The truth owners [Archive]

Burnsys

Dec22-04, 10:47 AM

don't you wonder where are the images of the deads in irak??? i se a lot of american movies with deads and stuff like that, but if there are more than 15.000 civilians death (or 100.000 acording to another source) why don't we see even one of those??? why don't we see images of man to man combat in irak? why don't we see the destruction of falujha?? but we see a staged saddam statue tople. and we see the lynch soldier hero bull****.... it't all censored and filtered..

Or if you remember, in 2001, the killers shark panic.

Or just a week before the elections, Bin laden's video..

"On August 15th, 1992, an ITN news-crew led by Penny Marshall shot footage of a reputed Bosnian Serb concentration camp at Trnopolje. The resulting images of emaciated and imprisoned dissident Fikret Alic and other Bosnian Muslims became indelibly etched into the public's mind, sparking moral outrage which eventually led to NATO intervention in the Balkans during 1999.

Except, according to former 'LM' ('Living Marxism') editor Mike Hume, Marshall's footage did not reveal a Nazi-like death camp, but was in fact staged. The Trnopolje camp was, Hume claimed in an 'LM' article, actually a refugee camp, and Marshall's team had filed the material under intense pressure to 'scoop' the world press for the expose.
"

The distinction between propaganda and news is increasingly a tenuous one, but it becomes even more disturbing when libel laws are used to muzzle investigative reporting and marginalize dissident viewpoints.

"WASHINGTON, ATLANTA - For a short time last year, CNN employed military specialists in 'psychological operations' (psyops). This was confirmed to Trouw by a spokesman of the U.S. Army. The military could have influenced CNN's news reports about the crisis in Kosovo.
"

"In short, the major media are corporations "selling" privileged audiences to other businesses.... Media concentration is high, and increasing. Furthermore, those who occupy managerial positions in the media...belong to the same privileged elites, and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well. Journalists entering the system are unlikely to make their way unless they conform to these ideological pressures, generally by internalizing the values.... Those who fail to conform will be weeded out...
-- from the Massey Lectures "

Kerrie

Dec22-04, 11:10 AM

Burnsys

Dec22-04, 11:23 AM

i don't see anything wrong with the media withholding images of the dead on the news from the war. my children don't need to see this as the evening news comes on before they go to bed. the american news media is typically on public tv, so you have more children watching. i think the parents of these children would be outraged if you had the dead and seriously injured broadcasted at 6pm.

cable tv does wonders...it's private, people have to pay for it, and those broadcasting it have a little more control of what they can put on for those to see.

i Can name you a lot of american movies where you can see dead people..
And they can be shown past 10pm. And it's not ok to show the images of the dead iraqis or us soldier, but it's ok to send 18 year old kids to some foreing country to killl people they don't even know.....

Edit: I remember the media showing saddam mass graves, i wonder where all those iraqis civilians (Colateral damage) killed by usa army are buried....
Also remeber the media showing nick berg decapitation, and the hunging of the "Private contractors" (Mercenaries) in the bridge.

Smurf

Dec22-04, 12:06 PM

The CBS vs Bloggers thing has proven pretty conclusively that the media can't manipulate the truth too much and get away with it. My biggest concern is the subtler side of the liberal bias: the live reporting during the election, for example.
What liberal bias? explain.

Locrian

Dec22-04, 01:36 PM

Firstly, thanks to Smurf for asking for a source for this. In the future, please don't cut and paste without including proper referencing; it's dishonest.

Secondly, the statement

Many refuse to believe this, but in reality, there are only about six people/corporations that own the ten big media.

is one I find misleading. They say "people/corporations," but only include corporations. Since each of those corporations is owned by it's shareholders, of which there are many, it is safe to say that there are many, many more owners of the media than six. A more interesting task would be to observe who owns what shares in those companies and how many people own most of them. The author fails to do this, and so forgoes his only reasonable argument.

What we're left with is an article that is in obvious error and seems to be more conjecture than reasonable fact.

Burnsys

Dec22-04, 02:32 PM

Firstly, thanks to Smurf for asking for a source for this. In the future, please don't cut and paste without including proper referencing; it's dishonest.

Secondly, the statement

is one I find misleading. They say "people/corporations," but only include corporations. Since each of those corporations is owned by it's shareholders, of which there are many, it is safe to say that there are many, many more owners of the media than six. A more interesting task would be to observe who owns what shares in those companies and how many people own most of them. The author fails to do this, and so forgoes his only reasonable argument.

What we're left with is an article that is in obvious error and seems to be more conjecture than reasonable fact.

i don't know why but it's dificult to find who are the top shareholders of this corporations, i was able to find viacom shareholders and just as i imagined, they where mostly banks, and those who has share on the most powerfull corporations of the world, and all members of the trilateral comision and CFR,
betwen them:

Fidelity Management
Goldman Sachs
Smith Barney
J.P. Morgan
GE Asset Management
American Express
Morgan Stanley

if anyone can find shareholders for the other 5 corporations it would be great

russ_watters

Dec22-04, 02:32 PM

What liberal bias? explain. No. Old ground, thoroughly proven, not up for question. Do a search if you're honestly questioning this.

russ_watters

Dec22-04, 02:41 PM

is one I find misleading. They say "people/corporations," but only include corporations. Since each of those corporations is owned by it's shareholders, of which there are many, it is safe to say that there are many, many more owners of the media than six. A more interesting task would be to observe who owns what shares in those companies and how many people own most of them. The author fails to do this, and so forgoes his only reasonable argument.

What we're left with is an article that is in obvious error and seems to be more conjecture than reasonable fact. I've seen the argument made that its the management of each (or even the government) that controls the news, but even that doesn't fly: you cannot control what someone says on live TV and you cannot control the stories reported or pursued by the branches of each station. You can't even control the national news: even if CNN in Atlanta (for example) were to be tightly controlled, there are international news sources and the AP wire (and that's before you even consider the internet).

Simply put, there is just far too much information available and far too many places to get it to be able to control the information people get in a free society. It almost seems that people think that if the communist countries can do it, then CNN can do it. Not so, and what's more with the internet, its becomming increasingly difficult for communist countries to do that. The USSR would not have been able to stay in business in the internet age.

Burnsys

Dec22-04, 02:49 PM

I've seen the argument made that its the management of each (or even the government) that controls the news, but even that doesn't fly: you cannot control what someone says on live TV and you cannot control the stories reported or pursued by the branches of each station. You can't even control the national news: even if CNN in Atlanta (for example) were to be tightly controlled, there are international news sources and the AP wire (and that's before you even consider the internet).

Simply put, there is just far too much information available and far too many places to get it to be able to control the information people get in a free society. It almost seems that people think that if the communist countries can do it, then CNN can do it. Not so, and what's more with the internet, its becomming increasingly difficult for communist countries to do that. The USSR would not have been able to stay in business in the internet age.

Of course they can do it, just check the diversity of the news, from channel to channel, they are all the same news, some have a "Liberal Bias" other "A Right bias" but they all inform on the same subjects, and they all share the same information.. Reuters, AP, Cnn, FOX news..
When you see the 8pm news girl talking, she is actualy reading everything she say, and when the show is live, they know what line to folow.. that happened when on O Reilys show the son of a 911 victim said the us goverment trained the mujadin fighters in afganistan.. O reily had to cut his microphone..

---------------------------------------
TRanscript:

Glick: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro-Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'Reilly: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...
Glick: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...
O'Reilly: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.
Glick: ... escalating...
O'Reilly: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.
Glick: It's marginal -- right.
O'Reilly: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.
Glick: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.
......
Glick: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
O'Reilly: All right. I don't want to...
Glick: Maybe...
O'Reilly: I don't want to debate world politics with you.
Glick: Well, why not? This is about world politics.
O'Reilly: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.
Glick: Well, OK.
O'Reilly: You're -- I want to...
Glick: But you do care because you...
O'Reilly: No, no. Look...
Glick: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...
O'Reilly: Here's why I care.
Glick: ... to rationalize...
O'Reilly: Here's why I care...
Glick: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.
O'Reilly: OK. That's a bunch...
O'Reilly: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.
Glick: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...
O'Reilly: Who killed your father!
Glick: The people in Afghanistan...
O'Reilly: Who killed your father.
Glick: ... didn't kill my father.
O'Reilly: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.
Glick: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?
O'Reilly: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!
Glick: So what about George Bush?
O'Reilly: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.
Glick: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.
O'Reilly: He had nothing to do with it.
Glick: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who ere...
O'Reilly: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
Glick: Well, I hope she is.
O'Reilly: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.
Glick: OK.
O'Reilly: In respect for your father...
Glick: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?
O'Reilly: Shut up. Shut up.
Glick: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.
O'Reilly: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...
Glick: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...
O'Reilly: Out of respect for him...
Glick: ... not the people of America.
O'Reilly: ... I'm not going to...
Glick: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.
O'Reilly: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.
We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.
Glick: That means we're done?
O'Reilly: We're done.
--------------------------
Full transcript: http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm
Video: http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/oreilly.wmv

russ_watters

Dec22-04, 03:03 PM

Of course they can do it... HOW? This isn't the USSR where there is only one TV station in the entire country. Controlling an American media conglomerate requires an extrordinary level of integration between network affiliates and the home office - a level of integration that quite simply doesn't exist.

I know you aren't really going to answer that question, so some simple examples you can address:

I live outside of Philadelphia, PA. The NBC affiliate is NBC10 (http://www.nbc10.com/index.html). Who wrote the stories on the website (even the local stories)? Someone from the affiliate or someone from the network office in New York? If someone from NBC10 wrote the stories, did someone check them and approve them from the network office in New York? Who and how (since there are dozens of stations, that'd be a big infrastructure)? NBC10 does live broadcasts: is someone monitoring and censoring these broadcasts at the national level? Who and how? Is the script written, approved, or even read by someone at the national office? If the NBC10 office sees a story on Al Jazeera, does it require approval from the national office before it is aired? Can the national office stop them from airing it? How? Are you starting to understand the magnitude of what you are alleging?

