Chicken hypnotist rips the lid off 'The Media'

[Abdul Alhazred]

Philosopher-King Al Gore wants to de-program you chickens.

Free Speech for People Who Think Like Me (http://reason.com/news/show/120701.html) [ Michael C. Moynihan in Reason ]

...

Gore argues that the average American is in an advanced state of political torpor, induced by a profit-mad mass media. By way of illustration, he offers this folksy—if bizarre—anecdote: “When I was a boy growing up on our family farm in the summers,” he writes, off-handedly acknowledging that he wasn’t, in fact, a year-round farm boy, “I learned how to hypnotize chickens.” The former Vice President would render the birds “entranced and completely immobile” by forcing his quarry to follow the path of his finger. “It turns out that the immobility response in animals is an area that has received some scholarly attention, and here is one thing that scientists have found: the immobility response is strongly influenced by fear.” The American news consumer, therefore, is something akin to a frightened chicken.

...

The Assault on Reason reestablishes Gore as America’s premier [i]besserwisser and moral scold: the politician who both warns that we are scaring people to death and argues that Manhattan will soon be submerged beneath the Atlantic. But contrary to Gore’s eschatological narrative, the American media landscape is robust, thanks, in part, to technological innovation. To suggest otherwise is just cheap fear-mongering.



I think I'll just wait for the movie.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ya know, on second thought, maybe I'm glad Gore isn't running for President.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Notice one thing -- not about Al Gore in particular?

Left-wing, right-wing, they all like to blame "the media".

[SteveGrenard]

Left-wing, right-wing .....

Chicken wing?

PS: The freezing response attributed to fear is also known as playing dead ... and is a form of predator avoidance. Also known as
thanatosis.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Or playing possum?

[Solus]

Chicken wing?

PS: The freezing response attributed to fear is also known as playing dead ... and is a form of predator avoidance. Also known as
thanatosis.

Thanks for mentioning that I like that word I like it, added to my mental dictionary. The chicken hypnosis trick using has nothing to do with fear as far as I know so I think Mr. Gore is confused.

I'm getting tired of the media being blamed the for all of America's problems when it's much more complex then that.

[Schneibster]

Gotta love it when you get a post on a skeptics' board supporting the media, by someone who is extremely right wing, who has been excoriating the media for seven years. Yay.

[strathmeyer]

Notice one thing -- not about Al Gore in particular?

Left-wing, right-wing, they all like to blame "the media".

And the media blames the politicians and the celebrities. This is the only way the people who vote for the politicians and consume the media can remain blameless.

[Schneibster]

By the way, despite paying lip service to global warming, this doesn't appear to me to be a scientific thread. Dare I suggest that it might be better placed over in Politics?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Hey Schneibster!

Why don't you stop kvetching and give us a little science?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Or are you merely POed because I dissed your holy prophet?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Gotta love it when you get a post on a skeptics' board supporting the media, by someone who is extremely right wing, who has been excoriating the media for seven years. Yay.

OK you've diverted the thread to politics. Whoop-de-doo. Because no one will read it here. :smirk:

Got anything besides lies, insinuations, and smears about me?

Of course not.

And of course nothing about Al Gore's scientific claims that we're all hypnotized chickens.

If this thread were still in 'Science' I would continue to forbear to mention that "global warming" is your all purpose anti-human pretext for slavery, starvation and totalitarianism.

[Abdul Alhazred]

And of course objecting to your "solution" makes me a "denier"? Right?

[Beerina]

I see -- Gore admits he knows how to hold up a finger and wag it back and forth to stupify the public to follow after him. Hence "An Inconvenient Truth".

No, wait! That's not what he meant! Come back! Come back!

[Ranillon]

Philosopher-King Al Gore wants to de-program you chickens.

[ Michael C. Moynihan in Reason ]


The article you link to reads like a classic Ad Hominem hack job where quotes are taken out of context to create convenient strawmen and where any possibly related group or person the author considers morally/ethically deficient is used to tar Gore by association. Basically, it's pure character assassination. How is this supposed to be "reason"?

It doesn't matter how "right" or "wrong" the article might be with its basic arguments -- Given its approach how the heck is anyone supposed to take it seriously?

[Schneibster]

And of course objecting to your "solution" makes me a "denier"? Right?No, being an idiot makes you a denier.

To you, science seems like some sort of made-up game or something, children playing at dreaming up explanations for where clouds come from or why your Charlston Bar wrapper glows in the dark when you pull the glue apart. Feynman called your approach "cargo cult science" back in the 1960s, and like all of us, hoped that it would go away soon.

