TED Conversations

Mark Meijer

TEDCRED 100+
HostAssociate

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Disagreeing with U.S. politics.

rafael melendez wrote:

----------
Daring to disagree is a vital part of a healthy society, analogous to allowing our human immune system to strengthen by learning from exposure to foreign invaders for, in the same manner in which the immune system learns from these interventions, so does our society from disagreements. Hence, it fundamentally helps maintain the integrity of its fabric by guaranteeing accountability and understanding and clearing of its complexity to realize better solutions to problems. Silence this tool and opportunity to invite concealment in a free society becomes inevitable and with it, the establishment of systems of inequity, partiality and general contempt. The level of lack of disagreement is a telltale of things to come and proportional to the disintegration of this same fabric and the weaving of another, cleverly harmonized for public acceptance.
----------

...continued in rafael melendez's three bottom-most comments below.

Related Talks:
Topics: government politics social change
+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    David Hamilton 50+

    • +1
    Aug 10 2012: Just so you know, lots of us are disagreeing like crazy... Have you ever listened to anything I've written on here or thedailyshow.com? lol.

    They tricked us, as they have tricked almost all of you, into advertising driven entertainment, and information content. In doing so, they have set up the system in such a way, that no one who disagrees with big business, or any advertising agency... will ever be allowed to broadcast directly to the citizens.

    Podcasting helps. Forum posting helps, sites like Ted. Those are the tools for educated people to fight back with now. There is no way to work within the system and make a coherent political point, you won't generate advertising revenue.

    We need to start paying for news, and journalism.

    My solution, a worldwide HBO of news.

    • Kevin Karam

      • 0
      Aug 10 2012: I don't think that's necessary. We need a decentralization of news. The News and journalists were worth their gall when they were not a part of 24hr continuous coverage networks. Monsters like CNN and FOX News have destroyed the quality of reporting by essentially standardizing the product. We don't need to pay for news outside of newspaper/magazine subscriptions. The model from before cable network news worked just fine.
      • thumb

        David Hamilton 50+

        • 0
        Aug 11 2012: The newspaper and magazine model worked fine, back when subscriptions and quarters, were actual meaningful revenue streams. When people stopped buying a paper because it became biased, they instantly lost some of their lifeblood. Advertising is such a huge bulk of their revenue now that a brief drop off in subscription and newstand sales doesn't hit the company anywhere near as hard.

        Most importantly though, even major newspapers are in the pockets of major corporations with heavy influence on US policy. No one will ever reccomend anything that involves locallization, customization, and personallization, all of which are fundaments of a healthy capitalist economy in the traditional sense of the word.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.