Your O'reilly example doesn't help you any: its obvious that the mic was cut not because of the idea espoused, but because of the tone of the argument. You're using the same wrong censorship argument that people we ban use - we don't ban people for their ideas, only for their attiude.

Burnsys

Dec22-04, 03:07 PM

HOW? This isn't the USSR where there is only one TV station in the entire country. Controlling an American media conglomerate requires an extrordinary level of integration between network affiliates and the home office - a level of integration that quite simply doesn't exist.

I know you aren't really going to answer that question, so some simple examples you can address:

I live outside of Philadelphia, PA. The NBC affiliate is NBC10 (http://www.nbc10.com/index.html). Who wrote the stories on the website (even the local stories)? Someone from the affiliate or someone from the network office in New York? If someone from NBC10 wrote the stories, did someone check them and approve them from the network office in New York? Who and how (since there are dozens of stations, that'd be a big infrastructure)? NBC10 does live broadcasts: is someone monitoring and censoring these broadcasts at the national level? Who and how? Is the script written, approved, or even read by someone at the national office? If the NBC10 office sees a story on Al Jazeera, does it require approval from the national office before it is aired? Can the national office stop them from airing it? How? Are you starting to understand the magnitude of what you are alleging?

I am not from USA, i live in argentina but i can imagine that NBC has a hierarchical order, what i think is that NBC10 director or top manager is apointed by someone of more range in the New york office, who is acountable for everything that appen in NBC10, of course they are going to "Promote" to higher ranks to those who share the main editorial line. and this is about the critical subjects, like war, economi, elections.. the rest is random fill with unimportant news...

russ_watters

Dec22-04, 03:10 PM

I am not from USA, i live in argentina but i can imagine that... Indeed you do have an active imagination, but I'm sorry, your imagination is not a substitute for reality. You're taking shots in the dark here. Your imagination isn't evidence of anything.

And you didn't address a single one of those questions - are you having trouble even imagining how it could be done?

Locrian

Dec22-04, 03:41 PM

they where mostly banks, and those who has share on the most powerfull corporations of the world, and all members of the trilateral comision and CFR,
betwen them:

Fidelity Management
Goldman Sachs
Smith Barney
J.P. Morgan
GE Asset Management
American Express
Morgan Stanley

Those are not actually banks (as the word is used in the US), but are instead investment firms. The reason those firms own a particular company is because investors have asked them to purchase that particular company for them. If the investor took his money out, the firm would then sell the share. Therefore, calling those companies owners of the stock would be misleading; in fact, they are just holders, the real owners are a much larger and diverse group.

Of course, this brings up another possibly interesting topic: how much control do shareholders have? Obviously they get to vote (see ya Eisner), but how much control does someone who is investing through a mutual fund his company offers have? This is another option the original writer of the posted article could have taken, but I suspect the details are beyond him.

The reason you are having trouble finding the stock holder's names is because the list is enormously long. I suspect a few people own large shares and would love to find out who they are, but it is still a long enough list to miss mainstream attention.

Overall, I still find the original conjecture - that the media is owned and controlled by few parties - extremely difficult to accept. For reasons Russ has given it is difficult to control. For reasons I've given it is difficult to own. A much stronger case would need to be made than has been presented.

Smurf

Dec22-04, 04:09 PM

Your O'reilly example doesn't help you any: its obvious that the mic was cut not because of the idea espoused, but because of the tone of the argument. You're using the same wrong censorship argument that people we ban use - we don't ban people for their ideas, only for their attiude.
I've watched the video and I don't see how his attitude was bad at all just that O'Reilly didn't want to listen to him talk about the USA being the bad guy.

the number 42

Dec22-04, 07:02 PM

I've watched the video and I don't see how his attitude was bad at all just that O'Reilly didn't want to listen to him talk about the USA being the bad guy.

I haven't seen the video, but if anyone has a link...?

The attitude that stood out from the transcript was O'Reilly's. I thought it sounded pretty insulting that he used 'respect for the memory of Glick's father' as an excuse to shut Glick up.

the number 42

Dec22-04, 07:11 PM

... i can imagine that NBC has a hierarchical order, what i think is that NBC10 director or top manager is apointed by someone of more range in the New york office, who is acountable for everything that appen in NBC10, of course they are going to "Promote" to higher ranks to those who share the main editorial line. and this is about the critical subjects, like war, economi, elections.. the rest is random fill with unimportant news...

I don't think you need to be from the US to know that corporations have written and unwritten rules that employees need to follow, unless they want to be serving cheeseburgers for a living. Except with the benefit of hindsight, the maverick isn't usually very popular with colleagues. Lets face it, most people would rather just pay the bills than do the right thing, and anyone who challenges the status quo is a threat to all of that. Sometimes the maverick becomes the hero, but this is usually in hindsight. People who challenge beliefs are usually considered a pain in the ***, whether they are right or wrong.

Burnsys

Dec23-04, 09:10 AM

Those are not actually banks (as the word is used in the US), but are instead investment firms. The reason those firms own a particular company is because investors have asked them to purchase that particular company for them. If the investor took his money out, the firm would then sell the share. Therefore, calling those companies owners of the stock would be misleading; in fact, they are just holders, the real owners are a much larger and diverse group.

Of course, this brings up another possibly interesting topic: how much control do shareholders have? Obviously they get to vote (see ya Eisner), but how much control does someone who is investing through a mutual fund his company offers have? This is another option the original writer of the posted article could have taken, but I suspect the details are beyond him.

The reason you are having trouble finding the stock holder's names is because the list is enormously long. I suspect a few people own large shares and would love to find out who they are, but it is still a long enough list to miss mainstream attention.

Overall, I still find the original conjecture - that the media is owned and controlled by few parties - extremely difficult to accept. For reasons Russ has given it is difficult to control. For reasons I've given it is difficult to own. A much stronger case would need to be made than has been presented.

I understand.. but, who apoint the CEO? how this enormously long list of people chose the CEO?? or only the few who own most of the shares can vote??? in that case, is anyway to know who are the responsables for the Corporation policy?? or we have to blindly belive someone or a group of people we will never know who they are?????

Anyway the ceo has the final autorithy operatively, (Not including the shareholders) i think its administer like any corporation, IBM; or Exxon for example has no trouble controling his coproration all around the world...

Burnsys

Dec23-04, 09:11 AM

I haven't seen the video, but if anyone has a link...?

The attitude that stood out from the transcript was O'Reilly's. I thought it sounded pretty insulting that he used 'respect for the memory of Glick's father' as an excuse to shut Glick up.

Video: http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/oreilly.wmv

russ_watters

Dec23-04, 10:55 AM

Anyway the ceo has the final autorithy operatively, (Not including the shareholders) i think its administer like any corporation, IBM; or Exxon for example has no trouble controling his coproration all around the world... Heh - have you ever had a job of any kind? Do you own any stock? You're missing some very, very basic concepts about how businesses work.

And even setting that aside, you're missing something pretty key about the relationship between the networks and the affiliates: the network doesn't own all of its affiliates. For example: Sinclair (http://www.sbgi.net/business/markets/all.shtml) owns several dozen TV stations including Fox, ABC, NBC, WB, and UPN affiliates (which is, of course, why they are called affiliates.

Also, Disney owns ABC, but it only owns a small handful of ABC tv stations - Sinclair owns 8 of them.

russ_watters

Dec23-04, 11:03 AM

Video: http://www.thoughtcrimenews.com/oreilly.wmv I watched it - and its understandable that O'Reilly would be upset with the guy. He really is a kook. He needs therapy. My guess is that the trauma of 9/11 worked a screw loose in his head.

And its O'Reilley's show! He gets to say when to cut the guy's mike. In fact, this is evidence that there is not central control from Fox: O'Reilly himself is the one who directed the interview and when he lost control of the course of the interview, he decided to end it (as is the usual thing to do).

Burnsys

Dec23-04, 11:55 AM

Heh - have you ever had a job of any kind? Do you own any stock? You're missing some very, very basic concepts about how businesses work.

And even setting that aside, you're missing something pretty key about the relationship between the networks and the affiliates: the network doesn't own all of its affiliates. For example: Sinclair (http://www.sbgi.net/business/markets/all.shtml) owns several dozen TV stations including Fox, ABC, NBC, WB, and UPN affiliates (which is, of course, why they are called affiliates.

Also, Disney owns ABC, but it only owns a small handful of ABC tv stations - Sinclair owns 8 of them.

Yes i have worked since i was 17, and i am working now. i don't own any stock... but what i know from working is that you always have a boss, you always have to "Follow the rules" and obey your boss. unless you have your own network..

About the networks ans the affiliates, i was looking at sinclair web site, what they do is only the broadcasting service? like transmiting the signal?? or they are responsable for the edition and content of the news???

-------------------------------------

I watched it - and its understandable that O'Reilly would be upset with the guy. He really is a kook. He needs therapy. My guess is that the trauma of 9/11 worked a screw loose in his head.

And its O'Reilley's show! He gets to say when to cut the guy's mike. In fact, this is evidence that there is not central control from Fox: O'Reilly himself is the one who directed the interview and when he lost control of the course of the interview, he decided to end it (as is the usual thing to do).

what exaclty of glick interview make you belive he is a kook???

I know, it's o reilley's show, i never say there is a control room.. but like in any job, the corporation decide wich employes they hire... they even do you psicological test to get a job. if o'reilley didn't fit with they requeriments they will never give him the show...

Locrian

Dec23-04, 12:07 PM

I understand.. but, who apoint the CEO? how this enormously long list of people chose the CEO?? or only the few who own most of the shares can vote???

