Well, I never expected to put this in words but my father doing precisely that was not funny. Not at all. Go figure...

I agree. Entertainment is supposed to be entretaining, never mind if it's attached to strict logic or not.

My wife and I used to enjoy watching Smallville when it first came out (the first three seasons were good... didn't like it that much afterwards), and she once said to me, with a wink: "You know, this Grissom character from CSI would bust Clark's alibi every time, I'm sure."

 

Life is so precious.

 

By and large, crippled animals just deal with it. They don't have much of an alternative, so they get on with life.

The video does make me wonder how common that deformity is -- and is it perhaps a byproduct of purebred breeding.

Whatever the case, it is always inspiring to watch animals (including the human variety) adapt and overcome.

When I was growing up my grandmother's neighbor had a child (adult) that had a dog that was missing opposing legs (one due to an accident and the other due to cancer) and that dog learned to balance and run around on those two legs. I used to play with him in their yard and he was just as eager to chase you as most dogs.

 

I think in many respects this is a good thing. It's called "news" because it's about things that are new and out-of-the-ordinary. It may SEEM like disasters and crime are routine, but that's only because that's what gets reported and, like the overwhelming majority of "good news" out there, it wouldn't get reported if it truly were the norm. Even in most parts of the world that are the worst, neighbors doing good things for each other are far more common than the all-too-common crimes.

I think, deep down, we all know this, which is why a "good news" newspaper doesn't rate well. The truly shameful day will be when such newspapers DO make it because it may well indicate that we have slid so far that we truly believe that good news is the exception rather than the rule.

If I am understanding you, the position is that the excessive reporting of "bad events" is a good thing, because if "good events" became less common than "bad events", and, therefore, newsworthy, it would reflect that the state of mankind had grown much worse.

While that position may have some merit, it is clearly not the case that less reporting of "bad events" is, necessarily, a bad thing. In fact, you are suggesting that "bad events" are reported at a far greater frequency than their occurrence, relative to "good events" and I do not disagree. In fact, murder, for example, is reported at a far greater frequency than the occurrence of murder, within an individual's immediate environment. That is, the environment that we directly interact in, on a day-to-day basis. What one might call our first hand environment, if you will, in contrast to the much wider environment exemplified by events occurring far from where we are.

A different view might consider that the over reporting of "bad events" warps our sense of the likelihood of the occurrence of "bad events" within our first-hand environment. Consequently, we become influenced toward a tendency to be occupied by negativity at a much higher frequency than otherwise might be warranted. That situation, from one perspective, is unnatural and dysfunctional.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47277608

The letter from an 86-year-old man from Phoenix, Arizona, described how he had been watching tapes from his wedding, attended by family and friends, many of whom he said were no longer around.

 

If I am understanding you, the position is that the excessive reporting of "bad events" is a good thing, because if "good events" became less common than "bad events", and, therefore, newsworthy, it would reflect that the state of mankind had grown much worse.

While that position may have some merit, it is clearly not the case that less reporting of "bad events" is, necessarily, a bad thing. In fact, you are suggesting that "bad events" are reported at a far greater frequency than their occurrence, relative to "good events" and I do not disagree. In fact, murder, for example, is reported at a far greater frequency than the occurrence of murder, within an individual's immediate environment. That is, the environment that we directly interact in, on a day-to-day basis. What one might call our first hand environment, if you will, in contrast to the much wider environment exemplified by events occurring far from where we are.

A different view might consider that the over reporting of "bad events" warps our sense of the likelihood of the occurrence of "bad events" within our first-hand environment. Consequently, we become influenced toward a tendency to be occupied by negativity at a much higher frequency than otherwise might be warranted. That situation, from one perspective, is unnatural and dysfunctional.

I don't disagree and note that I never said that that it categorically a good thing, only that in some respects it is -- namely that it gives SOME indications that are positive. I never said that the reporting itself was necessarily good or bad.

Consider the reporting of murders in very high crime areas -- they often go unreported bu the media unless there is something particularly remarkable about them. Why? Because they aren't "news". But in most areas, every single murder, no matter how "mundane", is leading news?

But specifically to your point, I definitely agree that we tend to derive our expectation of what is normal, particularly what is normal beyond our very limited personal sphere of experience (that "immediate environment" you refer to), based on the information we are exposed to -- and that includes both news and entertainment sources. How can it be significantly different? When that information is high distorted, either in nature or number, we develop a distorted view of the world around us and we act in accordance with that view. How can it be significantly different?

 

/--/ How can it be significantly different? When that information is high distorted, either in nature or number, we develop a distorted view of the world around us and we act in accordance with that view. How can it be significantly different?

