|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 10/21/2006 : 18:35:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
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?
The answer to your question is yes, I have looked. I am unconvinced by the evidence I've seen, and you're not adding anything new.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
There are thousands more examples. I'll add a few more later when I have more time.
Please don't.
You spit out too much volume for meaningful debate. Instead, pick out what you feel is the best argument and go with that. You can always add something later if you feel it's needed, but pages and pages of material just get in the way.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
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.
I don't have time to try to uphold both your end and my end of this argument, so I will have to delegate that back to you.
People are informed on issues that interest them. Nobody is capable of being fully informed on every issue, so people need to pick and choose where they will place their attention. For most, a great deal of this attention is directed towards the issues they need to be aware of in order to perform at work, take care of their families, and entertain their friends and interests. You need to keep this in mind when dragging out statistics on how many people are “misinformed.” It's not because they are stupid or have been misled by a bad corporate-controlled media, it's mostly because they have other things to think about.
Right now I'm leaving to pick up my daughter from a school event. On the way home I will drop off her friend at her home and then stop at a store to pick up a gallon of milk. It may be a while before I get a chance to look at that review of Amy Goodman's book. :)
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 19:07:32 [Permalink]
|
I have a couple of comments about television news. First off, the news it isn't what it used to be. That is, the top brass of the major networks used to have a mostly hands off policy toward the editors of their news departments. It wasn't a commercial enterprise. At one time news shows on television were about prestige and not about making money. Sadly, that has changed. And that change has caused a dumbing down of the news to make it more entertaining and therefore profitable to the corporations who own the networks.
I am not calling this a conspiracy. Just a very sad shift in priorities that has lead to a predictable result in terms of what is being broadcast into our homes. With the exception of PBS's “The News Hour” there really isn't a whole lot of news on the news anymore.
To illustrate this point, it used to be that there was, at least on one of the major networks, gavel to gavel coverage of the national political conventions. That has been reduced to a couple of hours nightly in prime time. So what do we get now? Two-hour commercials when the party puts on its best face. Slick. Gone is the in fighting and all of the platform maneuvering and spontaneous happenings that made for a chance to get some real news and actually learn something.
Again, while maybe not a conspiracy, I have no doubt that with profit as their main motivator; the networks are less likely to stick their necks out when they don't have to. So they don't challenge the “official view” the way they once did. A slew of staff attorneys are expensive. And so are bureaus filled with competent reporters all over the word. I have read of complaints made by investigative journalists who say they are extremely lucky to get anything on the air these days without a fight. And much of what they do just doesn't make it out.
I do have to admire the networks ability to sound like they have a story to lure us in. “English Muffins! What you don't know may be harming you!”
So yeah, there has been a shift away from what we used to get. And it is about corporations. It's about fear and profitability and in my opinion it has lead to a less informed public. And that does have an effect on our democracy, even if indirectly.
Ernie Kovaks once said “The reason they call it the medium is it is neither rare, nor well done.” I think that is truer now then ever before.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 23:31:53 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft, you completely discounted what I did provide as support for my conclusions without any substance other than you think one site name discredited one site. I followed with a very specific example and you claim it's too long to read. I ask you to provide support for your view and you skirt the issue.
It's no wonder your world view lacks the depth needed to understand how a corporate filtered news media might have a negative influence on democracy.
You didn't have to look at the review of Goodman's book. I linked to it because that's where I found the quote on line. You just needed to read the quote. Though you are certainly welcome to investigate the credibility of Amy Goodman.
And for the record, there is no conspiracy to control the news. It has evolved into its current state over time due to a number of factors.Big corporate money intimately tied to government control of legislation (they use each other) Conservative agenda more amenable to intimate ties to big corporations A fairly large percent of the public content with an underlying belief "it can't happen here" To name a few.
Notice I said "more amenable". The Democratic legislators are just as vulnerable to trade large campaign donations and other favors for favorable legislation for the news media ownership. It just happens the Republicans are currently going hog wild with legislation favoring their big contributors.
As far as issues that are important and lack of interest in seeking information, that doesn't speak to the problem at all. If during the build up to the Iraq war, all you see in the news are Bush and his talking points army, retired Generals and Iraqi expats who despise Saddam and/or hope to make millions returning to Iraq as the next President after we clear the way, then all you get is the message Saddam has WMDs, was behind the 9/11 attack or at least is sponsoring so much terrorism he rises to the top of the list and poses a grave and immediate risk to the security of the United States.
