|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 10/11/2006 : 03:10:41 [Permalink]
|
What is with all this "front" concern? What are these guys whom you think are hiding their real agenda supposedly going to do? Trick everyone? For pete's sake, people from all walks of life think Bush is the most dangerous President we have ever had, worse than Nixon. Why is it such a big deal that some of the people who want Bush would like to see more changes than just that? The majority of the people who want Bush out want to save our democracy. We want our Constitutional protections and the balance of power back.
I'm trying to find some words that will get you and Luke to address the, "so what?" here but you both just keep repeating what no one is disagreeing with.
A communist front? What era are you living in? Do you think the people who want Bush out are a bunch of little ninnies who are going to join up with the wrong people like Patty Hurst, maybe? Do you think these guys in the RCP are clever and the rest of us naive? What utter nonsense!
I will say it again, this is payback for all the SWP idiots who brought their free the Gang of Four signs to the US Out of El Salvador marches I went to. This time a few of them organized the march and the majority of us showed up for our own cause, and it isn't the RCP.
There is no "front" organization here unless you can show how the RCP is going to benefit from the march in anything besides a show of support that we all want Bush out. You'll have to show how other organizers, speakers, and people who showed up haven't taken over the WCW movement, leaving the RCP not as using the WCW for a front, but rather, becoming a minority player instead. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 10/11/2006 03:14:02 |
 |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 12:25:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
What is with all this "front" concern? What are these guys whom you think are hiding their real agenda supposedly going to do? Trick everyone? For pete's sake, people from all walks of life think Bush is the most dangerous President we have ever had, worse than Nixon. Why is it such a big deal that some of the people who want Bush would like to see more changes than just that? The majority of the people who want Bush out want to save our democracy. We want our Constitutional protections and the balance of power back.
I don't understand why you think who is organizing these rallies is not an issue for concern. I don't like Bush either, but the anti-Bush rhetoric is so far over the top that it damages the credibility of those with a reasonable chance of opposing him.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
There is no "front" organization here unless you can show how the RCP is going to benefit from the march in anything besides a show of support that we all want Bush out. You'll have to show how other organizers, speakers, and people who showed up haven't taken over the WCW movement, leaving the RCP not as using the WCW for a front, but rather, becoming a minority player instead.
Reasonable people can disagree with Bush's policies without believing our democracy is in danger. Reasonable people who oppose him should be spending their efforts working for the campaigns coming up in 2006 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 14:40:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
Reasonable people can disagree with Bush's policies without believing our democracy is in danger.
If they believe the democracy is not in danger, then they aren't seeing clearly what a threat Bush and his cronies are.
quote:
Reasonable people who oppose him should be spending their efforts working for the campaigns coming up in 2006 and 2008.
Indeed. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 20:02:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
Reasonable people can disagree with Bush's policies without believing our democracy is in danger.
If they believe the democracy is not in danger, then they aren't seeing clearly what a threat Bush and his cronies are.
That's where you go over the top to woowoo territory.
No matter how much you dislike him, no matter how much you disagree with his policies, no matter how inept or even criminal you think the Bush administration is, they are not a threat to democracy, and they will be gone come 2009.
Democrats need to figure out who they are and what they stand for, and it has to be something more substantial than being against Republicans. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 02:28:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't understand why you think who is organizing these rallies is not an issue for concern. I don't like Bush either, but the anti-Bush rhetoric is so far over the top that it damages the credibility of those with a reasonable chance of opposing him.
Reasonable people can disagree with Bush's policies without believing our democracy is in danger. Reasonable people who oppose him should be spending their efforts working for the campaigns coming up in 2006 and 2008.
Re the first issue, the commies in question have not ended up as the sole backer nor majority of the WCW promoters. Even if they have a major role, which I don't believe they do, the protest was attended by people from many walks of life and none of the speakers even mentioned communism, violent overthrow, or anything remotely connected.
So I ask you, why should those opposed to Bush want to discredit this movement over the perceived nature of its organizers instead of promoting the anti-Bush message of the group? It isn't like there was a publicized or spoken message supporting the Communist ideology in the promotional material for the Oct 5 rally nor in any speaker's message at the rally.
Re the second issue, I happen to believe our democracy is indeed in danger. Net neutrality is at stake. Soldier's lives are at stake. The suspension of habeas corpus and the official sanction of torture regardless of how you try to disguise the nature of sanctioned treatment of prisoners goes against the Constitution directly. Trying to stack the Supreme Court is a threat to democracy depending on how extreme the Bush appointments end up being. Alito was hand picked by Evangelical extremists. All of Bush's "signing statements" in lieu of vetos override the intent of checks and balances in the Constitution. The President is not supposed to be writing legislation. The signing statements amount to writing legislation.
