News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[loseyourname]

you can set one price for exporting and another price for the inner market... after all the oil their are exporting and selling came from our soil... it should be used to help the country get out of the crisis.. not for 3 foreign corporations profits...

You're misunderstanding the way capitalism works - the way it has to work. If they lowered the price for every country that imported no oil, they'd have to raise prices elsewhere. In doing so, they'd lose business and eventually be forced to raise the prices in countries with their own oil as well. If they did this, which is what you want them to do, you'd actually end up paying more. There is no way around this and there is no malicious behavior here on the part of any oil company. The only body that behaves maliciously in causing high prices is OPEC.

I could cry the same cry you do. Why do Californians have to pay higher prices than the rest of the US when we have oil and they don't? Heck, I had oil derricks in my backyard back in Long Beach. The answer for me is a little more convoluted. We have stricter emissions laws here that require expensive additives be mixed with our gasoline, which makes for expensive gasoline.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm not a Fox watcher, but I don't see any problem other than overzealousness.

I don't have the article at hand, but it was a behind the scenes description of O'Reilly among others, which indicated a problem much more than "overzealousness." I'll just point to the "Outfoxed" documentary, and the out-pour of complaints to the FCC to make FOX remove their tag-line.

If a country is run by terrorists and kills innocent civilians as a matter of policy, why shouldn't we attack?

Let's not forget the same was said of the PLO, but though it became more moderate over time, the U.S. refused to recognize it as a legitimate government or Lebanon as a sovereign state. Who knows what direction Hezbollah would take. Not to mention Iraq, which even if it does not become an Islamic republic, isn't it really whether or not they become an U.S. ally? But the real issue is that terrorism is a world-wide guerilla phenomenon, and cannot be addressed in the traditional way of war against states.

Democracy is not relevant here: Democracy or otherwise, terrorism is terrorism. In an effort to disparage democracy, people claim Hitler was popularly elected. It isn't true, but if it was, so what? Just because the majority in a country agrees with it, does that make it any less wrong?

It is relevant because Bush has been claiming that U.S. foreign policy is to end terror by spreading democracy. The root of terrorism is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the U.S. taking sides, continued U.S. intervention, etc.

 

[SOS2008]

...Yeah, Gibson gets a little heavy-handed at times, and he's extremely sarcastic...

I would describe some of these folks as in-your-face hostile, and why I believe this suppresses dissent, certainly more frightening than tree-hugging whale watcher types.

...Gibson has difficulties with arguments that we shouldn't be interfering with other peoples' choices of forms of government, and, that is the point of his piece, that they will NOT be able to sing that song for once.

I accept that.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually, I'm not surprised. Fox's slant is not any further to the right than the other networks are to the left, but their tone is much more sensational. The rhetoric is heavier.

What news agencies are to the left? CNN? MSNBC? I see balanced reporting in these U.S. news agencies, even PBS most of the time, but never with FOX News. The old stereotypes of the press being liberal never fades...

 

[SOS2008]

Who owns most of the world's debt anyway? ( i mean, whos been giving out all the money). Isnt it some countries that yoru average person wouldn't have ever guessed? I am feeling a bit average right now since i can't remember it myself..

I don't know about worldwide debt, but China owns most of the U.S. debt...

 

[Shadow]

And if we have to bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age because it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us, we could bomb it back to the Stone Age with a clean conscience.

First off please do not misquote. I do not in any way support bombing a democracy back to the stone age, as fox put it. But naming this topic as though fox news said straight out "Lets bomb a democracy back to the stone age" is an outrage. In your own post it is worded quite differently (as I showed above) and it also says BECAUSE it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us. Your title makes it sound much more malicious and war mongering than it is, it certainly made my heart stop.

 

[Bystander]

Re: my remarks on Gibson -

I would describe some of these folks as in-your-face hostile, and why I believe this suppresses dissent, certainly more frightening than tree-hugging whale watcher types.

Gibson's remarks suppress dissent? How? I haven't watched Dan Rather for 35 years, an "in your face" kinda guy if ever there were. You don't like Gibson, switch to the teletubbies or whatever suits your fancy Rather was losing money and ratings for CBS, and he got canned. Gibson starts losing money for Fox, he'll get canned. Neither is elected to any office in the various levels of govt. in this country, neither makes policy, and neither can be gagged for expressing opinions. Rather got his butt into trouble for presenting opinions as fact, and Gibson will get the same treatment if he should happen to follow suit. You don't like the commentary? Again, exercise your rights to change channels.

