Do you trust the news media if they're controlled by politicians?

[Smurf]

You really should try a little variety in your diet instead of simply eating everything (Murdoch's) Fox News feeds you.

Way to bring this argument back to a serious level Art.

 

[Art]

Way to bring this argument back to a serious level Art.

Check out the thread title. It's about media influence. My remarks are about media influence.

 

[McGyver]

The Media Gone like Milktoast

What do you think about the relation btw media and politics?
It seems that all the medias are controlled by politicians and really help politicians to achieve their goals.They never tell us what's exacylt going on in Iraq.So do you still trut their news and accept the picture of world that they show you?

No, the politicians don't controll the media. However, there have been some unusual efforts by the Bush Administration to sharply criticize, even threaten (eg. CBS/Dan Rather), the media - which is of historic proportion. There was also the Janet Jackson Super Bowl airing boob shot, which has led to new powers and huge fines albeit through the FCC, an arm of the Bush Administration.

However, the media's "milktoast" approach to reporting can be traced back some 10 years or more before the above events. Eighty percent of the national media simply follows the herd. I suppose this way they feel they won't get hurt. Don't take chances. It is ODD how the media is so tame today at a time when many business and political interests have become very brash. Historically, it's supposed to be the reverse. The media is the field expected to go out on a limb, or go the extra mile. This milktoast reporting can't stay like this forever, because the long viewed "cheap news" services like the National Enquirer are getting more mainstream attention. That will eventually be a wake-up call to the field.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

No, the politicians don't controll the media. However, there have been some unusual efforts by the Bush Administration to sharply criticize, even threaten (eg. CBS/Dan Rather), the media - which is

Dan Rather? Are you kidding?

You mean the same Dan Rather that ran fraudulent documents in the primetime news, about a president no less?

(the funniest thing was that I opened up MS Word - default font and size - and duplicated the doc myself! I simply could not believe that some idiot made such a "forgery".)

Now, don't get me wrong, I think that the media have plenty to do with political influence. But don't pull Dan Rather into this as ammunition, that's just too funny.

And if you want to go partisan...here's one for you:

I worked a short stint for a financial company once. The AP and Reuters news wires came right across my desk. I saw a headline that Hilary Clinton was being investigated for "shorting" pharma stocks after trying to introduce health care reform. I spoke with at least a dozen other people who saw it to...and then, "poof", it was gone. I have since never heard a single peep about it again.

isn't that funny? and how about all of bill clinton's associates who were found murdered, and this was somehow just made to disappear from the news? now that is just plain hilarious.

but, I'm sorry to interrupt, you were saying something about George Bush?

 

[McGyver]

Dan Rather? Are you kidding?

But don't pull Dan Rather into this as ammunition, that's just too funny.

And if you want to go partisan...here's one for you:

but, I'm sorry to interrupt, you were saying something about George Bush?

Quetzalcoatl9: It is regretful that you read and turned my comment into a discussion on a partisan position. Might I suggest that if you quote someone, and mock the quoted statement, that you craft appropriate points and arguments to counter that quoted statement. If you felt my use of the Dan Rather example in suporting my point was untrue, then you should have provided points and facts to refute my assertion. You did NOT provide any facts, points, or arguments to counter my statement that the Bush Administration and FCC have engaged in intimidation and censorship of the media. Thus, my comment stands as fact.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Quetzalcoatl9: It is regretful that you read and turned my comment into a discussion on a partisan position. Might I suggest that if you quote someone, and mock the quoted statement, that you craft appropriate points and arguments to counter that quoted statement. If you felt my use of the Dan Rather example in suporting my point was untrue, then you should have provided points and facts to refute my assertion. You did NOT provide any facts, points, or arguments to counter my statement that the Bush Administration and FCC have engaged in intimidation and censorship of the media. Thus, my comment stands as fact.

McGyver, i certainly did not mean to mock you, but rather to express my incredulousness at your ascertion that Dan Rather supports your argument. Such things tend to happen when discussing politics. I hope that I have not hurt your feelings.

