Opinionation Nation?

[Buttercup]

Not intended to be quasi-political in any regard.

Extravoice wrote this in the Random Rant thread:

I'm unhappy that so-called weekly news magazines have become nothing but vehicles for opinion pieces.

That is so true, and I think must be the cause of hyperopinionatedness (yes I just now made up that word, lol) in the U.S.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I am tired of (most) everyone opining and opining -- as if addicted to it, as if those opinions are facts; blah blah blah, etc.

Could it be we've become socially conditioned to being highly opinionated "thanks to" the media? I've been wondering how hyperopining has come about, as I don't recall such widespread opining as a kid/teen.

Now we're a nation of Know-It-Alls.

Comments?

[NEOWatcher]

I'll have to go to that thread, because my question is "Just weekly news?"

Not only do I see a lot of headlines that start <persons name>:<thier opinion>, but I see most reader submitted content to be opinion.
(CNN is full of that stuff).

And; even if the item is not one-sided, they tend to get one side's opinion, put it up against the other side's opinion and make no effort to make sense of it all. So many times I see two sides of an argument not even agree on what the issue is.

When I was a kid, it was all about getting as many facts out as possible within a half hour news show. Now; it's all about how we can hold people's interest for a multi-hour news show.

[Perikles]

Now we're a nation of Know-It-Alls.

I'll ignore the reference to one nation. I sense a certain lack of logic here. I can't help thinking that news magazines are designed expressively for opinion. Newspapers give facts (<rolling on floor laughing>) and news magazines give evaluations of news facts, i.e. somebody's interpretation of the facts, i.e. opinion. What else are they for?

Perhaps you are saying that these opinions in news magazines are just opinions where the facts are ignored, i.e. worthless opinions.

[Swift]

If you ever have the chance, see the movie Network. Though it came out in 1976, it is remarkable how much our current TV news media resembles what is in the movie.

[R.A.F.]

Could it be we've become socially conditioned to being highly opinionated "thanks to" the media?

Naw...you don't need media influence to be opinionated, you just need an opinion.

[Jens]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I am tired of (most) everyone opining and opining -- as if addicted to it, as if those opinions are facts; blah blah blah, etc.

I take it this is something that you have quite a strong opinion about. I don't know, though, isn't it simply that we are an opinionated species by nature? Understanding the world around us is what we are conditioned to do, and forming opinions is important for that. Maybe what you mean to say is that Americans are very willing to express these opinions quite forcefully.

[Noclevername]

Part of the problem is the rise of 24 hour news channels, they run out of actual news to cover (or at least find only news not sensational enough to cover) and so they have to fill that airtime somehow. So get a bigmouth or two to shoot their mouths off in the studio-- it's cheap, draws responses, and thus gets ratings, and no bothersome research or investigation is required.

The problem is also what I consider a rise in narcissism over the last couple of generations (myself included), as people want to feel like they're being heard, and opinion polls and internet comments are one quick, instant-gratification way to do that.

[Buttercup]

Let's just say I've seen a definite (and dramatic) shift from "Listen to the Voice of Experience" (Walter Cronkite for example) mentality when I was a kid, to this "I know (just about everything)" stance. Either can be taken to an unhealthy extreme.

My sis-in-law, in the past 7 years, took this own shift within herself. She went from mousy, meek and quiet to Now Assuming Godlike Powers of All-Knowingness. :-( Fortunately she has calmed down somewhat. *sigh*

Guess we humans have a penchant for going to extremes?

It also seems (childhood/teens) people in general were more humble/realistic, willing to admit they might be wrong, keep an open mind, flexible and willing to consider other POVs. But perhaps that is a misperception I had.

[Noclevername]

Guess we humans have a penchant for going to extremes?

No we don't! Well, maybe we do. In fact, I'm absolutely certain of it!

[Van Rijn]

Part of the problem is the rise of 24 hour news channels, they run out of actual news to cover (or at least find only news not sensational enough to cover) and so they have to fill that airtime somehow. So get a bigmouth or two to shoot their mouths off in the studio-- it's cheap, draws responses, and thus gets ratings, and no bothersome research or investigation is required.

Yes, that's one of the areas where I've seen the biggest change in news reporting. It used to be that most news reporters, in most situations, seemed to try to maintain some objectivity. That had limits (a reporter's news gathering is going to be influenced by their personal beliefs no matter how objective they try to be) but I generally had the impression the news reporters were trying to be objective. On TV news, it was rare to see a news anchor interject their own opinions into a story. Now I see it all the time.

