It is nowhere near as bad with the US as some think by Daikath

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

It is nowhere near as bad with the US as some think

POSTED BY: DAIKATH
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 17:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1707
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, June 27, 2005 3:53 AM

I see a lot of poeple in here convinced of media wide censorship, even some conspiracy theories that go as far as saying the USA won't be a democracy 20 years on.

To the average observer all that seems bloated and it mainly is.

There is no conspiracy, but newsprogrammes are hesitant to show a certain side to the story. All that has one easy explanation; money. In my country (the netherlands) the same can be seen in the newsprogrammes of commercial tv networks.

The BBC and other public television payed for by the government have a different approach to news and coverage.
There basis concern is to provide a service to society.
With commercial newsprogrammes the same focus goes from providing a service to getting more viewers. They still want quality coverage (and they get it), but the way it is brought is different.

That said, even with the patriot act society as a whole is reacting to this new world very sensibly and mature. Remember the last big scare? I don't see public hearings to root out Islamic fundementalists in Hollywood or 'duck and cover' commercials.
This threat is even more substancial then the red scare was and the US society has reacted in a way much better to it. No one is perfect and society will adjust itself once it sees its errors.

(here is hoping i wont get slam dunked like i did in my 'War Crimes in Afghanistan thread

)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2005 4:56 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
I see a lot of poeple in here convinced of media wide censorship, even some conspiracy theories that go as far as saying the USA won't be a democracy 20 years on.

The first is absolutly true for the USA, stories get stopped, and people get fired for showing things the government doesn't like, and anyone in this country that says different is lying or for some reason doesn't know any better (or just wants to get into protracted and useless internet battles).
The second, while I'd like to believe will never happen, is possible enough to make me and others a little nervous, and some downright terrified. Administrations are like weeds. As long as they get pulled out at the end of their term, there's a chance to repair the damage. If they stay too long we would certainly get choked and overrun.

And saying there is no conspiracy is like saying you don't see the electrical wiring in your house. You're not supposed to.

No slammin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2005 5:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The dearth of news is more than just providing folks with easy entertainment for advert dollars- altho that is certainly part of the flaw. The media is run by corporations, and while some staff may be left of center, the executives watch the overall message very closely. They interfere overtly (as at Fox "News" where the "reporters" get their talking points from Murdoch) or they interfere behind the scenes by spiking stories or by requiring "balanced" (ie. give the right wing a chance to spout lies) stories (CBS, NBC, PBS- which is now under the control of a Bush appointee). And then, any news outlet that is found to be off-message gets punished severely (Newsweek) while those that publish out-and-out lies favorable to the administration barely get noticed (NYTimes, Judith Miller's straight from Chalabis mouth to the front page on so-called WMD).

In addition, the Administration relentlessly practices message control: barring critical audiences from Presidential appearances (BTW using public money to limit public democratic expression), fabricating stories (Jessica Lynch. Tillman, overall US deaths), bringing in coffins and night and barring reporters from the scene, lying to Congress and the American people (cost to Medicare of drug coverage, WMD) etc etc etc.
What I find now is that recent reportage is getting to be LESS favorable to Bush. Please don't mistake this to mean there is more "freedom" of the press. The media executives have realized that Bush is (a) a lame duck who has not delivered on his promise of deregulation and SS privitization and (b) appears to be aiming at another war- this time with Iran- which so far has only benefitted a very few companies. They don't see mcuh being adding to their bottom line.

We may be in the strange postion of seeing commercial media more critical of Bush than public television.
Conspiracy? What conspiracy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2005 5:59 AM

DAIKATH

Let's look at the average american consumer.

Look at the ratings of the average reality tv show, then look at why poeple didn't watch Firefly enough.

Poeple don't want to know those kinds of stories, poeple want to know how great their country is, that they are doing the right thing and are winning the war on terror/drugs, etc.

Hearing a critical point of view on the government makes them feel scared and if as a single network you do that. Then poeple won;t watch your news as much because they don;t like the feeling.

