US media

[RandFan]

http://www.aljazeera.com/

Works for me, despite the fact that it is apparently banned in the USA according to Oliver. But maybe my NWO computer is different...

Oh crap, does George Bush and the evil empire (USA) know about this? Please say it aint so?

 

[Oliver]

If this link doesn't work for someone, let me know:
http://www.aljazeera.com/

Works for me, despite the fact that it is apparently banned in the USA according to Oliver. But maybe my NWO computer is different...

Well?

I'm still talking about the AL Jazeera channel, not the Website.
And you can watch the Docu who made this claim online:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/

 

[Pardalis]

I get the feeling Oliver is trying hard to find information that will consolidate his belief that the US is turning into an Orwellian state, but the only problem is that he's using American media to do so.

 

[WildCat]

Well, how does the Law defines a lie or distortion? A panel could use the same definitions, couldn't they?

Sorry Oliver, I think you'll find your quite alone in your desire for a government panel to decide what is acceptable "truth" to be printed in newspapers or broadcast on the air or on the web or via satellite. In fact, the only possible way that could work is to abolish all media and have a single, official state-run media like all the totalitarian dictatorial fascist theocratic progressive nations do.

Anyway; If everyone can talk and broadcast whatever they want without any truth whatsoever, what have you won? Free speech is cool, but where's the line between free speech and anarchy?

My god you're right! If everyone is free to form their own opinions and say what they want utter chaos ensues! I'll get to work on repealing the 1st Amendment pronto...

And I have to say that you're speech isn't really free from what I've learned so far.

You've learned wrong.

 

[steverino]

http://www.aljazeera.com/

Works for me, despite the fact that it is apparently banned in the uSA according to Oliver.

Exactly. This whole idea that Americans are too stupid to seek alternative views of the Iraqi war, and other foreign policies, or that Americans are hushed from finding alternative points of view that run counter to our administration's party line is such nonsense. Information is information, and the air waves are accessable to those who look. Just like the various points of view on this forum.

There was just a report on National Public Radio about nutrition and how fast food restaurants and junk food convenience stores overwhelm poor neighborhoods whose residents need access to more nutritious grocery store foods. While this is sad on the surface, these residents, while inconvenienced, can commute and seek out nutritious foods.

Being lazy is not a valid excuse to blame the media for hushing certain points of view. They are out there, and in here as well.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, how does the Law defines a lie or distortion? A panel could use the same definitions, couldn't they?

The question wasn't about the definition and never was. The question is about who you get to do the enforcement. Define lie and distortion however you like -- now, as to *my* question:

You'd have no problem with me deciding what's a lie or distortion, right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If this link doesn't work for someone, let me know:
http://www.aljazeera.com/

Works for me, despite the fact that it is apparently banned in the uSA according to Oliver. But maybe my NWO computer is different...

Well?

Don't know about Oliver, but I wasn't intending to say it was banned. But there is a difference in having free access to (most) information and monopoly ownership of the mainstream information sources. Television news and some radio still has the power for great influence in what people believe. Just look at the polls showing regular Fox News watchers are very likely to believe the false information Fox puts out on a regular basis.

SURVEY: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgeable, Fox News Viewers Rank Lowest

Whether you agree or not with the "facts", whether the poll was properly conducted or not, the fact these groups answer questions about facts differently is evidence something is influencing their beliefs. It could be people are migrating to the information that agrees with their pre-existing beliefs or the media shapes their beliefs. Still, you have the broadcast media either creating false beliefs, reinforcing false beliefs, or both. When the control of information is owned by a few, it's dangerous.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Like all "free" media, the US media generally reflects the biases of its market.
Any paper in the USA which ran the headline "America sucks, hallways has, always will" wouldn't last long.
The trick is not to expect an unbiased media (I don't believe that such a beast exists, and never has or will), the trick is to recognize the bias inherit in all media, and judge it accordingly.

This is indeed the key. If we educate people, especially children, to be media literate, they will be more likely to demand and get more accurate information.

As it is now, we don't even educate people how to detect false advertising claims, let alone how to detect false information in the news.

 

[Oliver]

And stiffle speech with a lot of minutae.

Who says that there is no truth whatsoever?

Please to explain? If in an absolute sense then there is no such thing and never will be. However people accross America are expressing their opinions on the internet on any and ever subject. Our political leaders are excoriated (google Bushitler, Bushchimp, hell, just google "incompetent").

If the government is supressing speech it's doing a lousy job. We have liberal media, conservative media, etc., etc.