My counter-assertion was that Dan Rather is the ultimate in political intimidation since he irrefutably provided documents that were falsified by the political left. He did not resign in response to the White House, he resigned in response to citizens who were upset that a news organization they trusted had purposefully (seemingly) lied to them for political reasons. This will surely go down in history as one of the biggest media disasters ever.

These are the facts, and so your comment stands as fiction.

As for partisanship, I am more than happy to leave the party politics at home, since they mean nothing to me. Your post, however, was LOADED with partisan politics so you are calling the kettle black: I merely responded in equal fashion, as more of a devil's advocate than anything else.

 

[russ_watters]

My counter-assertion was that Dan Rather is the ultimate in political intimidation since he irrefutably provided documents that were falsified by the political left. He did not resign in response to the White House, he resigned in response to citizens who were upset that a news organization they trusted had purposefully (seemingly) lied to them for political reasons. This will surely go down in history as one of the biggest media disasters ever.

Let's just make this crystal clear, shall we: It cannot be argued that Dan Rather/CBS did not do anything wrong. CBS itself admitted they did and took action to correct it.

 

[russ_watters]

Non partisan in that context simply means non-aligned to a party. Wether they are liberal, conservative or center is a totally (and variable) different point as the parties are (unlike Canadian parties) not set to one or the other, as well as the definitions thereof being dependent on the context.

You honestly believe that?

It seems to me Russ that you're arguing against any word being used to describe them except 'terrorists'.

al Qaeda cannot be described as much else. Certainly, "insurgents" and "rebels" do not apply. The Taliban can of course be described by varous characterizations as a government since they were one. You could call them a "terrorist government", a "criminal dictatorship", a "terrorist dictatorship", an "oppressive terrorist dictatorship government", etc. But the terms "insurgents" and "rebels" only very loosely apply and using them instead of the more appropriate (that is what I said, Smurf - don't twist my words: I did not say "only") words is called spin.

It seems evident to me that anyone who knows the definitions of the words would believe that either 'Insurgent', 'Rebel' or 'Terrorist' would describe them equally well. The word insurgent was originally chosen to avoid associating the all of iraqi rebels with Al-Quada and Zarqawi's folk because, in fact, most factions of rebels/insurgents/terrorists are not.

Again, you're twisting my words. I said most of the time. Yes, there are some legitimate "insurgents" in Iraq. The proportion is, of course, debatable, but most of what we read about on a virtually daily bais (which is what this issue is about), are terrorist attacks that are mislabeled.

Also, aren't you contradicting yourself? In the previous quote you seemed to imply that Al Qaeda could reasonably be described as "rebels" or "insurgents". Here you seem to be implying that "terrorists" is more appropriate.

I wonder why you're so insistent on using the word 'Terrorist' to describe them them, perhapse you should watch to make sure you yourself are not being manipulated by the media.
I mean, making such a fuss over something seemingly so insignificant as a word with a slightly different definition.

The difference is not slight, its huge and definitions are critically important. The difference is that "rebels" implies that the actions are morally justifiable/acceptable and "terrorists" implies that they are not. I can't fathom why you don't consider that an important difference.

I guess that's just a really long winded way of saying: WHATS WRONG WITH 'REBELS' ?

Generally, nothing. Wait - above you said the words mean virtually the same thing and here you are implying that it is ok to be a rebel - so doesn't that mean you are also saying its ok to be a terrorist? So you tell me: WHAT'S WRONG WITH "TERRORISTS"?

Btw, first sentence aside, thanks for presenting a real argument and bringing up the level of the thread.

 

[russ_watters]

Now let me see; this thread is about media influence on politicians but articles claiming the biggest media owner in the world is influencing politics is drivel. Yes that makes a lot of sense Russ

So...you don't have a response to my specific criticisms of the site? The subject matter isn't what makes it drivel, Art.

Please note; Murdoch is not just 'anyone'. He is somebody who controls the editorial output of 175 editors across 3 continents who uses this power to try to shape public opinion to promote his own world view [emphasis added]

That assertion requires substantiation. I have already shown why the site you provided doesn't qualify - though again, if you take issue with my specific criticisms, make an argument.

and obviously very effectively in your case. You really should try a little variety in your diet instead of simply eating everything (Murdoch's) Fox News feeds you.

What makes you think I even watch Fox news?