The mindset seems to be very different, where opinion is accepted and expected. And, yes, talking heads are cheap but actual news reporting is expensive, so no doubt economics is a big factor. I miss CNN's 30 minute news shows. When they had those, on a 24 hour news channel, that was useful. They were actually reporting the news. The talking heads on any of the so-called news channels these days are not useful.

[Van Rijn]

I'll ignore the reference to one nation. I sense a certain lack of logic here. I can't help thinking that news magazines are designed expressively for opinion. Newspapers give facts (<rolling on floor laughing>) and news magazines give evaluations of news facts, i.e. somebody's interpretation of the facts, i.e. opinion. What else are they for?

Well, the articles I would read had more in depth reports with a minimum of editorializing. That's what I thought they were for. I don't see that much these days.

[Van Rijn]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I am tired of (most) everyone opining and opining -- as if addicted to it, as if those opinions are facts; blah blah blah, etc.

I'm not so sure that many of these reporters think opinions are facts, but more that they don't have a good concept of what a fact would be in the first place. They certainly don't seem to understand how to take an objective approach to analyzing or reporting a subject.

I suppose that it is at least useful that they make their biases obvious, which would be harder to determine if they didn't constantly share their opinions.

[HenrikOlsen]

I suspect such things as Google picking answers based on past searches will increase this problem, since people will be confirmed in their bias every time they look for information, while making knowledge and understanding of the other sides less likely.

[Drunk Vegan]

Personally I think objectivity has been fading from the news media for decades, but if I had to try and put my finger on when it finally went out the window entirely, I'd say there were two instances that jump out.

The first was when the last news network (CNN? I don't remember) that was previously commercial-free began to air commercials on a daily basis. You can't obtain objectivity when you've got dozens of corporate masters that you have to keep happy and the size of your wallet is dependent on the content of the news report that runs in the time slot as their ads.

The second was the introduction of the news ticker which I believe was a strange side effect of the media meltdown surrounding 9/11. Almost overnight every news program and news network had as a minimum an info-ticker running along the bottom of the screen, and in many cases a second ticker, and maybe a box alongside the reporter and even additional small boxes to keep running tabs on a variety of variables.

At that point I think it became less about the quality of the news being given and more about the quantity; i.e. news reporting became a job about providing information, not a job about providing knowledge - the refined product of information, experience, and wisdom.

[HenrikOlsen]

Personally I think objectivity has been fading from the news media for decades, but if I had to try and put my finger on when it finally went out the window entirely, I'd say there were two instances that jump out.

The first was when the last news network (CNN? I don't remember) that was previously commercial-free began to air commercials on a daily basis. You can't obtain objectivity when you've got dozens of corporate masters that you have to keep happy and the size of your wallet is dependent on the content of the news report that runs in the time slot as their ads.

All major news media are owned by major industry corporations, even ad-free they'll still each answer to a major group of companies.

[Solfe]

I blame social media, like Facebook and G+. I can't tell you how many times I have seen "friends" express an uninformed opinion online followed by the statement "Tell me I am wrong."

Strangely, they do not want to hear they're wrong.

The best case scenario is they cross a line and I delete them immediately. Worst case scenario is they are family who I actually have to deal with on a up close and personal basis. The last two extended family members to pull this stunt continue to act all chummy with me in person because my wife's family dislike them more than I do. Online, they have blocked or deleted me, but they rely on me to defend them when they have a case of foot in mouth with my in-laws. My wife can't figure out why I keep saying "PPPPOOOOOKKKKEEEEE!" before changing the subject or otherwise deflecting attention from these two boneheads. (Yeah, I am a jerk sometimes.)

(I actually fight with my in-laws longer than anyone else. So far, I have never had to back down and apologize for the things I disagree with them over, we simply continue to disagree and stop fighting about it. These situations are infrequent, but are uncomfortable for bystanders as my in-laws are fiery... like napalm.)

I think the block and delete features of social media cause people to behave as if A) they can say anything they like, B) don't have to listen to criticism even when they request it.

Real journalists are much harder to pick out thanks to social media, because people who use social media believe it equals a personal multinational news empire or something. There is also the problem of actual journalists online; it becomes difficult to discriminate between "news reports" and "personal opinion/interest". It only gets worse when the journalist's associated company learns that public also shares interests and opinions of the journalist and start reporting non-news as news.