Was there any substantial debate in the mainstream media? No. Were there people who had legitimate reason to question the Party line? Yes. They wrote books and blogs and were interviewed on Democracy Now by Amy Goodman. Richard Clarke and Ambassador Joe Wilson are two examples.
We all know about these people now. The yellow cake from Niger incident was a fraud, just as Wilson had said. Gee, and here the Republican talking point was Wilson was an unqualified (despite the fact he was qualified) crony appointment that his wife influenced the hiring of. Richard Clarke is now vindicated and Conde Rice looks like a fool for having demoted him.
If you want links I'll post them but considering you'd rather not bother, I won't waste my time.
This is the misinformation that allowed Bush to take us into a tragic war with tragic consequences and no end in sight. Had there really been investigative reporting in the mainstream, everyone would have known these things instead of a minority like myself who took the time to find other sources of information.
The news media failed to uncover the truth which was not hard to find in this case and it directly contributed to the Iraq war. And you don't see that as a threat to democracy?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 10/21/2006 23:34:21 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2006 : 23:36:44 [Permalink]
|
| My sentiments exactly, Kil. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 01:24:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
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.
Blaming Bush's remaining support on Corporate Control of the media and media manipulation may be reaching. 30% is getting close to the number of people who beleive that NASA never landed on the moon and is probably less than the fraction of Americans who believe that most of the 9/11 hijackers entered the US from Canada (none of them did). Has Faux news created idiots or are idiots the market for Faux news? Perhaps people not only get the government they deserve, but they get the media they deserve as well.
What corporate agenda (other than Halliburton and the defence contracters etc)is being served by a disasterous and expensive war?
What corporate agenda is served by the anti-science agenda of the Bush administration?
|
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 02:17:20 [Permalink]
|
The corporate media is going to be in search of profits. Period. Is anyone here besides me old enough to remember the 60's and 70's? The original groundswell from the Republicans was the supposed "Silent Majority". Unfortunately, their great stalking horse proved to be a petty thief who was impeached as Veep, and then we had that little distraction of Watergate.
But the main reason for that "insurgency" was that "the media" was perceived to be far too LEFT of the real grassroots population. Hell, that's how Reagan, carrying the water pail for the ex Goldwaterites, got into power. There was massive perception back then that the major networks, Hollywood, the music industry, and even the New York/Milan/Paris/London fashion scene were "out of touch with mainstream America".
And it wasn't just the counter-culture of the 60's, nor the anti-war movement. It was a reaction to Democratic domination of the Congress and Supreme Court since the late 1930's. The Republicans and rightwing Democrats felt that they had lost the franchise.
(And ya know what, the moderate/liberal wings of both parties may now turn the tables and have their decade or two in the sun. Please don't cite Clinton as a reprieve from the move towards conservatism. His form of moderate/right Democrat would've never made it to the party nomination fifteen years earlier.)
I live in Hong Kong. The news here on CNN is about four times better than in the USA, and has far more diversified stories. But it's the same corporation! If Mr. and Mrs. America want to watch a cat saved from a tree, or the world's greatest sycophant, Larry King, throw softballs to Will Ferrell dressing in a Wonderbread cap, then that's what the public will get. The power of the vote is simply turning the dial (well, I guess I am old - it's now pressing a button on the remote, but the old adage stays with me).
The fact that we got five to ten anti-war voices out of three hundred interviews when Iraq started is not surprising, considering that that's roughly the percentage of voters and elected officials at that time who were NOT questioning the government's claims. Everyone(e.g. a huge majority) backed the war. It was the American sentiment after 9/11.
As the public pulse changes and starts supporting a more moderate, liberal or even radical approach, the media will follow. It sells soap flakes. The biggest complaint of the Reaganites in the 70's, that the media was biased to the left, is now the cry of the left..., that the media is biased to the right.
I posit that the media is a corporate entity and that they are driven by corporate responsibilities to their share-holders - to make a profit. If 57% of the country tomorrow answered "Strongly Agree" to a poll on pierced nipples, it'd be no more than a week before Katy Courik showed up doing a Janet Jackson imitiation. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 04:44:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Has Faux news created idiots or are idiots the market for Faux news? Perhaps people not only get the government they deserve, but they get the media they deserve as well.