As far as what we ought to do, you haven't asked me that. Which is pretty much the way you operate, and why I have you on ignore.

[JonWhite]

Just to take this thread (far too) literally, Ormond McGill teaches how to "hypnotise" chickens as well as frogs and bunnies in "The New Encyclopedia of Stage Hypnotism"

Book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Encyclopedia-Stage-Hypnotism/dp/1899836020/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/202-9769479-8111847?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181835777&sr=8-1)

[Ranillon]

I see -- Gore admits he knows how to hold up a finger and wag it back and forth to stupify the public to follow after him. Hence "An Inconvenient Truth".

No, wait! That's not what he meant! Come back! Come back!

Do you realize how anti-intellectual this statement is? You aren't criticizing Gore for his facts and evidence, but rather you provide a variation on the classic negative characterization of intellectuals -- they they are just there to arrogantly tell us what to do.

But, this attitude implies something I thought was reviled in a place like this -- intellectual relativism. The notion that Gore may just have the best answer is casually dismissed for outrage that he dares suggest what we should do in the least. This reaction sort of like the immature response of a rebellious 17-year old scoffing at the advice of his parents. Factual and scientific accuracy gets replaced with an "us vs. them" combativeness where by implication there is no possibility of evidence that is better than other evidence, just self-serving arguments.

Of course, one is free to debate Gore on the merit of his arguments and evidence, but what use are these sort of negative stereotypes masquerading as real rational discussion?

[BPSCG]

Just because the chickens were staring blankly at Gore doesn't mean he hypnotized them.

He may simply have been boring them to death.

The child is father to the man.

[Upchurch]

The article you link to reads like a classic Ad Hominem hack job where quotes are taken out of context to create convenient strawmen and where any possibly related group or person the author considers morally/ethically deficient is used to tar Gore by association. Basically, it's pure character assassination. How is this supposed to be "reason"?
I'm reading the book now, but am not very far along*. A few points in the book described in the article comes from the introduction. (it may also be referenced later on, I don't know.) What little the author is describing that I've read is not what Gore is saying at all or a gross over-simplification.

This appears to be less an honest review of the book and more a political smear job. Maybe it will sync up the more I get into it, but the author's performance so far is not promising.



*Damn you, Need-To-Earn-Money!

[Dr Adequate]

It turns out that the immobility response in animals is an area that has received some scholarly attention, and here is one thing that scientists have found: the immobility response is strongly influenced by fear. I read recently that psychologists have found that people tend to give more right-wing answers to questions about their political views if you get them to think about death for five minutes before you ask them.

[Upchurch]

Hey Abdul Alhazred!

Why don't you stop kvetching and give us specific points you disagree with in Gore's book?


Or do you merely believe anything you read on the net-tubes as long as it agrees with your preconceived assumptions?

[BPSCG]

Just want to say that an interesting thread title is often a good way to get me to read the thread.

You had me at "Chicken hypnotist".

[mhaze]

No, being an idiot makes you a denier.

To you, science seems like some sort of made-up game or something, children playing at dreaming up explanations for where clouds come from or why your Charlston Bar wrapper glows in the dark when you pull the glue apart. Feynman called your approach "cargo cult science" back in the 1960s, and like all of us, hoped that it would go away soon.

As far as what we ought to do, you haven't asked me that. Which is pretty much the way you operate, and why I have you on ignore.
Gore is no Feynman.

[Schneibster]

Gore is no Feynman.Which is relevant to what I said because... ?

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'm too busy answer everything now, but I want to thank Schneibster for getting the thread moved to where it apparently has a wider audience.

I'll be back soon.

[Abdul Alhazred]

No, being an idiot makes you a denier.

To you, science seems like some sort of made-up game or something

Horses**t.

To you "science" is a pretext for totalitarianism.


Earlier I said:

Got anything besides lies, insinuations, and smears about me?

Of course not.

I forgot insults.


Hypnotize any chickens lately?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Hey Abdul Alhazred!

Why don't you stop kvetching and give us specific points you disagree with in Gore's book?



In case you weren't paying attention, the claim in question wasn't the global warming stuff, but the equation humans + media == hypnotized chickens.

In short Gore is saying that we peasants aren't really human.

The burden of proof is on the one making the outrageous claim.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Just want to say that an interesting thread title is often a good way to get me to read the thread.

You had me at "Chicken hypnotist".

