Freethought & Rationalism Archive

admice · 03-12-2003, 10:21 AM

http://www.fair.org/

Here's a good link to get media critiques. Also, look at Nader's letter in Boston review http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR18.2/nader.html

People are doing things to change it.

emphryio · 03-13-2003, 01:05 PM

Well thank you Admice. There's some good stuff in those links. (Already knew of FAIR.)

Quote:

To give the audience access to the airwaves that it already owns, Congress should create a new broadcast vehicle, the Audience Network. A national, nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization, Audience Network would be granted one hour of prime-time television and one hour of drive-time radio on every commercial channel each day. It would function as a separate licensee, airing diverse programming shaped by the membership, which would be open to all citizens over age 16 for a nominal fee (say, $10 annually). In addition, Audience Network would represent consumer interests before the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.), Congress, and the courts. This would redress the long-standing disenfranchisement that millions of viewers and listeners have suffered under the current regulatory regime.

Assuming he keeps running. I'll keep voting for him. (Nader, that is.) Other than that, I'd like to think I can do something more useful than write letters to congressmen.

Grumpy · 03-13-2003, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by emphryio
[B]I seriously wonder, "Would the media cover a demonstration against itself?"

I asked my assignment editor this question today (thinking of this thread). He said we would. Actually, he said, "Why wouldn't we?"

emphryio · 03-13-2003, 03:55 PM

Grumpy,
What level of news coverage is this that you do?
Are you aware of Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman?
excerpts
BTW, no one here is suggesting a conspiracy.

BTW, the answer to "Why wouldn't we?" Is kind of complicated, and I'm not sure they wouldn't cover it. But one answer would be not covering it because they wouldn't want to destroy their own credibility.

But such a simple answer suggest a large media conspiracy. And I don't believe there are any media conspiracies. Well not beyond this sort of thing at least. If you would call that a sort of conspiracy.

slept2long · 03-16-2003, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emphryio

There's different ways of looking at it, but for instance:

The corporate subversion of our democracy cannot be overcome until we get rid of corporate personhood. Possibly corporate personhood can't be overcome until the Greens basically take over the legislature and executive branch, (and probably get some new Supreme court judges in.) The Greens will flat out never get into office without instant runoff voting.

I agree. But corparations don't have it do they? I thought it was a typo in a supreme court decision? I don't like the idea of introducing ANOTHER political party as the solution to the problem. It's just another open wound to get infected to me. Can't really say I would support banning them either so I guess I am stuck with that dissonance.

Quote:

But instant runoff voting is never mentioned by the corporate media. (Of course corporate personhood never is either.)

Isn't that where a new vote is held between the candidates that are really close? Or is it where you hold a run off unless someone's got a majority. I think either is a good idea regardless.

Quote:

Also the media will probably never be changed until the Greens have a majority. But etc. catch 22.

The media is the best link to attack. The alternative of trying to do it, one person at a time, I fear will never get the job done.

Of course the media has managed to be spectacularly silent about the continuing huge protests against globalization. Still I fnd it hard to believe they could completely not mention consistent protest against theirselves.

Since you keep mentioning Greens I'll give them a look. I had heard they were just a mess as an organization but I heard it from the mainstream media.

Which do you think would be a more worthy group to cover. Those who think the media is full of it or those who think the media are wondeful truth sayers? I take back my inference that they wouldn't cover it. They would just like they covered the Venezuela fiasco. Hardly at all.

I don't doubt they'd cover it but the coverage would be right up there with Seattle and other protests against globalization. Total misrepresentation of the facts. Why set yourself up for that? I say fuck the corparate media. They do a greater disservice to the viewers and readers than a million Coulters or O'reilly's because of the status they have attained in the world. As messengers of truth and fair and balanced reporting or what not they fail miserably but we still want them to help us show the world how there full of shit? I don't disagree that it'd be great to have them uncover how worthless there news is to the whole world but I doubt they'd do as good a job as is called for.

Slept2long

RED DAVE · 03-16-2003, 04:37 AM

Apropos of the above:

The Firing of Phil Donohue

By the way, if anyone thinks that arch-hawk John McCain is the solution to anything, they are sadly mistaken.

McCain and the War

RED DAVE

slept2long · 03-16-2003, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by admice
You guys say some of this to exempt yourselves from having to DO anything about it. But you HAVE to do something about it. It is your responsibility as a citizen.

I know, I know. I try and do things about his situation. Hell, I print a fucking newpaper for a living (circ.~220,000) and always bring up things in the paper to people I work with and you know what the most common response is besides "What's the conspiracy about again?" is "It doesn't matter. They're(pols) just gonna do what they want. You just gotta keep the nuts like Nader out of office. He wants to change everything. It's(The system) all broken to him. If it was really that bad it would've fallen apart already."

That's why I think face to face meetings or discussions, I guess BB's are the equivalent, are more important and better than using the propaganda machine to do the dirty work for us. There are just to many myths to dispell to fit into a quick interview. And besides people need to really believe and see others believeing before they'll catch on.

Quote:

Have any of you read the constitution and amendments all the way thru? DO so. IT was meant to be a participatory Democracy.

Is that why so few people were originally allowed to vote? I have read it many times. I sometimes wonder if the country we are living in today IS what the FF's had in mind since it's all been acomplished under that document.

BTW can anyone think of the name of the collection of notes that were taken during the constitutional convention? I swear I've read about it or something similar.

Quote:

There are others in power besides the Greens that are defending our rights and trying to curtail corruption. Patty Murray, John Mccain. There are others. I haven't researched them all. Plus many organizations. Give money, volunteer, but quit assuming you can't do anything. I know 1 congressperson stacks up yeas and nays regarding an issue and votes based upon how high the stack of letters is.

