True, but they're making most of their money from western whiter countries. Which is reflected in their actors/stars. However this is already changing and will get better as the global market continues to expand.
As a non-american, it's not getting better, it's just getting weird. Like this parallel fantasy reality that americans have come up with and convinced themselves that it's what the world outside looks like, that actually has nothing to do with anywhere on earth.
It's funny when somewhere in your country is portrayed in an american movie or series.
Christmas doesn’t signify religion in America. And I can’t remember the last time I saw church in a movie that wasn’t a comedy using the setting for a set-up
Do your Muslim friends celebrate Christmas? Do your Jewish friends? Most non-religious americans are something like Christian Atheists. They don't believe in a god, but their worldview, ethics, and cultural norms are still originating in Christianity.
About half of my Jewish friends celebrate Christmas. And my one Muslim friend (that immigrated from a Muslim majority country) celebrates it too. He also has gotten into the habit of saying "god bless" because I guess they say that a lot in Georgia?
Christmas doesn’t signify religion in America. And I can’t remember the last time I saw church in a movie that wasn’t a comedy using the setting for a set-up
Do your Muslim friends celebrate Christmas? Do your Jewish friends? Most non-religious americans are something like Christian Atheists. They don't believe in a god, but their worldview, ethics, and cultural norms are still originating in Christianity.
Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese I know do have a Xmas, most of whom are not Christian.
And if I know someone celebrate Chanukah I’ll say happy Chanukah. Is that wrong?
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…
I do the same thing, and I've noticed that this "they don't present the other side" thing is getting worse with time. I recently read [this HuffPo article][0] about how only 1% of American film characters are identifiably Muslim ; however, nowhere in the article does it even mention the share of Americans who are Muslim, nor the share of movie characters that are of other religions. These things are certainly obvious…
christianity, islam, hinduism, along with the eastern constellation of buddhism/confucianism are the 4 world religions. people of color are roughly 4/5 of the world population. even while christianity and white folks are the majority in the US, it makes sense numerically to have these other aspects of humanity well represented, in addition to white and/or christian. what's puzzling is the outsized representation of jews/judaism (also roughly 1%) in american media considering the stark underrepresentation of black, brown, and asian folks, who account for nearly half of the population (and growing).
> The problem of course is that not every issue needs a "both sides" treatment. Exactly. Imagine saying that it's important to be able to make an impassioned argument for slavery? To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them?
> To make it contemporary: Should I be trying to get into the mind of a Q Conspiracy theorist? An Antivaxer? How many conspiracies do I need delve into and understand such that I can make a passionate argument for them? Yes and it's disturbing that you (and many others) have no interest in understanding other people.
Frankly I don't have the time in my day to entertain every perspective and still enjoy life.
I wonder why the FCC's fairness doctrine is rarely brought up in articles like this. They used to enforce certain standards whereby news being broadcast on the public airwaves had to be both relevant to the public interest, and presented without overt bias. Then, under Reagan, they just stopped doing that, and to me that's when an already imperfect news industry started to really go off the rails. It sounds hopelessl…
I would be in favor of reclaiming some words like "News" with regulatory controls. Just like the FDA doesn't allow someone to label their product as "Organic" without meeting certain standards, I would argue that we should enforce some basic standards in order to label yourself as "News" or "Media Organization." It would be a slippery slope to navigate with the first amendment and the internet but there is a large group of citizens that will believe anything if it was on TV and came from the "News."
Interesting. Where exactly was this? I grew up in a major Jewish population center in the United States, most jews did not celebrate christmas outside of the ceremonial going out for chinese food. Muslim students also did not celebrate xmas. This is an urban center on the east coast.
> ceremonial going out for chinese food Wait, what, this is a thing? I'd never heard of that. Like, only the Jews would do it? Or more generally it's common for everyone to go out for Chinese food on Christmas? That has to be regional, if it's true. Kinda funny either way.
Oh yes, it is definitely a thing - and really only a jewish thing that I know of. I grew up in the mid-atlantic, but it is definitely also a thing in NYC.
I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…
Maybe they don't cover the same things because the "things" are like their flags they are using to signal each other. It's like two different gangs using different symbolism to communicate with their own members. They don't need to talk to the other side, they need to instead rally their own side.
Maybe study each side like you're studying a gang. Get to know the symbolism and language.
Christmas doesn’t signify religion in America. And I can’t remember the last time I saw church in a movie that wasn’t a comedy using the setting for a set-up
Do your Muslim friends celebrate Christmas? Do your Jewish friends? Most non-religious americans are something like Christian Atheists. They don't believe in a god, but their worldview, ethics, and cultural norms are still originating in Christianity.
So what's the argument here? Christians are represented proportionately in films if we count secular Americans as Christians?
I highly recommend the Economist . Their articles mostly follow a dialectical format -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, with about a third of the article spent on each one. I don't know of any other publication whose house style is so rigorous in this. It's also highly editorialized, but very open and transparent about the positions it takes -- any bias they have is in the open, but is in the final synthesis after the…
The Economist skews conservative in the sense that it is who I wish the conservatives were.
I agree, it's a traditional conservative business view point: less regulation, free trade, free press, democratic government with a strong fair legal system.