Now if you want to debunk these claims about Murdoch's influence why don't you provide references showing articles from any of Murdoch's media companies which do not concur with his quoted personal opinions.

Easy enough: your link claimed censorship of books (published by Harper Collins) based on their content. http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060736801 is one about Abu Ghraib.

Seems content isn't necessarily the driving factor for what books Harper Collins publishes...

HERE is an editorial in the Telegraph critical of Bush re: the war in Iraq.

NEXT!

 

[Art]

So...you don't have a response to my specific criticisms of the site? The subject matter isn't what makes it drivel, Art. That assertion requires substantiation. I have already shown why the site you provided doesn't qualify - though again, if you take issue with my specific criticisms, make an argument.

The political leanings of the sites owners are not relevant, other than of course for you to slur in an attempt to detract from the contents. The article points to specific references in main stream publications so let's limit the discussion to them.

What makes you think I even watch Fox news?

Oh just a wild shot in the dark

Easy enough: your link claimed censorship of books (published by Harper Collins) based on their content. http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060736801 is one about Abu Ghraib.

Ahem, Russ, err good article but I'm afraid Murdoch doesn't own this paper.

HERE is an editorial in the Telegraph critical of Bush re: the war in Iraq.

Have you actually READ this article? In what way is it critical of Bush?? The article is about how Bush and Blair have brought freedom to the oppressed Iraqi people, set to the tune of 'Hail to the Chief'. Here's a representative extract for you where it criticises the anti-war lobby describing them as resentful and nit-picking;

A clue to what underpins this spirit of resentment and nitpicking has been provided by the BBC's coverage of the Iraqi elections, which has given much greater prominence to the inevitable imperfections in today's polls and the likelihood of patchy turn-out than to the miraculous fact that they are happening at all. On Friday's News at Ten, Gavin Hewitt delivered his analysis of the elections against a backdrop of Tony Blair and George W Bush. And it is sadly true that, in many parts of the media, today's polls are seen as a test of the credibility of the President and Prime Minister, rather than an astonishing achievement in the midst of a bloody insurgency, and a historic opportunity for a people who have long suffered under the yoke of tyranny

If you view this as criticism I would love to see what you consider approval Fox News perhaps?

NEXT!

As you said NEXT!

 

[Art]

In response to the OP it would seem that politicians and large sections of the media have a very cosy symbiotic relationship going, based on the philosophy of 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'

 

[Lisa!]

Or maybe" if you don't scratch my back I won't let you to have nails anymore!"
(when russ said "NEXT",I thought nobody would dare to reply to the thread anymore!"

 

[Art]

Or maybe" if you don't scratch my back I won't let you to have nails anymore!"
(when russ said "NEXT",I thought nobody would dare to reply to the thread anymore!"

lol - Russ thought he was on a roll; unfortunately for him it transpired he was rolling in the wrong direction.

 

[Burnsys]

In response to the OP it would seem that politicians and large sections of the media have a very cosy symbiotic relationship going, based on the philosophy of 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'

In response to the OP it would seem that politicians and large sections of the media have a very cosy symbiotic relationship going, based on the philosophy of 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'

Let's analyze for example Fox news:

Brit Hume (born June 22, 1943) is the managing editor of the Fox News Channel
Hume has long been the subject of controversy, as far back as the 1980s, when he played tennis with George H.W. Bush as an ABC reporter.
As a young Washington Post reporter Hume discovered that the 1972 Republican National Convention had been underwritten by AT&T and that an antitrust case had been conveniently dropped by the Nixon White House shortly thereafter. This greatly embarrassed Richard Nixon who then had Hume and his wife and children observed by two CIA agents for several months

Roger Eugene Ailes (born May 15, 1940) is Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President, of FOX News.
media adviser to Richard M. Nixon Presidential Campaign in 1967-68
consultant in 1984 to Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush's 1988 Presidential campaign


Carl Cameron is a television journalist for FOX News in the United States
Cameron's wife worked for the presidential campaign of George W. Bush in 2000. In spite of that, FOX News allowed Cameron to cover the Presidential campaign without telling the audience about the link. Cameron interviewed Bush at least once during the 2000 campaign
On October 1, 2004, he was the center of controversy, when a parody he wrote, mocking John Kerry with fabricated quotes, was posted publicly to the FOX News web site.

