I was in two minds about this channel, until you mentioned that you used to produce Question Time (4:38) , then I was reminded that the media often pretends to be serious or informative when it is, like Question Time, just entertainment.
There's a range of programmes - plenty that are 100% serious. I think QT's format can be very entertaining and (like PMQs) that brings an audience that wouldn't watch otherwise. That's why it is the most-watched politics programme!
@@BrendanMillerExplains I'm not saying QT isn't popular, I'm saying it isn't serious about its subject even when the subject is a serious one. QT doesn't address its subjects, it consumes them in order to produce its product, which is entertainment. It's politics themed entertainment, in the same way Sky News is news themed entertainment; it's the 'circuses' in "... bread and circuses." It does this by selecting questions which are divisive and raise a jeer from one half of the audience, then avoids clarifying or unpacking the question. This ensures the question remains divisive, ie entertaining, and allows its assumptions and prejudices to keep the two sides opposing each other, rather than seeking solutions or progress. It selects guests who will avoid actually answering the question, and instead allows them to answer a different question that suits their agenda and adds their own prejudices and stereotypes, helping to exploit the division. Occasionally, the host will appear to challenge a guest's behaviour or words, as if the host is protecting the sanctity of debate from some uncivilised offence. But this, usually done with po-faced expression, is all just part of the theatre; they never force the offence to be resolved. And that goes for the original question, too. No attempt is made to resolve an issue, or even make progress at understanding the views presented. Long before there is any risk of that the host will say, "Well, this is a very important subject, and I'm sure we'll return to it again in the future, but we must move on...", and so the next question begins, and the process repeats with renewed bile. Unfortunately, those questions often concern a real person, in a real house, in a real country somewhere, crushed by a real tank, supplied by our Government. I don't think that is a suitable subject for an entertainment show. Especially if you consider that members of the audience paid taxes that bought the weapon, may have worked in the factory that produced it, and may even have relatives in the country that it was sent to.
Hey man, thank you for all the support. Actually, it'd be useful to get your advice about UA-cam considering your experience.Do you remember how you came across the channel? I'm collecting feedback here forms.gle/2o51tNxcyTagKgvJ7
00:02 Ed Miliband faces challenges from within the Labour party 00:52 Political strategies use diversion tactics to redirect attention. 01:40 Dead cat strategy diverts attention from important issues 02:29 Critiquing mainstream media's influence and manipulation. 03:19 Political views are not solely influenced by media information. 04:08 Interplay between values and media shaping political perceptions. 04:58 Media focusing on distractions over real issues 05:49 Criticism of media as a distraction Crafted by Merlin AI.
I think what you’re saying is quite close to what I’ve tried to tell people for a while now: Politics is largely not science, but philosophy. As you point out, the reason we can keep arguing is because we have different values, not because we necessarily disagree on the facts.
I think "it's not science, but psychology" gets closer to it It really feels like people are born with different political outlooks, but then - depending on the context in which they grow up - these manifest in different ways
Great work as always :D how long do you tend to work on your videos btw? This is a crazy large subject and you've done a good job of trying to wrangle your position in to 6.5 minutes, not a small feat!
Oh I feel seen! It varies but I feel smug if I can do it in 40 hours. One big problem is the videos I'm most interested in doing require lots of thought/working through. This idea was a bit more settled in my head so came together quite easily. (Though I think I'd restructure it if doing it again).
Yeah I don’t envy you your topics of video essays 😂 anyway it all came together for me in the final summing up, and even made me watch again. Maybe the restructure can come in a sequel :-D
I dismiss what people think. But that's because I'm quite sure what really motivates people's views on things are neither self-interest nor justice but rather half-digested slogans from childhood elaborated into supposed policy views and ideologies. It also kind of accounts for why almost no one is actually right or left wing. People dismiss leftism and conservatism as actual political positions because they supposedly don't form coherent wholes, but I think political theorists actually do have very systematic views anywhere on the spectrum; it's just that flesh and blood human beings don't hold political convictions or views, or in the few cases they do, they'll hold a position on one issue maximum. We don't need to care about changing what people think because firstly they mostly don't think, and secondly you can't change the little bit of thinking they may have in rare cases.
To add to my argument. I think this is the case with religious profession and practice, too. Just consider the fact that the majority of Christians who have ever lived not only had a completely mistaken understanding of the trinity and the incarnation but didn't even know there was an understanding to be had.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
dead cat is a dead cat distracting us from "wag the dog"
'The media may not always be able to tell us what to think, but they are strikingly successful in telling us what to think about.'
Michael Parenti
Ah never heard that. There's a lot in that.
This was good. One line I've come up with in the past is "most of us agree on the problems, we just don't agree on the causes or solutions."
