently found. Although it is about Americans, I'm inclined to think that it could be about any modern society. I'd be interested to hear the memberships' views.

"Americans don't really think, they have opinions, feelings. Television creates opinion, then validates it. Are they brainwashed by the tube? It is really more than that. I think that people have lost their ability to relate the images of their own lives without television intervening. This really is what we mean when we say we have a wired society. We are headed for an Orwellian society, but Orwell made a mistake in 1984. Big Brother doesn't need to watch you, as long as you watch it. "


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

My view, which I've held for many years, is threefold

1. People don't read the printed word enough, they rely too much on TV, radio and the internet
2. And not reading the printed word and only relying on the short lifespan of the ether media they should be more critical and questioning of it, but unfortunately they are not.

Of course you should also always be critical of the printed word, but once you are reading enough and in a balanced manner, critique of the printed word becomes internalised based on one's acquired knowledge.

However, that in my opinion is not possible with the ether media because of its inconsistency, short lifespan and quite often the unreliablilty of its sources. 

3. My third point is that quite often I hear people referring to themselves as free thinkers only to be followed by them spouting the "party line" on various subjects. And by party line I'm not only referring to political parties but also to the overwhelming influence that the ether media has on people. An influence that many accept as gospel and live their lives by without actually first analysing what they want their lives to be. A laziness that lets the media decide many apsects of people's lives 

My bottom line is this: opinion is no longer created by real thinkers, it is created by what the media considers popular


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*truthiness, tl:dr*

This is somewhat dated as television news is a dying medium. The interwebs allows us to cherrypick the news we are interested in/ agree with.

Imagery is clearly more blunt, and hence more effective on a large scale. The masses want convenience, and won't wade through lengthy articles. Television is a passive medium, despite anyone's noble intentions. The act of reading is more of a choice, requiring choice, thought, effort.

I have a household where the set is generally off, and generally turned on for entertainment (Neil Postman made the wonderful point that banal programming is safer than deliberately informative fare, as your mind does not grant it any credibility or authority), so I really don't have much firsthand experience on the boob tube's effects.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> boob tube


LOL!!! Do you know what a boob tube is in the UK?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> LOL!!! Do you know what a boob tube is in the UK?


I'd like to know.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My bottom line is this: opinion is no longer created by real thinkers, it is created by what the media considers popular


The black suit of thought!!


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> LOL!!! Do you know what a boob tube is in the UK?


I think you should post your favourite photo of yourself wearing one.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The black suit of though!!


I'd have thought it was more the elastic waist sweatpants and sports top of thought! ;O)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Centaur said:


> I think you should post your favourite photo of yourself wearing one.:icon_smile_big:


If only I had one....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Howard said:


> I'd like to know.


Compared to some of the horrors that used to wear them and the nightmares that resulted from the wearing of them, this is very classy. 
https://www.recoverygarments.com/Images/BoobTubeLg.jpg


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Chouan said:


> "Americans don't really think, they have opinions, feelings. ... Are they brainwashed by the tube? "


Slightly harsh comment, I would say. There can be no doubt, though, that the TV has shaped modern history by broadcasting shocking graphic images. Newspaper reporting has never had quite the same power to shock. I wonder if there would have been the same protest movements against, say, Vietnam or apartheid in the 1960s and 1970s if napalm bombing etc had not been almost literally projected into people's living rooms? Would the Princess of Wales's death have had the same effect if we hadn't had the visual imagery? Would 9/11 have had quite the same effect, too, without TV?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

apropos of nothing, I thought that this online article was quite good.....
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...n-to-give-them-health-insurance-200908141981/


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Tut tut ... I believe there may be a secret agenda behind some of your postings, Chuan ...


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> apropos of nothing, I thought that this online article was quite good.....
> https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...n-to-give-them-health-insurance-200908141981/


I'm starting to believe that you don't like us Americans. (we're really great, once you get to know us)


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Centaur said:


> Would the Princess of Wales's death have had the same effect if we hadn't had the visual imagery? Would 9/11 have had quite the same effect, too, without TV?