So, again, please to explain?

For example: On Mainstream Media level you can't show nudity, you can't show bloody bodies in the War, you can't criticize the government if you don't want to destroy your connections to them, you can't show someone saying the F- S- or N- Word. And if you air something unpatriotic during war times, you will be demonized and the president will mention you in his next speech. Probably exclude you from Press Conferences.

So basically: If the Media can't speak free, you also can't speak free, because you don't learn the whole story. Do you know what I mean?

 

[RandFan]

Being lazy is not a valid excuse to blame the media for hushing certain points of view. They are out there, and in here as well.

Thank you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Honestly, I consider Murdoch's power as a threat for every competitor because he simply buys them if he doesn't like their attitude.

He can't buy unless they want to sell. That hardly constitutes a "threat" to them.

Some might argue that economical freedoms are holy by constitutional right, but I guess the protection of democracy might be more important.

The constitution IS the basis for our democracy, and upholding the constitution is a rather critical part of protecting our democracy. Perhaps you don't fully understand the 1st ammendment - many non-US citizens don't, even if they say the believe in "free speech". But much of what you have proposed really would violate the 1st ammendment, and you seem not to have noticed this or really cared about what that really means.

Well, the "Misuse" question is simple. If someone tells lies, obviously pushes politicians or distorts the facts, punish them with a fine.

Much of what you describe requires subjective analysis, for one thing, and for another, the day the government gets to decide what's the "truth" and punish those who say anything differently is the day that free speech dies. We already have mechanisms to protect against libel and slander (which are civil matters, BTW), but beyond that, I don't want the government having the ability to punish anyone for saying something it deems to be other than the "truth". Because you cannot give the government the power to punish people for telling lies without giving the government the power to decide what constitutes the truth, and that is quite frankly a VERY scary prospect. How did you miss this implication to your own proposal?

 

[brodski]

Sure, you report everything that is happening in as complete a detail as is possible with no commentary, no emphasis on any of the specific details, no guesses or assumptions and, if quotes are necessary giving them in complete detail with no commentary on them except specific indications of the background and expertise of the person(s) quoted.

You report on everything that is happening, giving no more weight to one story than another?

If quotes are necessary, who do you decide to take quotes from? Which portions of the quote to you print? Every word uttered? How do you give objective indication of expertise? How do you decide which expert opinion to quote?

How do you pick which words to use to describe aspects of eth story?

And this last point is perhaps eth most contentious one.
A classic example is the BBCs policy of referring to Palestinian and Irish terrorists as "paramilitaries" and "militants", rather than the more loaded term "terrorist". This is done in the name of "neutrality", everyone can agree that these terrorists are both militant and part of paramilitary organisations, however one side also claims (with quite a lot of supporting evidence and argument) that these groups deserve the title "terrorist". By not using this term they are accused of bias, by using this term they would also be accused of bias.


Again on the BBC, it ahs been accused of "bias" for not presenting "both sides" in the alleged evolution/ creationism debate, and for giving the overwhelming majority of airtime to those that support the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW, are these failings in the neutrality of the BBC, or not?


There are some stories which cannot be reported in a neutral manner.
And many more which should not be.

 

[Oliver]

The question wasn't about the definition and never was. The question is about who you get to do the enforcement. Define lie and distortion however you like -- now, as to *my* question:

You'd have no problem with me deciding what's a lie or distortion, right?

This is a strange question. Your Nick is NoZed Avenger
If I say your Nick is Bumblebee, that is a blatant lie.
If I say your Nick is Zoned Avenger, that's a distortion of facts.

 

[fuelair]

Everything!? !?

If not, who decides?

If anyone decides, it is not neutral. I was answering an impossible question with the only "possible" answer.

 

[Ziggurat]

For example: On Mainstream Media level you can't show nudity, you can't show bloody bodies in the War,

Wrong. You can't show nudity on most broadcast media, but that's not the same thing as "mainstream media", regardless of the overlap. Same with blood and guts.

you can't criticize the government if you don't want to destroy your connections to them,

Hardly. Most mainstream newspapers, for example are very critical of the government and Bush in particular. In fact, exposing government scandal is pretty much a journalistic obsession, even in cases where there isn't much going on at all.

you can't show someone saying the F- S- or N- Word.

Again, this applies to broadcasts (because broadcasts are done over public airwaves), but that's the only government-imposed restriction.

So basically: If the Media can't speak free, you also can't speak free, because you don't learn the whole story. Do you know what I mean?

