Comments on: Why American media has such a signal-to-noise problem, part 1 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/ Think - it ain't illegal yet... Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:47:04 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Scholars and Rogues » The Summer of Hate provides a watershed moment for “reasonable Republicans” http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-70490 Scholars and Rogues » The Summer of Hate provides a watershed moment for “reasonable Republicans” Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:03:11 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-70490 [...] most obnoxious tantrums. By resorting to base terror, intimidation and thuggery. By playing on the media’s insatiable thirst for [...] [...] most obnoxious tantrums. By resorting to base terror, intimidation and thuggery. By playing on the media’s insatiable thirst for [...]

]]> By: Dan http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69826 Dan Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:51:14 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69826 @Brian et al., On the topic of a perfect code, the importance of Shannon's theory is not that you can do it necessarily in practice, but that it's a theoretical limit. It's a simple consequence of a very powerful body of theory, not the other way around. His ideas about random codes (the only ones able to approach the limit) are experiencing a renaissance in the form so-called "compressed sensing." @Brian et al.,
On the topic of a perfect code, the importance of Shannon’s theory is not that you can do it necessarily in practice, but that it’s a theoretical limit. It’s a simple consequence of a very powerful body of theory, not the other way around. His ideas about random codes (the only ones able to approach the limit) are experiencing a renaissance in the form so-called “compressed sensing.”

]]> By: Dr. Slammy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69774 Dr. Slammy Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:38:47 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69774 Dr. Paul: Well put. I occasionally get a bit of info from places like CBS, but it's not a habit I cultivate. I use Google news because it brings me so many different sources and I also surf the predictable array of independent sources. Single-source credibility was a wonderful thing while it lasted.... Dr. Paul: Well put. I occasionally get a bit of info from places like CBS, but it’s not a habit I cultivate. I use Google news because it brings me so many different sources and I also surf the predictable array of independent sources.

Single-source credibility was a wonderful thing while it lasted….

]]> By: Dr. Slammy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69773 Dr. Slammy Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:36:42 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69773 leTerrassier: Thanks for raising the canon issue. In truth, I probably conflated a couple things there because infinitely problematizing every syllable and agreeing on a canon are not the same issue. Related in many ways, but not the same. Being a culturalist - and something of a popular culturalist to boot - I've never had any trouble expanding the canon. I see U2 as being related to Yeats and treat rock music as though it were worthy of the same kind of critical respect and scrutiny due the old dead white masters. As for the rest of your comments, let's just say that you and I agree on a great deal. Once criticism became self-referential I started getting annoyed. When it became a sealed environment I got completely off the wagon. Eliot and Arnold and any number of others wrote about the function of criticism, but the answer always came back to the art. Criticism served the art. Once criticism became unabashed wankery, it ceased to matter in any fathomable way. As you can imagine, these sorts of opinions provided me endless opportunities for lively conversations while I was in my PhD program.... Thanks for writing. Please visit again. leTerrassier: Thanks for raising the canon issue. In truth, I probably conflated a couple things there because infinitely problematizing every syllable and agreeing on a canon are not the same issue. Related in many ways, but not the same.

Being a culturalist – and something of a popular culturalist to boot – I’ve never had any trouble expanding the canon. I see U2 as being related to Yeats and treat rock music as though it were worthy of the same kind of critical respect and scrutiny due the old dead white masters.

As for the rest of your comments, let’s just say that you and I agree on a great deal. Once criticism became self-referential I started getting annoyed. When it became a sealed environment I got completely off the wagon. Eliot and Arnold and any number of others wrote about the function of criticism, but the answer always came back to the art. Criticism served the art. Once criticism became unabashed wankery, it ceased to matter in any fathomable way.

As you can imagine, these sorts of opinions provided me endless opportunities for lively conversations while I was in my PhD program….

Thanks for writing. Please visit again.

]]> By: Dr. Paul http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69708 Dr. Paul Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:41:34 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69708 <i> Why, against this backdrop, would so many people who are so involved in the daily repudiation of everything that Cronkite stood for make such a show memorializing the standard by which they so abjectly fail?</i> While the major networks have abandoned the model the Cronkite exemplified of telling the news as it is rather than the spin as the powerful want us to believe, they trade on Cronkite's example and his memory. The want to burnish the memory of Cronkite because their reputation benefits from it. The network news divisions sell the perceived credibility that they inherited from an earlier era. So long as there are people who believe what they say they will have something to sell. Personally, I've moved on to independent networks and the internet for my news. Why, against this backdrop, would so many people who are so involved in the daily repudiation of everything that Cronkite stood for make such a show memorializing the standard by which they so abjectly fail?

While the major networks have abandoned the model the Cronkite exemplified of telling the news as it is rather than the spin as the powerful want us to believe, they trade on Cronkite’s example and his memory. The want to burnish the memory of Cronkite because their reputation benefits from it.