One other concern that I have about journalism is the ability to "link out" online. They intend for it to be citation, but software and policy causes too much linking. Back in the paper days, we trusted the media to tell us the key points and we could make a value judgement. Now the media links to the key points and "allow us" to research the facts... all the facts, each and every one, even the ones that are obvious one way or another. That turns every news item into an "opinion piece", because we are being asked to do all of the foot work in the establishment of fact. I don't blame the media or journalists for linking, it is a side effect of rampant technology. Citation is important, but the technology makes it too easy for linking and citation to overwhelm the message.

[Ara Pacis]

It's mostly all commentary these days. It's caused by a lot of things. The big push for self-esteem has made people think they're more capable than they are at understanding things without in depth knowledge or study or due consideration. The constant stream of media makes us feel that that we're getting more information, when we're actually not. The corruption of media into corporatism and partisanism makes us think that we're getting the whole story when we're not in order to drive viewership for advertising revenue. And then the unrestrained vitriol from some sources makes us think that being opinionated is more critical than it is or else we're lose something important to us like jobs, your favorite vice or indulgence, a culture, a way of life, access to a preferred afterlife, the war, or the country, or even the planet.

It shouldn't be up to us to decide what's true. News shouldn't be a game where have have to pick the winners, nor should it be a test of one's commitment to one cause versus another. Feeding people "news" to satisfy their preconceived notions is not journalism, it's propaganda. And eye-witness journalism just feeds into this hubris, which everyone participates in through online postings to forums, facebook and blogs. It's not journalism, it's gossip, woolgathering and what used to be called social intercourse has become intellectual master-blankin' (blanked, because not sure if that word is appropriate on this forum), because for the most part, you're just doing it by yourself, to yourself and for yourself because no one is actually listening.

Some may call it a democratization, but it's not. Democratization implies a social contract and a shared structure and civic responsibility. The Opinionation Nation is not that, it's the dissolution of society and the isolation of everyone from everyone else, with the bonds between participants getting weaker and weaker, until the society is no more, suffering the same fate as the universe, a Heat Death, a lack of human warmth.

Or maybe it will end in a Big Rip.

[Swift]

Nicely written Ara Pacis

[Ara Pacis]

Nicely written Ara Pacis

Thanks.

[starcanuck64]

Not intended to be quasi-political in any regard.

Extravoice wrote this in the Random Rant thread:



That is so true, and I think must be the cause of hyperopinionatedness (yes I just now made up that word, lol) in the U.S.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I am tired of (most) everyone opining and opining -- as if addicted to it, as if those opinions are facts; blah blah blah, etc.

Could it be we've become socially conditioned to being highly opinionated "thanks to" the media? I've been wondering how hyperopining has come about, as I don't recall such widespread opining as a kid/teen.

Now we're a nation of Know-It-Alls.

Comments?

Not without getting completely political.

There is an interesting documentary I just watched that deals with this, Rich Media/Poor Democracy.

[Jens]

Personally I think objectivity has been fading from the news media for decades, but if I had to try and put my finger on when it finally went out the window entirely, I'd say there were two instances that jump out.

I sort of wonder, though, do we not have a slightly idealized image of what the media used to be? Yellow journalism is a concept that appeared more than a century ago, and I always actually kind of liked the satirical images that they used to have in newspapers at that time. I guess I'm the exception here, but I sometimes find opinionated pieces to be more interesting than news that tries to portray itself as completely objective. I personally prefer reading things in for example Harper's or The Atlantic, which is clearly opinionated, but interesting, then boring pieces in USA Today that (to me) seem to have really very little to say.

[Swift]

I sort of wonder, though, do we not have a slightly idealized image of what the media used to be? Yellow journalism is a concept that appeared more than a century ago, and I always actually kind of liked the satirical images that they used to have in newspapers at that time.

I think it varies, swings from one side to the other. I believe the 1890s was sort of the peak (or maybe previous peak) of the Yellow Journalism in the US. In my lifetime I feel the media of the 60s and 70s was more unbiased, but I can't support that with data.

I don't mind, and often really enjoy opinion pieces. But I feel that there needs to be a sharp and clear distinction.