I haven't even gotten to the Texas gerrymandering which is really how the Republicans took the majority in the Senate. They essentially designed themselves 5 seats in Congress by the gerrymandering. There was a reason the Democrats in the Texas state house went to a neighboring state to try to stop the gerrymandering by blocking a quorum. Sadly, they failed in the end.
And now there are rumors of voter purging in heavily Democratic areas in several states. The corruption in the Ohio 04 Presidential election certainly has disturbing evidence and there hasn't been an effective investigation yet.
Then there are the unprecedented House practices which has effectively blocked any participation by the Democrats in Congress. It's fine if there were a majority of votes for Republicans but the margin of victory if true (which was doubtful) was very small. If 51% of the population is dictating to the other 49% instead of working toward compromise, I call that a threat to democracy. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 02:34:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
...
That's where you go over the top to woowoo territory.
No matter how much you dislike him, no matter how much you disagree with his policies, no matter how inept or even criminal you think the Bush administration is, they are not a threat to democracy, and they will be gone come 2009.
Democrats need to figure out who they are and what they stand for, and it has to be something more substantial than being against Republicans.
Many people, including myself, view the current situation quite differently. Democrats know what they stand for. It's the media despite all the claims to the contrary, that allow the Republicans press conference after press conference and fake town meeting after fake town meeting to repeat over and over the false claim Democrats have no plan yadda yadda yadda. Corporate influence on the monopolized media contributes to the threat on democracy.
Net neutrality is the only thing saving us right now. This is the only place where free flow of information is actually keeping democracy alive. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 06:22:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
...
That's where you go over the top to woowoo territory.
No matter how much you dislike him, no matter how much you disagree with his policies, no matter how inept or even criminal you think the Bush administration is, they are not a threat to democracy, and they will be gone come 2009.
Democrats need to figure out who they are and what they stand for, and it has to be something more substantial than being against Republicans.
Many people, including myself, view the current situation quite differently. Democrats know what they stand for. It's the media despite all the claims to the contrary, that allow the Republicans press conference after press conference and fake town meeting after fake town meeting to repeat over and over the false claim Democrats have no plan yadda yadda yadda. Corporate influence on the monopolized media contributes to the threat on democracy.
Net neutrality is the only thing saving us right now. This is the only place where free flow of information is actually keeping democracy alive.
Remember the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan dispensed with in the '80s? The Right Wing Propaganda Machine is a direct result of that. I'm not sure it would affect the general right leaning nature of the media or not as that's more a result of the progressive loosening of restrictions on corporate control of media in a single market. But it's given Rush Limbaugh and his clones a great career and a lot of power. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 22:27:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Re the first issue, the commies in question have not ended up as the sole backer nor majority of the WCW promoters. Even if they have a major role, which I don't believe they do, the protest was attended by people from many walks of life and none of the speakers even mentioned communism, violent overthrow, or anything remotely connected.
Sure. The loonies threw a party and many came. Attendance doesn't make one a loony, but it sure doesn't distance yourself from them either. Can you criticize the right for being cozy with the nut-case Christians? Sure you can, but then why can't they (not to mention the moderate center) then criticize you for cozying up to your own lunatics?
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
So I ask you, why should those opposed to Bush want to discredit this movement over the perceived nature of its organizers instead of promoting the anti-Bush message of the group?
It's about who sets the agenda, who controls the message, and who shapes the image of the opposition.
So what's the message here? The World Can't Wait. Can't wait for what? Can't wait for the democratic process? What kind of message is that? Broadcast a message like that and then ask yourself who comes across as being anti-democracy.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Re the second issue, I happen to believe our democracy is indeed in danger. Net neutrality is at stake. Soldier's lives are at stake. The suspension of habeas corpus and the official sanction of torture regardless of how you try to disguise the nature of sanctioned treatment of prisoners goes against the Constitution directly. Trying to stack the Supreme Court is a threat to democracy depending on how extreme the Bush appointments end up being. Alito was hand picked by Evangelical extremists. All of Bush's "signing statements" in lieu of vetos override the intent of checks and balances in the Constitution. The President is not supposed to be writing legislation. The signing statements amount to writing legislation.
Take a look at your issues with a skeptical eye and ask yourself which of these issues are really fundamental to democracy.
Net neutrality? Not even. Don't get me wrong, I agree it's important, but important does not equal threat to democracy. Be real, democracy predates the internet by thousands of years.
Soldiers lives. Again, very important, but soldiers lives can be placed at risk under any kind of political system. Soldiers lives being placed at risk is not itself a threat to democracy.