The network news divisions sell the perceived credibility that they inherited from an earlier era. So long as there are people who believe what they say they will have something to sell. Personally, I’ve moved on to independent networks and the internet for my news.

]]> By: leTerrassier http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69706 leTerrassier Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:40:55 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69706 The problem I see with "canonization" is that the canon is often limited to literature of a certain type, which is usually dense, authoritarian works that, after a while, all seem the same. Granted, there is plenty of good in the typical western canon, but it is too often focused on the "great writers" who's "great works" often lack a real connection to human existence. Proponents of the canon, like Harold Bloom, often push a view of literature that is essentially joyless. Clearly, there is a problem with the current take on literary theory though; as someone schooled in it, I'd say literary criticism should be abandoned altogether as a useless field which, rather than improve art, buries it under the opinions of people who could never succeed as writers anyway. But since academics has so many other, even more useless fields, I suppose that won't happen. (I'm not saying English professors should all be out of work, either; rather they should focus on teaching and be promoted based upon how well they improve the comprehension and writing of their pupils, and not based upon how many pages of thought-diarrhea they can spew in literary journals.) The solution may not be the reactionary view that we should all return to the dark ages of the early twentieth century academics though, since society and people have changed a good deal in the last century. Perhaps literary criticism needs a whole new outlook that returns to the age-old concept of examining works of art for meaning, while avoiding the senseless monotone elitism of canonization. The problem I see with “canonization” is that the canon is often limited to literature of a certain type, which is usually dense, authoritarian works that, after a while, all seem the same. Granted, there is plenty of good in the typical western canon, but it is too often focused on the “great writers” who’s “great works” often lack a real connection to human existence. Proponents of the canon, like Harold Bloom, often push a view of literature that is essentially joyless.
Clearly, there is a problem with the current take on literary theory though; as someone schooled in it, I’d say literary criticism should be abandoned altogether as a useless field which, rather than improve art, buries it under the opinions of people who could never succeed as writers anyway. But since academics has so many other, even more useless fields, I suppose that won’t happen. (I’m not saying English professors should all be out of work, either; rather they should focus on teaching and be promoted based upon how well they improve the comprehension and writing of their pupils, and not based upon how many pages of thought-diarrhea they can spew in literary journals.)
The solution may not be the reactionary view that we should all return to the dark ages of the early twentieth century academics though, since society and people have changed a good deal in the last century. Perhaps literary criticism needs a whole new outlook that returns to the age-old concept of examining works of art for meaning, while avoiding the senseless monotone elitism of canonization.

]]> By: Dr. Slammy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69683 Dr. Slammy Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:00:57 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69683 Tom: First, yes, a lot of people watch broadcast news. But that isn't the real issue. The bigger problem is that broadcast news has become indistinguishable from broadcast entertainment. The evening news and the Today Show are each expressions of the same thing. Evening news hosts used to be on the morning show and they sometimes turn up there. Infotainment, basically. Tom: First, yes, a lot of people watch broadcast news. But that isn’t the real issue. The bigger problem is that broadcast news has become indistinguishable from broadcast entertainment. The evening news and the Today Show are each expressions of the same thing. Evening news hosts used to be on the morning show and they sometimes turn up there. Infotainment, basically.

]]> By: Dr. Slammy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69680 Dr. Slammy Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:24:18 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69680 Mike: If the question is about how broadly the Barthes issue applies, I'd say we're mostly talking humanities. The bigger problem with research on the sciences side is the death of pure research and the co-option of the research mission by corporations. Another issue altogether... Mike: If the question is about how broadly the Barthes issue applies, I’d say we’re mostly talking humanities. The bigger problem with research on the sciences side is the death of pure research and the co-option of the research mission by corporations.

Another issue altogether…

]]> By: Tom Shortell http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69676 Tom Shortell Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:32:33 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69676 Ha, I should have predicted that Shannon's communication model would appear sooner or later. I'm pretty sure I know where you're going with this, but I'm eager to check out Part II. Does anyone actually watch broadcast news? I think that's the absolute last medium I check for news gathering. In fairness, that may be because my state doesn't have any mainstream network stations of its own. Lastly, as trendy as it is to bash Katie Couric, she was the first "media anchor" to reveal Palin's true colors (assuming we're not granting Tina Fey journalist status. Mean Girls could pass as a documentary in some circles). Granted, that's like successfully deducing the ingredients of a BLT all by yourself, but she was the first. (If that isn't a sign that the medium is useless, I don't know what is.) Ha, I should have predicted that Shannon’s communication model would appear sooner or later. I’m pretty sure I know where you’re going with this, but I’m eager to check out Part II.

Does anyone actually watch broadcast news? I think that’s the absolute last medium I check for news gathering. In fairness, that may be because my state doesn’t have any mainstream network stations of its own.

