broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | reply to Karl Bode
Re: He could be right
As Chomsky notes, it is true that both parties and the corporate controlled media are further right of where the general public stands (humanist). There's simply plenty of noise, lying, and propaganda that makes things appear otherwise.
Humanism is not in opposition to "right-wing." Government control of industry is. Humanism can be reasonably integrated into right-wing ideology and in fact, I would contend is more likely to be found there than on the left when the philosophical particulars have been cleared out (regardless of what seems to be the case based on political pandering and apparent demographics).
EDIT: I should add that the Democratic party is certainly not right of what most people believe in. Most people in America believe in rugged individualism and have for a century plus. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| The reality is that via the use of propaganda, both parties pretend to cater to the humanist will of the people, but really serve one master at this point: corporate dollars.
"Right" and "Left" at this point are meaningless tags. Issues like abortion and gay marriage are brought up to play on fears and then dropped so that the real course can be followed.
The right to make money is now a national security issue. It's a paradigm that dominates both parties. Any threat to that (and humanism is a threat to that) is a position you won't see espoused frequently on the nightly news.
I don't understand how Democrats have cornered the market on "rugged individualism"; sounds like more divisive rhetoric. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| said by Karl Bode  :The reality is that via the use of propaganda, both parties pretend to cater to the humanist will of the people, but really serve one master at this point: corporate dollars. "Right" and "Left" at this point are meaningless tags. Issues like abortion and gay marriage are brought up to play on fears and then dropped so that the real course can be followed. The right to make money is now a national security issue. It's a paradigm that dominates both parties. Any threat to that (and humanism is a threat to that) is a position you won't see espoused frequently on the nightly news. I don't understand how Democrats have cornered the market on "rugged individualism"; sounds like more divisive rhetoric. Rugged individualism is a conservative ideal, currently not being paraded by either party. The right to make money is a big part of what America is about. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
Rugged individualism is a conservative ideal, currently not being paraded by either party. The right to make money is a big part of what America is about.
The right to make money no matter what the repercussions are is also a big part of what America is about. I still contend that these traditional political divisions you hold to at this point are little more than rhetoric and propaganda.
Look at any political debate over what Ann Coulter says for evidence that political discourse in this country is really just a stage-show while we the government works to eliminate your righta and focus on its only real goal: improve corporate revenue.
And the first person to claim I'm "against making money" gets a bonk on the head.  |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :Rugged individualism is a conservative ideal, currently not being paraded by either party. The right to make money is a big part of what America is about. I don't view individualism and the right to make money as necessarily the same thing.
I see individualism and the right to make money as two separate products of enlightenmentism. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Karl Bode
Karl has hit it on the head here. He's phrased it more precisely then I did.
What I see a lot of is the media shunning anything that could cause them to be labeled as "Liberal media". It's like they are afraid to be painted with that brush. They of course WILL throw up controversial or hot button issues, and love to flash graphs of opinion polls or someone outraged over this or that scandal.
But do you see anyone actually addressing some real issues? Hardly ever, if at all.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Just look at what's being discussed as we approach our elections.
Who is a bigger war-coward, who diddles kids, is Michael J Fox not taking his Parkinsons meds, etc.
No discussion of corporate control, no real discussion of government intrusion into privacy, no real discussion of the war frankly, either.
Propaganda has people bickering over inane crap when we're really all on the same side (humanism). |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Exactly. What's the biggest issue of the day?
Republicans:"Kerry insulted our Military men and women!"
Kerry: "Did not!"
Republicans: "Did too!"
Kerry: "Did not!"
and then the news channels convene panels of talking heads to discuss... Was it/Wasn't... Apologize/No Apologize etc etc blah blah blah crapola crapola crapola
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to KrK
Just what is so "right-wing" about news articles blasting Bush, and editorials promoting Phil Angelides for Governor, and Jerry Brown for Attorney General?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| said by NormanS :Just what is so "right-wing" about news articles blasting Bush, and editorials promoting Phil Angelides for Governor, and Jerry Brown for Attorney General? Anecdotal. Also, if an article is promoting a candidate, it's not a news article, it's an op/ed peice.