Habeas corpus? Sanction of torture? Habeas corpus isn't being taken away from anyone who had it before, that issue has been way blown up. Sanction of torture? You can't even have a discussion over what torture really is.
In either case, these issues are not threats to democracy, they are issues to be decided by democracy. You think an enemy combatant captured in Afghanistan should have the right of habeas corpus? Okay, write to your congressman. You think waterbording during interrogations is beyond the pale? Then learn your facts and write a well thought out letter to the editor in your local paper.
Start a blog, form a political action group, get out there and sway others to your opinion so that policy can be changed (or defined) on election day.
Is trying to sta |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 22:40:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Remember the Fairness Doctrine that Reagan dispensed with in the '80s? The Right Wing Propaganda Machine is a direct result of that. I'm not sure it would affect the general right leaning nature of the media or not as that's more a result of the progressive loosening of restrictions on corporate control of media in a single market. But it's given Rush Limbaugh and his clones a great career and a lot of power.
A quick check of Wikipedia shows the Fairness Doctrine was never enforced, so thoughts on its effect while policy and the effects of the change in policy are pure speculation. You may certainly believe the removal of the Fairness Docterine gave rise to the carreers of Rush Limbaugh and his compatriots, but such beliefe is not testable or verifiable.
I'll add further that what Rush Limbaugh does is called "Freedom of Speech". Opposing him by getting out an alternative point of view is an essential part of the very essense of democracy. Silencing him with a law is the very opposite.
Which do you prefer? |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2006 : 23:03:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Many people, including myself, view the current situation quite differently. Democrats know what they stand for.
Do we? I'm a politically aware moderate registered Democrat, and I haven't a clue what my party's message is beyond "we're not Bush!" I knew back in the 80's and certainly in the 90's, but since Clinton left office it seems nobody has a clue. I think it's why we lose so many elections.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
It's the media despite all the claims to the contrary, that allow the Republicans press conference after press conference and fake town meeting after fake town meeting to repeat over and over the false claim Democrats have no plan yadda yadda yadda. Corporate influence on the monopolized media contributes to the threat on democracy.
“Corporate influences.” Right. Whatever.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Net neutrality is the only thing saving us right now. This is the only place where free flow of information is actually keeping democracy alive. free flow of information is actually keeping democracy alive.
More over-the-top woo-woo rhetoric. The internet is the only thing keeping democracy alive? It's hard to believe you can't see how crazy that makes you sound. This is chicken-little, this is a persecution complex run amok.
Look, your beliefs are a bit left of center. That doesn't mean the sky is falling and civilization is crumbling into fascism, it only means most of society will reflect a point of view a bit to the right of you. If the internet were to crash tomorrow and stay down for years, you'd still be able to get your alternative newspapers and visit that offbeat bookstore.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 01:26:09 [Permalink]
|
I put this in a different thread on JREF but I see it may belong here as well.
[JREF post]I am surprised the increasing and already considerable corporate influence on the TV, radio and print information fed the US public daily is such a doubted thing in this thread. There are a whole combination of factors which evolved into the current state of media affairs. The most critical factor is the growing monopoly of ownership since deregulation.
The Problem Of The Media by Robert W. McChesneyquote:
"Eleven companies in this country control 90 percent of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their television. That's wrong. We need to have a wide variety of opinions in every community. We don't have that because of Michael Powell and what George Bush has tried to do to the FCC.
"What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one."
-- former Vermont Governor Howard Dean on the MSNBC show Hardball with Chris Matthews on December 2, 2003. Six weeks later, General Electric-owned MSNBC and every other major network replayed an out-of-context scream by Dean during a campaign rally hundreds of times which effectively ended his presidential bid.
Rewards are many.
Then there is that Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media [when in] Fact: The media are being increasingly monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate or conservative agendas.quote:
The media generally cannot run stories that offend corporations, because sponsors will threaten to pull their advertising dollars. In 1980, the liberal staff at Mother Jones debated over whether or not to publish a series of articles linking cigarettes to cancer. The editors knew that the tobacco industry would punish them by canceling their lucrative advertising contracts, which the young, struggling magazine desperately needed. Mother Jones stuck to its principles and printed the articles anyway; and, just as expected, the tobacco companies angrily pulled their ads.
No news organization could attract advertisers if it persistently attacked the corporate agenda...