Yes and Yes. You credit television with too much. The American North and South tore the bejesus out of each other quite awhile before Fox News. Still, the impact of tv is/was enormous...until somebody, Al Gore maybe, came up with up the internet, the single greatest technological accomplishment of my lifetime. That walking on the moon thing was just beans.

(Chouan carries a pic of George Three in his wallet.)


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Yes and Yes. You credit television with too much.


I'll have to disagree with you. Nowadays few armies would give TV cameramen the same freedom they apparently enjoyed in Vietnam - for various reasons, but including a wish to control the visual imagery. As for 9/11, I wonder if Al-Qaeda or whoever would even have thought of it, without TV coverage?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

What or who is George Three?


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

He means George the third.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

Thinking is hard work. Most people prefer letting others to their hard work for them. This has been generally true in all cultures, during all historical periods. And there are always parties willing to shoulder this "burden" for their fellow man, be they government officials, newspaper publishers, clergymen, "concerned citizens," tv programming executives, "pundits," parents, spouses, etc.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Any source for this quote?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Why do you need a source? Don't we all just acknowledge this?


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

Quay said:


> Any source for this quote?


A few seconds with Google seems to indicate the source was Hal Becker, a media expert and management consultant, of the Futures Group (a private think tank), in a 1981 interview.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What or who is George Three?





Centaur said:


> He means George the third.


Geez, Earl, he was_ your_ king, do I have to explain it to _you_?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Why do you need a source? Don't we all just acknowledge this?


 I'm sure the OP would like this immensely, for others to chew on things without thought, slurping down prejudices and poisons like fine tea. But alas, I'm irreparably suspicious of middling personas that post things to make mischief. Plus, as Mark Twain wrote, it's good to pay attention to these things:

"It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with confidence, stands a good chance to deceive."
- _Following the Equator _


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

12345Michael54321 said:


> A few seconds with Google seems to indicate the source was Hal Becker, a media expert and management consultant, of the Futures Group (a private think tank), in a 1981 interview.


I think it's always a good idea to use "seems" when referencing something found by Google or on the net. Both are vast collectors without any intelligence, copying what anyone has said about anything without any sense, sensibility or veracity. As the always interesting Stephen Fry said about why the internet interests him:

"...because I like to find out that I died, and that I'm currently in a ballet in China, and all the other very accurate and important things that Wikipedia brings us all."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#cite_note-70


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Don't know precisely or even unprecisely what a _middling persona_ is or even if it referred to me, but what I asked was meant rhetorically since I sorta feel that Left or Right, you or me (and based on previous posts I think you and I agree mostly on political stuff), there would seem to be a consensus that the sentiment expressed was basically correct, historically and now. It doesn't even seem to be much of a quote, more like common knowledge. Did I misread it?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> 1. People don't read the printed word enough, they rely too much on TV, radio and the internet


1. https://www.nytimes.com/
2. https://online.wsj.com/home-page
3. 
4. https://www.chicagotribune.com/
5. https://www.suntimes.com/
6. https://www.latimes.com/
7. https://www.time.com/time/
8. https://www.newsweek.com/
9. https://www.usnews.com/
10. https://www.ap.org/
11. https://www.reuters.com/
12. https://www.usatoday.com/

Does it really matter if the word being read is actually printed on a piece of dead tree or not? I don't see anything wrong with relying on the internet for news.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Centaur said:


> He means George the third.


Ah, George III or George the Third. I wonder why he didn't write that then... George Three indeed! Good God, is nothing sacred!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Geez, Earl, he was_ your_ king, do I have to explain it to _you_?


No, Britain never had a King called George Three  Although I'm now bieng pedantic and playful, I genuinely at the time didn't know that you meant George the Third.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> People don't read the printed word enough, they rely too much on TV,* radio* and the internet.


I'm thinking _nobody _relies on radio for anything, except maybe the Kings of Leon which I just happen to be groovin' to right now, though the more important fact there is that I used _groovin_ ', a word the trads like to see sprinkled about because it has a certain 50s panache of which they're often in awe. I'm with JJR512 about the print thing. Most of the internet seems to be about reading stuff, like you're doing right now and I don't think I've ever _read _ of current affairs as much as I do now on screen. Particularly since the mail person can't seem to get the Readers' Digest past the Dobermans.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Chouan said:


> apropos of nothing, I thought that this online article was quite good.....
> https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...n-to-give-them-health-insurance-200908141981/


Uhhh... what exactly did you find "good" about it? That it...

