General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

69. The Cronkite era was also an aberration in that most of the big on air names had come

Wed Feb 4, 2015, 07:11 PM

Feb 2015

up from being newspaper reporters, then radio, then TV. That tradition--digging for facts, verifying sources and the like-has been dying out Now, we have "on air personalities" and "commentary." Occasionally, one Republican fool and a Democrat arguing with each other, talking over each other, passes for objectivity on tv, even though both could be totally wrong. That however is also less prevalent than it used to be. (Some things should pass away and that was one of them.)

But you are correct that mistrust of government went back to colonial times. Indeed, it is the reason that the colonies refused to ratify the Constitution unless amendments in the form of the Bill of Rights were promised to follow ASAP (and they did).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

75 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you suffer from Pseudo-Skepticism? [View all] DetlefK Feb 2015 OP

That's just what "big skepticism" wants you to think. nt el_bryanto Feb 2015 #1

LOL! merrily Feb 2015 #2

lol La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2015 #3

Great point. :D DetlefK Feb 2015 #5

Mercola!!1 HappyMe Feb 2015 #9

HEH! Teutonic Samuel Feb 2015 #67

Of course we should take everything government tells us at face value! merrily Feb 2015 #4

Joking aside, the problem is that we live in a post-authority world. el_bryanto Feb 2015 #6

"Cui bono" and "follow the money" are generally good guidelines. merrily Feb 2015 #10

Than that puts us at the unsatisfying situation the article describes where we el_bryanto Feb 2015 #11

No, that is not what I said. Thinking about something, questioning, merrily Feb 2015 #14

What are these things I can't post on DU? hunter Feb 2015 #23

Please see reply 14. merrily Feb 2015 #24

Okay, wait a minute? Where do you live? Atman Feb 2015 #31

These planes came in off the Pacific Ocean in formation side-by-side, not a usual commercial route. hunter Feb 2015 #45

I'm guessing you've never read Richard Hofstadter. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #15

Is calling it paranoia really all that different from calling it merrily Feb 2015 #18

Nope. That's not the point. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #26

Thanks for clarifying. However, ftr, calling something paranoia does not make it paranoia. merrily Feb 2015 #28

I just happened to look over my shoulder... Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #30

Did you write the article? Are you Hofstadter? merrily Feb 2015 #32

I'd stop digging. nt msanthrope Feb 2015 #34

Because you say so? merrily Feb 2015 #36

Because posters who aren't aware that Richard Hofstader has been dead for 45 years really, really, msanthrope Feb 2015 #40

That you missed the point of my question entirely msanthrope, doesn't mean I should stop. merrily Feb 2015 #41

Heck---I can't stop this trainwreck if you really want to continue. nt msanthrope Feb 2015 #44

No worries, msanthrope. Thanks anyway for interjecting, though. merrily Feb 2015 #58

I should certainly hope not. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #37

All the more reason your degree has nothing to do with Hofstader's article. merrily Feb 2015 #39

I would argue my degree qualifies me to call bullshit on your bullshit. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #50

What bullshit would that be? My whole point from go on this was that Hofstader was not a merrily Feb 2015 #51

You aren't listening. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #54

I never said he was diagnosing someone. I said that calling something paranoia does not make merrily Feb 2015 #57

You're equivocating. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #59

I did not define paranoia at all, beyond noting it's pejorative. merrily Feb 2015 #63

I don't know how else you would put it. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #64

My reply 6 simply disagreed with your assertion that I had defined "paranoia" differently than merrily Feb 2015 #66

I am not the only one who is at a loss for what you are trying to say. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #74

See Replies 4, 46 and 68. The point seemed very clear to me. However, again, merrily Feb 2015 #75

I believe I have read it (but a while back) - I'm not sure what your point is. nt el_bryanto Feb 2015 #22

Hofstadter argued paranoia is a fixture of American political thought. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #25

Ah - yes i would agree that it's substrata el_bryanto Feb 2015 #38

The Cronkite era was also an aberration in that most of the big on air names had come merrily Feb 2015 #69

that's the problem that's driving me crazy as a scientist and an educator.... mike_c Feb 2015 #60

It may depend upon what is being questioned and why. And who funded the study and why. merrily Feb 2015 #62

there was broad consensus in the medical and scientific community regarding tobacco... mike_c Feb 2015 #71

In the 1940's and 50s, studies were cited to show the evidence of a link was inconclusive at best. merrily Feb 2015 #72

This article alludes to some of what I posted and also to some of what you posted. merrily Feb 2015 #73

But are the choices actually binary, or is that suggestion in itself a sort of a call to abandon Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #8

Of course, I didn't suggest rejecting everything you hear. merrily Feb 2015 #12

Straw man. No one said that treestar Feb 2015 #27

Actually, I said it. You can tell because my name is on the post. merrily Feb 2015 #29

This was a thoroughly enjoyable sub thread The empressof all Feb 2015 #61

This is an important article randr Feb 2015 #7

One thing not mentioned is Fox News. world wide wally Feb 2015 #13

Your point destroys his whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #20

Skeptics want to believe what is true. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #16

Being skeptical is not about deciding what others believe. Skeptics question, merrily Feb 2015 #19

I don't think that's what I said. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #43

I think most or all of us question with the goal of perceiving the universe as realistically as merrily Feb 2015 #46

I like to think that "turning the burden of proof upside down" is a right wing phenomenon. pampango Feb 2015 #17

The burden of proof, totally right side up, in our court system, merrily Feb 2015 #21

People who take the default position that they're always being lied to... Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #33

wouldn't happen Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #47

If they devalue anything, it's media and government officials, which combination merrily Feb 2015 #70

Mark Twain and I often laugh about this, especially when we're sipping elixir Brother Buzz Feb 2015 #35

Define "suffer." Iggo Feb 2015 #42

Factual correction Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #48

What to be skeptical about depends on which political party you're in daredtowork Feb 2015 #49

Your Pseudo-Skeptic sounds like an ordinary cynic to me rock Feb 2015 #52

While that kind of topic certainly falls under the umbrella of "Pseudo-Skepticism" kentauros Feb 2015 #53

Do you believe it is possible to prove a negative, or ask for people to do so? uppityperson Feb 2015 #55

Our Doubt is based on the obvious capture of our government by financial interests RunInCircles Feb 2015 #56

Yes, sadly, It is indeed a problem. AverageJoe90 Feb 2015 #65

A few threads from around DU this pm caught my eye: merrily Feb 2015 #68