I hypnotized you -- like a chicken! :p

[Upchurch]

In case you weren't paying attention, the claim in question wasn't the global warming stuff, but the equation humans + media == hypnotized chickens.

In short Gore is saying that we peasants aren't really human.

The burden of proof is on the one making the outrageous claim.

I was paying attention, I just didn't know what you were taking issue with.

Further, it was a metaphor and not an outrageous scientific claim. It is a rhetorical trope*. There is no burden of proof on me to prove that my true love is like a red, red rose just as there is no burden of proof on Gore to prove that humans watching the media are hypnotized chickens.

Which, to what I've read so far, that isn't even a metafor that Gore has put forth. You should try checking sources before buying into what someone says on the interwebs.




* Thank you, Wikipedia.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Yeah OK.

There really isn't any scientific dispute about global warming, despite various false imputations hereabouts.

Any evidences that Al Gore is anything other than a self-enriching demagogue using "global warming" as a hook?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Because the line about "destroying the planet" is false, but that's what he's selling.

Will the genuine ill effects of global warming be ameliorated by Al's protection racket?

[Beerina]

Do you realize how anti-intellectual this statement is? You aren't criticizing Gore for his facts and evidence, but rather you provide a variation on the classic negative characterization of intellectuals -- they they are just there to arrogantly tell us what to do.

Actually, it's easier to poke at than that. He's offering up the classic misdirection that, gosh, golly, his position is just so...right. So...correct.

Can't you people see? CAN'T YOU SEE?!??!

If'n only we can change the media, force them somehow, to put our message out, The People will see and immediately grasp The Eternal Truth and Rightness of my position.

Can't they see?!!?!?

The idea that their ideas were seen, and rejected is always incomprehensible and unbelievable to the True Believer.

Just as it is for UFOs or Bigfoot or psychic powers.

And what's his argument? (big scary thing) and therefore give me large amounts of power over big business.

Anyone out there claiming to be a critical thinker must realize that, thanks to hundreds of economic "experiments" last century, command and control of an economy can provide far worse problems for advancement or even basic quality of life. You don't think government mis-management can't make your lifestyle be far worse than with runaway global warming? Look at Mexico for a middle example. Or the Mid East for a worse one. Or North Korea for a casebook example.

[FarmallMTA]

This is interesting. Notice how socialists always reply, when you quote a Socialist Holy Prophet's ACTUAL quotes, that it's a smear job taking their Diety's words "out of context."

If you don't quote their Gurus EXACTLY they say you're just making things up. When you DO quote exactly, it's "out of context," or it was "just a metaphor," or it was merely "an exaggeration for rhetorical purposes," or some such lame liberal excuse.

Socialists make Christian and Islamic fundamentalists seem well-reasoned and logical.

Socialists AREN'T skeptics appropriate for JREF.

[Upchurch]

Yeah OK.

There really isn't any scientific dispute about global warming, despite various false imputations hereabouts.

Any evidences that Al Gore is anything other than a self-enriching demagogue using "global warming" as a hook?
So, no specific complaints about his book, then? You just don't like Gore personally?

Because the line about "destroying the planet" is false, but that's what he's selling.

Will the genuine ill effects of global warming be ameliorated by Al's protection racket?
You do understand that the environment is not the focus of the book you brought up in the OP, right? Or did you just mean this as a Gore-bash thread?

[Upchurch]

This is interesting. Notice how socialists always reply, when you quote a Socialist Holy Prophet's ACTUAL quotes, that it's a smear job taking their Diety's words "out of context."

If you don't quote their Gurus EXACTLY they say you're just making things up. When you DO quote exactly, it's "out of context," or it was "just a metaphor," or it was merely "an exaggeration for rhetorical purposes," or some such lame liberal excuse.

Socialists make Christian and Islamic fundamentalists seem well-reasoned and logical.

Socialists AREN'T skeptics appropriate for JREF.

What socialists? Who are you talking about?

[Upchurch]

And what's his argument? (big scary thing) and therefore give me large amounts of power over big business.
What is Gore's (big scary thing) in this book and where does he conclude that you should give him "large amounts of power over big business"?

I'm fine if you want to criticize Gore, but at least criticize him for things he's actually said or done. I'm trying to understand what the problem is with this new book but no one is saying any thing specific.

Except the OP article, I guess, and I'm of the opinion that the author is working really hard to fit what Gore said into his preconceived notions.

Anyway, state your argument, back it up with examples.

