tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post4636074704142220944..comments2024-03-22T20:34:13.792-05:00Comments on Indomitable | The online home of Chauncey DeVega: The Difference Between Criticism, Rage, and Villification: I May Not Like J.J. Abrams' 'Star Trek' Movies But I Don't Hate the ManLady Zora, Chauncey DeVega, and Gordon Gartrellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09138154899923808806noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-21116138297642342252015-04-20T17:21:29.191-05:002015-04-20T17:21:29.191-05:00Your point is well taken but due to my stubborn st...Your point is well taken but due to my stubborn streak:<br /><br />Fox News is the pro-Republican channel and MSNBC is the pro-Democrat channel. The fact that Democrats watch a variety of different news channels says more about the discombobulated left verses the lockstep right. The equivalency is between the channels. <br />The Green Party didn't get mentioned at all on MSNBC during the 2012 elections whereas Fox News did discuss third parties including the Green Party.kokaneehttp://www.byebyedemocracy.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-15023248887310244542015-04-20T16:15:40.577-05:002015-04-20T16:15:40.577-05:00Yes, self filtering is a problem. But this is anot...Yes, self filtering is a problem. But this is another one of those "one thing is not like the other" situations. One set of filters is not the same as the other set of filters. <br /><br />Pew had a poll out recently that showed that Republicans only trust Fox, whereas Democrats trust almost any other news source excepting Fox. Those are not exactly perfectly equal confirmation biases. (I can't find it right now, however I saw a few articles which dug below the headline of "Fox is the most trusted news source for the Xth year.") <br /><br />The poll showed that one side gets all their "facts" from essentially one source, the other still has multiple sources. That's a significant difference, in my opinion. <br /><br />I don't watch MSNBC at all, and by your metric that makes me no Democrat. Yet MSNBC is not, and never has been the liberal or leftist equivalent of Fox... It is really too corporate and too dependent on shows like Morning Joe to fit into this trope-ish equivalence. <br /><br />I'm not saying that confirmation bias doesn't exist, or even that we haven't sorted ourselves ideologically. I am saying that the biases are not remotely equal. And the comparison of Fox to MSNBC is a false equivalence.TenarDarellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-48440824983534037242015-04-20T11:22:29.251-05:002015-04-20T11:22:29.251-05:00The self-filtering of our news is a huge problem. ...The self-filtering of our news is a huge problem. All good Republicans watch Fox News. All good Democrats watch MSNBC. It's called confirmation bias and there are some good articles about it by Chris Mooney and/or on Alternet.org<br /><br />Anyway, see:<br />https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biaskokaneehttp://www.byebyedemocracy.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-76265189196124054202015-04-19T12:53:28.080-05:002015-04-19T12:53:28.080-05:00Everybody wants their 15 minutes of fame. Initiall...Everybody wants their 15 minutes of fame. Initially celebrity is for a few, subsequently its expanded to many. Fred Astaire danced like an elitist, Gene Kelly demonstrated that anybody could do it. Elvis orchestrated rock, the Beatles garage-banded it. A few columnist became many bloggers. <br /><br /> Arthur Chu characterizes 80's anti-disco and "male metal" as early manifestations of "sad puppy" types. www.thedailybeast.com/.../right-wing-trolls-hijackjoe manningnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-40953044246593528462015-04-19T04:14:08.887-05:002015-04-19T04:14:08.887-05:00Mary Sidney, Duchess of Pembroke? As worthy of a c...Mary Sidney, Duchess of Pembroke? As worthy of a candidate as she might be, as a Shakespearian purist I must bite my thumb at thou for such an slight against the Bard... (and so close to his birthday, too, tsk!)<br /><br />Maybe that theory would be valid under Elizabeth's patronage - I could see the two considering each other kindreds of a sort - but I have trouble seeing Sidney continuing the ruse under James' rule. Still, from the evidence I have heard in defense of Sidney as Shakespeare, she's a compelling candidate. However, it would just kill off too much of my nerdy childhood love of the (standard) Bard to accept the possibility, so...Black Romulanhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggOVNYFlP7Qnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-86481036512936350992015-04-19T01:40:02.366-05:002015-04-19T01:40:02.366-05:00Great point about how these seemingly niche contro...Great point about how these seemingly niche controversies are a reflection of broader social currents.chauncey devegahttp://wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-29961318968887266462015-04-19T01:39:33.773-05:002015-04-19T01:39:33.773-05:00Good old Elizabeth. What do you think of the theor...Good old Elizabeth. What do you think of the theories that the Bard was actually a woman?chauncey devegahttp://wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-18660077786199298932015-04-18T17:46:34.018-05:002015-04-18T17:46:34.018-05:00One thing is for sure, when Ty Burr and Jeet Heer ...One thing is for sure, when Ty Burr and Jeet Heer are writing think pieces about the Puppies who have hijacked the Hugo awards, fan outrage can move outsiders (are the columnists outsiders, or is it their publishers?) to take a close look at a thing. TenarDarellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-10390719115818591352015-04-18T14:14:24.485-05:002015-04-18T14:14:24.485-05:00What Black Romulan says.
Mass literacy and mass ...What Black Romulan says. <br /><br />Mass literacy and mass culture combined began to put fandom on steroids. The 19th century's first superstars were writers and actors. Dickens toured the U.S. and IIRC was mobbed, wasn't he? (I'm guessing that he got quite a few nasty grams when he killed off a character in his serials). <br /><br />The Internet really kicked it up more levels. You're not just sending in a letter via a fan club. You're talking to other fans in real time, and you can share your disappointment and despite. I think the criticism becomes much more self-reinforcing this way. You're not just saying "WTF was that" after leaving the theater while chatting with a friend, and then letting it go. Like a focus group with not enough diversity of opinions.TenarDarellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57113078446695664.post-68526120898455433492015-04-18T14:00:22.510-05:002015-04-18T14:00:22.510-05:00I don't think fans today are any more entitled...I don't think fans today are any more entitled or mean spirited than in the past. We just have more outlets to voice our opinions about the things we love than we've had before (and remember the old saying about the fact of everyone having an opinion being akin to the hole in one's tookus). I, for one, didn't find the SW prequels all THAT bad (except for Jar Jar Binks), and I'd even cut Star Trek: Into Darkness some slack (and would remind folks of some of the terrible movies that came out under the ST masthead while Rodenberry was still alive... Hello, ST: Final Frontier, anyone? What does God need with a spaceship?).<br /><br />As for Shakespeare, the only critic he needed to please most of the time was named 'Elizabeth', and after "Merry Wives of Winsor" (far from his best work but, hey, he was under deadline) he and her were just fine; the perks of having your main patron be the queen of the (emerging) British Empire.Black Romulanhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggOVNYFlP7Qnoreply@blogger.com