All this gets the upper hand because those companies arent in it to deliver quality news, they are in it to make money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2005 6:21 AM

SIGMANUNKI

I'll be quick and comment on your no hollywood black lists comment.

Sure they aren't any official black lists... wait a minute. I seem to remember an org acronymbed PABAAH that does keep a list.

http://www.pabaah.com/

EDIT: Oh, and there aren't any commercails because the US gov now has the "right" to just send them down to gitmo. Why have trials when you can just send them away as "enemy combatants" for torture, etc?

Secondly, your second post is just more evidence that the "news" corporations in the US have reason to censor/twist truth/etc the news down there. I will quote you:

"""
Poeple don't want to know those kinds of stories, poeple want to know how great their country is, that they are doing the right thing and are winning the war on terror/drugs, etc.

[ snip]

...companies arent in it to deliver quality news, they are in it to make money.
"""

Seriously, watch some news from outside/inside of the US, do a compare and contrast, and you'll be disgusted as I was.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2005 2:22 PM

SEVEREN

Conspiracy theories are just that; theories!

The truth is that U.S. corporations do determine U.S. policy to some degree. After all, where do you think most campaign dollars come from. Also, no sitting president can hope to accomplish anything without a strong economy. Whether you like the policies of President Bush or not, he is doing what he thinks is right, right or wrong. The majority of people in the U.S. think that he has done what is necessary for the interests of the U.S. and its people. I have to stop and wonder what Germany, France, Britain, or The Netherlands might have done had they had the World Trade Centers in their countries, as far as the war on terrorism. I know that Iraq had little, if anything to do with that attack, but do you think for a minute that Hussien was not overjoyed and wish he had planned it? That does not, in itself, justify the invasion of Iraq, but lets call a spade a spade. Hussien has, in the past, killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. He has used chemical weapons to do so and has used them on Iran in that war. He ignored, for over a decade, UN resolution 1441 to fully disclose his armaments and allow unfettered inspections of the process. BTW, 1441 stated "consequences" for non-compliance. Hussien had fired SCUD missiles at Isreal, showing he was a threat to nations around him. Does anyone think that he wouldn't use a nuke if he had one? This was probably the best evidence that he didn't have one, he didn't use one! The truth is the UN should have taken Hussein out years ago, or perhaps president Bush Sr. should have. The UN is impotent without the U.S., and anyone who thinks differently is lying to themselves. The current UN scandal is evidence of a corrupt and out-of-date organization. Since the UN won't, or can't, do the job it was designed to, the U.S. must. President Bush had all the reason he needed to invade Iraq, and he did so with the support of over 29 nations, including Great Britain; so what if the rest were small, are not all nations equal in the eyes of the UN?

The problem with Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq was that he did not use the reasons he already had effectively and fabricated a case for WMD that did not exist. Listening to Chalabi was his first mistake. Hussein was breaking the law (resolution 1441) and had weapons that he was not supposed to have. Those weapons, however, were not a direst threat to the U.S., but they were a direct threat to other nations who were turning a blind eye (e.i. Saudi Arabia). All that coupled with the interests of oil (and don't think for a minute that Britain isn't complicit on this) is an overwhelming case for action, if not invasion. The U.S. could have, and possibly should have, accomplished its goals without a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Something akin to Afganistan comes to mind.

As far as the Bush administration trying to control the news media in all of this, well, what administration doesn't attenpt to do so. However, the news media is more controlled by dirty laundry and ratings than the federal government. Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson are cases in point. Believe me, if the media had a story of a major conspiracy in the Bush administration, it would be all over it. What Europeans need to remember is this; money makes the world go 'round. If Iraq did not have oil, Hussein would not have had the money to be a threat and the U.S. would likely do nothing but protest a tyrant's actions in the halls of the UN. Look at Rwanda, Sudan, etc... .