[SteveGrenard]

I was paying attention, I just didn't know what you were taking issue with.

Further, it was a metaphor and not an outrageous scientific claim. It is a rhetorical trope*. There is no burden of proof on me to prove that my true love is like a red, red rose just as there is no burden of proof on Gore to prove that humans watching the media are hypnotized chickens.

Which, to what I've read so far, that isn't even a metafor that Gore has put forth. You should try checking sources before buying into what someone says on the interwebs.




* Thank you, Wikipedia.

Except for the fact that there is no such thing as hypnotized chickens .....
unless you are one of the mnany millions of people who believe there is.


This may not be clinical hypnosis, but instead a case of tonic immobility. Instead of a hypnotic state, the chicken's reactions are more akin to a turtle moving into its shell, or a deer freezing from a spotlight--a defensive mechanism intended to feign death, albeit poorly. [1]

More on so-called hypnotizing of chickens at:

CHICKEN HYPNOTISM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_hypnotism

FOR AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT SEE:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061028/bob8.asp


But the hypnotizing chicken thing, as unscientific as the descriptor is, is a pretty widespread belief, given a chicken's behavior so it's easy to see why people believe it.

Being scared and standing stock still, feigning death, is why some people call other people er, well, "chicken."

[Upchurch]

Except for the fact that there is no such thing as hypnotized chickens .....
It's a bad label for the phenomenon, I'll grant you.

[Snide]

What little the author is describing that I've read is not what Gore is saying at all or a gross over-simplification.
I got that same feeling just from reading the quoted part in the OP.

Is it just me, or is this skeptics' politics board getting less and less skeptical every day? Not that it ever was perfect...

[Ranillon]

I got that same feeling just from reading the quoted part in the OP.

Is it just me, or is this skeptics' politics board getting less and less skeptical every day? Not that it ever was perfect...

I'm not sure if things have gotten worse, but clearly some of the posts here seem textbook examples of how for some people "skepticism" is nothing more than another dogma. It also seems to confirm the old truism that intelligence is no defense against self-deception; rather, it just means your rationalizations tend to be more sophisticated.

Note that I say this not per se due to any particular beliefs being presented, but because of how they are being presented. Skepticism is a process, not a belief. I'd argue that real skepticism means being open to any idea and then evaluating that idea using logic and evidence. Admittedly, there is a measure of judgment call no matter the situation, but a clear sign that less skepticism and more dogma is being employed is how quickly the one arguing starts pulling out the logical fallacies.

A great example here is all the ad hominem character assassination. Al Gore isn't wrong because he is "bad" person anymore than he is right because he is a "good" person. What does the evidence say? Likewise, throwing insults at those who disagree and implicitly suggesting they aren't be loyal to the cause (whatever that is supposed to be) is likewise a sign of a faith based argument. All too often the arguments being given are indistiguishable from those of a religious zealot if you just switch out a few of the proper nouns. Scorn and anger replace dispassion and curiosity.

The moment we think that being a good "skeptic" by definition means believing a certain ideology we've lost our way.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

A more appropriate title would be "Gore is teh lozr OMG!!!"

Perhaps if people could see beyond their own ideologies this thread wouldn't be drowning in ignorant, ranting posts.

[corplinx]

I bought up Gore's book in a less sensational thread with no chicken hypnotism and it got 10 posts max.

[Upchurch]

I bought up Gore's book in a less sensational thread with no chicken hypnotism and it got 10 posts max.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, there was no specific points of contention in that one either.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Can't you people see? CAN'T YOU SEE?!??!

I'm glad somebody is getting it.

If I were more erudite, I'd know the Latin name for this kind of argument. ;)

[Abdul Alhazred]

So, no specific complaints about his book, then? You just don't like Gore personally?

Well it's more than personal but ...

You want a point by point refutation?

You know what, I haven't read Sylvia Browne's latest either.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Uh oh.

Looks like I have violated the No True Skeptic™ rule. :eek:

[UserGoogol]

I was paying attention, I just didn't know what you were taking issue with.

Further, it was a metaphor and not an outrageous scientific claim. It is a rhetorical trope*. There is no burden of proof on me to prove that my true love is like a red, red rose just as there is no burden of proof on Gore to prove that humans watching the media are hypnotized chickens.

Although to be fair, there is something mildly hypocritical about using rhetoric in a book about the assault on reason. Rhetoric is the enemy.