...Whether owners interfere explicitly or implicitly in the newsroom, evidence of it continually surfaces. Here are just a few examples:
* During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies. (15)
* Victor Neufeld, the executive producer of ABC's top-rated news show 20/20, repeatedly rejected several promising stories on nuclear power hazards. Reason: His wife is a prominent spokesman for the nuclear and chemical industries. (16)
* Walter Annenberg, owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, used his paper to attack a candidate who opposed action that would have benefited the stockholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Reason: he was the single largest stockholder. (17)
* Rupert Murdoch's Post endorsed President Carter in the crucial New York Presidential primary, contributing to his victory. Reason: two days earlier, Murdoch had lunch with Carter, convincing him to lean on the Export-Import Bank of the United States to give him a taxpayer-subsidized loan of $290 million. The bank had previously rejected the loan. (18)
* A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business. (19)
* Journalist Elizabeth Whelan asked ten major women's magazines to run a series of articles on the rise of smoking-related diseases in women; all ten magazines refused. Reason: "I frequently wrote on health topics for women's magazines," says Whelan, "and have been told repeatedly by editors to stay away from the subject of tobacco." (20)
There are a good number of forum members that aren't from the US. Most of them can tell us how anemic our news is compared to the news available in the mainstream in other countries. There is still plenty of access to information in the US, but it doesn't come from a single major broadcasting network. Though PBS airs many single very informative news programs.
The "Frontline" series is one, and Bill Moyers "Now" returned with 3 excellent programs over the last 3 Wednesdays. The last one, "Net Neutrality" was a frightening eye opener. The only thing saving us from losing our last bastion of true free speech is the fact the fight includes corporations that want to charge higher fees to other corporations who, naturally, are fighting back. If it was between Viacom and the people instead of Viacom vs Microsoft, Google, and Ebay we'd be toast.
If they ever get together and make a deal we may not have the clout to stop these guys from turning the free exchange of information we now have into the monopoly controlled exchange we now see from the mainstream news media players.[/JREF post]
I would hope you agree democracy depends on an informed public, Mycroft. That makes your perception I am Chicken Little mean you don't think the corporate monopoly and control of information in the mainstream media has had a big impact on the informed public. I say you are one of those less than informed persons. The sky won't fall without success by big corporations in controlling the Internet information flow the same way they currently control mainstream media. But it remains an 'if'.
What were those latest polls? ~30% of the public still believe Bush is doing a good job, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction we just haven't found yet, and Saddam was involved in 911. And those that watch Fox news had even worse misconceptions. In 2000 and 2004, that media manipulation got to 50% of the population, enough to elect and reelect one of the worst Presidents ever.
I view the media information management as having had a direct role in convincing people invading Iraq was necessary and a good thing. The media support for that war stopped any debate that might have revealed what a bad deal we were about to be given. I heard that debate on Democracy Now. I heard none of it on CNN or NBC or the rest of them. That affects democracy and there is a threshold we have not yet reached where control of information is enough to control the country. I recommend you look into it a bit further before dismissing it as such an "over-the-top woo-woo rhetoric" idea. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 10/21/2006 01:28:59 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 17:34:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I put this in a different thread on JREF but I see it may belong here as well.
And I saw it on JREF and dismissed it then as being thin on evidence. Sifting through it, it's really just a handful of people with an opinion.
Finding a bunch of people that agree on an opinion isn't really the same as having evidence to support that opinion. What it is is a variation of Argument from Authority or perhaps Argumentum Ad Populum.
I'm supposed to be alarmed because huge portions of media are owned by corporations? Why? “Corporate” is not synonymous with “evil”, and the mere possibility that something bad could be happening is not proof that something bad *is* happening, and thinking that way is the way of the conspiracy theorist and is very much the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into the war in Iraq only with a different bogey-man.
<..snip..>
Rewards are many.
Hehe. Check out the URL. “Corpwatch.” Can you spot the inherent bias of that person's point of view?
<..snip..>
No news organization could attract advertisers if it persistently attacked the corporate agenda...
Hehe. Check out the assumptions in that sentence. “The” corporate agenda? Is there a manifesto somewhere? What is this agenda and who advances it? Is every corporation involved or only a select few? How was this “agenda” first discovered and by whom?
<..snip..>
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I would hope you agree democracy depends on an informed public, Mycroft.
Yes. I will also add that I think our public is very well informed. I may grit my teeth about those who I believe are informing the public incorrectly, but the democratic process requires they get freedom of speech too, and I respect that.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
That makes your perception I am Chicken Little mean you don't think the corporate monopoly and control of information in the mainstream media has had a big impact on the informed public. I say you are one of those less than informed persons.
I'm guessing you believe everyone who disagrees with you is one of those “less than informed” persons because it would never occur to you that someone could look at the same evidence you do and come to different conclusions. That's a natural human reaction, I suppose, and I assume you didn't intend it to come across as patronizing any more than my own “chicken little” analogy.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The sky won't fall without success by big corporations in controlling the Internet information flow the same way they currently control mainstream media. But it remains an 'if'.