And your proposed solution to the media supposedly sucking up to the government too much was to empower the government to punish the media for saying the wrong thing. And you honestly didn't see the disconnect here?

 

[RandFan]

For example: On Mainstream Media level you can't show nudity, you can't show bloody bodies in the War...

I'm actively against this and fighting against such BS. If you think the fairness doctrine will give us nudity and bloody bodies then you are sadly mistaken.

...you can't criticize the government if you don't want to destroy your connections to them...

?

And you would fix this by doing what? Nothing is going to force a government to keep connections with people they don't like. This is a non-starter.

...you can't show someone saying the F- S- or N- Word.

(see above)

And if you air something unpatriotic during war times, you will be demonized and the president will mention you in his next speech.

Yeah, it's called... wait for it..... "Freedom of Speech". The president has freedom of speech. Those who are patriotic have freedom of speech.

I don't think you get the concept of freedom of speech. It doesn't mean that freedom only belongs to dissenters.

Probably exclude you from Press Conferences.

Life's a bitch. Freedom of speech guarantees speech not access.

So basically: If the Media can't speak free, you also can't speak free, because you don't learn the whole story. Do you know what I mean?

No, I don't know what you mean. I watch PBS, Bill Maher, Steve Colbert, John Stewart and Keith Olberman. I listen to NPR and Air America. I read web sites that are highly critical of the American administration. I read magazines that are highly critical of the American administration.

I don't know what you mean because George Bush's approval numbers are in the toilet. The negative stories coming out of Iraq dominate the news. Bushism's fill the radio, TV and Internet. If George Bush has the power to stiffle speech is doing a lousy job of it.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

This is a strange question. Your Nick is NoZed Avenger
If I say your Nick is Bumblebee, that is a blatant lie.
If I say your Nick is Zoned Avenger, that's a distortion of facts.

Not a mistake of memory? Not a typo?


But again you go back to the irrelevant discussion regarding definitions of lies and distortions.

I'll say it again: define those words however you like.

Now, with whatever those definitions are, please answer:
Would you have any problem with allowing me to decide who has lied and who has distorted?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

*lol* Sorry for the confusion. In here I'm talking about political independence, meaning a neutral view in political issues and also the coverage in War-times which may result in patriotic coverages instead education based on facts.

The political rhetoric about whose side is right is one thing, evidence is another.

Bill Moyers Returns to Airwaves With Critical Look at How U.S. News Media Helped Bush Admin Sell the Case for War

Bill Moyers, Journal: Buying the War - How did the mainstream media get it so wrong in the lead up to the Iraq War?

Amy Goodman interview

You had this extreme press instead beating the drums for war -- the four major nightly newscasts out of 393 interviews they did in the week leading up to and after Colin Powell's address -- push for war at the United Nations, of the 393 interviews, three were with anti-war representatives. That does not represent mainstream America. Mainstream America was for more inspections and diplomacy. The majority of people in this country. That was a media that just iced out dissent.

 

[Oliver]

He can't buy unless they want to sell. That hardly constitutes a "threat" to them.

The constitution IS the basis for our democracy, and upholding the constitution is a rather critical part of protecting our democracy. Perhaps you don't fully understand the 1st ammendment - many non-US citizens don't, even if they say the believe in "free speech". But much of what you have proposed really would violate the 1st ammendment, and you seem not to have noticed this or really cared about what that really means.

Much of what you describe requires subjective analysis, for one thing, and for another, the day the government gets to decide what's the "truth" and punish those who say anything differently is the day that free speech dies. We already have mechanisms to protect against libel and slander (which are civil matters, BTW), but beyond that, I don't want the government having the ability to punish anyone for saying something it deems to be other than the "truth". Because you cannot give the government the power to punish people for telling lies without giving the government the power to decide what constitutes the truth, and that is quite frankly a VERY scary prospect. How did you miss this implication to your own proposal?

Okay, so you say that if an constitutional right could be misused, let's say because there is an invention like the television or internet that didn't exist back then, but which could jeopardize the original intention of the constitution, how do you react?

If the Media dictates the races - and the leading party can dictate the Media, how do you stop this symbiosis?

Watch this one:
It gives a little insight about what I mean:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The US press, on average (since it's not monolithic), is not politically neutral. It leans Democrat. What do you think that means in terms of war coverage?

It leans Democratic? Murdoch and Disney? In the lead up to the Iraq war, let's see some evidence? Got links?