Forum Thread

How the rest of the world sees us and why.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 7 Posts
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    These polls pretty much spell out the farce of "American Exceptualism" that so many patriotic Americans so truly believe in. They highlight why we are the laughing stock of the rest of the world although most Americans don't even understand why, much less believe it!

    alternet.org/media/compared-rest-world-...

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Did you take the time to read through this article or did you just post it because the title reflects your preconceived notions?

    You might want to do a little research before posting a garbage post from a non peer reviewed source.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    It is obvious that pr read it because he referred to the contents. That also qualifies it as peer reviewed in the same sense that you reviewed pr's post and qualified the subject as garbage. Making a negative comment does not qualify a superlative position. Nor does reading history and commenting qualify a peer reviewer if you draw a conclusion.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    Did you take the time to read through this article or did you just post it because the title reflects your preconceived notions?

    You might want to do a little research before posting a garbage post from a non peer reviewed source.

    Jared, It again shows your "island" mentality; when are you going to grow up and accept that the world around you is much larger than this "island" and Oregon? Talking about garbage; what do you think what people overseas think about our yet to be elected candidates? They spew CARBAGE every day.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Jared's comment about not reading the article is a good observation. One of my pet peeves about articles that I read in the internet is that the titles of the articles often don't match the contents of the article. The headline often sensationalizes one small facet of the article, but often borders on journalistic dishonesty as one goes in and actually reads and thinks about what is written. Such is the case with the above AlterNet article, but AlterNet is not as bad as the Huffington Post in that regard.

    The TV networks and cable news are equally guilty in this respect. I'll watch a debate or an interview or an Obama press conference, and then later watch what clips they extracted. What they pull out to sensationalize is not often what I would have chosen. For example, President Obama might have a long detailed press conference going into intricate details on some aspect of his agenda. Then some body from the press corps asks a really stupid question, which gets a mild rebuff from the president. The headline is Obama's response to the jerk (usually someone from Fox News or the Daily Caller) with some headline like "Obama shows his anger at press"or something similar, which then is the topic of the Sunday talk shows ad infinitum.

    Furthermore, the international media also sensationalize all the crazies in America including every word that people like Donald Trump says. In the Arab and Muslim world, Trump's words make headlines as well, so the perceptions of their citizenry of Americans are stereotyped as being "Trump supportive" as clips of Americans waving the American flag at Trump rallies are shown around the world.

    One final point that I have made many times has to do with how we selectively hear and read. Frank Luntz, Republican strategist, pointed out, “We as Americans and as humans have very selective hearing and very selective memory. We only hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest.”

    The same could be applied to what we read. We are all guilty of that, and the best evidence I can offer to support that premise is the members of this website.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: It is obvious that pr read it because he referred to the contents. That also qualifies it as peer reviewed in the same sense that you reviewed pr's post and qualified the subject as garbage. Making a negative comment does not qualify a superlative position. Nor does reading history and commenting qualify a peer reviewer if you draw a conclusion.

    It's obvious he didn't because he didn't say anything more about the article other than restating its click-bait title.

    I also am not sure you understand what peer reviewed means. I am not qualified to peer review anything because I am not an academic or political scientist and have never suggested that I am. However, I do tend to only deal with peer reviewed studies when trying to form an opinion on something I am not very familiar with.


    If PR or anyone who responded in the affirmative to this posting actually read the article then he and you would understand that the article discusses a hodgepodge of years old surveys that don't tell the full story. The writer used those surveys to affirm her preconceived opinions and downplayed or simply ignored any part of the surveys that didn't align with her already set opinions.

    That is not journalism; that is click-bait blogging.

    I have no problem with people stating their opinions and loudly so, but I do have a problem with people who misreport information and masquerade it as journalism. Blogging is a great thing and has allowed many people to have their voices heard, but there is a massive difference between stating ones opinion and writing a journalistic article.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt as well Jared, I read that piece, indeed it is not "strong" enough to spell out the real facts about why people don't like our attitude. I think I wrote enough about that. I must say Schmidt has the right attitude and knows what I mean, as well researches things in a fantastic way. But there is always a "but"; He digs things up, but seldom ties it in with an whole picture and views from an outside the US location. That is the problem with "island" views which gets "baked in" over time. I've got the same problem sometimes; then my wife says: you act like a "real" American.