Frightening? Tree huggers? Spiking trees? Killing loggers? Yeah. [begin sarcasm]Very proud to step forward and pick up the liabilities for such actions, too.[/end sarcasm] For Russ: this is where I got off the "moral high ground" and started looking for more rational bases for "moral" human behavior standards.

 

[SOS2008]

Re: my remarks on Gibson - Gibson's remarks suppress dissent? How? I haven't watched Dan Rather for 35 years, an "in your face" kinda guy if ever there were. You don't like Gibson, switch to the teletubbies or whatever suits your fancy.

News Hounds: “Fox News' John Gibson has gone even farther than other journalists in falling, hook, line, and sinker, for the Bush claim that the Iraq elections are related to some Lebanese demonstrating for the removal of Syrian troops from their country. Gibson went over the line on "The Big Story" Wednesday (March 9), however, when he said the U.S. could bomb Lebanon "with a clean conscience" if it votes democratically to retain Syrian troops. …And to think just a few minutes earlier on the same show, Gibson aired a tape of Bush saying, "Free societies don't attack their neighbors." No, "attack" is too wimpy. They bomb them back to the Stone Age, right Herr Gibson?”

But my main point with regard to dissent is that FOX News is watched by a large number of Americans (as indicated by ratings) who then think it’s okay to behave the same way. Change the channel? I prefer the FOXBlocker “…an innovative new product that filters out the FOX News network. … With every order placed, FOXBlocker.com will send an e-mail in your name to the TOP 10 advertisers at FOX News letting them know that yet another subscriber has opted out of FOX News. Protect yourself and your family, or send one to a misguided right wing friend.” Teletubbies? Who watches NASCAR, WWE Wrestling, etc.? Sounds more like a right-wing program. Seriously, I think there’s agreement that all agencies should be required to report in a fair and balanced way if they want to have the word “news” in their name (whether with a left or right slant).

 

[Bystander]

News Hounds:(snip)
But my main point with regard to dissent is that FOX News is watched by a large number of Americans (as indicated by ratings) who then think it’s okay to behave the same way.

non sequitur "Monkey see, monkey do?" Woodstockers, hippies, liberals, bomb throwing bolsheviks, and other such mental giants take their cues from the tube, perhaps, but this is a bit of a stretch to portray the entire country marching lockstep behind the "Svengali Gibson in pursuit of the fourth reich."

(snip)Seriously, I think there’s agreement

Source this "agreement."

that all agencies should be required to report in a fair and balanced way

---- as judged by whom? "Just the facts, ma'am," was Friday's line on Dragnet, but you cannot be serious --- journalists have no idea what facts are, much less how to report them, never have, and never will. Their only role is to inform the public that something has happened and may be of interest to the public in terms of attention, correction, remediation, whatever --- other than this, a journalist is "the boy who cries wolf" for a living.

if they want to have the word “news” in their name (whether with a left or right slant).

 

[SOS2008]

This may belong under earlier threads on dissent from popular opinion, but aside from FOX News, and earlier threads about paid pundits, here’s more on the topic of suppression, most notably the umbrella company Sinclair Broadcasting Group (with around 62 stations):

http://www.never-be-silent.com/

“The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, one of the nation's most powerful television conglomerates, has a sad record of using its public license to promote Republican causes. Earlier this year [2003], Sinclair tried to censor an installment of "Nightline" on its 62 stations when Ted Koppel announced plans to read out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq.”

There is an entire list of litany regarding Sinclair, which continues…

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/gop_web_sites_s.php

“The owners of influential Republican Web sites, most notably freerepublic.com, lucianne.com, and townhall.com, have largely made discussions of immigration reform taboo, by banning any material from prominent Web sites and writers who call for the enforcement of America’s immigration laws.

…Although a large plurality of FReepers support immigration enforcement, Jim Robinson has little tolerance for that position. His computer software automatically blocks any posts linking to the premier anti-illegal immigration Web site, VDARE.com, and his moderators delete any posts of articles by prominent restrictionist writer Steve Sailer. When I once sought to post one of Sailer’s articles, Robinson threatened to ban me from the site."

And while there may have been 48% who did not vote for Bush, there are how many "red" states compared to "blue" states? Sorry, but I can't boo-hoo about mistreatment of conservatives in this country.

 

[misskitty]

To be fair, the Spanish-American war was based more on false pretense than it was on the Spanish mistreating Cubans. At a time when most of the important western European nations had large empires, the US had no colonial holdings. Taking Spain's possessions in the Caribbean and South Pacific was a good start and the falsified USS Maine incident provided the excuse (not human rights abuses).