Anyway the ceo has the final autorithy operatively, (Not including the shareholders) i think its administer like any corporation, IBM; or Exxon for example has no trouble controling his coproration all around the world...

Aparently you are unfamiliar with the idea of a Board of Directors.

I don't mean to be rude, but your statements in the past few posts have suggested you are ignorant about the way corporations work. These questions you ask ("who appoint the CEO") are not deep philosophical issues, but (usually) straightforward matters that are well known to anyone with any understanding of US business.

Would you not agree that these kinds of failures to gather even the most basic knowledge about business practice would be an impediment to forming a reasonable opinion on the matter? I'd like to humbly suggest you give up all arguments in this thread, go expand your knowlege base dramatically, and then reform your opinions. Even if you come to the same conclusions you will have greatly improved the strength of your stance on these issues.

Are there too few media outlets? How compacent is the media? Who has too much power over what they say? Is collusion between the board and CEO's acceptable? Are the laws in place to prevent it enough?

These seem to me to be reasonable questions. However, neither you nor the person you initially quoted seem the least bit equipped to answer them.

kcballer21

Dec23-04, 01:00 PM

russ_wattersAnd its O'Reilley's show! He gets to say when to cut the guy's mike. In fact, this is evidence that there is not central control from Fox: O'Reilly himself is the one who directed the interview and when he lost control of the course of the interview, he decided to end it (as is the usual thing to do).
Russ, your support of O'Reilly speaks volumes about your political views. I'm just glad you're not the moderator of this forum. Evidence that there is not central control at Fox? Can anybody but O'Reilly be called the 'kook?' What are you talking about?

russ_watters

Dec23-04, 01:42 PM

Yes i have worked since i was 17, and i am working now. i don't own any stock... but what i know from working is that you always have a boss, you always have to "Follow the rules" and obey your boss. unless you have your own network.. Then you know that just having rules (even written rules, much less unwritten ones) does not mean everyone will follow them. There are plenty of examples where reporters have been fired for the content of their reports - vitually always its because the content was fabricated. What's more, these unwritten rules you are alleging require judgement calls: the local affiliate would have to somehow know (with perfect accuracy) that the stories it is reporting would be acceptable to the network. That's really, really thin. And we know for a fact that different tv stations will often make different judement calls: see the recent pulling of "Saving Private Ryan" from several affiliates for profanity reasons. About the networks ans the affiliates, i was looking at sinclair web site, what they do is only the broadcasting service? like transmiting the signal?? or they are responsable for the edition and content of the news??? Both. Each affiliate transmits both its own content and re-transmits network content. For example, in Philadelphia every TV network has a 6:00 news, which is done by local reporters, and a 6:30 news, which is a re-transmission of the national news from the network. Most of the other daytime content is re-transmissions of network programming. News is by far the biggest piece of the local content that a TV station produces. what exaclty of glick interview make you belive he is a kook??? His predilection toward paranoid conspiracy theory. I'm not a psrink, but from what I understand, that is not an uncommon result of emotional trauma: he isn't thinking rationally. I know, it's o reilley's show, i never say there is a control room.. but like in any job, the corporation decide wich employes they hire... they even do you psicological test to get a job. if o'reilley didn't fit with they requeriments they will never give him the show... Certainly thats true, but again, you are implying that the network somehow knew with absolute certainty how O'Reilly would act in any given circumstance. That's just absurd. Selection of the reporter sets the tone of the show and that's about it.

And actually, there is a control room - but the control room didn't end the interview. What does that tell you? Russ, your support of O'Reilly speaks volumes about your political views. Thou dost assume too much: that short video clip constitutes the sum total of all the O'Reilly Factor I have ever watched. I am not a fan of sensationalist journalism, whatever the source and political leanings, and as such, I don't watch Fox news. Have a look at one of the 'where are you politically' threads - I am actually very close to the middle politically. This forum, in fact, leans heavily to the left. As I have said before: from the far left, the center looks like the right. Can anybody but O'Reilly be called the 'kook?' What are you talking about? This: O'Reilly: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society... This is factually true. In fact, only a very small minority of the population did not support our invasion of Afghanistan. Upwards of 90% did: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/23/gen.newport/
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/war_poll.pdf
Even when Clinton attacked Afghanistan, support for the attacks was high:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/21/strike.poll/
And despite a single misleading report (copied over and over) to the contrary, the world supported it as well.

and this: O'Reilly: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.
Glick: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...
O'Reilly: Who killed your father!
Glick: The people in Afghanistan...
O'Reilly: Who killed your father.
Glick: ... didn't kill my father.
O'Reilly: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.
Glick: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people? He won't even acknowledge that al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, was responsible for his father's death. That implies to me a severe disconnect from reality.

the number 42

Dec23-04, 01:52 PM

I watched it - and its understandable that O'Reilly would be upset with the guy. He really is a kook. He needs therapy. My guess is that the trauma of 9/11 worked a screw loose in his head.

And its O'Reilley's show! He gets to say when to cut the guy's mike. In fact, this is evidence that there is not central control from Fox: O'Reilly himself is the one who directed the interview and when he lost control of the course of the interview, he decided to end it (as is the usual thing to do).

:rofl: Which clip were you watching, Russ? I thought Glick showed amazing restraint. How would you deal with someone pointing their finger in your face, shouting at you, telling you to shut up, and implying that your words were insulting to your recently deceased father? I would would like to think that I would have given it right back to O'Reilly, with a bit on top. Then again, when you are recently bereaved as Glick was you are not in your usual state of mind, that's true. Maybe that explains why he didn't react to the insults.

Burnsys

Dec23-04, 02:47 PM

Then you know that just having rules (even written rules, much less unwritten ones) does not mean everyone will follow them. There are plenty of examples where reporters have been fired for the content of their reports - vitually always its because the content was fabricated. What's more, these unwritten rules you are alleging require judgement calls: the local affiliate would have to somehow know (with perfect accuracy) that the stories it is reporting would be acceptable to the network. That's really, really thin. And we know for a fact that different tv stations will often make different judement calls: see the recent pulling of "Saving Private Ryan" from several affiliates for profanity reasons.

Ok, not everyone follow the rules, but you can't deny that every news station has a political line, for example, i have never seen a critic to bush in FOX news neither pro enviromental news.. i think it's their policy.. ,
----------------------------------------------------------
"An email sent to Jim Romenesko's for posting on the message board of the journalism training center, The Poynter Institute by former Fox News producer, Charlie Reina, explained how bias permeates the Fox newsroom. "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it," he wrote. "

"One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be 'whining' about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital."

""These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them." [4] (http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo)

"Reina mentioned an example affecting a story allocated to him. "It was, I would say, about three years ago. I was assigned to do a special on the environment, some issue involving pollution. When my boss and I talked as to what this thing was all about, what they were looking for, he said to me: 'You understand, you know, it's not going to come out the pro-environmental side.' And I said, 'It will come out however it comes out.' And he said, 'You can obviously give both sides, but just make sure that the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word,' he said. Reina declined to do the story. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------

His predilection toward paranoid conspiracy theory. I'm not a psrink, but from what I understand, that is not an uncommon result of emotional trauma: he isn't thinking rationally.

Are you denying this:

six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

and this: He won't even acknowledge that al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, was responsible for his father's death. That implies to me a severe disconnect from reality.

What he says is that it was alqueda, not the afghan people who did the attacks. is more.. bin laden is from saudi arabia. and he get it's money from his family, stablished in saudi arabia.

Burnsys

Dec24-04, 10:28 AM

Some examples of how the media distort the reality in this case BBC but the technics are the same for all the media, this ones from bbcwatch.
http://www.bbcwatch.com/
-----------------------------------------------
OMISSION OF CULPABILITY

The US and UK military were responsible for many civilian deaths and injuries in Iraq. However, we find that the BBC operates a subtle omission of culpability when reporting on these civilian casualties.

Gulf war…
“…he’s had both his arms blown off…his whole family were killed…his mother was pregnant and they were killed by a bomb…” [Today, 09/04/03]

Israel…
“…he lies in a coma with a bullet in his brain after being shot at by Israeli troops…”

Gulf War…
“…Nine civilians killed in Baghdad blast…” [Online, 08/04/03]

Israel…
“…Six killed in Israeli raids…” [Online, 04/04/03]

Gulf War…
“…At least nine civilians are reported to have died when a bomb hit a residential neighbourhood in central Baghdad…” [Online, 08/04/03]

Israel…
“…At least five Palestinians have been killed in an Israeli air raid on Gaza City…” [Online, 09/04/03]

Gulf war…
“…warplanes…pounded Saddam Hussein’s hometown…” [R4, 6pm, 11/04/03]

Israel…
“Israeli warplanes appeared to be targeting a car,” [Online, 09/04/03]

Gulf War…
“…bombing raids by F-15 and F-16 jets…” [Online, 08/04/03]

Israel…
“…an Israeli F-16 warplane fired two missiles…” [4] [10/04/03]

Gulf war…
“…there's a new sound in the city - rotor blades from attack helicopters…” [Online, 08/04/03]

Israel…
“…Israeli attack helicopters fired missiles into the town…” [Online, 11/04/03]

Gulf War…
“…two journalists were killed by a tank shell, a third died in a strike on Al-Jazeera’s headquarters…” [R4, 6pm, 08/04/03]
------------------------------------------------------------
[B]THE PALESTINE HOTEL
On the 7th April 2003 an American tank fired at the Palestine Hotel – a Baghdad hotel where Western journalists were staying. A number of journalists were killed in this incident. We often find that the BBC correspondents work hard to mitigate this coalition action which killed a number of innocent people. Again, it is a case study in military empathy and mitigation, and it raises the question over whether such efforts are made to understand and humanise the actions of the Israeli army.