The U.S. is the leader of the free world because there can be no freedom without ecomomic freedom. This applies to nations as well as individuals. Like it or not, the U.S. is the strongest, richest, and most free society on Earth and aims to keep it that way. America likes to claim the moral high ground, and many times it can. On the flip side of that, the U.S. is woefully remiss in it's moral responsibilities to many nations, if it's going to play policeman. The truth is that the U.S. will usually only police what it has interests in. Exceptions are the intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. Unfortunately, President Clinton did not have full conviction of his actions, unlike president Bush, and so his responses did not accomplish what they could have. For example, thousands were "ethnically cleansed" in Kosovo while the U.S. military was ordered by Mr. Clinton to sit back at the borders.

In closing, I agree with the original thread position that there is no major conspiracy at hand, either in the news media, or in goverment. It's too easy to suggest conspiracy without any real proof. The United States policies are driven primarily by economics, not conspiracy. Are there back door dealings, you bet, but that does not a conspiracy make! The news media has dumbed itself down to the Neilsen ratings and likely will stay there.

Quote:

"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

BTW, Mr. Rogers was a U.S. Navy SEAL. Just thought you might like to know that.

http://www.constitutionparty.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 27, 2005 4:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, to summarize:

of course corporations determine US policy to some degree (considering they are artificial people and the US is 'of by and for the People' and all that, it makes sense)

to do anything you have to have a strong economy (Out of curiosity, remembering back to the days of the Clinton surplus, do you think the economy is stronger or weaker since Bush took office?)

Bush is doing what he thinks is right (even if he has to lie about it)

Hussein was a nasty man! AND and an imminent threat! Well maybe not imminent, but evil-minded for sure. (though made toothless by UN sanctions, of course)

so what if the administration is trying to control the press! everybody else does it (who needs free speech anyway!)

the US is the strongest richest, freest nation in the world (not counting the bums, and, oh, that the US press is ranked 24th in freedom)

though to be sure the US is remiss in its role (as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner)

and, back door dealings do not a conspiracy make! (though it leaves it open for debate as to what it would take to qualify)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 1:45 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

...and in the lies, damn lies, and statistics category, the winner is...

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
so what if the administration is trying to control the press! everybody else does it (who needs free speech anyway!)

the US is the strongest richest, freest nation in the world (not counting the bums, and, oh, that the US press is ranked 24th in freedom)

Ohhh. Sounds pretty damning. 24th in press freedom. Must be right down there with North Korea and Zimbabwe.

Afraid not. That's 24th out of 194 countires, and still rated by Freedom House as a Free press. On a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being best, we rate a 17, ahead of such notables as the U.K., France, and Germany, plus 167 others.

If you want the whole story, rather than a slightly slanted peek through Rue's filter, look here: http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey.htm

Interestingly, one of the major issues that Freedom House reports with U.S. press freedom is the subpoenas and contempt of court charges used against reporters who refused to reveal their sources concerning the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Sort of a lose-lose situation for some here.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:25 AM

HKCAVALIER

I'm finding it so hard to participate in this board this week. A spirit of ambush seems to have taken hold of the board; the whole, "Ha-ha! I have you now!" kind of discourse. Everybody's Socrates proving their points by reading between the lines of their foes. Somebody here says that "America is the leader of the free world." Somebody else says, "Leader? Well, we're 24th in press freedom." Now, somebody says, "Hey, you're saying we're as bad as North Korea, but we even beat out France!"

Argh. Yeesh. Whatever. Rue was refuting the part about being "freest," there was no implication that America wasn't free at all. "Must be right down there with North Korea and Zimbabwe." WTF? Who is gonna jump to that conclusion? Who's thinking these thoughts (other than Gino--just kidding

) Oh, I forgot, the Left hates America, of course. We all think Bush is Hitler and the Antichrist combined. Outstanding. Carry on.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:28 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
We all think Bush is Hitler and the Antichrist combined.

Nah, that's the one who gave the final word on canceling Firefly.

I think that in the liveliness of the debates we sometimes forget that we're all here for pretty much the same reason.
In that way we really are like a family, you know, you always come down harder on those you're close to than perfect strangers? ( the phrase 'perfect strangers' itself refers to the fact that people are perfect until you get to know them, then they're just human.)