Lastly, as trendy as it is to bash Katie Couric, she was the first “media anchor” to reveal Palin’s true colors (assuming we’re not granting Tina Fey journalist status. Mean Girls could pass as a documentary in some circles). Granted, that’s like successfully deducing the ingredients of a BLT all by yourself, but she was the first. (If that isn’t a sign that the medium is useless, I don’t know what is.)

]]> By: Ubertramp http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69675 Ubertramp Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:56:59 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69675 I read this twice and I'm still too stupid to understand it. Guess that comes from being in academia. :) But, I'm curious. Does this apply across the board for all academia, including things like engineering and science? Or is it limited to some subset? Like, say, literature or philosophy? From my perspective, academia does not necessarily lack ideas (or signal), but rather lacks the funding to pursue understanding of the ideas (or signal). If if it's not limited, then I guess I need an example of how it works in the sciences. If it is, then what makes the fields so fundamentally different? Or is this something that you will cover in a future post? I read this twice and I’m still too stupid to understand it. Guess that comes from being in academia. :) But, I’m curious. Does this apply across the board for all academia, including things like engineering and science? Or is it limited to some subset? Like, say, literature or philosophy? From my perspective, academia does not necessarily lack ideas (or signal), but rather lacks the funding to pursue understanding of the ideas (or signal). If if it’s not limited, then I guess I need an example of how it works in the sciences. If it is, then what makes the fields so fundamentally different? Or is this something that you will cover in a future post?

]]> By: Dr. Slammy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69674 Dr. Slammy Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:17:58 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69674 Meh: Jesus, how did I do that? My bad, and thanks for the catch. I used to watch him every damned night, but it's been so long, I guess. Meh: Jesus, how did I do that? My bad, and thanks for the catch. I used to watch him every damned night, but it’s been so long, I guess.

]]> By: nader paul kucinich gravel http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69671 nader paul kucinich gravel Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:07:39 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69671 Dan Rather knows the truth Future of a Nation that can not trust the Government & Propaganda Media? How many times has the Government & Propaganda Media lied to you? Chronic lying as career path or intellectual prostitution for paycheck? Gravel Kucinich Paul Nader McKinney Ventura Sheehan Kaptur. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Poodles, Puppets, Sham debates, Scam elections. 9/11 liars, AIPAC liars, Federal Reserve liars. Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil? Greed & corruption or conscience? Leaks from Whistleblowers. perotcharts.com Dan Rather knows the truth

Future of a Nation that can not trust the Government & Propaganda Media?
How many times has the Government & Propaganda Media lied to you?
Chronic lying as career path or intellectual prostitution for paycheck?
Gravel Kucinich Paul Nader McKinney Ventura Sheehan Kaptur.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Poodles, Puppets, Sham debates, Scam elections.
9/11 liars, AIPAC liars, Federal Reserve liars.
Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil?
Greed & corruption or conscience?
Leaks from Whistleblowers.

perotcharts.com

]]> By: Meh http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69669 Meh Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:20:24 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69669 "and that's the way it IS", not "was". Have you not watched Cronkite either live or on tape? “and that’s the way it IS”, not “was”. Have you not watched Cronkite either live or on tape?

]]> By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69662 Brian Angliss Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:49:49 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69662 I just realized that I said "people who work in communications" when I meant scientists, engineers, and others who work the math of communications systems vs. people such as yourself who work in mass communications. Just wanted to clarify. I just realized that I said “people who work in communications” when I meant scientists, engineers, and others who work the math of communications systems vs. people such as yourself who work in mass communications.

Just wanted to clarify.

]]> By: Dr. Slammy http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69660 Dr. Slammy Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:08:17 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69660 <i>...most people who work in communications today don’t agree with his point about noise being reducible to zero in real communications systems.</i> I know. Zero noise is a fairy tale. But that isn't, as you note, on point for this argument. Still, LESS noise would be nice.... …most people who work in communications today don’t agree with his point about noise being reducible to zero in real communications systems.

I know. Zero noise is a fairy tale. But that isn’t, as you note, on point for this argument.

Still, LESS noise would be nice….

]]> By: Dr. Denny http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69659 Dr. Denny Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:47:32 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69659 I'm having prosem flashbacks ... I’m having prosem flashbacks …

]]> By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/08/03/why-american-media-has-such-a-signal-to-noise-problem-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-69658 Brian Angliss Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:43:35 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=10538#comment-69658 For your information, Shannon's point about noise has been updated repeatedly and most people who work in communications today don't agree with his point about noise being reducible to zero in real communications systems. Doesn't change your point in any way since Shannon isn't the core of your argument (that would be Barthes), but I thought you might be interested to know it anyway. For your information, Shannon’s point about noise has been updated repeatedly and most people who work in communications today don’t agree with his point about noise being reducible to zero in real communications systems.

Doesn’t change your point in any way since Shannon isn’t the core of your argument (that would be Barthes), but I thought you might be interested to know it anyway.

]]>