“…as I was saying, this is a microcosm for what has been happening and the kind of security challenges faced by the coalition forces in the centre of Baghdad…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…and cameras can be mistaken for rocket-propelled grenades…in this kind of situation it’s difficult for a tank commander or any kind of infantry vehicle to distinguish between a camera and an RPG…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…can you give any indication as to whether there could be any confusion within the building in terms of who’s in the Palestine hotel, as to who’s a journalist, who’s a member of the press and who might be representing other interests within that building?…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…clearly there is a possibility I suppose that somebody could be operating, could be sniping from the top floor of the hotel…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…Could it be that journalists who are watching the action could be mistaken for snipers, particularly if they’re using binoculars?…” [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

“…it is entirely possible, I mean we are formally not supposed to film from the hotel, we’re only supposed to film from our live positions on the first floor roof…”[6] [Ten Special, 07/04/03]

The above incident contrasts sharply with the BBC’s treatment of a similar incident involving the death of an HBO cameraman on April 3rd 2003 – just a few days prior to the Palestine Hotel incident.

“…an award-winning British journalist has been shot dead by Israeli soldiers as he filmed a documentary in a refugee area in Gaza… cameraman James Miller suffered fatal injuries after an Israeli armoured vehicle opened fire, wounding him in the neck, according to reports…
…Mr Miller had been filming…in Palestinian areas while working on a documentary for the American HBO network…” [Online, 03/04/03]

DISPLACEMENT OF BLAME

The most frequent technique employed in the mitigation of coalition culpability is the displacement of responsibility onto the Iraqis themselves. There is a suggestion that were it not for Iraqi tactics, their trickery, and their persistence in not letting the coalition kill them, risks to civilians would never occur. The Iraqis initiate violence; they invite reciprocation; they “draw” the military into using their biggest weapons. US and UK actions are always seen as a response to an Iraqi action. A pattern of cause and effect is established in which coalition actions are always seen as a response. Coalition forces are cast as trying to play a gentle role and being pulled reluctantly into confrontations.

“…the main reason for these [friendly fire] incidents is the fact that air power is being used in an environment where Iraqi targets are mobile and operating close to mobile coalition forces…” [ Online, 07/04/03]

“…But British troops have been drawn into urban fighting…” [ BBC Online, 04/04/03]

“…but clearly it is really difficult fighting terrain because the British have been drawn into urban warfare…”

“…The Iraqis are taking shelter in-between civilian houses and using those houses as places to fire from. This means civilians could be in the line of fire that [B]comes back from the coalition forces…”

“…So no matter how well intended the British troops might be, the civilians are trapped in the fighting and they are under severe pressure….” [BBC Online, 04/04/03]

“…This is Noah…he’s twelve and he’s fighting for his life in hospital since a [B]bomb targeting Iraqi fighters hiding in his neighborhood hit his house…”[11]

[B]DEHUMANISATION OF IRAQIS

There are certain moments when the BBC incorporates the language of the coalition military into their narratives. This is frequently military jargon that dehumanises the Iraqi enemy, making it more palatable and less disagreeable for extreme measures to be taken against them
The BBC plays a role in harnessing the public’s support for the death and destruction taking place. They legitimise coalition actions and dehumanise the Iraqi army. They talk of “mopping up”, of “tidying up” of “business” being “tied up.” The human life behind these expressions is glossed over by abstractions.

“…business has according to the British military commanders been tied up[23] now…” [Newsnight, 07/04/03]

“…There may still…be pockets of resistance. Complete celebration may be premature, there may be quite a lot of resistance to mop up…” [09/04/03]

“…These mopping up operations could take days or weeks longer…” [Newsnight, 10/04/03]

“…in parts of the city now there’s a little bit of mopping up going on. But nothing significant…[24]”

“…is it your sense that the war is effectively over and it is just a matter now of [B]tidying up?..” [Today, 08/04/03]
-----------------------------------------
etc etc etc

Zlex

Dec24-04, 04:16 PM

Oh Jesus, this thread was flawed from the very start.

'The' Money.

jammieg

Dec24-04, 09:43 PM

Burnsys, I think you give the media and politicians too much credit for doing something intelligent, let me give you my anecdote, my younger sister was charged with a misdemeanour drug charge for a joint found in her car ash tray and she just happened to be sent to court on the same day of another minor drug bust in a small town and reporters just happened to show up that day to court to get the big scoup, in which all the drug dealers just happened to be scheduled on, oh and this town just happens to have an absurd number of police officers and churches on every corner, and guess who is on the front page of this small town paper played up as a big time drug offender? My sister, age 17, "Columbian Connection", basically the police need the press to "show how they've been fighting crime" which really means secure our laid back jobs, and the press needs this story to "get the word to the people" which really means exaggerate as much as possible to secure our jobs with the bestseller-fear, and the courts and the churches are all run by the same group of insane people who feel they need "protection from evil" which is really probably guilty feelings that are being manifested from all the people they screw and they use this to justify manipulating the taxpayers into having too much law enforcement, so it all comes down to everyone's an idiot with some very simple and selfish covert motives with very justfied looking overt ones, except for my little sister she was just trying to mind her own business and get high.
I'll bet if you apply this principle to our politicians and big time media you would find a lot of the same stupidity but on a grander scale, I think the real problem is people watch bias and love it and ultimately pay for it thus we control the media(unless it is a government program, or they provide the source information?), if they loved bland objectivity then we would have more dry and objective news reporting so either people are ignorant in general of bias or they also love bias to support their own views or such. This makes everything more exciting too and people pay high dollar for excitement. Although I don't doubt that our government is the most materially productive in the world because they manipulate their citizens the best in the world, that's probably mostly due to we see more commercials to buy stuff in order to "be happy" than anyone else in the world.

Burnsys

Dec27-04, 08:10 AM

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/2_versions_of_time.jpg

Charles Darwin

Dec27-04, 01:43 PM

My research concurs with this: most of the media is owned by the 3 media conglomerates: Time Warner, Disney, and Viacom. This consolidation has been taking place over the last 70 years without much interference from the government, after all, what politician wants objective coverage of their own doings? It's better for the media to consolidate, it's easier to control the content this way without so many independent media.

But, politicians did not anticipate the internet and they are pissed. But, I predict the same type of consolidation of internet resources until only those voices that support the status quo will be allowed. For example, take a look at the Social Sciences section of Physics Forum, many politically incorrect ideas are being discussed that NEVER are in the mainstream media. The internet is relatively free speech at the moment, but after enough consolidation I predict pressure will come to not allow such speech or ISPs will shut down websites. Time Warner/AOL owns a major internet backbone and recently threatened the ISP who uses their backbone. This ISP was providing internet connection to Neo-Nazi advocate Don Black's server which hosts Stormfront.org, the world's largest Neo-Nazi forum, and Time Warner/AOL wanted the ISP to forbid Don Black from hosting several Nazi websites on his server. So, it's not an issue of how retarded Nazis are, it's an issue of free speech.

Charles Darwin

Dec27-04, 05:16 PM

A quick note: CNN used to be an independent outlet and would provide a little more balanced coverage of the Middle East under Ted Turner, but it was then bought off by Time Warner/AOL. Fox News in the forth largest media conglomerate, I believe, and I am curious to know if the major giants (Viacom, Disney, Time Warner/AOL), will buy them off.

Most of the popular magazines and written media is also owned by these three groups.

Time Warner CEO: Gerald Levin
Disney CEO: Michael Eisner
Viacom CEO: Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein)

What do these three people have in common? Well, they share an identical cultural, political, and ethnic background.

Fox News CEO, Rupert Murdoch, is politically identical to the above three with respect to foreign policy, but differs in some respect regarding domestic policy. There is some evidence though that Murdoch's Mother is of the same ethnic background as the above three, but it is hard to verify.

NBC Universal CEO: Edgar Bronfman, Jr. His father is Edgar Bronfman, Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress.

NBC News CEO: Neal Shapiro, similar background as above examples.

There are a few other big time players as well, like the New York Times, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, etc. All the CEOs have similar backgrounds as above.

Burnsys

Dec28-04, 09:49 AM

Source: http://www.openairwaves.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=405
(Nice Charts)

Some FACTS:

WASHINGTON, October 28, 2004 — A new Center for Public Integrity investigation of campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures and other spending shows that the communications industry has spent $1.1 billion since 1998 to affect election outcomes and influence legislation before Congress and the White House.

The report focuses on the three primary communications industry sectors that control the information pipelines in the United States – broadcasting, cable television and telecommunications

A breakdown shows:

-Total lobbying expenditures from 1998 through mid-2004 by the industry were more than $957 million. In comparison, the oil and gas industry spent $396 million over the same period, the Center has found.

-Campaign contributions from 1998 through September 2004 were $145.6 million. The total includes both hard and soft money donations from industry employees, labor unions representing employees in the communications industry and political action committees.

-The Center identified 450 industry-funded trips valued at $704,229 from 2000 through March of 2004

In addition to studying political spending, researchers were able to identify 311 former top congressional aides and FCC officials who have left government service and gone to work in the communications industry

Of the three sectors, traditional telecommunications companies spend far more on contributions and lobbying than broadcasters or cable companies. A sector breakdown shows:

-Telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp. spent $498 million on lobbying, $60.5 million on campaign contributions and $276,000 on trips for an overall total of $559 million. (See information on telecommunications spending)

-Broadcasters spent $222.3 million on lobbying and $26.5 million on campaign contributions and $165,000 on trips for a total of $248.9 million. (See information on broadcast spending)

-Cable television providers spent $119.9 million lobbying, $20.5 million on contributions and $226,000 on trips for a total of $140.6 million. (See information on cable television spending)

Among the top spenders on lobbying:

General Electric Co., which owns 80 percent of NBC Universal in addition to a number of cable networks, topped the lobby spending list at $105.2 million. (The total includes all lobbying by the giant conglomerate, even though it draws only a portion of its revenue from broadcast operations. Federal disclosure rules do not require companies to separate lobbying expenditures by subject.)