[Upchurch]

Although to be fair, there is something mildly hypocritical about using rhetoric in a book about the assault on reason. Rhetoric is the enemy.
Rhetoric (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=rhetoric) is the enemy of reason?

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication : DISCOURSE



Ed forbid that someone should communicate effectively. It would be plumb anti-non-unreasonableish. ;)

Sarcasm is also a rhetorical device. Rhetoric is a tool. It is neither reasonable nor unreasonable in and of itself, only in how it is used.

[BPSCG]

I hypnotized you -- like a chicken! :p...yes...master...

(Got any feed?)

[Alareth]

I don't care about the politics, all I know is that the SNL that Gore hosted was one of the funniest episodes ever.

[Upchurch]

I don't care about the politics, all I know is that the SNL that Gore hosted was one of the funniest episodes ever.

Don't forget all the Futurama episodes.

[Schneibster]

For some reason every time I read the title of this thread, I see "Chicken hypnotist rips the lips off the media." I guess it's just all chicken lips to me.

[hgc]

In short Gore is saying that we peasants aren't really human.


That's good! You missed your calling. You should be behind a pulpit interpreting bible passages.

[UserGoogol]

Rhetoric (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=rhetoric) is the enemy of reason?

Ed forbid that someone should communicate effectively. It would be plumb anti-non-unreasonableish. ;)

Sarcasm is also a rhetorical device. Rhetoric is a tool. It is neither reasonable nor unreasonable in and of itself, only in how it is used.

To be reasonable is to judge an argument purely on its soundness. Rhetoric is about presenting your argument in such a way that it "looks nice" beyond merely being sound, thus to use rhetoric is to embrace a certain amount of irrationality. Of course, to assume that people will actually be cold emotionless robots is hopelessly optimistic (and ultimately, it's not even logical for them to be that logical), so it's a fairly benign sort of hypocrisy. Especially because Al Gore explicitly says in the book that appeals to emotion can be used for good and that he merely thinks that reason has been pushed far much to the side in American society. But in the most vague sense, there is a conflict between appealing to emotion while defending reason.

[Abdul Alhazred]

That's good! You missed your calling. You should be behind a pulpit interpreting bible passages.

In short I should stop criticizing and be more like Reverend Al.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Lie to the peasants to save the planet.

[Upchurch]

To be reasonable is to judge an argument purely on its soundness. Rhetoric is about presenting your argument in such a way that it "looks nice" beyond merely being sound, thus to use rhetoric is to embrace a certain amount of irrationality.
I believe you are thinking of propaganda (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=propaganda). The difference is technique vs intent.


Of course, to assume that people will actually be cold emotionless robots is hopelessly optimistic (and ultimately, it's not even logical for them to be that logical), so it's a fairly benign sort of hypocrisy.
Who is making this assumption?


Especially because Al Gore explicitly says in the book that appeals to emotion can be used for good and that he merely thinks that reason has been pushed far much to the side in American society. But in the most vague sense, there is a conflict between appealing to emotion while defending reason.
In a very simplistic sense, yes. However, we do live in a complex world and not all judgments can be made strictly using reason. I don't remember reading that line in Gore's book (again, haven't even really started it yet) but, for example, wanting our children to be better off than we are is partly an emotional choice, not a purely objective reasoned one.

It sounds like what Gore is arguing for is a balance between emotional appeal and reasoned argument. From what I've actually read, my take is that Gore's complaint is that reason is being overshadowed by emotional appeal and that our traditional social "immunity system", as he calls it, is not reacting to compensate for the misinformation being generated because of that emotional appeal.

[Upchurch]

Lie to the peasants to save the planet.
What, we're talking about Bush now? ;)

[Abdul Alhazred]

What, we're talking about Bush now? ;)

Sorry, I forgot.

Bush lied so bad that all other lies are now truth.

[Upchurch]

Sorry, I forgot.

Bush lied so bad that all other lies are now truth.

What "other lies" would you be referring to?

You seem pretty long on implication and accusation and pretty darn short on any actual information.

[Abdul Alhazred]

It's ALL other lies, Upchurch.

Bush lied. Everything else is true now.

That's how bad Bush lied. :eek:

... and it wasn't about a **** job.

[Upchurch]

It's ALL other lies, Upchurch.

Bush lied. Everything else is true now.

That's how bad Bush lied. :eek: [/size]
Do you even know what you are talking about anymore?

[UserGoogol]

Who is making this assumption?