I think what's lost here, and I've probably added to the confusion, is that the "media" in the U.S. is not limited to the news. The corporate news is one part of the media in the U.S. All our information is colored by the society around it and who brings it. Movies, TV shows. Even universities are influence by receiving money from donors and from the U.S. government.
Is there a conspiracy? Lots of little conspiracies, yes. I think those who are powerful have looked for ways over the years to keep the population obsessing over Jennifer, going to church, watching football and thinking that the sound bites they get handed almost directly from the State Department and Coporate boardrooms is information.
That's why con men like George Bush and Bill Clinton get elected and why Henry Kissinger is still being interviewed as though he wan't a world-class criminal. |
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
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 04:52:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The fact that we got five to ten anti-war voices out of three hundred interviews when Iraq started is not surprising, considering that that's roughly the percentage of voters and elected officials at that time who were NOT questioning the government's claims. Everyone(e.g. a huge majority) backed the war. It was the American sentiment after 9/11.
When it had started, yes. When it started most people who were against the war shut up because they've been told that it is a good idea to shut up once a war starts. The majority were against the war before it started. Most would have been convinced had Bush II bribed and threatened his way into UNSC approval like his daddy did, but the majority of Americans were against the way that he did it.
Note that two threads have been extremely hijacked and no one is complaining. When I stated my views about the posted subject on another thread, I was condemned and insulted for "hijacking" it by responding to those who responded to one post I made. Dave W. even had to make a note in his Skeptic Summary to "forgive the hijack." He didn't say, "forgive the rude people who can't go a day without getting drunk and calling people assholes."
Is this because certain unnamed individuals are not involved in this thread? It's a much nicer thread, isn't it? |
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
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/22/2006 04:58:19 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 08:11:28 [Permalink]
|
| Anyway, the corporate media extends to publishers, television, newspapers, private schools, public schools to a degree, as their information is brought to you by corporate media, and so on. |
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
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 18:20:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
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.
So the Patriot Act is not a threat to the democracy?
I see it as the first step down what will be a slippery slope to fascist state. But hey, what do I know? I'm not a US citizen. On the other hand, the way things are now, being a US citizen does not seem to guarantee your freedom anymore anyway.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2006 : 19:33:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
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.
Well, there does exist a segment of the population who takes seriously the idea that Bush will only be leaving office through brute force as the result of an insurrection after he declares himself President for Life and nullifies the Constitution.
A more sane objection to your statement is that it's not actually Bush who is a threat to democracy, but rather the neoconservatives as a group. As such, it doesn't much matter if Bush isn't in office, because a rather large contigent of Republicans will continue to do as he has done, effectively extending the Presidency of the same sorts of dangerous ideals for long past eight years. There's no guarantee of a Democrat (or third party) win in 2008.
And before you condemn that as paranoid conspiracy talk, just remember what Phyllis Schafly said about Bush-appointed conservative Judge Jones in Dover, PA, after he ruled against Intelligent Design in the classroom. She said that Jones should have ruled the other way because he owed it to the President, presumably as pay-back for getting the cozy judgeship. She's not the only conservative who's said such things, either.
And so, given that an outspoken bunch of conservatives really think that governance should be handled as a series of quid pro quos - the Constitution be damned - I'm certainly willing to take them at their word. This would imply that Bush "owes" someone else for his Presidency (I don't think he would have been in any position to run in the first place if left to his own devices), and it should be obvious that that "someone else" (probably a large group) doesn't have any term limits to deal with, and so can try put some other willing lapdog in office for as long as they want. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 12:28:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Mycroft, you completely discounted what I did provide as support for my conclusions without any substance other than you think one site name discredited one site.
Well, what did you expect? You provided three links of poor quality. Honestly my intent was to dismiss them without comment, but in the editing process I noticed the URL and thought it was funny enough to mention.
Of your links:
One was to a review of a book that shares your point of view, with no actual evidence that your point of view is correct. Okay, that's fine, but I think we can take it for granted that you got your opinions somewhere, so it's not surprising that someone who's been published will reflect your point of view. At the same time, merely being published is not itself evidence of being right.
Another link was to a list of articles with no indication which article you thought was significant. Did you want me to read them all? Why not just avoid discussion altogether and just tell me to read until I come around to your point of view?
