Today I received this gem in email, and feel compelled to share it, as well as respond here in the forum. It reminds me of the sad state of information for which our society currently exists, where "popularity" is a measure of something, and science and fact is so easily overlooked. And of course, that's how we end up with so many myths being perpetuated online -- something this forum (and much of the site) was created to fight off.
Quote:
Constructive criticism:
Your boogey man comment was clever, but may I suggest that it might serve you well if you leave out the political references when answering a technical question! Your passing comment about Fox news made me question your open mindedness and thus the validity of the rest of your comments. More people watch Fox than the other cable networks combined, including people like me who do not walk in lock step with either party. I would guess that you made your opinion from the filters of MSNBC rather than watching yourself. What purpose does it serve you to degrade so many potential readers who are not interested in your political opinion but have technical questions such as whether to keep their video tapes after backing them up to DVD? /69.242.147.124
|
It's a reference to this page:
http://www.digitalFAQ.com/guides/media/longevity.htm
and this specific quote:
Quote:
|
About four years ago, several fluff articles about "dying media" were published online and sometimes even repeated in print. Those articles were little more than opinion pieces that lacked perspective on the overall technology of optical media, as well as ignored decades of empirical evidence. None of them (as seen by this author) are backed by formal studies from neutral sources. A lot of them read like scare-tactic Fox News broadcasts, or bedtime stories about the boogeyman.
|
Now let me pick apart this email and reveal it for what it is...
Quote:
|
boogey man comment was clever
|
Yes, thank you. When it comes to information, words are our most powerful tools.
Quote:
Huh? Political references?
The fact that Fox News has a crappy "scare tactics" reporting style is related to politics how, exactly?
I have no admiration or respect for a so-called "news" outlet that acts more like the marketing wing of its own corporate body than the field I chose to get into 15 years ago. They seek ratings and monetary gain, and the dissemination of news (if you can even call it that) takes a backseat to those ulterior motives. That goes not just for the cable version, but all the local market Fox outlets, too. Yes, those are all "Fox News" by their own branding. In Dallas, it's "Fox 4 News". In Nashville, it's "Your Local Fox News".
Many of their stories are questions. For example, "Do you wear contacts? Learn what common mistakes almost made this woman go blind! Learn what you should know at 10." That's an actual story that ran in the Nashville market a few months ago.
I wear contacts. Oh my God, could I be doing something that might make me go blind? I was expecting them to say something about sleeping in contacts, using a solution that might not be good for your eyes, etc.
As it turns out, the woman was doing anything but common. To put it bluntly, she was a total idiot.
- She bought contacts without a prescription, to change her eye color.
- She bought them from some shady "convenience store" in the bad part of town.
- The box has no writing, and was obviously some sort of fake.
- She "cleaned" them in water instead of solution.
- She knew nothing of contacts, have read no documentation and having consulted with no doctor.
Just how was that a "common" mistake? It wasn't. And it reminded me why I need to never watch Fox News. I want a refund on my time.
They do the same things with politics, yes. The "death panels" baloney, for example. What a croc. But still, that was just terrible reporting at its core, not politics. Had anybody actually read the legislation, they would have seen no such "death panel" was ever mentioned directly, or via euphemism.
Quote:
|
More people watch Fox than the other cable networks combined
|
I don't care. Popularity is not an indicator of quality, simply one of marketing and demographic habits. Those numbers can be fudged too -- all statistics can be, in the right (wrong?!) hands.
When it comes to local markets, I would suggest this is not true in many areas -- CBS, ABC, and NBC affiliates can and do draw more watchers. Some markets don't even have Fox affiliates.
And I'm not sure other cable news networks are much better. It's like comparing a dog turd to a cat turds -- both are turds.
Quote:
|
people like me who do not walk in lock step with either party
|
Given this comment, and your zeal to chastise me for insulting Fox News, as well as insist it's politically motivated, I would suggest you're either lying or a closet conservative/Republican. And I can't stand people who are so blinded by their own politics (or religion, for that matter) that it seems to cloud their judgments. To them, everything is about politics or religion. You tried to turn a blank DVD help guide into some sort of nefarious anti-conservative rhetoric when no such intention existed. You simply read that into it because you choose to see politics. That's all on you.
Quote:
|
potential readers who are not interested in your political opinion
|
And again, there was no political opinion. It was an opinion about the quality of a news provider. Or rather, the complete and total lack thereof.
Quote:
|
degrade so many potential readers
|
In all the years that this guide has been on this site, you're the only person that's complained. Probably because you're the only person who decided to inject political references where none actually exist.
Quote:
|
but have technical questions such as whether to keep their video tapes after backing them up to DVD
|
And you're still very welcome to post those questions here.