Group hug promotin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Okay, so I was obviously wrong about the conspiracy thing.

Quote:
UK, US 'caused Zimbabwe droughts'

A state-run newspaper in Zimbabwe has suggested the UK and US are to blame for droughts in southern Africa.
The Herald said climate change has been artificially induced "in a bid to arm-twist the region to capitulate to the whims of the world's superpowers".

It said weather was being manipulated for political gain using unspecified "unconventional" chemical weapons.

It is widely seen as a mouthpiece for President Robert Mugabe's government, correspondents say.

It said recent droughts, which defied predictions by the Zimbabwean government and the Southern African Development Community's Drought Monitoring Centre, pointed to the possibility of the weather being manipulated for political purposes.

"The overt and covert machinations by Zimbabwe's former colonial ruler Britain, which has declared its intentions to effect illegal regime change in Harare, have given credence to the conspiracy theory," the paper said.

It said that the US Famine Early Warning System had predicted famine in Zimbabwe six months before it occurred.

"The prediction, which was the exact opposite of other forecasts, seems to confirm that the conspiracy to remove the Zimbabwean government has gone chemical."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4630443.stm

Who would doubt the Herald?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, are you trying to put that whole news article in Rue's mouth? (Along with Zimbabwe and North Korea?) Whatever happened to your reasoned and articulate discussions?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:15 AM

CHRISISALL

Okay, that was pretty funny. Even a conspiracy dude such as myself has got to have a hard time with that one LOL.
Thanks.

Ain't that dopey Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:19 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatever happened to your reasoned and articulate discussions?

I think he was aiming to be funny.
At least, that's how I took it.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah, I missed the emoticon!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 5:23 PM

SEVEREN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, to summarize:

of course corporations determine US policy to some degree (considering they are artificial people and the US is 'of by and for the People' and all that, it makes sense)

Are you trying to say say the people in the U.S. are artificial? It's alway's the liberals who resort to personal insults!

Quote:

to do anything you have to have a strong economy (Out of curiosity, remembering back to the days of the Clinton surplus, do you think the economy is stronger or weaker since Bush took office?)

Once again, you miss the point. Regardless of which administration had/has the stronger economy the truth remains that any successful president does. For the sake of discussion, I'll accept that the the economy was better under Clinton, but what does that have to do with conspiracies in the press or in government? I merely said U.S policy is driven, in large part, by economics.

Quote:

Bush is doing what he thinks is right (even if he has to lie about it)

Hussein was a nasty man! AND and an imminent threat! Well maybe not imminent, but evil-minded for sure. (though made toothless by UN sanctions, of course)

Hussein was not toothless and was actively rebuilding his military after the UN made sure he received billions of dollars from the "oil for food" program/scandal.

Quote:

so what if the administration is trying to control the press! everybody else does it (who needs free speech anyway!)

Attemtping to influence what the press prints is not taking away free speech. I was saying that the news media is a group of corporations, about six major ones, and are manipulated by government no matter who the sitting president is.

Quote:

the US is the strongest richest, freest nation in the world (not counting the bums, and, oh, that the US press is ranked 24th in freedom)

Since when does freedom of the press equate to individual freedom, necessarily? Yes, it is necessary, but that is not the only mearsure. Are you saying the U.S. does not offer more freedom than any nation on Earth? I didn't think so!

Quote:

though to be sure the US is remiss in its role (as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner)

Hussein was judged by the UN with resolution 1441. But, since the UN has no teeth without America, the U.S. must enforce the law.

Quote:

and, back door dealings do not a conspiracy make! (though it leaves it open for debate as to what it would take to qualify)

A conspiracy, by definition, implies cooperation of the entities involved to meet a common goal. Back door dealings are just a politcian's way to get what he wants for himself or his constituents, or his political party. It's bartering with political capital and is usually manifested in dollars somehow. Congress and the president rarely cooperate, Republicans and Democrats rarely see eye-to-eye, and the press and goverment are usually adversarial at best. Where is the conspiracy?

http://www.constitutionparty.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE