News The Truth Behind Media Ownership & Control

[polyb]

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

 

[Smurf]

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

 

[Burnsys]

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]

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]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

Oh, dear god, Smurf, please tell me you're kidding. The scientific community is very near unanamous in agreeing they did not observe fusion. Further, their actions during the debacle rise to the level of fraud: they intentionally misled the scientific community regarding their research.

That article regarding the DOE review: has the DOE review been published yet? (hint: no) Does it say anywhere in the article that the DOE considers the claims of the people requesting the review have any merit? (hint: no).

 

[polyb]

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

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! 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]

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! 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?

 

[the number 42]

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]

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.

 

[the number 42]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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!

 

[the number 42]

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?

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]

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! Just kidding. 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 ).

 

[russ_watters]

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?

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!

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]

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

 

[Polly]

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

 

[the number 42]

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

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

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

Polly, let's 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

 

[Polly]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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]

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]

A bold offer like that begets only one thing, a bold acceptance 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.

 

[Polly]

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

 

[the number 42]

Wait till you turn on your webcam

 

[Polly]

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

 

[the number 42]

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

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!"
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]

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]

... people by and large will believe the version of the truth that suits them.

So, you're saying, the media doesn't brainwash us?

Nobody is ever going to agree on this one

I disagree - I think we just agreed!

 

[Polly]

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!"

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"

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.