IMO any news agency will always be critical of the current administration and everything it does.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Maxo :Anecdotal. Also, if an article is promoting a candidate, it's not a news article, it's an op/ed peice. IMO any news agency will always be critical of the current administration and everything it does. An article about the president is not the same as an op-ed piece promoting a politician. But a newspaper which is always promoting the left in the op-ed pieces is hardly a right-wing rag.
Newspapers tend to publish articles which support their left-wing agenda, and omit articles which don't. When they covered the murder of a trans-gendered young man in my area, they always referred to him as "her", despite the biological facts of the case, and they always cast the perpetrators as "homophobes", despite a lack of evidence to support that as a fact.
They covered the matter of a valedictorian speaker having the microphone pulled on her speech, but omitted the fact that the audience demanded that the school administration restore the microphone connection. The speaker's words were squelched by the administration because they didn't approve of her use of religious content in her speech; despite the fact that it was a graduation ceremony, not a class.
I could go on...
I don't trust the media. Even on non-divisive matters they get their facts wrong. Reporting a 120,000 gallon pesticide spill on the upper reaches of the Sacramento river, near the town of Dunsmuir. The car couldn't have held more than 30,000 gallons, or so. The capacity was probably about 120,000lbs GVW, not 120,000 gallons. The caption under a photo of an action in Israel, on the Lebanese border (more than ten years ago) identified an Israeli "tank" firing into Lebanon: It was a 155mm SP Howitzer. The caption under a photo identified a Salvation Army officer with some donated toys at Christmas (more than ten years ago): It was a U.S. Marine Corps NCO.
Did I say that I don't trust the media? They are short on factual accuracy, and long on political spin to the left.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
| I don't trust the media either. As a person who sits on the far left, I also don't find them in line with my political beliefs. So to say they are left (which I also happen to be) is not true. The news media is silly, sloppy, and unprofessional, but it is not left. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Again, the media is not "left" or "right", it is pro-corporate, pro-consumption, pro-violence (if it gets ratings), and pro speculation. The entire "bias" debate is so myopic, tired and un-genuine at this point it makes my head hurt.
Both sides think the media espouses the views of the "other" side because they are being played against eachother to distract from the real issues they might otherwise agree upon. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to KrK
said by KrK :Exactly. What's the biggest issue of the day? Republicans:"Kerry insulted our Military men and women!" Kerry: "Did not!" Republicans: "Did too!" Kerry: "Did not!" and then the news channels convene panels of talking heads to discuss... Was it/Wasn't... Apologize/No Apologize etc etc blah blah blah crapola crapola crapola That list should with "Kerry says x" since he provoked his own demise. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Again, the media is not "left" or "right", it is pro-corporate, pro-consumption, pro-violence (if it gets ratings), and pro speculation. The entire "bias" debate is so myopic, tired and un-genuine at this point it makes my head hurt. Both sides think the media espouses the views of the "other" side because they are being played against eachother to distract from the real issues they might otherwise agree upon. I think that the media is made up of individuals with their own particular views. I think a corporation, any corporation, promotes a particular culture based on the views of said employees at least in some small part. As such, I do not calling the media "pro" anything can be sweepingly true. Particularly parts of the media lean and swing certain ways. The entire media is not biased one way or the other but in a spectrum of ways. Certain media outlets do indeed lean a certain way, just as certain corporations and groups of individuals lean certain ways. Those ways are often not as simple as "left" or "right," true, but I do not think they can be called decidedly "pro" or "anti" anything as a whole. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Lets focus solely on cable-news then. You would disagree that the massive cable networks as a whole do not primarily espouse views that are primarily pro-corporation? The ever present fear of alienating advertisers has long made this a rather dysfunctional model. |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| said by Karl Bode :Lets focus solely on cable-news then. You would disagree that the massive cable networks as a whole do not primarily espouse views that are primarily pro-corporation? The ever present fear of alienating advertisers has long made this a rather dysfunctional model. Cable news has particular corporate biases to the particular corporations that fund them and even that is not always the case. There are instances weekly in which any particular cable news networks will go undermine some particular corporation or another. Now, yes, there are elses instances of the converse, when a news network bloats a corporation's profile it is somehow affiliated (or in some cases not affiliated). In most cases, this can be chocked up to the same thing that causes most of the world's problems: human incompetence. However, there indeed some instances of genuine corporate suppression of stories (though generally those stories are picked up by a rival network, i.e. a rival corporation, or the somewhat more diligent print media).