The third link was probably the most promising. At least you had cut and paste from a list of bullet points, but then looking at them it didn't seem as though you had read them yourself. For example:
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)
Okay, well shame on Victor Neufeld, but what was the topic again? This is somehow supposed to be evidence that the press isn't liberal? How is it evidence of that? And who was even arguing that the media is liberal? I dismissed it because while it was the best of the links you provided, it wasn't particularly on-topic.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I followed with a very specific example and you claim it's too long to read. I ask you to provide support for your view and you skirt the issue.
Whoah, that's blatant dishonesty. I did not claim anything was too long to read, I asked that that you emphasize quality over quantity in presenting your “evidence.” My exact words:
”You spit out too much volume for meaningful debate. Instead, pick out what you feel is the best argument and go with that. You can always add something later if you feel it's needed, but pages and pages of material just get in the way.”
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
It's no wonder your world view lacks the depth needed to understand how a corporate filtered news media might have a negative influence on democracy.
Insult the person who disagrees with you because he disagrees with you. Where do you learn this kind of logic?
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
If you want links I'll post them but considering you'd rather not bother, I won't waste my time.
I'd rather not what…?! Now you're drawing conclusions about me without evidence.
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 12:38:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, there does exist a segment of the population who takes seriously the idea that Bush will only be leaving office through brute force as the result of an insurrection after he declares himself President for Life and nullifies the Constitution.
Do you take that segment of the population seriously?
I mean, there is also a segment of the population that believes Bush has a secret plan to create a One World Government complete with martial law, international troops called in at a moments notice and secret concentration camps already built for holding/killing dissidents.
There is also a segment of the population that believes the metal strip our money is a secret means of tracking the flow of cash.
There is also a segment of the population that believes the Earth is the focal point of an intergalactic conflict between aliens species known as the "blues" or the "greys" and that some of them are periodically kidnapping our women to conduct secret fertility experiments or to try to create a hybrid species.
There are segments of the population that believe Elvis is still alive, believe in astrology, dianetics, faith healing, dowsing, elves, and all kinds of things.
So hate Bush. I agree he's a terrible president, the worst I've seen in my lifetime, but don't you think giving credence to the idea of him taking control of the US for life is a bit woo? Seriously, isn't it kinda embarasing to say something like that on a skeptic's forum?
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 12:39:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
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.
So the Patriot Act is not a threat to the democracy?
I see it as the first step down what will be a slippery slope to fascist state. But hey, what do I know? I'm not a US citizen. On the other hand, the way things are now, being a US citizen does not seem to guarantee your freedom anymore anyway.
I don't believe our democracy is so fragile that a single piece of legislation can bring it down.
What do you believe? |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 13:42:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, there does exist a segment of the population who takes seriously the idea that Bush will only be leaving office through brute force as the result of an insurrection after he declares himself President for Life and nullifies the Constitution.
Do you take that segment of the population seriously?
I mean, there is also a segment of the population that believes Bush has a secret plan to create a One World Government complete with martial law, international troops called in at a moments notice and secret concentration camps already built for holding/killing dissidents.
There is also a segment of the population that believes the metal strip our money is a secret means of tracking the flow of cash.
There is also a segment of the population that believes the Earth is the focal point of an intergalactic conflict between aliens species known as the "blues" or the "greys" and that some of them are periodically kidnapping our women to conduct secret fertility experiments or to try to create a hybrid species.
There are segments of the population that believe Elvis is still alive, believe in astrology, dianetics, faith healing, dowsing, elves, and all kinds of things.
So hate Bush. I agree he's a terrible president, the worst I've seen in my lifetime, but don't you think giving credence to the idea of him taking control of the US for life is a bit woo? Seriously, isn't it kinda embarasing to say something like that on a skeptic's forum?
So you ignore most of Dave W's post and concentrate on the first paragraph which was quite obviously a mildly humorous segway to the real meat of his post (which you totally ignored).
You know, I thought to myself when I read Dave W's "Self, If Mycroft lacks integrity he will only respond to the first paragraph". And you know what? You did.
Dave W had a good point which you ignored, and instead concentrated on something that was immaterial. Were you ever a creationist? Or a Conspiracy Theorist? If not, you may want to check them out. You'd fit right in. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