Yes alright. The final cause was and excuse in the end ended up being the USS Maine. However, when we orginally went to "war", I don't even think we can call it that, the reason was humanitarian rights. It wasn't the final reason, because your right. However, humananitarian rights was the original excuse cited by Former President McKinley. I was merely trying to parallel that this isn't the first time the United States has acted on an issue while citing human rights. In the end, both you and klusener are right, the main drive was the desire to become a world power.

 

[misskitty]

It wasn't a mistake loseyourname. it was premeditated.. it was on purpouse. It was usesfull for them. what mistake? what grade of knowledge do you think the army had about what was going on there? you think they where blind?

Just because it was pemeditated doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake. Look up the definition: b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of

If you don't believe me, here's the site's url:

http://www.m-w.com/cgibin/dictionarybook=Dictionary&va=mistake&x=16&y=13

 

[SOS2008]

Oh, I forgot to mention Christian Radio (about all you can get when you drive through "red" states). Talk about sad, all the liberals have is NPR -- Like a comedian recently remarked, can't they at least play some Rock music every now and then? LOL

 

[misskitty]

Oh, I forgot to mention Christian Radio (about all you can get when you drive through "red" states). Talk about sad, all the liberals have is NPR -- Like a comedian recently remarked, can't they at least play some Rock music every now and then? LOL

You might want to consider subscribing to XM. Its a satilight radio station...you might be able to get some rock on one of their station.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's not forget the same was said of the PLO, but though it became more moderate over time, the U.S. refused to recognize it as a legitimate government or Lebanon as a sovereign state. Who knows what direction Hezbollah would take.

We should recognize a country (government) before they become legitimate? That's backwards.

Not to mention Iraq, which even if it does not become an Islamic republic, isn't it really whether or not they become an U.S. ally?

You don't have to be an ally - you just have to not be terrorists and not be a rogue nation.

It is relevant because Bush has been claiming that U.S. foreign policy is to end terror by spreading democracy.

Ending terror (against the US) is more important than spreading democracy. That should be self-evident.

The root of terrorism is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the U.S. taking sides, continued U.S. intervention, etc.

Everyone takes sides. The US happens to like the side that isn't terrorists. And intervention? One of Bin Laden's prime complaints was the US's presence in Saudia Arabia - and they begged us to come and save them from Saddam. The ME is a chaotic place because it has oil and the US is there because it is chaotic and has oil. You've got the cause-effect relationship screwed up.

I would describe some of these folks as in-your-face hostile, and why I believe this suppresses dissent, certainly more frightening than tree-hugging whale watcher types.

How does one person expressing support, no matter how zealous, constitute suppression of dissent? And I think you underestimate how dangerous, subversive, and destructive the tree-hugging whale watcher type is. Don't get me started on tree-huggers and nuclear power.

Anyway, I find talk of right-wing censorship tiring, considering the liberals are supposed to be the champions of freedom, yet ideological censorship in this country is typically liberal. One word for you: Berkeley.

What news agencies are to the left? CNN? MSNBC? I see balanced reporting in these U.S. news agencies, even PBS most of the time, but never with FOX News. The old stereotypes of the press being liberal never fades...

CNN is fairly close to center, PBS is as well. MSNBC is heavily left, as is CBS. It'll be interesting to see if Dan Rather is the cause or effect of CBS's left leaning (now that he's diminished). Dan Rather is lucky he's not in jail for attempting to tamper with the election. In any case, he, more than any other high-end reporter was open and unapologetic about his stance and his adjenda.

That the media in general leans left is not open for debate. It is well established. Its just one of those things: certain fields lean in certain directions because of the type of people they draw. It should be no surprise that engineers (for example) lean to the right.

For Russ: this is where I got off the "moral high ground" and started looking for more rational bases for "moral" human behavior standards.

[shrug] Some people are so zealous that their ideology clouds their judgement. Ask a tree-hugger if cutting a guy's face off with a chainsaw is ok and they'll certainly say no. Ask if its ok to spike a tree so that a logger's chainsaw snaps back and cuts his face off, they say yes. I don't find such hypocrisy particularly surprising or difficult to reconcile with the concept of morality.

 

[russ_watters]

Dan Rather quotes: http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2005/nq20050228.asp

I'd also just like to point out that Dan Rather's bias is particularly distressing because he's in a position where he is supposed to be (or at least act) unbiased. Its not like he's doing an opinion column (such as the subject of this thread). He even claims he's unbiased while at the same sticking to a fabricated story designed and timed to effect the election.