I read something here once that made me think of McCain as a asshole. Something about stopping the truth or that the purpose of some bill he was supporting was to limit the information that got out. I think it was with regard to campaign finance or something. I'd search II but I guess we can't do that because of traffic or something. I'll look into him and the FCC vote coming up.

Quote:

Apathy is as dispicable as the perpertrators. (ok, I'm really riled up now, but the point is valid)

I agree. And thanks for the link above on deregulation I enjoyed it.

Slept2long

slept2long · 03-16-2003, 04:56 AM

From the link
Red Dave posted.

"It's not a coincidence that this decision comes the same week that MSNBC announces its hired Dick Armey as a commentator and has both Jesse Ventura and Michael Savage joining the network as hosts. They're scared, and they decided to take the coward's road and slant towards the conservative crowd that watch Fox News."

bold mine

Ventura!!! Mister religion and being fat is for weak people? I'll start planning his farewell party now. I do look forward to seeing him though as I usually agree with him.

From the other
link Dave posted.

"These critics also object because our weapons do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Did the much less discriminating bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo in World War II make that conflict unjust? Despite advances in our weaponry intended to minimize the loss of innocent life, some civilian casualties are inevitable. But far fewer will perish than in past wars. Far fewer will perish than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the constant use of lethal violence. Far fewer will perish than might otherwise because American combatants will accept greater risk to their own lives to prevent civilian deaths. "

Of course they don't dicriminate in who they kill.

"The critics also have it wrong when they say that the strategy by the United States for the opening hours of the conflict -- likely to involve more than 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours -- is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi people. It is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military and to dissuade Iraqi leaders from using weapons of mass destruction against our forces or against neighboring countries, and from committing further atrocities against the Iraqi people. "

But they do discriminate against who they demoralize. Ooops it doesn't say that. It says it intends to only demoralize the military personel. Cleaver trick. Discuss the fact that civilians will die because a bomb doesn't know who it explodes next to but immediatly say dropping huge amounts of them isn't MEANT to demoralize the citizens only military officers and personel.

Does anyone else notice this linguistic slight of hand. I have noticed it before in other articles I've seen.

Good links Dave.

Slept2long

RED DAVE · 03-16-2003, 05:28 AM

And lest we forget the absolute proliferation of White men on the networks. In the shadow of the war, the issue of race is becoming eclipsed. Over 65% of African americans oppose the war.

RED DAVE

slept2long · 03-16-2003, 05:43 AM

What about other minorities as well as whites? Poorly worded sentence. I don't think whites are a minotrity. What percentage of them oppose it? Got a link for the other number that's interesting?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2003, 10:21 AM	#11
admice Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S Cal Posts: 327	http://www.fair.org/ Here's a good link to get media critiques. Also, look at Nader's letter in Boston review http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR18.2/nader.html People are doing things to change it.

03-13-2003, 03:55 PM	#14
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	Grumpy, What level of news coverage is this that you do? Are you aware of Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman? excerpts BTW, no one here is suggesting a conspiracy. BTW, the answer to "Why wouldn't we?" Is kind of complicated, and I'm not sure they wouldn't cover it. But one answer would be not covering it because they wouldn't want to destroy their own credibility. But such a simple answer suggest a large media conspiracy. And I don't believe there are any media conspiracies. Well not beyond this sort of thing at least. If you would call that a sort of conspiracy.

03-16-2003, 04:37 AM	#16
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Apropos of the above: The Firing of Phil Donohue By the way, if anyone thinks that arch-hawk John McCain is the solution to anything, they are sadly mistaken. McCain and the War RED DAVE

03-16-2003, 04:56 AM	#18
slept2long Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 1,066	From the link Red Dave posted. "It's not a coincidence that this decision comes the same week that MSNBC announces its hired Dick Armey as a commentator and has both Jesse Ventura and Michael Savage joining the network as hosts. They're scared, and they decided to take the coward's road and slant towards the conservative crowd that watch Fox News." bold mine Ventura!!! Mister religion and being fat is for weak people? I'll start planning his farewell party now. I do look forward to seeing him though as I usually agree with him. From the other link Dave posted. "These critics also object because our weapons do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Did the much less discriminating bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo in World War II make that conflict unjust? Despite advances in our weaponry intended to minimize the loss of innocent life, some civilian casualties are inevitable. But far fewer will perish than in past wars. Far fewer will perish than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the constant use of lethal violence. Far fewer will perish than might otherwise because American combatants will accept greater risk to their own lives to prevent civilian deaths. " Of course they don't dicriminate in who they kill. "The critics also have it wrong when they say that the strategy by the United States for the opening hours of the conflict -- likely to involve more than 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours -- is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi people. It is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military and to dissuade Iraqi leaders from using weapons of mass destruction against our forces or against neighboring countries, and from committing further atrocities against the Iraqi people. " But they do discriminate against who they demoralize. Ooops it doesn't say that. It says it intends to only demoralize the military personel. Cleaver trick. Discuss the fact that civilians will die because a bomb doesn't know who it explodes next to but immediatly say dropping huge amounts of them isn't MEANT to demoralize the citizens only military officers and personel. Does anyone else notice this linguistic slight of hand. I have noticed it before in other articles I've seen. Good links Dave. Slept2long

03-16-2003, 05:28 AM	#19
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	And lest we forget the absolute proliferation of White men on the networks. In the shadow of the war, the issue of race is becoming eclipsed. Over 65% of African americans oppose the war. RED DAVE

03-16-2003, 05:43 AM	#20
slept2long Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 1,066	What about other minorities as well as whites? Poorly worded sentence. I don't think whites are a minotrity. What percentage of them oppose it? Got a link for the other number that's interesting?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.