Nobody is, I'm merely criticizing my own opinion. There is a "theoretical" conflict between rhetoric and reason, but because a person cannot assume that people are going to be cold heartless rational thinkers (because it's practically impossible, although it would be ideal), in practice the optimum is a peaceful coexistance between the two. I'm agreeing with you, more or less. Your description of the book seems right, although I've read about as much as you have. I merely didn't communicate as effectively as I could have. :3

[Upchurch]

I'm agreeing with you, more or less. Your description of the book seems right, although I've read about as much as you have. I merely didn't communicate as effectively as I could have. :3
Oh. Well. Alrighty then. :D

[Darth Rotor]

Is it just me, or is this skeptics' politics board getting less and less skeptical every day? Not that it ever was perfect...

It's just you. :D

Most people realize that politics deals in the subjective. :p

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Do you even know what you are talking about anymore?

He is making fun of you.

Taking the piss.

Busting your balls.

Giving you s[rule8]

Having you one.

Using hyperbole.

Any further questions, on the back of a twenty or I ain't sayin' nuthin'!!!

DR

[Upchurch]

He is making fun of you.
Yeah, but about what?



Any further questions, on the back of a twenty or I ain't sayin' nuthin'!!!
I'll PM you the $20.

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah, but about what?
I'll PM you the $20.
Got the twenty.

To ensure best value, do you want the question "But about what?" answered, or another question? :)

DR

[Snide]

It's just you. :DProbably.

Most people realize that politics deals in the subjective. :p

DRHow are subjectivity and good skepticism mutually exclusive?

:P

[Darth Rotor]

How are subjectivity and good skepticism mutually exclusive?

Why don't you tell me, since I didn't make that assertion. ;)

Here's my attempt:

When the entering assumptions of a discussion aren't agreed, as many political discussions tend to go, and heck, when the language is rarely agreed, given the use of emotive connotation, objective discussion is difficult.

Not impossible, nor mutually exclusive, just difficult.

DR

[Tony]

Left-wing, right-wing, they all like to blame "the media".

To varying extents, they do. On one end it's the "liberal media" on the other it's the "corporate media". Blaming the media for certain ills often does reflect a partisan bias, but the American media isn't without its faults. Personally, I think the "corporate media" meme has more basis in fact and is less subjective (follow the money) whereas the "liberal media" meme is the result of a propaganda effort to discredit media skepticism of government in general.

[Abdul Alhazred]

On one end it's the "liberal media" on the other it's the "corporate media".

All one! All one!

[Upchurch]

Philosopher-King Al Gore wants to de-program you chickens.

Free Speech for People Who Think Like Me (http://reason.com/news/show/120701.html) [ Michael C. Moynihan in Reason ]

...

Gore argues that the average American is in an advanced state of political torpor, induced by a profit-mad mass media. By way of illustration, he offers this folksy—if bizarre—anecdote: “When I was a boy growing up on our family farm in the summers,” he writes, off-handedly acknowledging that he wasn’t, in fact, a year-round farm boy, “I learned how to hypnotize chickens.” The former Vice President would render the birds “entranced and completely immobile” by forcing his quarry to follow the path of his finger. “It turns out that the immobility response in animals is an area that has received some scholarly attention, and here is one thing that scientists have found: the immobility response is strongly influenced by fear.” The American news consumer, therefore, is something akin to a frightened chicken.


If you needed any further evidence that the article's author is a political hack, I finally got to the quoted section in the book (page 35-36). Here is the tidbit the author apparently missed when he drew his conclusion that Gore thinks "The American news consumer, therefore, is something akin to a frightened chicken."

No, I'm not saying that television viewers are like hypnotized chickens. But there may be some lessons for us larger-brained humans in the experiences of barnyard hens.


But hey, why let what people actually say determine what mud you sling at them?

[Snide]

Why don't you tell me, since I didn't make that assertion. ;) No, but when I expressed disappointment in the poor skepticism on a skeptics' politics board, and you respond with, "Most people realize that politics deal in the subjective," how else should I have taken that? Perhaps a beter response on my part should have just been, "So it's subjective. It's still pretty easy to be a good skeptic with at least a half-@ssed effort."

Here's my attempt:

When the entering assumptions of a discussion aren't agreed, as many political discussions tend to go, and heck, when the language is rarely agreed, given the use of emotive connotation, objective discussion is difficult.

Not impossible, nor mutually exclusive, just difficult.

DRI agree up to a point...but it should not be difficult. We are, on average, at least slightly above the global average intelligence here, right? Maybe it's just the bad apples then.