Second by a small margin was Verizon Communications Inc., the nation's largest phone company. The former regional Bell operating company spent $102.5 million from 1998 through mid 2004. Verizon has key financial interests in local and long-distance phone regulation, spectrum allocation for its wireless division and a multitude of other issues.

Third on the list of top lobby spenders was AT&T Corp. at $75 million.

The partisan preference of the communications industry as a whole has leaned toward the Democratic Party. Total contributions were split 56.2 percent for Democratic candidates and party organizations and 43.2 percent for Republicans. That does not extend to the two current candidates for the White House: President Bush leads Sen. John Kerry by a wide margin, $1.8 million to $1.1 million.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
-- Katherine Graham, Washington Post publisher and Bilderberger

Burnsys

Dec28-04, 11:56 AM

Aparently you are unfamiliar with the idea of a Board of Directors.

I don't mean to be rude, but your statements in the past few posts have suggested you are ignorant about the way corporations work. These questions you ask ("who appoint the CEO") are not deep philosophical issues, but (usually) straightforward matters that are well known to anyone with any understanding of US business.

Would you not agree that these kinds of failures to gather even the most basic knowledge about business practice would be an impediment to forming a reasonable opinion on the matter? I'd like to humbly suggest you give up all arguments in this thread, go expand your knowlege base dramatically, and then reform your opinions. Even if you come to the same conclusions you will have greatly improved the strength of your stance on these issues.

Are there too few media outlets? How compacent is the media? Who has too much power over what they say? Is collusion between the board and CEO's acceptable? Are the laws in place to prevent it enough?

These seem to me to be reasonable questions. However, neither you nor the person you initially quoted seem the least bit equipped to answer them.

I found this:

Source: http://eatthestate.org/03-20/DirectorsFees.htm

Phillips lists the corporations that have ties to the boardrooms of the fourth estate and they include many companies that stand to profit from U.S. policy in Iraq. The most obvious profiteers are the defense contractors, two of whom own TV networks: General Electric (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS). Among CBS's directors is Frank C. Carlucci III, who happens to have been a deputy director of the CIA under President Carter and was Secretary of Defense from 1987-89, when Saddam Hussein was a valued U.S. asset. (Now that's cashing in on the D.C. revolving door from government to industry!) Both companies share directors with other defense contractors: Allied Signal and Textron for NBC; General Dynamics for CBS.

GE doesn't just own NBC and sponsor news shows on PBS, it also provides a member of the board of directors at the Washington Post, as does Textron. The Post, by the way, owns Newsweek and the Everett Herald, and is the former employer of the Seattle P-I's editorial page editor.

No company got better PR out of the 1991 Gulf War than Raytheon, whose Patriot missiles looked far more effective on TV than they were in reality. Raytheon happens to have two directors on the board of Knight-Ridder, which owns the Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, San Jose Mercury-News, and 49.5 percent of the stock in the Seattle Times.

In last month's bombing, the Navy unloaded several hundred "obsolete" cruise missiles on Iraq at $1 million a pop, coincidentally making room for orders for new ones. The missiles were made in Kent by Boeing, which provides a member of the board at Times Mirror, owner of the Los Angeles Times, Long Island Newsday, and the Baltimore Sun.

The New York Times has a director who also sits on the board at Texaco. At Times Mirror you can find a director from Amoco. Ashland is represented at the Washington Post. Phillips Petroleum has a director at Knight-Ridder. Meanwhile Gannett, the nation's largest newspaper chain and owner of USA Today, has a director from du Pont, which technically isn't an oil company, but you'd be hard pressed to find many of their products that aren't made from petroleum.

The same holds true on the broadcast side. Mobil and Chevron representatives sit on the board at Time Warner, which owns CNN and Time Magazine. CBS has directors from Ashland and Sunoco. Exxon has someone on the board at NBC, as does Goodyear, whose tires are made of synthetic rubber which is made from oil.

The banking industry also benefits from the U.S.'s Iraq policy, as it has from every American military action. The investment banks underwrite U.S. debt to pay for the bombing, which has the added benefit of letting other nations know that they may be next if they try to stand up to western capital. That may come in handy as debt is destroying economies from Indonesia to Venezuela (and, hey, there's oil in those places, too).

The banks and Wall Street firms are well-positioned to have their voices heard in America's newsrooms. J.P. Morgan & Co. has people on the boards of Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and NBC. That's the same J.P. Morgan that played a major role in getting the United States into World War I because it was Britain's biggest creditor and its loans would have been worthless if Germany had won. Bet you didn't learn that in your high school history class.

Bank of America provides a director for Gannett and Walt Disney, which owns ABC. Chase Manhattan has directors at CBS and NBC. Citicorp has directors at Time Warner and NBC. Banc One is represented at CBS. Lehman Brothers has a director at the New York Times. Salomon and Wells Fargo have directors at the Washington Post. Bankers Trust New York has a director at Fox, and American Express directors can be found at Gannett, the Washington Post, and Time Warner.

Interlocking Directorates
http://www.fair.org/media-woes/interlocking-directorates.html
---------------------------------------------------
“The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”
Morpheus, in the movie ‘The Matrix’

Locrian

Dec28-04, 12:32 PM

Burnsys

Dec28-04, 12:48 PM

It's cute that you found that, but you will need to be more clear as to its significance.

You seem to have completely given up on the argument you started this thread with.Before you fill up another post, would you like to state your new one? The tactic you are using is a common one: when you can't back up your initial argument, tack on unrelated ideas and hope your opponent attacks them - at which point you can show he is wrong and claim victory.

I'm not so gullible.

My first post of this thread:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been said that only a handful of people own all the money in the world. Many refuse to believe this, but in reality, there are only about six people/corporations that own the ten big media.

If given much consideration, one can discern that the power of the news rests with these head-haunchos who determine what we should be told, how, by whom, and when, and certainly what slant or outright untruths and disinformation should be passed on to us. I find it amazing that educated people today still trust in the media for the truth, and how fallow we are about what really is happening

The Columbia Journalism Review does a commendable of job of trying to keep up with all the media ownership and merger changes. The lists of monopolies and cross-owernships run seemingly endlessly like the roll call of immigrants on Ellis Islands' walls. Therein lie two key problems: 1). domination, and 2). pre-determined information. The global media giants kick us in our pants every time we turn on a radio or TV channel, surf the Net, read a newspaper, magazine, or book by feeding us only what they want us to know, and not what is authentic. Thus, our opinions are built solely on their propaganda."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

i don't see when i given up the argument, the argument is the media is controled by a small group of people.
But the fact that i can't show who are the top shareholders of those 7 or 8 corporation does not invalidate my other arguments that the media is controled by a small group of peple to make more profit and gain more power...
And this is not about "Wining a thread" or losing. it's about showing a point...

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 12:57 PM

i don't see when i given up the argument, the argument is the media is controled by a small group of people. The argument is the implication: the level of control. You have failed to prove your claimed direct control over the content we see. You have backed off that and now just keep saying over and over how only a handful of companies run the media - as if that, in and of itself, means anything.

Going back to the first post and checking the source, I realize now I probably shouldn't have even responded: the source is a conspiracy theory website of the worst quality. Chemtrails? Pfffffffft. :rolleyes:

Burnsys

Dec28-04, 01:02 PM

The argument is the implication: the level of control. You have failed to prove your claimed direct control over the content we see. You have backed off that and now just keep saying over and over how only a handful of companies run the media - as if that, in and of itself, means anything.

And what about the "Executive memo" delivered each morning in fox news??
------------------------------------------------------------------
"An email sent to Jim Romenesko's for posting on the message board of the journalism training center, The Poynter Institute by former Fox News producer, Charlie Reina, explained how bias permeates the Fox newsroom. "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it," he wrote. "
------------------------------------------------------------------

Or how bbc distort the new to make them look like they want????

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 01:08 PM

And what about the "Executive memo" delivered each morning in fox news?? I thought we already covered that? Every news service has an executive producer who decides what goes on that day's news: every newspaper has one who decides what stories to research and print: every magazine has one.... That's how the media works. Heck, I start each week with an organizational meeting and post a job list/task list for the week! There is nothing conspiracy theory-ish about that.

And btw, the fact that there is such distributed responsibility for the content is evidence against central control. Or how bbc distort the new to make them look like they want???? The BBC has a pro-Britain bias. Soooooooooo??? :surprised That implies nothing about anything.

Burnsys

Dec28-04, 01:14 PM

I thought we already covered that? Every news service has an executive producer who decides what goes on that days news: every newspaper has one who decides what stories to research and print: every magazine has one.... That's how the media works. Heck, I start each week with an organizational meeting and post a job list/task list for the week! There is nothing conspiracy theory-ish about that. The BBC has a pro-Britain bias. Soooooooooo??? :surprised That implies nothing about anything.

You have a little problem with the "conspiracy theory" word...

you are impliyng that bbc has a "Pro-Britain" bias.. that is my point, that the media has bias. all the media, and that "Bias" cames from the top, not from the journalists.. and in the top there is not much people....

Interlocking Directorates
http://www.fair.org/media-woes/interlocking-directorates.html

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 02:50 PM

you are impliyng that bbc has a "Pro-Britain" bias.. that is my point, that the media has bias. all the media, and that "Bias" cames from the top, not from the journalists.. and in the top there is not much people.... Again, so what? Everyone and every corporate entity has a bias. That fact doesn't imply anything about anything.

You are implying (but no longer saying outright) that bias equals strict central control. This is still ludicrous. Interlocking Directorates That is common to most industries and as such does not imply anything sinister about the media.

Again, you're taking outside shots here that you are implying (but not saying explicitly anymore) something sinister. You have shown us nothing relevant to that point. I'm starting to think you don't even understand what you are implying here: do you have any idea what a real central-controlled media looks like? Most autocratic regimes have/have had them and they look nothing at all like western media.