I will not defend network news as fantastic or even worth ingesting. However, I think the problem is far more particular and deep than an overall "corporate bias." There are multi-functional biases and multi-faceted instances of human inability that create the overall "bad vibe" generated by cable news. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
I think the problem is far more particular and deep than an overall "corporate bias." There are multi-functional biases and multi-faceted instances of human inability that create the overall "bad vibe" generated by cable news.
I'll agree with that, but corporate advertised income model is a major problem for an objective media, and it's a fight that guys like Edward Murrows lost decades ago. The issue does go deeper than simply corporate bias. There's an entire consumerism paradigm that modern media fails to challenge.
And there's nationalism. How long did it take for news outlets during the Iraq war to stop cheerleading and stop reporting? And why is this nation at war, yet we see absolutely no bloody images? |
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| I'll agree with that, but corporate advertised income model is a major problem for an objective media, and it's a fight that guys like Edward Murrows lost decades ago.
New media revives this fight time and again, and competition between biased media has a similar (though not as deep) effect. First radio, then TV, then the Internet. Eventually the media becomes consolidated, but time and time again, new media outlets seeking to be objective (for the first few years) come to the forefront and certain older outlets find a solid enough consumer base (said to talk in such terms) that they can afford to be objective.
There's an entire consumerism paradigm that modern media fails to challenge.
Agreed to some extent, but I don't see it as the news medias job to call consumerism as an ideological trend into question, but rather to call into question particular things and events that might be related to that trend. There is also plenty of alternative media that aim all guns at "consumerism" (though often as a front for the promotion of some variant strain of communism). Even the major news outlets occasionally run pieces of consumerism and "the negative spirit of money," though more often than not there is an unfortunate naturalistic or theological spin to such stories.
And there's nationalism. How long did it take for news outlets during the Iraq war to stop cheerleading and stop reporting? And why is this nation at war, yet we see absolutely no bloody images?
This paragraph I believe we are in pretty solid agreement, though I think again, we may be seeing through different lenses. Nationalism is an opaque thing, but it certainly exists in media coverage, perhaps not as nationalism, but as a distinct response to a lack of nationalism on the part of cynical news reporters. It also has a lot to do with access. The government has the ability to bring a reporter onto a big ship with big guns and that is a powerful visual. Also, often times, it is not the members of the media who are biased, but the public they "inform" and yes, the suits on the top.
As for bloody images ... I agree entirely. War is brutal and that should be illustrated. Unfortunately, that is a question of "taste" and "sensibility," having more to do with the puritan sensibilities of the Western world than media bias. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
New media revives this fight time and again, and competition between biased media has a similar (though not as deep) effect. First radio, then TV, then the Internet. Eventually the media becomes consolidated, but time and time again, new media outlets seeking to be objective (for the first few years) come to the forefront and certain older outlets find a solid enough consumer base (said to talk in such terms) that they can afford to be objective.
I don't see this evolution. I see Matt Drudge, who has been the top rated Internet news website for a decade, still engaging in political smear attempts, and now a dozen others who mirror him from other viewpoints and ideologies.
quote:
As for bloody images ... I agree entirely. War is brutal and that should be illustrated. Unfortunately, that is a question of "taste" and "sensibility," having more to do with the puritan sensibilities of the Western world than media bias.
I'm not so sure I buy that. We're in love with blood and guts in this country, and the complaints to the FCC over indecency come from a vast minority of christian conservatives motivated to react via Internet "outrage-o-matic" forms. I think people can take the occasional shot of a dead soldier, but we rarely see even that.
I think the thing that prevents the showing of bloody war related images is a much darker system of intentional propaganda aimed at limiting outrage over warfare and quelling humanism driven dissent. |
|