We are living in a world of unprecedented growth in access to information. Not just in sheer volume, but in organization and searching technologies that place the relevant information in the hands of those that want it and need it. Are you old enough to have ever used a card catalogue? The difference is profound, and these advances have been made possible by the very corporations you're demonizing. The |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 17:50:41 [Permalink]
|
What matters is that corporations have put profit before real news. They don't investigate for the most part. They pass on State Department and corporate propaganda as news.
Media manipulation made GWB seem like a reasonable candidate, and made it seem reasonable that we only had two choices. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 18:18:56 [Permalink]
|
Just because I posted the first 4 links I came across, Mycroft, doesn't mean that is all the sources out there. Have you even bothered to look on your own?
As far as Democracy Now supporting the claim the mainstream media is a monopoly of corporate interests, here's an example. The major news stations rooted for the Iraq War and Amy Goodman documented the specifics in detail both in her incredible investigative reporting and in a book she co-authored with her brother, David Goodman, "Exception to the Rulers".
Here is an excerpt from the book taken froma review of it: quote:
To understand how the media shape the message, look at who the messengers are. The media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) did a study of the "experts" who appeared on-camera on the major network news shows during the critical week before and week after February 5, 2003 -- the day Secretary of State Colin Powell made his case to the UN Security Council for invading Iraq. This was at a time when 61 percent of Americans supported more time for diplomacy and inspections. The FAIR study found only 3 of 393 sources -- fewer than 1 percent -- were affiliated with antiwar activism.
Three out of almost 400 interviews. And that was on the "respectable" evening news shows of CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS.
So if you ran to the bathroom while watching TV during that critical two-week period -- sorry! You might have missed the only dissenting viewpoint the network news offered.
This is not a media that is serving a democratic society, where a diversity of views is vital to shaping informed opinions. This is a well-oiled propaganda machine that is repackaging government spin and passing it off as journalism.
Why does it matter? Well, consider the alternative: Imagine if instead of 3 voices against the war, the networks allowed 200 war skeptics on the air -- roughly the proportion of the public opposed to war.
And imagine if the U.S. media showed uncensored, hellish images of war -- even for one week. What impact would that have? I think we would be able to abolish war.
Instead, after our loved ones and neighbors followed orders and marched off to war (unlike the children of the top warmakers), the networks showed us a colorful, video-game version of what was going on.
In Iraq, the U.S. government discouraged independent coverage of the war -- sometimes at gunpoint. And when the remains of dead soldiers began coming back, the Bush administration ordered curtains to be erected when the planes off-loaded the flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base. In fact, the administration has enforced a ban on any filming of returning caskets. As of early 2004, with more than 500 dead Americans and over 11,000 wounded or medically evacuated, Bush had not attended a single funeral for a soldier killed in action during his presidency, either from Afghanistan or Iraq. The Bush team has invoked a basic principle of propaganda: Control the images and you control the people.
The lesson had been learned from Vietnam -- a lesson in manipulation. In Iraq, there would be no daily television images of the human toll of war. The government and the media would portray a clean war, a war nearly devoid of victims.
There are thousands more examples. I'll add a few more later when I have more time.
But do me a favor, before you make the next claim that monopolized corporate filtered media is not a problem for democracy in our country right now, see if you can find any statistics showing how well informed the public is. Then tell me just how the media is reporting the information relevant to the public's misperceptions. In other words, show me evidence of the accurate complete coverage of an issue and the matching statistics showing how informed or not the public is on the matter.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 10/21/2006 18:20:49 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 18:20:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
What matters is that corporations have put profit before real news. They don't investigate for the most part. They pass on State Department and corporate propaganda as news.
I think I agree with you here, but I think it's important to note that it's not a generic "corporations" that have done this, but the very specific corporations that own the networks and newspapers that are cutting costs this way. It's not a conspiracy, it's a series of business decisions.
I think it's also true that the remedy to this problem will be with a new form of journalism evolving in the blogosphere. I believe that in order to compete corporate owned media (sometimes called "MSM media") will need to become more deep and informative.
quote:
Originally posted by GorgoMedia manipulation made GWB seem like a reasonable candidate...
I lost you here. Can you say specifically what "media manipulation" you're talking about?
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
...and made it seem reasonable that we only had two choices.
Woo-woo territory. The US has always been a two-party system; that's just the way it evolved, it's not a result of "media manipulation." In theory we could have more than two major parties, it's just never happened in practice.
But hey, maybe if the Dems keep on doing what they're doing it will break up and we will have a multi-party system. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