I was in two minds about this channel, until you mentioned that you used to produce Question Time (4:38) , then I was reminded that the media often pretends to be serious or informative when it is, like Question Time, just entertainment.
There's a range of programmes - plenty that are 100% serious. I think QT's format can be very entertaining and (like PMQs) that brings an audience that wouldn't watch otherwise. That's why it is the most-watched politics programme!
@@BrendanMillerExplains I'm not saying QT isn't popular, I'm saying it isn't serious about its subject even when the subject is a serious one.
QT doesn't address its subjects, it consumes them in order to produce its product, which is entertainment.
It's politics themed entertainment, in the same way Sky News is news themed entertainment; it's the 'circuses' in "... bread and circuses."
It does this by selecting questions which are divisive and raise a jeer from one half of the audience, then avoids clarifying or unpacking the question. This ensures the question remains divisive, ie entertaining, and allows its assumptions and prejudices to keep the two sides opposing each other, rather than seeking solutions or progress.
It selects guests who will avoid actually answering the question, and instead allows them to answer a different question that suits their agenda and adds their own prejudices and stereotypes, helping to exploit the division. Occasionally, the host will appear to challenge a guest's behaviour or words, as if the host is protecting the sanctity of debate from some uncivilised offence. But this, usually done with po-faced expression, is all just part of the theatre; they never force the offence to be resolved. And that goes for the original question, too. No attempt is made to resolve an issue, or even make progress at understanding the views presented. Long before there is any risk of that the host will say, "Well, this is a very important subject, and I'm sure we'll return to it again in the future, but we must move on...", and so the next question begins, and the process repeats with renewed bile.
Unfortunately, those questions often concern a real person, in a real house, in a real country somewhere, crushed by a real tank, supplied by our Government. I don't think that is a suitable subject for an entertainment show. Especially if you consider that members of the audience paid taxes that bought the weapon, may have worked in the factory that produced it, and may even have relatives in the country that it was sent to.
You're doing great work Brendan, really love to see it! :D
Ah thanks for watching!
Hey man, thank you for all the support. Actually, it'd be useful to get your advice about UA-cam considering your experience.Do you remember how you came across the channel? I'm collecting feedback here forms.gle/2o51tNxcyTagKgvJ7
00:02 Ed Miliband faces challenges from within the Labour party
00:52 Political strategies use diversion tactics to redirect attention.
01:40 Dead cat strategy diverts attention from important issues
02:29 Critiquing mainstream media's influence and manipulation.
03:19 Political views are not solely influenced by media information.
04:08 Interplay between values and media shaping political perceptions.
04:58 Media focusing on distractions over real issues
05:49 Criticism of media as a distraction
Crafted by Merlin AI.
This is such a well produced and well written video.
The algorithm brought me here. I guess the algorithm isn't all bad.
amazing video! 😊
I think what you’re saying is quite close to what I’ve tried to tell people for a while now: Politics is largely not science, but philosophy. As you point out, the reason we can keep arguing is because we have different values, not because we necessarily disagree on the facts.
I think "it's not science, but psychology" gets closer to it
It really feels like people are born with different political outlooks, but then - depending on the context in which they grow up - these manifest in different ways
You're really underrated
Great work as always :D how long do you tend to work on your videos btw? This is a crazy large subject and you've done a good job of trying to wrangle your position in to 6.5 minutes, not a small feat!
Oh I feel seen! It varies but I feel smug if I can do it in 40 hours. One big problem is the videos I'm most interested in doing require lots of thought/working through. This idea was a bit more settled in my head so came together quite easily. (Though I think I'd restructure it if doing it again).
Yeah I don’t envy you your topics of video essays 😂 anyway it all came together for me in the final summing up, and even made me watch again. Maybe the restructure can come in a sequel :-D
I dismiss what people think. But that's because I'm quite sure what really motivates people's views on things are neither self-interest nor justice but rather half-digested slogans from childhood elaborated into supposed policy views and ideologies. It also kind of accounts for why almost no one is actually right or left wing. People dismiss leftism and conservatism as actual political positions because they supposedly don't form coherent wholes, but I think political theorists actually do have very systematic views anywhere on the spectrum; it's just that flesh and blood human beings don't hold political convictions or views, or in the few cases they do, they'll hold a position on one issue maximum. We don't need to care about changing what people think because firstly they mostly don't think, and secondly you can't change the little bit of thinking they may have in rare cases.
To add to my argument. I think this is the case with religious profession and practice, too. Just consider the fact that the majority of Christians who have ever lived not only had a completely mistaken understanding of the trinity and the incarnation but didn't even know there was an understanding to be had.
Great video but less Russell Brand pls made me retch twice