Burnsys

Dec28-04, 03:32 PM

Again, so what? Everyone and every corporate entity has a bias. That fact doesn't imply anything about anything.

You are implying (but no longer saying outright) that bias equals strict central control. This is still ludicrous. That is common to most industries and as such does not imply anything sinister about the media.

Again, you're taking outside shots here that you are implying (but not saying explicitly anymore) something sinister. You have shown us nothing relevant to that point. I'm starting to think you don't even understand what you are implying here: do you have any idea what a real central-controlled media looks like? Most autocratic regimes have/have had them and they look nothing at all like western media.

i never said all us media is "Central-Controlled" there are 7,8 corporations who control the media, each one of this is Central-Controlled by the board of directors, or the ceo,(with the exexcutive memo for example), the board decides "The bias" of the network, like you said, the "Liberal Bias", like i say the "Right wing Bias" for me they are all "The American Bias", anyway we both admit there is a bias in every network i think

Now of course there is something sinister... how is it posible for a company like, General Electric, who sells misiles being used in irak. to cover the irak war and be impartial???? it's imposible, they will never show a kid blown up by their missiles... they manipulate the information, to benefit their interest... and this :"Interlocking Directorates" show you exactly what are their interest.... now do you belive that this "Manipulated Information" don't have an efect on people?? it has a direct effect on people. most people make their view of the world only based of what they see on the TV...

So for example if GE, says that all irakis are barbarians.. it's posible that a percentage of their audience will belive it...

****, i can't express my self very good in english.

a couple of cuotes:
------------------------------------------------------------
After World War II, U.S.-led occupying forces enforced strict media ownership rules in Germany, because of the role that powerful press barons had played in Hitler's rise to power and the advance of fascism.
Peter J. Humphreys, Media and Media Policy in Germany: The Press and Broadcasting Since 1945 (Oxford, Eng.: Berg, 1990)

Over the past eight years, FCC Commissioners and staff have received almost $2.8 million in travel and entertainment expenses mainly from the telecommunications and broadcast industries that it is supposed to regulate. The number one travel destination is Las Vegas with 330 trips, followed by New Orleans with 173.
Bob Williams "On the Road Again--and Again: FCC officials rack up $2.8 million travel tab with industries they regulate," The Center for Public Integrity, 13 June, 2003 (This sound sinister to me......)

In the first five months of 2003, when the FCC was debating the media cross-ownership rules that were overturned in June of that year, the commercial TV and cable networks showed "virtually no coverage" of the issue, with the big networks typically airing nothing until a week before the FCC decision.
Charles Layton, "News Blackout," American Journalism Review, Dec./Jan., 2004

32% of local reporters have acknowledged that they have softened the tone of a news story on behalf of the interests of their news organization.
Self Censorship: How Often and Why, Journalists Avoiding the News The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 30 April, 2000.

26% of local journalists say they have been told to ignore a story because it was dull or complicated, but suspect the real motivation to be potential harm to the company's financial interests.
Self Censorship: How Often and Why, Journalists Avoiding the News The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 30 April, 2000

loseyourname

Dec28-04, 05:02 PM

Okay, it seems we've proven in this thread that all people are biased and all groups of people are also biased. Therefore we should cease to make any decisions for fear that they are nothing but the result of bias. Is that it?

Smurf

Dec28-04, 09:04 PM

No, fear is what they want you to feel, they want you to remain in indecision and not do anything. Fear is not the answer.

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 09:05 PM

i never said all us media is "Central-Controlled" there are 7,8 corporations who control the media, each one of this is Central-Controlled... contradiction! ...by the board of directors, or the ceo,(with the exexcutive memo for example) Yes, and you utterly failed to prove that. Who writes that "executive memo," for example? (Hint: it isn't the CEO or the board of directors) the board decides "The bias" of the network, like you said, the "Liberal Bias", like i say the "Right wing Bias" for me they are all "The American Bias", anyway we both admit there is a bias... And Al Jazeera has a ME bias - yes, and you apparently still think that means something. It means nothing. So what?Now of course there is something sinister... how is it posible for a company like, General Electric, who sells misiles being used in irak. to cover the irak war and be impartial???? As your own evidence has shown: GE does not "cover the war".

Could you please acknowledge the level of control a true state-controlled media has over the content of its stories? If for no other reason, that would be a good baseline from which you can start drawing comparisons - so far all you have is unsupported allegations.

Burnsys

Dec28-04, 09:51 PM

Yes, and you utterly failed to prove that. Who writes that "executive memo," for example? (Hint: it isn't the CEO or the board of directors)

doesn't really matters who writes the memo, the point is it is the administrations will..

Quotes: "The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo"

"if my boss wasn't warning me to "be careful" how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan ("You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him."), "

"Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct"

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=3500&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

And Al Jazeera has a ME bias - yes, and you apparently still think that means something. It means nothing. So what?

It's more than bias, it's manipulation and disinformation as i shown in the bbcwatch post.

it means something, a lot of peple make up their minds on what they se on tv... Didn't the interin goverment of iraq shutdown aljazzera becouse it "Incite to violence". It mean that people can be manipulated by the media...

As your own evidence has shown: GE does not "cover the war".

what do you mean?? i don't understand,
(when i say GE i mean NBC, CNBC, etc.)

Could you please acknowledge the level of control a true state-controlled media has over the content of its stories? If for no other reason, that would be a good baseline from which you can start drawing comparisons - so far all you have is unsupported allegations.

I have never denied that.. is more i agree.. Take cuba for example.
They are very much tight controled.. but that does not invalidate any of what i said, Private media is controled by a small group of rich people, who share the same interests and use this power to mislead and deceit it public, in favor of their interests..

Burnsys

Dec28-04, 09:55 PM

No, fear is what they want you to feel, they want you to remain in indecision and not do anything. Fear is not the answer.
The Ten Commandments of Propaganda

1. Divide and conquer.
Possibly the oldest political tactic known to man. As long as the people are busy fighting each other, they will never know their real enemy. Hate speech is valuable to this end.

2. Tell the people what they want.
Not to be confused with telling them what they want to hear.You are telling them what they want, and why they cannot live without it.

3. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it
Coined by Joseph Goebbels, this truth has been proven time and time again, especially in times of war.

4. Always appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Abraham Lincoln supposedly said "you can't fool all of the people all of the time." But, if you can fool enough of the people, enough of the time, you can get away with anything. The trick is to find the common hopes and fears of the largest majority.

5. Generalize as much as possible.
Specifics are not very important. Most people would prefer to think in the simplest terms possible - black and white, good and evil, Communist and Capitalist, etc.

6.Use "expert" testimonial.
A degree and screen presence is pretty much all you need to be an authority on anything in the modern world. People like celebrities.

7. Always refer to the "authority" of your office.
Once your authority is established, you need to periodically remind the people of it. It will add credibility to your purpose.

8. Stack the cards with "information".
Statistics and facts work wonderfully, especially when the average person only partially understands them, and when conflicting data is censored.

9. A confused people are easily led.
When a person hears the truth, he won't know it, because it will be lumped together with disinformation, half-truths, and lies.

10. Get the "plain folks" onto the "bandwagon"John Doe is your propaganda agent. Middle Americans will "relate" to him, and so will their friends, and their friends, and their friends, and their friends . . .

And remember, when all else fails, use FEAR.

polyb

Dec28-04, 11:05 PM

This looks like a good point as any to interject!

I found a site that has a couple of excerpts from Herman and Chomsky work done backin '88 and should be relevent to this discission!

Manufacturing Consent (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html)

If you get a chance to read the book or see the video, I would highly recommend it if you are to take a 'critical' survey of media in general! If anyhting these two articles will serve the content of this 'discourse' which apparently has been reduced to taking sides or some other rubish like that.

And before anyone gives me lip about Chomsky I have state that he is a professor at MIT, which none of you are, and his work in linguistics is pretty good(understament!) if you are so inclined to look into it.

Smurf

Dec28-04, 11:08 PM

Yeah, you can diss moore all you want, but no one touches Chomsky

russ_watters

Dec28-04, 11:42 PM

doesn't really matters who writes the memo, the point is it is the administrations will.. Uh huh - so the CEO and board control the news via a memo that they don't write and probably never read? This would be funny if I didn't know you were serious. Sorry, I just can't continue with this thread - its too off the wall absurd.

One more thing though: Chomsky, guys? C'mon, I'm not a big fan of activist college professors (you do know why they are called activists, right?), so that failed attempt at argument-from-authority isn't going to win any points with me (Pons and Fleischman were professors too...). But hey, if he wants to be The Authority on the most thorougly and rapidly failed political theory in the history of the world, he's welcome to it.

And he is a great writer - and Moore is a great filmmaker. :biggrin:

polyb

Dec28-04, 11:50 PM

Read the article russ before running amuck and poo-pooing it!

Smurf

Dec28-04, 11:58 PM

I'm curious as to what you meant by the Pons and Fleischman comment

Burnsys

Dec29-04, 08:20 AM

Uh huh - so the CEO and board control the news via a memo that they don't write and probably never read? This would be funny if I didn't know you were serious. Sorry, I just can't continue with this thread - its too off the wall absurd.

No. actually the memo is written by the coffee boy, and the board of directors and the ceo are all mentally impaired

damn russ, it'l like talking to a wall.. you can't have a so closed mind...

russ_watters

Dec29-04, 09:02 AM

I'm curious as to what you meant by the Pons and Fleischman comment Its an example of argument from authority, exactly like the one posted:

-Chomsky is a professor, therefore he must be right (or, at least, worth paying attention to).
-Pons and Fleischman are college professors, therefore they must have discovered cold fusion.Read the article russ before running amuck and poo-pooing it! Having skimmed it (its far too boring and verbose to read all the way through), I don't see anything particularly compelling in it. And what he says doesn't seem to me to support the claim made here: the article says essentially that the media does these things because its natural - not because control is being exercised from somewhere. And I'd tend to agree with that.

