PDA

View Full Version : Us Versus Iraq



H.H.
05-29-2003, 06:54 PM
It is still going on, isn't it.
THAT was supposed to be a quickly-in-and-quickly-out-war with no friendly casualties.....
well THAT sounds too much like Korea or Vietnam ... too close for comfort, anyway...
WHAT will Mr. Bush think up next? The Neutron-Bomb?
I guess he fell a foot or two away from the apple-tree.

Well.... it all DOES add some exitement to our lives

We all have to go to sleep wondering will the terrorists drop a 747 onto our heads FIRST or will Mr. Bush Junior push the Big Red Button ...and blow us all to the kingdom come from this sorry land of misfortunes....

Nice choices, BOTH of them.... personally I'm not very keen on either one.

So...on THAT note... good night and SLEEP TIGHT!

.... and PEACE!!!

H.H. ;)

clocker
05-29-2003, 07:00 PM
Well, H.H., that took no time at all did it?
One day and 12 posts and already you've jumped into the deep end.
Welcome.
Do you own any Nomex underwear?
Are you prepared to be subjected to intense scrutiny and even stunning condescention?
Get thyself girded and once again, welcome.

clocker
05-29-2003, 07:07 PM
By the way H.H.-

How severe is the threat of terrorism in Finland?

Have you had incidents that went unreported over here in complacent, self-absorbed America?

What was the Finnish government's official stance on our incursion?

What is your take on the pulse of the Finnish populace in general?

Outside of being thrilled to death that we buy so many Nokia phones, how are Americans percieved over/up there?

Inquiring minds want to know...

cyprushil
05-29-2003, 07:45 PM
I would'nt say out right how I feel about the connection between terrorism in the States and war in Iraq
to do so might cause offence, Also theres no direct proof - As yet.

However I will quote Hermann Goering

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in any country."

j2k4
05-29-2003, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by cyprushil@29 May 2003 - 14:45
I would'nt  say out right how I feel about the connection between terrorism in the States and war in Iraq
to do so might cause offence, Also theres no direct proof - As yet.

However I will quote Hermann Goering

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in any country."
OOOOOOOOHHH!!!

Do I wish I wasn't just thrashed for time right now!

Cyprushil-

Old Hermann was absolutely correct as regards Germany in the late '30s, when all media consisted of state-controlled newspapers and radio (much less widely propagated but still state-controlled).

Things are a bit different today, are they not?

Re: the latent urge of some to compare Bush to Adolph Hitler-I HAVE read "Mein Kampf", and oddly enough, there is no similarity of circumstance there, either.

Indeed, where are we when the perspective of history is so twisted the commentary devolves to comparisons of the U.S. and Hitler's Germany?

Oh, well-

Cyprushil, I suggest you take the intervening time I'm going to allow you to further develop your, um, case-perhaps our new guest H.H. will deign to render his aid in this foolish enterprise; when I return, I will either arrive in time to apply the final flame, or sweep up the residue. (Depends on my schedule).

I sincerely hope you enjoy the forum-WELCOME!!

P.S.-remember to keep your hands up and defend yourself at all times; also pay attention to posture and punctuation-THANKS!

cyprushil
05-29-2003, 09:30 PM
J2k4

Firstly I'm sorry if my use of English Grammer was not up to sratch, I've been speaking, writing and reading in a Ponetic Lanuage for the last 18 months, so I guess my Mother Tougue has suffered without me noticing. Thanks for pointing it out.

Secondly, If your busy schedule allows it why not have a search on the Internet for "9/11 Conspiracies", and you might some answers as to why I think the way I do.

Who knows, if your able to open your mind a little bit and forget the bullshit you've had pumped into you, you may find some questions you'd like answering yourself.

j2k4
05-29-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by cyprushil@29 May 2003 - 16:30
J2k4

Firstly I'm sorry if my use of English Grammer was not up to sratch, I've been speaking, writing and reading in a Ponetic Lanuage for the last 18 months, so I guess my Mother Tougue has suffered without me noticing. Thanks for pointing it out.