 

[Bartholomew]

Um, where is there any bias there? Looks to me like the man's just stating facts.

 

[SOS2008]

We should recognize a country (government) before they become legitimate? That's backwards.

What if these people want a government that, though associated with Hezbollah, may prove to be moderate over time? No matter what direction the PLO went, the U.S. would not accept it--because it was not an ally.

You don't have to be an ally - you just have to not be terrorists and not be a rogue nation...Ending terror (against the US) is more important than spreading democracy. That should be self-evident.

Terrorism is a worldwide guerilla war. The traditional approach of going to war against nation states will not end terror, and in fact fuels it.

Everyone takes sides. The US happens to like the side that isn't terrorists.

The argument here is that many view the U.S. and Israel as "rogue nations" doing things just as bad as terrorists with regard to creating conflict, etc.

And intervention? One of Bin Laden's prime complaints was the US's presence in Saudia Arabia - and they begged us to come and save them from Saddam. The ME is a chaotic place because it has oil and the US is there because it is chaotic and has oil. You've got the cause-effect relationship screwed up.

The U.S. is there for oil, and keeping a status quo for the safekeeping of it. Oil is not the cause of terrorism. Long-standing disputes over land, which have become religious disputes as well (Bush hasn't helped this with his use of the word "crusade"), and U.S. intervention has been the reason for terrorism.

MSNBC is heavily left...

My picture is next to the word "liberal" in the dictionary (why I don't need to post it ) and I find MSNBC to be to the right more than the left. -- Oh wait a minute, I'm fiscally conservative...

Dan Rather is lucky he's not in jail for attempting to tamper with the election.

Please. He did leave his career prematurely, which is more than can be said about the so-called "Swiftie" claims regarding Kerry, not to mention the effect this had on the election--I haven't seen anyone losing their jobs over that.

That the media in general leans left is not open for debate. It is well established.

So well established this couldn't possibly change, and the media couldn't possibly be leaning more and more to the right?

 

[russ_watters]

Um, where is there any bias there? Looks to me like the man's just stating facts.

Facts laced with rhetoric reflect bias. One example:

“The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor.”

Re-arranging it to look purely factual and unbiased, it may look something like:

'The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative adjenda to [cut funding to/ eliminate/ restructure/ etc.] government aid programs.' [insert most appropriate factual substitution for the rhetoric]

I'm sure you can identify the rhetoric in the rest.

 

[Moonbear]

Facts laced with rhetoric reflect bias.

It's interesting that I've never really noticed that before about Dan Rather, but I think it's because he's well-known for use of hyperbole, so I guess I just take most of his statements as over-exaggerated to keep people listening.

That's a problem with any media source nowadays. Unfortunately, with more variety of sources, there is more competition for viewers, which means newscasters go to greater and greater lengths to tantalize the viewers into listening. It's hard to find any unbiased source for news. It is good to have a liberal and conservative source and compare the story as presented by both to find the facts somewhere in between.

 

[Bartholomew]

Facts laced with rhetoric reflect bias. One example: Re-arranging it to look purely factual and unbiased, it may look something like:

'The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative adjenda to [cut funding to/ eliminate/ restructure/ etc.] government aid programs.' [insert most appropriate factual substitution for the rhetoric]

I'm sure you can identify the rhetoric in the rest.

"The Republican majority took a big step today"?? Oh, yeah, that would have been real unbiased.

 

[russ_watters]

What if these people want a government that, though associated with Hezbollah, may prove to be moderate over time? No matter what direction the PLO went, the U.S. would not accept it--because it was not an ally.

That is quite simply not true. The US never recognized the PLO because the PLO embraced terrorism and a policy of annihilating Israel. Sorry, you're just being unrealistic. Don't apply that to real life or you may get hurt: If someone is pointing a gun at you, for example, don't attempt to shake his hand.

Terrorism is a worldwide guerilla war.

Guerilla warfare and terrorism are not synonomous. The Arab enemies of the west have made their choice and are being treated appropriately in response.

The argument here is that many view the U.S. and Israel as "rogue nations" doing things just as bad as terrorists with regard to creating conflict, etc.

That is simply not a valid argument. As I said before, the UN was near unanamous in its characterizations of Afghanistan and Iraq. And how criminal dictatorships view the US simply isn't relevant. Their opinions simply don't count.