I also think what people take as "facts" has become vague and loose. Too often, vague opinions are reported as facts. To take a CQ example, reporting "lots of people believe in UFOs" is not evidence of an alien presence are Earth. Too often it seems I hear reporters say things like "there are people who say that Bob Hope was from Jupiter" as if that actually adds some meaningful data or evidence. Yes, it is technically a fact, but it really is a meaningless fact.

[Ara Pacis]

I think it varies, swings from one side to the other. I believe the 1890s was sort of the peak (or maybe previous peak) of the Yellow Journalism in the US. In my lifetime I feel the media of the 60s and 70s was more unbiased, but I can't support that with data.

I don't mind, and often really enjoy opinion pieces. But I feel that there needs to be a sharp and clear distinction.

I also think what people take as "facts" has become vague and loose. Too often, vague opinions are reported as facts. To take a CQ example, reporting "lots of people believe in UFOs" is not evidence of an alien presence are Earth. Too often it seems I hear reporters say things like "there are people who say that Bob Hope was from Jupiter" as if that actually adds some meaningful data or evidence. Yes, it is technically a fact, but it really is a meaningless fact.

This is how I see it too. A well written article that promotes one side of an argument isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's the inanity of modern media where talking points and opinions are conflated with facts. There used to be a time where people might not like something or agree with something, but would give credit to experts. Over time some experts were revealed as frauds, and others were revealed as being unlikeable for other reasons. Now, it's gotten to the conspiracy level where anyone with a differing opinion must be a fraud. It used to be that cranks were few and ignored, but now they're common and given their own TV shows. What we have now us cynicism run amok, and it is contagious. They are anonymous and they are legion. Anonymity allows people to let release their inner-crank. I might be tempted to say the First Amendment didn't mean to imply that anonymous speech should be free, but then I'm reminded of "Publius" and the Federalist Papers.

Of course, some of that is nostalgia, for the times I experienced as a naive child, or which the adults of my youth looked up to as paragons for comparison before the descent into the current era of cable-news with cameras everywhere. Perhaps it all started with Woodward and Bernstein v. Nixon, and no matter how noble the profession of journalism or how noble the office of the presidency, the former was seen to take down the latter in a public fashion. Of course, some might say that started with Edward r. Murrow v. McCarthy. Those confrontations may simply seem like one political ideology against another (which was sort of true considering "freedom of the press" tends to run contrary to Order and statism), but (without getting political) the observation by most people that the other ideology has it's own media now has upset that presumed balance and confused people. The old assumptions no longer apply now that news is a business with a targets market demographic instead of a general public service required by the government of the entertainment industry as a cost of doing business on the publicly-owned airwaves.

[Disinfo Agent]

TV and newspaper news these days are mostly a disgrace, and this is by no means confined to the US. On the flip side, you can find real news — and worthwhile news commentary — online and in some comedy TV shows.

[m1omg]

I would call this the "special snowflake syndrome". Nowadays, people are taught that everybody is "special" and so everybody has a strong, argumentative, loud opinion about everything. It results in mudslinging replacing decent debate.

[Disinfo Agent]

No kidding?

"I'm on Mars and Twitter… whoop-dee-fricken-doo."

[Ara Pacis]

I would call this the "special snowflake syndrome". Nowadays, people are taught that everybody is "special" and so everybody has a strong, argumentative, loud opinion about everything. It results in mudslinging replacing decent debate.

I think it's more than that. Everyone can be a special snowflake in one way, or be a big fish in a small pond, but everyone seems to want to be a big fish in every pond these days. They don't just think they're a special snowflake, they think they're the only snowflake

[Drunk Vegan]

No kidding?

"I'm on Mars and Twitter… whoop-dee-fricken-doo."

Thank you for this.

This is the kind of science I *need* to see:

This did however, make me think of another question. Would a GUN work on Mars? If there’s no fire, no oxygen, would we still be able to shoot each other in the face?
And the answer to that one is… yes.

[DoggerDan]

Could it be we've become socially conditioned to being highly opinionated "thanks to" the media? I've been wondering how hyperopining has come about, as I don't recall such widespread opining as a kid/teen.

Well, in large part due to the Internet, we've certainly begun a world of writers. How many words did people type a week, on average, before the advent of computers?

On the other hand, back in college we used to have bull sessions. Some people would type opinion pieces and post them on the bulletin boards in the dorm. I recall a "flame war" about the the gas shortage in the late 70s.