Smurf

Dec29-04, 11:38 AM

russ_watters

Dec29-04, 11:59 AM

polyb

Dec29-04, 08:49 PM

I don't see why you could say Pons and Fleischman didn't discover cold fusion, it was them who first performed the experiment. Or maybe your one of the ones that think it was all a hoax.
Cold Fusion Heating Up -- Pending Review by U.S. Department of Energy (http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/exclusive/2004/ColdFusion_DOE/)

It is an attempt to discredit by proxy. If he can get you to think that Pons and Fleischman are discredited then obviously Chomsky has no credibiltiy. It is like saying: "Because the sky is blue the (fill in the blank) is true too! Typical sophic method, though in no way enlightening.

Its an example of argument from authority, exactly like the one posted:

-Chomsky is a professor, therefore he must be right (or, at least, worth paying attention to).
-Pons and Fleischman are college professors, therefore they must have discovered cold fusion.

Actually I was coming from a position of credibility which Chomsky has much more of than anyone here! Besides, his critique on media is quite succinct IMHO.

Having skimmed it (its far too boring and verbose to read all the way through), I don't see anything particularly compelling in it.

Which means that you did not read it. Oh well, your loss not mine.

BTW, it is a 'critique' and is not intended to be persuasive or compelling, but then again I am sure you'll argue that as well!

And what he says doesn't seem to me to support the claim made here: the article says essentially that the media does these things because its natural - not because control is being exercised from somewhere. And I'd tend to agree with that.

WOW, where did that come from? Natural?

That article regarding the DOE review: has the DOE review been published yet? (hint: no)

WRONG! HERE (http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf) is the review. They pretty much conclude the same thing that was concluded in '89. The research will continue regardless though because there is funding and there is some interesting stuff happening to the equipment that is not understood(no it isn't the BS factor either!). My hats off to them and if they actually find some new phenomena, well that is what science is all about and why it is so risky.

russ_watters

Dec29-04, 11:30 PM

It is an attempt to discredit by proxy. If he can get you to think that Pons and Fleischman are discredited then obviously Chomsky has no credibiltiy. It is like saying: "Because the sky is blue the (fill in the blank) is true too! Typical sophic method, though in no way enlightening.

Actually I was coming from a position of credibility which Chomsky has much more of than anyone here! Besides, his critique on media is quite succinct IMHO. No, P&F is a counterexample (YOU made the argument, not me) to show that your [continuing] attempt at argument-from-authority is the logical fallacy that it is.Which means that you did not read it. Oh well, your loss not mine.

WOW, where did that come from? Natural? That's a key point, repeated and discussed at length! Heh, apparently in skimming it, I read closer than you! Here is the first use of the word: The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values. [emphasis added] WRONG! HERE (http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf) is the review. They pretty much conclude the same thing that was concluded in '89. Well, I stand corrected - wait, did you just help Smurf or me? :yuck:

the number 42

Jan1-05, 09:40 AM

damn russ, it'l like talking to a wall.. you can't have a so closed mind...

Either his mind is closed, or Russ acts as if it is. In my experience, at best you can get a debate with Russ, you don't get to have a proper discussion in which both parties get to learn something, and perhaps develop their position in some way. But does it matter?

Polly

Jan1-05, 11:09 AM

the number 42

Jan1-05, 06:41 PM

I don't think Russ is close-minded at all, it's just that he loves and identifies with the best ideals of his culture and tradition so strongly that debunking any of them risks nullifying his very identity. Russ is a big man, and I am not a shrink. :tongue2:

:biggrin: I'm sure Russ has his fans, but I wouldn't go making any major claims for open-mindedness on his part. 10 out of 10 for arguing his point to the nth degree, yes. But even God took a day off.

Also, to imply that Russ represents the best that US culture has to offer is selling both him and US culture short. I think both parties are capable of much better.

Russ, correct me if I'm wrong but PF is not a debating chamber, and there are no prizes for merely trying to fend off opposing views at any cost. Debating skill is a good thing, but to use such skills to merely shore up a position is to devalue the point you were trying to make. When was the last time you experienced the liberation of finding out that you were wrong about something?

There are no prizes for being the last man standing in a discussion, and it might just mean that everyone else had something better to do.

loseyourname

Jan1-05, 06:50 PM

This is the last time he found out he was wrong - three days ago:

Well, I stand corrected - wait, did you just help Smurf or me? :yuck:

Sorry, I don't wish to join in. I just thought that was funny. No one ever admits the possibility that they are wrong in the politics forum. It's hardly a problem unique to Russ.

russ_watters

Jan1-05, 06:52 PM

Easy, guys, no need to make this personal.

This forum leans heavily to the left and I lean slightly to the right. This fact means a lot of people will disagree with me on political issues. I'm ok with that.

What's ironic about this particular thread is that I'm being lambasted for defending a liberal institution! :uhh:

the number 42

Jan3-05, 07:26 AM

This forum leans heavily to the left and I lean slightly to the right.

Compared to what? We need an accurate yardstick here. To me, 'heavily to the left' implies communist. I don't suppose you are saying that PF funded by Moscow, are you? :biggrin:

This fact means a lot of people will disagree with me on political issues. I'm ok with that.

Well perhaps seeing yourself as the last bastion of slightly right-wing views explains the vigour with which you defend your opinions. But chill out, babe, you're not surrounded by reds. This isn't Custer's Last Stand, its a forum for intelligent and open minded discussion.

the number 42

Jan3-05, 07:35 AM

When was the last time you experienced the liberation of finding out that you were wrong about something?

Sorry, I don't wish to join in. I just thought that was funny. No one ever admits the possibility that they are wrong in the politics forum. It's hardly a problem unique to Russ.

You are SO wrong!! :biggrin: Just kidding. :tongue2: Yep, I have to agree with you. I'm not exactly WC Fields, but can be unintentionally Groucho Marx on occasion.

(On a pedantic note, the fact that you found an instance of Russ admitting he was wrong disproves your own assertion that no one ever admits they are wrong. Sorry, but couldn't resist pointing this out :redface: ).

russ_watters

Jan3-05, 09:38 AM

Compared to what? We need an accurate yardstick here. To me, 'heavily to the left' implies communist. I don't suppose you are saying that PF funded by Moscow, are you? :biggrin: There are several threads where people posted online political afiliation quiz results. Check one out. I don't think we have any Stalins, but we have plenty of Marxes.Well perhaps seeing yourself as the last bastion of slightly right-wing views explains the vigour with which you defend your opinions. No, I'm just stubborn, opinionated, and pedantic. But I also still think I'm more open-minded than average.This is the last time he found out he was wrong - three days ago:...

Sorry, I don't wish to join in. I just thought that was funny. No one ever admits the possibility that they are wrong in the politics forum. It's hardly a problem unique to Russ. That's actually something I pride myself on and I consider that to be evidence of open-mindedness. I've been commended professionally for admitting and correcting mistakes on a number of occasions. I once posted a "list your faults" thread and started it off by listing half a dozen of mine invited others to do the same. Instead of listing their own, most people just added more to mine! :rofl:

The inability to admit a fault is probably the most pervasive and destructive of human faults. It may be obvious in engineering, but I consider it crucial to just about everything people do: if you won't even admit your faults, you have no chance of ever correcting them. In engineering, if you don't admit (or worse, cover up) your mistakes, people can die: http://www.geneng.mtu.edu/eng1101/fall04/ethics/ethics.html

the number 42

Jan3-05, 04:25 PM

This forum leans heavily to the left There are several threads where people posted online political afiliation quiz results. Check one out. I don't think we have any Stalins, but we have plenty of Marxes.

Checked out a couple of threads:

1/ Where are you on the Political Compass?
I scored similarly Gandhi & the Dalai Lamha on the Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10
I personally don't feel I am as peace-loving as these guys, I like to think I have better dress sense, and I'm not sure how close our views on sex are (though I've heard Gandhi was a bit of a rogue). I'm not sure what I think of this test yet. I only scanned the blurb, but from a quick look at members' scores it seemed to bias scores a little to the left, which might be the result of not having a neutral mid-value (e.g. "don't know") for an option. I might take a closer look if I get time.

2/ Socialism
Nearly twice as of respondants said that Marxism couldn't work than said it could, so this certainly doesn't support the suggestion that PF is a hotbed of Chairman Mao impersonators. In fact if you go by the Political Compass, PF is more a hotbed of enlightened pacifist vegetarianism :confused:

Polly

Jan4-05, 01:11 AM

:biggrin: One enlightened pacifist chimpanzee here (in terms of eating habit). Nice to meet you 42 :biggrin: . Gosh now that we are introduced, does that mean that I cannot be rude to you? :tongue2:

the number 42

Jan4-05, 07:00 AM

Score: Economic Left/Right: -3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41.

I am a cross between the reverend Dalai Lama and Ghandi.

:biggrin: One enlightened pacifist chimpanzee here (in terms of eating habit). Nice to meet you 42 :biggrin: . Gosh now that we are introduced, does that mean that I cannot be rude to you? :tongue2:

Polly, lets just abandon our vows of celibacy and go about creating lots of little enlightened beings. During the act you can be as rude to me as you like :wink:

Polly

Jan4-05, 07:18 AM

:biggrin: A bold offer like that begets only one thing, a bold acceptance :tongue2: Now be good and return to the thread.

russ_watters

Jan4-05, 10:18 AM

I personally don't feel I am as peace-loving as these guys... I'm glad to hear that because a lot of people on this site (in that thread) like to wear that as a badge of honor, but I don't see what is so great about being a Ghandi today. Its a good way to take down a government (and yeah, that is necessary every now and then), but it is not a way to create one. Plus, a lot of the people who tend to identify themselves with Ghandi (or King) aren't faithful to true pacifism: its militant pacifism that you see at a WTO protest, for example. It would be nice if there were more historical figures in that quadrant to gage what it means, but it may just be that there aren't because, its an impractical way to view the world - maybe that's why there aren't any real world leaders there. Which reminds me of Marxism... 2/ Socialism
Nearly twice as of respondants said that Marxism couldn't work than said it could, so this certainly doesn't support the suggestion that PF is a hotbed of Chairman Mao impersonators. Well, Mao is a Stalin twin, not a Marx twin. If I were to guess, I'd say Marx would be far left, slightly below center. Regarding the poll I posted, maybe I need a follow-up: while people realize that pure Marxism doesn't work, there still seems to be some sort of nostalgia for it and, at the very least, a move toward implimenting as many of the policies that do work (arguably) as possible. In fact if you go by the Political Compass, PF is more a hotbed of enlightened pacifist vegetarianism I prefer "militant pacifists" (yes, I know its a contradiction, but its an accurate characterization of the movement), or perhaps, "neo-hippie", but that's my general feeling as well.

