Media & Politics: Examining the Relationship

[Lisa!]

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?

 

[Pengwuino]

Although i highly doubt politicians control media members... i think you can't accept the medias view of the world because of 2 reasons. You must sell the news, you must get people to watch and people only want to watch what captivates them which leads the news to only look for sensationalism and such. Another reason is that your trying to fit the news fo 6 billion people into an hour long news program... just isn't going to work very well.

But of course, what alternative do we have :-/

 

[Lisa!]

Not al of media members for sure but people who are the head of them.
I don't know what we could do about it.We can't trust media comp. but well we can't travel all over the world and see what's happening there!
Right now forexample people are worried about some religions.After sep. 11th,most of people are afraid of muslems more and muslems are afraid of Jewish people who live in Israel.everyone is afraid of sth.it seems that politiciens try to frighten us from an imaginary enemies.Myaybe they're trying to prevent people's unity around the world!

 

[russ_watters]

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?

Its a symbiotic relationship: the media manipulates public opinion and politicians manipulate the media.

 

[Art]

Here is an interesting article on media manipulation,
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=122948

 

[Pengwuino]

Here is an interesting article on media manipulation,
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=122948

haha i was just waiting for you to pull some partisan BS in a thread like this :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Art]

haha i was just waiting for you to pull some partisan BS in a thread like this :rofl: :rofl:

? Is there some statement of fact contained in the article I referenced that you wish to challenge?? If so please feel free to do so. It would be extremely difficult to discuss the media without mentioning Rupert Murdoch. Here's a list of some of his media companies

Filmed Entertainment - News Corporation
20th Century Fox
20th Century Fox Espanol
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Television
Blue Sky Studios
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Studios Australia
Fox Studios LA
Fox Studios Baja
Fox Television Studios

Television - News Corporation
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Sports Australia
Fox Television Stations
FOXTEL
STAR

Cable Television - News Corporation
Fox Movie Channel
Fox News Channel
Fox Sports Digital
Fox Sports Enterprises
Fox Sports Espanol
Fox Sports Net
Fox Sports World
FUEL
FX
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
Stats, Inc

Direct Broadcast & Satellite Television - News Corporation
BskyB
DIRECTV
FOXTEL
Sky Italia

Magazines - News Corporation
Inside Out
Donna Hay
News America Marketing
Smart Source
The Weekly Standard
Gemstar

Newspapers - News Corporation
Australasian region Newspapers:
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Mail
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
United Kingdom region Newspapers:
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Times Education Supplement
Times Higher Education Supplement
Times Literary Supplement
TSL Education
United States region Newspapers:
New York Post

Books - News Corporation
Harper Collins Publishers
- Australia
- Canada
- Childrens Books
- United States
- United Kingdom
Regan Books
Zondervan

Other Investments - News Corporation
Festival Records
Mushroom Records
National Rugby League - Australia
News Interactive
News Outdoor
Nursery World

 

[SOS2008]

haha i was just waiting for you to pull some partisan BS in a thread like this :rofl: :rofl:

No partisan BS reply to Art's post yet? :rofl:

 

[wasteofo2]

Although i highly doubt politicians control media members...

Hadn't you heard of those three columnists/commentators that were on the Bush administration's payroll with the purpose of promoting their policies?

 

[False Prophet]

They never tell us what's exacylt going on in Iraq.

You might want to rotate the rabbit ears to improve your reception, because there's tons of news about Iraq. All the car bombings (which are routine now so may not be reported as a top story) insurgency attacks, helicopter crashes, prisoner abuse, elections, oil vandalism, etc. are constantly reported, in fact the media is why I know about all those things.

American media I believe is biased, but not necessarily just by politicians, but more so I believe by the networks/editors or people in charge of their medium. If politicians get to manipulate what's on the air/in print then (whether actually the case or not) that would be HIGHLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I'm not denying this is happening, but I wonder what led you to this view.

 

[GENIERE]

...insurgency attacks...

You’ve been indoctrinated into the media leftist bias by using the phrase “insurgency attacks” rather than the proper phrase “terrorists attacks”.

 

[False Prophet]

What's the difference?

 

[GENIERE]

The leftist media is fully aware that the repetitive headlining of terrorist murders has a numbing effect on their audience; one hundred thousand murders become no worse than one. This allows for the leftist propaganda to emphasize the slightest infraction of their political enemy. The slaughter is forgotten while pissing on a book is considered the worst atrocity ever.

 

[GENIERE]

What's the difference?

Moreso indoctrinated than I thought.

 

[Astronuc]

Its a symbiotic relationship: the media manipulates public opinion and politicians manipulate the media.

Unfortunately so.

What was the news media, now more like "infotainment" :yuck:, is the in business of grabbing the attention of the public, in order to get an 'audience' (market share) to influence rather than inform. Politicians are just one set of clients who are also seeking to influence the same audience.

 

[False Prophet]

Geniere:

I can call the attacks whatever I want to, it was my decision to use the words "insurgency attacks" and rightfully so, not the decision of leftists who have brainwashed me with propoganda.

Verifying that I'm "indoctrinated" will require an argument about semantics and definitions, based on the grounds of your claim (unless you know another way I'm indoctrinated besides the usage of only two words.) I would gladly have that discussion, let me start.

Insurgency means a rebellion. This is people who revolt against a government/authority by whatever means. For example to fight back against an invading army (and the subsequent government they set up) but not necessarily acheiving a revolution. The term isn't changed by the form of weapons used. The U.S.A. army will use M16s to gun down insurgents/terrorists while insurgents can use roadside bombs. Both are weapons, plain and simple. But the means bomb vs. gun isn't going to change this definion. Are these "terrorists" not rebelling? The definions are based on motive, not means.

Terrorists are those who's actions intended to instill fear. Terrorists cause terror, that is so simple; it is not a difficult word to understand. Now an insurgency can cause terror of course due to the methods they use. U.S. soldiers may very well be afraid of roadside bombs just like insurgents ought to be afraid of the machine guns and Apache gunships. But for these to be called "terrorist attacks" you will have to prove for each and every attack that the true motive of the attacker was to instill fear, not to fight back/revolt.

Check your dictionary, and tell me again if "insurgent attacks" were innappropriate or incorrect words to use.

 

[Lisa!]

You might want to rotate the rabbit ears to improve your reception, because there's tons of news about Iraq. All the car bombings (which are routine now so may not be reported as a top story) insurgency attacks, helicopter crashes, prisoner abuse, elections, oil vandalism, etc. are constantly reported

The best way to hide one important truth is talking about other facts.I never said there no news about Iraq but I said I don'y know what's exactly going on in Iraq.
WE all know about attaks,helicopter crashes... but I don't know why they're all hapening.Bush told us,he wanted to give Iraq's people their freedom,so why Iraq people are doing theses and another important fact is that they wanted to find nuclear weapens!And now it seems that coz of tones of news about Iraq most of us forgot it.
Ok maybe Us still doesn't want leave Iraq and so it all should happen.anyway pleas tell me if you know "what's exactly going on in Iraq and why?"

 

[False Prophet]

As far as I know in terms of what is happening in Iraq I know from the media and internet. If there's something else that hasn't been reported and none of us has heard about well I'm sure it's possible but the nature of what that is could only be speculation. For example we could say there's not just roadside bombs and helicopter crashes but they're also hiding aliens. If we go outside the information we have then we can really only guess.

 

[False Prophet]

I will admit we don't know everything because the government does hide stuff. It's their job and there is classified information so there must be something else I just can't imagine what it is not being a government official and neither can the media so it's really a tough question!

 

[Lisa!]

For sure we couldn't and maybe shouldn't know everything.Maybe we can't do anything about Iraq.we knew Us wanted to start a war against but we we're not able to stop it.so it seems that having information couldn't be useful sometimes and it's not our businss to interfere to politiciens job."alittle information could be dangerous!"
I'm just trying to say we shouldn't trust media allthe time.Sometimes we can find out lots of important facts just by thinking alittle.somehow it couldn't be bad that sometimes we get information from people who live somewhere like Iraq(I met one but of course didn't talk to him)through internet and get their information about what's going there.you know I myself before meeting that person,thought righ now there's peace in no place in Iraq!

 

[Smurf]

Just because it's bugging me:

media
n.
A means of mass communication

This forum, is media. The bulletin board at my high school, is media.
What a lot of people should be using is 'popular' or 'mass' media.

 

[GENIERE]

Check your dictionary, and tell me again if "insurgent attacks" were innappropriate or incorrect words to use.

Admitting I cannot find “innappropriate” in my dictionary, I can otherwise enlighten you.

Insurgents adhere to local rules laws of war in achieving their goals with individual groups or individuals sometimes committing acts of terrorism possibly condemned, condoned, or denied by the leadership. Insurgencies have the goal of regime change, enjoy support of a large percent of the population and if victorious form governments some good, some bad, and some great as in the United States of America.

Terrorist activities violate local and international concepts of civil and military law and indiscriminately murder friend and foe alike. Lacking an ideology that can generate a public movement to achieve political objectives, the terrorist organization seeks only to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the existing government.

Abu Musab Zarqawi and his followers are terrorists; insurgent is not descriptive of him and insurgency is not descriptive of his organization’s activities.

You and your ilk, the liberal media, the elite apologist, individually and in concert, are unequivocally incorrect.

...

 

[russ_watters]

Here is an interesting article on media manipulation,
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=122948

From the article:

Who is Rupert Murdoch?

Related question - who is americanprogress.org? Also from the site:

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan...

... developing a long term vision of a progressive America...
...responding effectively and rapidly to conservative proposals and rhetoric with a thoughtful critique and clear alternatives...

So... its a nonpartisan political action group dedicated to supporting "progressive" (liberal) ideas and countering conservative ones? Is that the funniest thing anyone else has read today? :rofl: :rofl:

Wow, Art, 2 in one day. Thanks again.

 

[russ_watters]

Geniere:

I can call the attacks whatever I want to, it was my decision to use the words "insurgency attacks" and rightfully so, not the decision of leftists who have brainwashed me with propoganda.

We've discussed this before: the use of the word "insurgents" where most of the time the word "terrorists" is more appropriate is a quinticential example of the liberal media's attempt to characterize the enemy in Iraq (and not just Iraq...) as being a legitimate one (ie, not just a pack of criminals) in order to help shape public opinion against the war.

Heck, if you don't buy it for Iraq, HERE is a much more black-and-white example from Friday's USA Today:

...rebels...insurgents...Taliban...al-Qaeda

Excuse me? Now we're characterizing the Taliban and al-Qaeda as "insurgents" and "rebels" ? My God, al-Qaeda is the quinticential terrorist organization and the Taliban was the quinticential terrorist government!

Disgusting, the lengths the liberal media is going to to manipulate public opinion on this issue.

 

[Art]

From the article: Related question - who is americanprogress.org? Also from the site: So... its a nonpartisan political action group dedicated to supporting "progressive" (liberal) ideas and countering conservative ones? Is that the funniest thing anyone else has read today? :rofl: :rofl:

Wow, Art, 2 in one day. Thanks again.

Russ if there is some FACT quoted within that article relating to Rupert Murdoch that you would like to challenge please feel free to do so and I'll have the debate on the ISSUES. In case you are unaware R. Murdoch is an Australian not an American and besides concerns about a non-American having a very unhealthy influence on American affairs one of the central criticicisms raised against him in the article I referenced is that he is ripping off the American public to the tune of $100s millions in unpaid taxes. IF I was anti-American as you so often intimate I'd be delighted to see him take you for a ride rather than try to raise awareness of it.
However I suspect you have no interest in serious debate as you have already said in a previous post you see the political forum as a little light entertainment which no doubt it is for a person of your superior intellectual mind :rofl: If you only wish to speak on issues in childish sweeping generalities then I for one won't waste my time on you.

 

[False Prophet]

Admitting I cannot find “innappropriate” in my dictionary...

:rofl: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :rofl:

I don't recall asking you to look up THAT definition. But you're right; I didn't proofread my post very well. That's one too many n's. I must therefore be completely wrong about everything. Don't worry because I can overlook your grammatical errors; I won't pointlessly bring them up. I must admit your spelling is impeccable! You have excellent proofreading/spellcheck/natural skill.

Insurgents adhere to local rules laws of war in achieving their goals with individual groups or individuals sometimes committing acts of terrorism possibly condemned, condoned, or denied by the leadership.

Really? Who's rules/laws? The enemy's rules? Aren't those "rules" subjective and "arbitrary"? Can't the government say "as a rule, you can only use M16's (No AK47's), Apache gunships and M-1A2 Abrams tanks. No RPG's or roadside bombs allowed. Who makes these rules? The opposing force or the fourth Geneva Convention? Anyone can make a rule, but then everyone else must automatically follow it? As I said before, the means of fighting back have nothing to do with the definition of "insurgent", let alone what "rules" are followed.

Insurgencies have the goal of regime change...

What is the goal of the people causing violence against the Iraqi Security forces or coalition forces? Do you suppose they want a regime change? It sounds like you're assuming no in order to contradict the definition you made up and default them into a terrorist category. Can you really substantiate the actual motive for each and every enemy attacker? Well you have to.

...enjoy suport of a large percent of the population...

Which dictionary is this in?

Terrorist activities violate local and international concepts of civil and military law and indiscriminately murder friend and foe alike.

Can a "terrorist activity" exist which does not fit this particular criterion? Let me ask you, can someone be a terrorist and not murder anyone at all? Or murder only foes? Your perceived mold for a terrorist is way too specific; I can't imagine how you can get every single enemy attacker from Iraq to fit into this category.

Lacking an ideology that can generate a public movement to achieve political objectives, the terrorist organization seeks only to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the existing government.

So according to this, a terrorist couldn't possibly have ANY other motives, such as causing terror.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't just make up definitions to suit your argument. What I stated I meant in an officially literal way. Once again, please check your dictionary. Here are some easy links:

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=insurgent&x=0&y=0

http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorist&x=17&y=20

Dictionary.com - Insurgent

Dictionary.com - Terrorism

Abu Musab Zarqawi and his followers are terrorists; insurgent is not descriptive of him and insurgency is not descriptive of his organization’s activities.

Who said anything about Zarqawi?

You and your ilk, the liberal media, the elite apologist, individually and in concert, are unequivocally incorrect.

You really gathered all this from my use of the words "insurgency attacks"? I'm sorry you got the wrong idea. I guess I'm an apologist but I didn't mean to be "elite".

Please note that I never denied the existence of terrorism in Iraq, and I'm sorry that I left it off the initial list of news about the country. I'm just claiming the existence of "insurgency attacks" in Iraq. To say they don't exist and I'm "unequivocally incorrect" means that you must unequivocally prove that all cases except for no more than one (I did pluralize) against Coalition/Security forces etc. are motivated to cause terror, or anything else besides some form of rebellion. What you are instead doing is grouping and labeling, but you must realize that the types of attacks and types of people committing them and their reasons behind them can be different.

Please note that if one of these attacks is insurgent, then it can also be terrorist. The two terms are not mutually-exclusive. You can be called a human being, a homo-sapien or even a person. Which one you like better is up to you, but you can't say it's wrong to call these attacks insurgent if they do indeed fit that definition. If we use "terrorist" too much it will become redundant. If not then "insurgent" is bound to get worn-out and we'll switch to "terrorist" instead, or we'll get some conservatives running the show. Bottom line: I really wouldn't worry too much about a couple of words.

 

[GENIERE]

...You have excellent proofreading/spellcheck/natural skill.

MS Word ignores most of the input from my keyboard and prints whatever it wishes. I am only partially responsible for my post.

...

 

[russ_watters]

Russ if there is some FACT quoted within that article relating to Rupert Murdoch that you would like to challenge please feel free to do so and I'll have the debate on the ISSUES.

Facts are facts, Art and I of course don't dispute them. The absurdities in the article are the non-factual assertions made by the article. Every bullet point in the article is a non-factual assertion that is supported only by inuendo and opinion or a pointless fact meant as an inuendo (if he employed a Bush, so what?). I'm not going to go through every one because they are all pretty much the same, but here is the first:

MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER

Ok, so they assert that he's a "war monger". We may as well just stop there: the term "war monger" is just name-calling. But in any case, the assertion is supported by what appears to be an editorial in the New York Times - an opinion - and a Guardian article that says that he supported the war. Ok --- so what? I guess that means anyone who supports any war is a "war monger"?

Its drivel, nothing more. Beyond useless. It does not even merrit full debunking, its so obvious.

 

[Art]

I guess that means anyone who supports any war is a "war monger"?

Its drivel, nothing more. Beyond useless. It does not even merrit full debunking, its so obvious.

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 :uhh: 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 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.
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.

 

[Smurf]

So... its a nonpartisan political action group dedicated to supporting "progressive" (liberal) ideas and countering conservative ones? Is that the funniest thing anyone else has read today?

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 dependant on the context.

Excuse me? Now we're characterizing the Taliban and al-Qaeda as "insurgents" and "rebels" ? My God, al-Qaeda is the quinticential terrorist organization and the Taliban was the quinticential terrorist government!

It seems to me Russ that you're arguing against any word being used to describe them except 'terrorists'. 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. 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.
^ ^ ^
I guess that's just a really long winded way of saying: WHATS WRONG WITH 'REBELS' ?

 

[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.