1. Was complete fiction
2. Wasn't an actual news "article" at all
3. Ridiculed Americans
4. Was written by a Brit to create an American stereotype, not actually explore any subject matter
and/or...
5. Written in British English, it made no sense to any American reader, much less accurately portrayed America???

I don't get it... we Yanks love you Brits. From my own personal experience and extensive time spent in GB, our two countries and peoples get along quite well. So why are you so riled up against the States?

I think this thread is actually very appropriate on this, actually. If sir, these articles and stances that you tout against America really are the media and opinions that you choose to personally ingest and align your own thoughts with, then I think your biases can be directly be observed and understood, without critical (or in the case of this link you post, even _common sense_) analysis for balance.

I agree with Centaur and Zach Granstrom... just meet a few Americans, or come visit our country--at least once! I think you might find Americans and the Brits really are good friends!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

It was a joke. It is a spoof "news" site. All of the news items are "jokes". Just look at some of the British news items that they've put up. Here's an example:

and another:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Uhhh... what exactly did you find "good" about it? That it...
> 
> 1. Was complete fiction
> 2. Wasn't an actual news "article" at all
> ...


I've actually been to the US a total of, if I remember correctly, 14 times. I found most people to be friendly, except policemen, port officials, the Coastguards, and the immigration people.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I've actually been to the US a total of, if I remember correctly, 14 times. I found most people to be friendly, except policemen, port officials, the Coastguards, and the immigration people.


I've seen reality shows on TV with American police officers, and others with British (English, specifically) police officers.

I'd rather be stopped by an American police officer.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Don't know precisely or even unprecisely what a _middling persona_ is or even if it referred to me, but what I asked was meant rhetorically since I sorta feel that Left or Right, you or me (and based on previous posts I think you and I agree mostly on political stuff), there would seem to be a consensus that the sentiment expressed was basically correct, historically and now. It doesn't even seem to be much of a quote, more like common knowledge. Did I misread it?


I wasn't thinking of you and if I had, I would not consider you middlin'. :icon_smile_wink:

But the quote that started this thread? Dreadful. Begins with a sweeping generalization based on faulty notions and sounds like the half-baked pitch of a salesperson or motivational speaker that's about to offer a solution, reasonably priced, of course, but available only for a limited time. If the source of the quote is correct, then this is exactly what it was.

It's said by people in every generation that critical thinking in the society at large is in great decline, that the End is Nigh and all that, and the funny thing is that it's always true and yet not true at the same time. Such quotes only seem like they're saying something useful, much like advertising, but really only have one central thing in mind: to sell the reader/listener something, be it tangible goods or an idea.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My bottom line is this: opinion is no longer created by real thinkers, it is created by what the media considers popular


The bottom line is that the commercial TV news (and also the web) serves easily digested (sound/image/info) bytes which require no process of reflexivity on the behalf of the consumer. With Television it is then left to loud mouthed aggressive fools to promote the party line, and here I am clearly indicating Fox News. Which then reinforces the initial message on an ad hoc basis.

Lets face it why think when some attractive well dressed(one hopes) well paid individual can do it for you. I think it was from May 1968, "Consume, be silent, die."


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Compared to some of the horrors that used to wear them and the nightmares that resulted from the wearing of them, this is very classy.
> https://www.recoverygarments.com/Images/BoobTubeLg.jpg


Very Nice,Thanks Earl


----------



## clotheshorse69 (Jun 4, 2010)

Interesting...

People aren't changing, the world is.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My view, which I've held for many years, is threefold
> 
> 1. People don't read the printed word enough, they rely too much on TV, radio and the internet
> 2. And not reading the printed word and only relying on the short lifespan of the ether media they should be more critical and questioning of it, but unfortunately they are not.