In any case, though its fine to consider the bottom-left corner the most "enlightened," its also the most impractical and even self-contradictory. The biggest flaw in Marxism is that its impractical - it does sound great on paper though.

the number 42

Jan4-05, 04:30 PM

In any case, though its fine to consider the bottom-left corner the most "enlightened," its also the most impractical and even self-contradictory.

Well Russ, people say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. By the way, the 'enlightened' remark was a reference to the spiritual enlightenment of my Political Compass quadrant neighbours (Messrs Lama and Gandhi, and the beautiful Polly) not to political enlightenment.

the number 42

Jan4-05, 04:31 PM

:biggrin: A bold offer like that begets only one thing, a bold acceptance :tongue2: Now be good and return to the thread.

Shucks, miss Polly. I'm dustin' off mah webcam and puttin' on mah cleanest underpants right now. :blushing:

Polly

Jan5-05, 03:00 AM

:eek: 42, I wish I had something witty to say but I am too dazed. :biggrin:

the number 42

Jan5-05, 10:46 AM

Wait till you turn on your webcam :surprised :biggrin:

Polly

Jan5-05, 11:11 AM

o:) We have to stop this nonsense, this thread can get closed you know. So bye for now. :wink:

the number 42

Jan5-05, 04:52 PM

o:) We have to stop this nonsense, this thread can get closed you know. So bye for now. :wink:

i.e. "Help! I'm being stalked by the number 42! He's going to appear on my TV screen in his underpants while I'm watching the news!!" :biggrin:
Don't worry, we can get back to the thread now, though I think I've forgotten what its supposed to be about.

the number 42

Jan5-05, 04:57 PM

Oh yeah, the truth owners. Nobody is ever going to agree on this one, as people by and large will believe the version of the truth that suits them. I say the BBC are a reliable source of truth (except for all the news that is left out, which is a big caveat), but then again they promote my radical-vegetarianist view of this illusory existence we call life.

russ_watters

Jan6-05, 01:10 AM

... people by and large will believe the version of the truth that suits them. So, you're saying, the media doesn't brainwash us? :biggrin: Nobody is ever going to agree on this one I disagree - I think we just agreed! :tongue2:

Polly

Jan6-05, 01:25 AM

i.e. "Help! I'm being stalked by the number 42! He's going to appear on my TV screen in his underpants while I'm watching the news!!" :biggrin:

That is so untrue. The sub-text actually reads "let it be generally known that I am ardently in love with 42 and will attend to his every whim with my Oriental meek and submissiveness" *small kisses on 42's cheek*. Oh and also "beat that" :biggrin:

Now turning to the thread, ownership doesn't even have to come to the picture. Everybody just KNOWS what to do, don't we? We know where our investment is, who controls the examination and approval procedures and who can give us a hard time if we don't yield and comply. Here in Hong Kong, we don't get to see any report of the dark side of the PRC until and unless it is first reported in a PRC media.

the number 42

Jan6-05, 08:44 AM

That is so untrue. The sub-text actually reads "let it be generally known that I am ardently in love with 42 and will attend to his every whim with my Oriental meek and submissiveness" *small kisses on 42's cheek*. Oh and also "beat that" :biggrin:

Wow, that's so nice of you to say those things. (i.e. "Help! I'm being stalked by Polly ! She's going to appear on my TV screen in her underpants while I'm watching the news!!")

Now turning to the thread, ownership doesn't even have to come to the picture. Everybody just KNOWS what to do, don't we? We know where our investment is, who controls the examination and approval procedures and who can give us a hard time if we don't yield and comply. Here in Hong Kong, we don't get to see any report of the dark side of the PRC until and unless it is first reported in a PRC media.

Yah-dee-yah. What colour did you say your underpants are?

the number 42

Jan6-05, 08:58 AM

So, you're saying, the media doesn't brainwash us? :biggrin: I disagree - I think we just agreed! :tongue2:

Russ dammit. How dare you twist my words so much that I appear to agree with you :biggrin:

Actually, you make a good point. My answer is that the media set out to create our opinions. Now this might sound to those not in the know like Houdini-like bit of wriggling, but check this:

"Sigmund Freud's daughter, Anna, and his nephew, Edward Bernays, provided the centrepiece philosophy. The US government, big business, and the CIA used their ideas to develop techniques to manage and control the minds of the American people. But this was not a cynical exercise in manipulation. Those in power believed that the only way to make democracy work and create a stable society was to repress the savage barbarism that lurked just under the surface of normal American life".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self_episode_2.shtml

Naturally I'll be disappointed (though not surprised) if your response is to doubt the source, it being the BBC. The series is directed by Adam Curtis, a very well respected documentary maker. You will probably say he is a wild-eyed red :rolleyes:

selfAdjoint

Jan6-05, 11:12 AM

russ_watters

Jan6-05, 12:38 PM

Naturally I'll be disappointed (though not surprised) if your response is to doubt the source, it being the BBC. I don't know why you would say such a thing: I hold the BBC in pretty high regard.

Regarding the theory itself, I don't know much about it, but I don't doubt that in the time of McCarthy, such a thing was considered or even tried. But like SA, I would doubt that such a thing would work.

the number 42

Jan6-05, 02:21 PM

I don't know why you would say such a thing: I hold the BBC in pretty high regard.

:surprised You like the BBC, so... we agree AGAIN? :uhh: I feel funny...

Regarding the theory itself, I don't know much about it, but I don't doubt hat in the time of McCarthy, such a thing was considered or even tried. But like SA, I would doubt that such a thing would work.

You might be right, but it would be great if you could see the series (4 one-hour documentarys I think) so you could make up your mind one way or the other.

the number 42

Jan6-05, 03:14 PM

I personally doubt the source, not the BBC, but that the Freud-Bernays psychology would acieve anything when deployed that way. This was the thesis behind Vance Packard's old book The Hidden Persuaders and that was subsequently shown to be incorrect; people are not in fact swayed by such things.

I see the connection, but even if the Hidden Persuaders is wrong it doesn't follow that the Century of the Self is similarly wrong. Would you remind me of what the criticisms of the Hidden Persuaders are, or give a link to same?

Smurf

Jan6-05, 07:05 PM

I disagree - I think we just agreed! :tongue2:
Unbelievable. First me, now 42... the whole forum is slowly beginning to agree with Russ, THIS MADNESS MUST BE STOPPED

the number 42

Jan7-05, 06:08 AM

Unbelievable. First me, now 42... the whole forum is slowly beginning to agree with Russ, THIS MADNESS MUST BE STOPPED

I think this is one for Skepticism & Debunking, Smurf. :biggrin: e.g 'Russ Watters is a right wing conspriracy, and actually an conglomerate of shape-shifting B-movie actors' etc.

Anyway, I think you'll find that Russ was agreeing with me :tongue2:

Smurf

Jan7-05, 09:22 AM

Anyway, I think you'll find that Russ was agreeing with me :tongue2:
THANK GOD! :smile:
phew.

Close one

jammieg

Jan7-05, 01:23 PM

Here is a story in USA Today by Greg Toppo about government manipulation of the populace:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050107/1a_bottomstrip07dom.art.htm

I'm not sure exactly how it works but basically people tend to follow sound reasons on issues and a person can sometimes make a good living on having a reputation as an uncorruptable source of truth, but everyone's got a sellout point I suppose, and if USA Today has only detected the Bush administration attempting to manipulate the public in a few things what about all the things they haven't seen them do, there are probably a lot more of those? Anyway it's all lies for the greater good right? Do you think it's right to accept money from government for telling others about this "something you believe in" sort of thing if you were the journalist?
At first I thought it's like a prize fighter taking a dive because they both decide that money is more important than doing what they love to do.

russ_watters

Jan7-05, 02:19 PM

Here is a story in USA Today by Greg Toppo about government manipulation of the populace. Toughie: I see journalistic ethics (oxymoron?) issues there and possibly an allocation of funds issue with the government paying him for it. There is, of course, nothing wrong with the government sponsoring advertising campaigns, but to do it in an underhanded way may be an issue.

Frankly, I see this as more of an ethics issue for the journalist than for the gov't (and if its not a conflict of interest for the journalist, it can't be for the government).Anyway it's all lies for the greater good right? Where in that article did it say anything about lies? Do you think it's right to accept money from government for telling others about this "something you believe in" sort of thing? Whether from the government or from Merck, it is unethical if you're a journalist to do so. If you're just a random celebrity, there is, of course, nothing wrong with it. That's why I'm not sure about this: is this guy actually a "journalist" or just a talk-show host, and is it possible/ethical to be both at the same time?

From the article: Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of the top black conservative voices in the nation. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio, and writes op-ed pieces for newspapers, including USA TODAY, while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group. Op-ed pieces aren't news, but still, it seems to me the guy may be trying to play both sides. Its a fine line, that many (if not most) on-air personalities try to tow. I'm sure you've all heard radio personalities doing little plugs for various products on their shows.