Unless one becomes a complete recluse, you can't, in a practical sense, avoid all such information. In large part it seems like it comes with the advancement of civilization. You can, however, exert some control over what and how much you will receive (e.g., watching every crime show on TV or your phone for 160 hours a week vs 20). Not that I am necessarily a good example for anyone to follow....gotta run Oak Island is coming on

 

Unless one becomes a complete recluse, you can't, in a practical sense, avoid all such information. In large part it seems like it comes with the advancement of civilization. You can, however, exert some control over what and how much you will receive (e.g., watching every crime show on TV or your phone for 160 hours a week vs 20). Not that I am necessarily a good example for anyone to follow....gotta run Oak Island is coming on

There are certainly at least some that practice moderation and some that make a concerted effort to recognize that what they are seeing paraded in front of them is NOT an accurate picture of the world. But even then there are going to be lots of topics about which your ONLY knowledge is based on what you've seen in the media (and you are likely not to even recall if it was a news program or a movie).

The big problem is that a HUGE fraction of people make NO effort at either of these. They sit there and absorb every facet of every show and incorporate it into their understanding of reality. Then they go and make decisions that impact them, their family, you, and me based on that warped understanding.

 

A very interesting article about how some societies nurture their members to selflessly help one another:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-a-more-generous-society-possible/#

As Townsend was conducting the dictator game, she noticed that those people who had experienced trauma in the past were more generous than others who had not.

 

https://apnews.com/0cf6c361cd3f4e70b43d56a088666259

Prison officials say Palma died after being found unresponsive in his cell and the suspect is his cellmate, Raymond Padillo, 38, who is serving three life terms for murders in Oklahoma County.

Department of Corrections spokesman Matt Elliott declined to give a suspected motive, but said inmates convicted of crimes against children are often the target of violence by fellow inmates.

“Oh yeah, those who are serving time for victimizing children, they are definitely more vulnerable, as are others such as former law enforcement officers,” Elliott said.

 

If this is not a splendid sample of feel-good news, I don't know what is:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/nurse-adopts-infant-who-had-no-visitors-during-hospital-stay

“When a judge walks in the room, everyone stands out of respect. But today I stand in respect for you, Liz because you deserve the respect from this room. A birthing day is a miracle. But adopting a child from miles away is destiny. That’s what brought you two together.”

 

If this is not a splendid sample of feel-good news, I don't know what is:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/nurse-adopts-infant-who-had-no-visitors-during-hospital-stay

Amazing they are not related. They look so much alike, the nurse could easily be mistaken for her biological mother.

 

Amazing they are not related. They look so much alike, the nurse could easily be mistaken for her biological mother.

Maybe that's one of the reasons why she (most likely unconsciously) fell for her...

 

Regarding good news/ bad news distribution. Does anyone else feel that we have too much news? Growing up, theee maybe was 15 minutes a day on television plus the newspapers. The latter was self-filtering, due to the time neccessary to publish. And in both cases, there was much more analysis prior to publication. The contemporary instant availability of “news” results in the promulgation of Demi-fact and falsehoods.

 

Regarding good news/ bad news distribution. Does anyone else feel that we have too much news? Growing up, theee maybe was 15 minutes a day on television plus the newspapers. The latter was self-filtering, due to the time neccessary to publish. And in both cases, there was much more analysis prior to publication. The contemporary instant availability of “news” results in the promulgation of Demi-fact and falsehoods.

I agree ... but it's only the normal phenomena of supply complying with demand - we have too much news, but only because we crave for them

 

I agree ... but it's only the normal phenomena of supply complying with demand - we have too much news, but only because we crave for them

Sadly, I have to agree with you. And I think it’s a destructive feedback cycle. There is more demand in part because the news is no longer devoted to the truth. Suppliers like Fix News publish stories that have little regard for the truth, but pander to those who want to hear that perspective.

 

I agree ... but it's only the normal phenomena of supply complying with demand - we have too much news, but only because we crave for them

But do we? Or were we told we do. I have no TV anymore and use internet for music mostly and research topics of interest...

 

But do we? Or were we told we do. I have no TV anymore and use internet for music mostly and research topics of interest...

I think you’re the exception to the rule. Without being judgemental, there now is s large part of the population that believes they’ve had no voice and who are now finding it. Albeit n a warped communication channel.

 

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2019/04/16/sara-hinesley-born-without-hands-resilient/amp/

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48020481

"Then, three days later, I woke up to the sound of someone calling my name.

"It was her! She was calling my name, I was flying with joy; for years I have dreamt of this moment, and my name was the first word she said."