Many of us still read the 'printed word', is just that the mode of delivery is different these days. We still read the 'printed word' but it's now on PCs, laptops, smart-phones, iPads and Kindles rather than been printed on dead trees. Haven't printed newspapers got a short lifespan?

Anyway I've not bought a printed newspaper in years. Can't see the point in paying for what is basically *yesterday's* news. I want to read and hear *today's* news, and the way to get that is on the internet, watching TV or listening to the radio.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> I'm thinking _nobody _relies on radio for anything, except maybe the Kings of Leon which I just happen to be groovin' to right now, though the more important fact there is that I used _groovin_ ', a word the trads like to see sprinkled about because it has a certain 50s panache of which they're often in awe. I'm with JJR512 about the print thing. Most of the internet seems to be about reading stuff, like you're doing right now and I don't think I've ever _read _ of current affairs as much as I do now on screen. Particularly since the mail person can't seem to get the Readers' Digest past the Dobermans.


I listen to a lot of radio, namely BBC World Service and BBC Radio Bristol (my home city). Although I don't actually use a physical radio to do this. I use the internet.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

MikeDT said:


> Many of us still read the 'printed word', is just that the mode of delivery is different these days. We still read the 'printed word' but it's now on PCs, laptops, smart-phones, iPads and Kindles rather than been printed on dead trees. Haven't printed newspapers got a short lifespan?
> 
> Anyway I've not bought a printed newspaper in years. Can't see the point in paying for what is basically *yesterday's* news. I want to read and hear *today's* news, and the way to get that is on the internet, watching TV or listening to the radio.


I'd just like to clarify that by "the printed word" I primarily mean textbooks, academic or otherwise. I wasn't referring to newspapers.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I'd just like to clarify that by "the printed word" I primarily mean textbooks, academic or otherwise. I wasn't referring to newspapers.


Well my comments can apply just as much to textbooks as any other documents.

For example in my situation, I don't want to be carrying several kilogrammes of dead tree printed paper books around with me, when I can read them just as easily as PDFs on an iPad, Kindle or any other type of e-reader.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What or who is George Three?


 King George III - who we went to war against in the Revolutionary War which founded the good ol' U.S. of A.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> It was a joke. It is a spoof "news" site. All of the news items are "jokes". Just look at some of the British news items that they've put up. Here's an example:
> 
> and another:


Can't help but wonder why you did not originally present the quotation as such (a joke). I am truly sorry that you could not have been born as an American, Chouan but, things just didn't work out that way for you...still, that's no reason to hate us! Maybe in your next life you will get lucky?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Can't help but wonder why you did not originally present the quotation as such (a joke). I am truly sorry that you could not have been born as an American, Chouan but, things just didn't work out that way for you...still, that's no reason to hate us! Maybe in your next life you will get lucky?