The U.S. is there for oil, and keeping a status quo for the safekeeping of it. Oil is not the cause of terrorism. Long-standing disputes over land, which have become religious disputes as well (Bush hasn't helped this with his use of the word "crusade"),

Oil is the reason that autocratic nations can sustain themselves. Iraq and Iran would not be the problem-children they are if there was no oil. Religious/cultural conflicts are also part of the problem.

and U.S. intervention has been the reason for terrorism.

While technically true, it simply isn't a valid reason. I have already pointed out why: OBL and others have stated explicitly that all it takes is for us to have any presence at all in the region, regardless of the reason. Even when we are invited.

My picture is next to the word "liberal" in the dictionary (why I don't need to post it ) and I find MSNBC to be to the right more than the left. -- Oh wait a minute, I'm fiscally conservative...

My boss is to the right of Rush Limbaugh (seriously). He laments that Bush is too liberal. So to someone far from center on either side, the center is so far away, it looks like the opposite side.

Please. He did leave his career prematurely, which is more than can be said about the so-called "Swiftie" claims regarding Kerrie, not to mention the effect this had on the election--I haven't seen anyone losing their jobs over that.

Check again. The producer of the story (who wrote in a memo about the possibility the story could affect the election) was fired outright and forced 4 others out (including the top 2 executive producers of 60 Minutes Wednesday).

So well established this couldn't possibly change, and the media couldn't possibly be leaning more and more to the right?

With the inception of Fox news, it is certainly leaning less left than it used to (on average). But the pervasiveness of the bias far outweighs the influence of one right-leaning network.

edit: just realized you misread: by "well established" I didn't mean that it was entrenched, I meant the media's liberal bias is well documented and not a subject for debate.

 

[russ_watters]

"The Republican majority took a big step today"?? Oh, yeah, that would have been real unbiased.

That's in the quote. Did you not notice that all I did was cut out the rhetoric? "a big step", while not completely emotionless, is not anywhere near as emotionally charged a phrase as "demolish or damage" is. So it isn't really that objectionable. Did I assume too much about your ability to detect rhetoric...?

 

[Bartholomew]

The studies I've read about--in Al Franken's book, _Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them_--indicate that the media is right-leaning. Polls were taken of media figures and they answered with a Republican bias compared to the answers of average Americans.

Big reporters make big money, so they tend to be Republican. It's in their best interests.

 

[Moonbear]

That's in the quote. Did you not notice that all I did was cut out the rhetoric? "a big step", while not completely emotionless, is not anywhere near as emotionally charged a phrase as "demolish or damage" is. So it isn't really that objectionable. Did I assume too much about your ability to detect rhetoric...?

Actually, "big step" was in the original quote. And in the context, it isn't particularly biased because it's referring to the Republicans following their own agenda, not to the cuts being made. Though, this brings up an interesting point, that if someone is reading or listening to a statement with their own biases in mind, it's easy to read too much into a statement and take even a fairly neutral statement as being biased.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, Dan Rather originally used "a big step" ironically. By quoting him and removing the end of his sentence as he worded it, you take it out of context.

You may think that aggression against a party is more biased than being in favor of it, but I disagree. "A big step" is just about on the same level as "destroyed," especially when you consider that destroying is exactly what they were doing.

"Restructuring" and "eliminating" also are two words highly favorable to the Republican point of view--"restructure" doesn't sound so bad and "eliminate" sounds like they're getting rid of something evil, instead of an actual social program. An unbiased way to say it is, "The new Republican majority in Congress cut funding today for social programs."

 

[russ_watters]

The studies I've read about--in Al Franken's book, _Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them_--indicate that the media is right-leaning. Polls were taken of media figures and they answered with a Republican bias compared to the answers of average Americans.

Al Frankin is right up there with Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh. If you're looking for unbiased assessments from political zealots, you're looking in the wrong place.

Big reporters make big money, so they tend to be Republican. It's in their best interests.

That quite simply isn't true. If it were, the logic would apply to celebrities as well.

Businessmen tend to be conservative. Reporters tend to be liberal.

 

[Bartholomew]

Moonbear, whenever anyone says a "big step" they are either positive about the step, or using the phrase ironically (as Dan Rather did). It's not a neutral phrase.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, Al Franken was not the one whose opinion I read. I read about the opinions of media figures as determined by polling, which Al Franken was (as far as I know) not a part of, and was simply reporting.

 

[Bartholomew]

Yeah, celebrities are unusual in that respect. Perhaps it's that they make SO much money that they just don't care.