Sean Patrick Hannity (born December 30, 1961, in New York City, New York) is an American conservative talk radio host, co-host of Fox News Channel's political debate program Hannity & Colmes, and the author of two books.
Hannity is known for his confrontational style with guests on his programs, and his conservative views. His critics accuse him of being rude to guests and serving as a megaphone for Republican talking points, as well as being untruthful
Books
Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism (Regan Books, 2004)
Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty Against Liberalism (Regan Books, 2002)

John Kasich born May 13, 1952, McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania) is a former American politician of Croatian descent turned television show host for FOX News Channel in the United States. He hosts From the Heartland and also guest hosts The O'Reilly Factor.
Kasich, a Republican, served in the Ohio Senate from 1978 until he was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1982. He was reelected eight times, serving from 1983 to 2001. He was chairman of the House Budget Committee during his last three terms in office. He did not seek reelection for the House for the 2000 election, but instead sought to run for President. He withdrew early in July, 1999 and endorsed George W. Bush, the eventual Republican nominee and winner of the election.

Tony Snow is currently host of the Tony Snow Show on FOX News Radio and Weekend Live with Tony Snow on the FOX News Channel.
He took a two-year break from journalism to serve as the speechwriter and later as deputy assistant to the president for Media Affairs for President George H.W. Bush.

John Prescott Ellis is an American journalist and FOX News media consultant. Ellis is a cousin of U.S. President George W. Bush.
During the election night 2000 Ellis was working as a consultant for Fox News, where he analysed data from the Voter News Service. It was Ellis who was responsible for the decisions of Fox News to call states for Gore or Bush, based on statistical results from the VNS data

Oliver North regular commentator on Hannity and Colmes, both on the Fox News Channel
North was assigned to the National Security Council staff of the Reagan administration in 1981, served as the United States government Counterterrorism Coordinator from 1983 to 1986, and eventually became Deputy Director for Political-Military Affairs. He coordinated the 1983 invasion of Grenada and the successful 1985 attempt to arrest the hijackers of the passenger ship Achille Lauro in Italy. He also helped plan the controversial 1986 air raids on Libyan military bases in Tripoli and Benghazi in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub.
North became famous due to his participation in the Iran-Contra Affair, in which he was the chief coordinator of the illegal sale of weapons via intermediaries to Iran, with the profits being channeled to the Contra rebel group in Nicaragua. He was responsible for the establishment of a covert network used for the purposes of aiding the Contras.



FOX NEWS: Fair and Balanced...

 

[Burnsys]

Mass media need a constant flow of information to supply their daily news demands. In an industrialized economy where consumers demand information about multiple global events, they argue that this task can only be filled by the business and government sectors which have the necessary material resources. This includes mainly The Pentagon and other governmental bodies. A "symbiotic relationship" arises between the media and parts of government which is sustained by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest. On the one hand, government and news-promoters strive to make it easier for news organizations to buy their services;

-provide them with facilities in which to gather
-give journalists advance copies of speeches and forthcoming reports
-schedule press conferences at hours well-geared to news deadlines
-write press releases in usable language
-carefully organize their press conferences and "photo opportunity" sessions

On the other hand, the media becomes reluctant to run articles that will harm the corporate interests that provide them with the resources that the media depends upon. "It is very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for daily news liars, even if they tell whoppers. "

The complexity of this supposed relationship also gives rise to a "moral division of labor", in which "officials have and give the facts," and "reporters merely get them." Journalists are then supposed to adopt an uncritical attitude that makes it possible for them to accept corporate values without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

The private media are major corporations selling a product (readers and audiences) to other businesses (advertisers). The national media typically target and serve elite opinion, groups that, on the one hand provide an optimal "profile" for advertising purposes, and, on the other, play a role in decision-making in the private and public spheres. The national media would be failing to meet their elite audience's needs if they did not present a tolerably realistic portrayal of the world. But their "societal purpose" also requires that the media's interpretation of the world reflect the interests and concerns of the sellers, the buyers, and the governmental and private institutions dominated by these groups