Surely advertising something as a joke before hand rather spoils the joke? The point of such humour is that you read it and realise that it's not to be taken seriously. Satire and sarcasm ought not to be flagged beforehand.
I have no desire to be American; I'm quite happy as I am. I enjoyed my time there, and, as I've said elsewhere, I found the places I went to mostly friendly. I found the warnings along the lines of "Don't go there, it's the Black area" curious though, in places like Bridgeport, Donaldsonville, and Mobile, among others. 
Surely the fact that I gave examples of spoof news about Britain shows that I find things amusing (and annoying) about Britain as well?
I'm quite amused by your apparent belief that:
1) Criticism of aspects of American culture is anti-Americanism
2) Criticism of aspects of American culture is hatred of America
3) Criticism of aspects of American culture is derived from a desire to be American.
The world isn't just about America. I like some aspects of American culture; that doesn't make me pro-American either!
As far as life is concerned, I've already won first prize in that lottery. How could I be luckier?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan: While your words above may be claiming one thing, your past postings lead to quite the opposite conclusion. Past vocations have allowed me to experience a fair number of cultures/countries in this marvelous old world of ours; including various locations in the US, Southeast and Southwest Asia. As I completed an assignment at Spangdahlem AFB, Germany, I enjoyed a fairly comprehensive glimpse of life in Europe. I've passed through England a few times and enjoyed limited touring opportunities while doing so. Portugal proved to be a picturesque stopover...and the list could go on a bit but, to what effect? The point I wish to make is that each and every culture/country I have visited, has left me with both positive and negative impressions. I am sure your visits to the US have left you with similar impressions (the US is not perfect but, is certainly not unique in Her ills!) and I can tell you with absolute certainty that, with the completion of each of my aforementioned travels and upon my return to the US, each and every time I experienced the realization that...gawd, there really is "no place like home!" However, I hope I never get to the point that I feel it necessary to bash any of the countries that I have visited.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Chouan: While your words above may be claiming one thing, your past postings lead to quite the opposite conclusion. Past vocations have allowed me to experience a fair number of cultures/countries in this marvelous old world of ours; including various locations in the US, Southeast and Southwest Asia. As I completed an assignment at Spangdahlem AFB, Germany, I enjoyed a fairly comprehensive glimpse of life in Europe. I've passed through England a few times and enjoyed limited touring opportunities while doing so. Portugal proved to be a picturesque stopover...and the list could go on a bit but, to what effect? The point I wish to make is that each and every culture/country I have visited, has left me with both positive and negative impressions. I am sure your visits to the US have left you with similar impressions (the US is not perfect but, is certainly not unique in Her ills!) and I can tell you with absolute certainty that, with the completion of each of my aforementioned travels and upon my return to the US, each and every time I experienced the realization that...gawd, there really is "no place like home!" However, I hope I never get to the point that I feel it necessary to bash any of the countries that I have visited.


I'm glad to hear it. However, there is, as I've repeatedly pointed out, a big difference between "bashing" a country, by which I mean, as I'm sure you'll agree, being unfairly negative about that country, and criticising aspects of that country's culture. 
The main negatives I've found about the US, or rather some American people are an often unconscious arrogance about the qualities of the US, which irritate and annoy the citizens of other countries, although probably not intended to. The use of smart-arse throw away lines about "freedom" and Independence are examples of this. The others are the reluctance of American institutions, whether Civil or Military, to acknowledge their wrong doing, the apparent American obsession with guns, which, as I'm sure you've noticed, I really don't understand, and the assumption that any criticism of the US is Anti-Americanism.
I'm sure that there are things about the UK and Ireland that you haven't been happy about, and if something that appears in a thread resonates with that thing you don't like, you'll no doubt respond. As you should, this is, afterall a forum. However, there seems to be a tendency in this forum, where most contributors seem to be American, to dwell on American things, rather than British or Irish things, so there is more likelihood of an example of an irritating American trait to be posted than an irritating English or Irish one.
Living as I do near Mildenhall, I frequently see US Service people in my village, and I've always found them very pleasant and friendly. I have a chat on most evenings when I'm walking my dog with an old gentleman who, from his manner, I'm inclined to think is a retired USAF Officer. I have nothing whatsoever against the US or Americans as such. Nevertheless there are, as I've indicated, aspects of US attitudes and behaviour that can be annoying. They annoy me to the extent that I'll post a response, but that's all. I'm not going to join Al Quaeda over it!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*George Three*



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ah, George III or George the Third. I wonder why he didn't write that then... George Three indeed! Good God, is nothing sacred!


And I thought he was referring to yet another George Bush.
Gurdon


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Chouan said:


> It was a joke. It is a spoof "news" site. All of the news items are "jokes". Just look at some of the British news items that they've put up. Here's an example:
> 
> and another:


We have one here called "The Onion", a sort of generally more or less kind of semi-accurate holisitic-karmic version of what could easily be the news in some space/time continuum


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Again, for balance, here is another recent British "news item".


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Both The Onion and Daily Mash are are top of my list for satirical commentary on a world gone mad - right up there with the Daily Show and South Park. Foam rabid in mouth at their contents at your peril/stupidity.


----------



## AronRoy321 (8 mo ago)

Grasping the World (UW) is one of the four explicit areas of learning in the EYFS structure. It includes directing kids to figure out their actual world and their local area through chances to investigate, notice and learn about individuals, spots, innovation, and the climate.

Wienerschnitzel coupons


----------

