The Truth Behind Media Ownership & Control

[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. :tongue2:

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? :yuck:

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

 

[russ_watters]

Easy, guys, no need to make this personal.

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

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

 

[the number 42]

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. :tongue2: Yep, I have to agree with you. I'm not exactly WC Fields, but can be unintentionally Groucho Marx on occasion.

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

 

[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! :rofl:

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

 

[the number 42]

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? :tongue2:

 

[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? :tongue2:

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 :tongue2: 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 :tongue2: Now be good and return to the thread.

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

 

[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! :tongue2:

 

[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.

 

[the number 42]

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"

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

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

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

 

[the number 42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

 

[russ_watters]

Naturally I'll be disappointed (though not surprised) if your response is to doubt the source, it being the BBC.

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

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

 

[the number 42]

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

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

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

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

 

[the number 42]

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

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

 

[Smurf]

I disagree - I think we just agreed! :tongue2:

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

 

[the number 42]

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

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

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

 

[Smurf]

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

THANK GOD!
phew.

Close one

 

[jammieg]

USA today cracks down on Bush's "campaign of propaganda"

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

Here is a story in USA Today by Greg Toppo about government manipulation of the populace.

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

Frankly, I see this as more of an ethics issue for the journalist than for the gov't (and if its not a conflict of interest for the journalist, it can't be for the government).

Anyway it's all lies for the greater good right?

Where in that article did it say anything about lies?

Do you think it's right to accept money from government for telling others about this "something you believe in" sort of thing?

Whether from the government or from Merck, it is unethical if you're a journalist to do so. If you're just a random celebrity, there is, of course, nothing wrong with it. That's why I'm not sure about this: is this guy actually a "journalist" or just a talk-show host, and is it possible/ethical to be both at the same time?

From the article:

Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of the top black conservative voices in the nation. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio, and writes op-ed pieces for newspapers, including USA TODAY, while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group.

Op-ed pieces aren't news, but still, it seems to me the guy may be trying to play both sides. Its a fine line, that many (if not most) on-air personalities try to tow. I'm sure you've all heard radio personalities doing little plugs for various products on their shows.

 

[jammieg]

And here's today's repsponse from that story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-08-williams-folo_x.htm

Near the bottom of the story it talks about how our government used a similair method or what they sometimes call "permissible use of taxpayer funds under legal government contracting procedures." to promote medicare and received a scolding from the accountability department- oh my goodness.

Williams says today, "...My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it."

Like how to make a quick retiremnet fund for yourself by selling out the people who trust and believe in you?
You would think if he actually meant it he would give the money back, I mean that's generally what people do when they learn from their mistakes is correct them, not say a bunch of words to make things appear ok, but then it only takes about $500 to give most poeple a clear conscience.