Secondly, If your busy schedule allows it why not have a search on the Internet for "9/11 Conspiracies", and you might some answers as to why I think the way I do.

Who knows, if your able to open your mind a little bit and forget the bullshit you've had pumped into you, you may find some questions you'd like answering yourself.
Quickly-
I wasn't demeaning your grammar, merely urging you to continue in your currently competent way; some post here with similar utility and commence to suffer a semantic "melt-down" once things heat up.

My caution was meant only to keep the potential misunderstandings (this being an international forum) to a minimum-we've had some ugly exchanges over such things, all due to the variety which makes this such a special place.

Without going too much further at the moment (it's a day off for me, I've got some chorin' to do), I will note for you that to study conspiracies of any type, other than to gather pure knowledge about "conspiracies" proper, is a recipe for disaster if done as preparation for debate.

Simply put, one does not seek "answers" by studying conspiracies.

As far as opening my mind, it has been open all my life; all that resides therein was carefully placed there by yours truly-I "pump" my own.
It helps to know where to find good info; it helps even more to know what to do with it once you obtain it.

As far as bullshit goes, I steer around it, otherwise it gets tracked around where other people can find it, thus fertilizing their ignorance. ;)

hobbes
05-29-2003, 10:30 PM
How come everybody else gets all the "real" news and we in the the US are spoonfed lies by our government controlled media.

Where do they get the assurance that they are not listening to lies as fostered by their media and their agendas.

I laugh at this consistent trait among posters of this type. They have the real dope, we only know lies. Sure, whatever you need to believe to keep your reality alive.

Here in the US, I find that Government channel #1 is all I need for the TRUE FACTS 24/7. After all, it is our only source of media, right.

Rat Faced
05-29-2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+29 May 2003 - 20:14--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 May 2003 - 20:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--cyprushil@29 May 2003 - 14:45
I would&#39;nt say out right how I feel about the connection between terrorism in the States and war in Iraq
to do so might cause offence, Also theres no direct proof - As yet.

However I will quote Hermann Goering

"Naturally the common people don&#39;t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in any country."
OOOOOOOOHHH&#33;&#33;&#33;

Do I wish I wasn&#39;t just thrashed for time right now&#33;

Cyprushil-

Old Hermann was absolutely correct as regards Germany in the late &#39;30s, when all media consisted of state-controlled newspapers and radio (much less widely propagated but still state-controlled).

Things are a bit different today, are they not?

Re: the latent urge of some to compare Bush to Adolph Hitler-I HAVE read "Mein Kampf", and oddly enough, there is no similarity of circumstance there, either.

Indeed, where are we when the perspective of history is so twisted the commentary devolves to comparisons of the U.S. and Hitler&#39;s Germany?

Oh, well-

Cyprushil, I suggest you take the intervening time I&#39;m going to allow you to further develop your, um, case-perhaps our new guest H.H. will deign to render his aid in this foolish enterprise; when I return, I will either arrive in time to apply the final flame, or sweep up the residue. (Depends on my schedule).

I sincerely hope you enjoy the forum-WELCOME&#33;&#33;

P.S.-remember to keep your hands up and defend yourself at all times; also pay attention to posture and punctuation-THANKS&#33; [/b][/quote]
Well actually, Blaire could declare war without Parliament behind him, never mind the populace...(He can use whats called &#39;the Queens Prorogative&#39;....which means he can declare war etc etc...exactly the same as the monarch could in the past, over-riding the Houses of Parliament)

The UK will stick by its troops...and so yes, he would be dragging th epopulation behind him.

And this isnt a State with controlled newspapers, radio and television.


:P

myfiles3000
05-30-2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@29 May 2003 - 23:30
How come everybody else gets all the "real" news and we in the the US are spoonfed lies by our government controlled media.

Where do they get the assurance that they are not listening to lies as fostered by their media and their agendas.

I laugh at this consistent trait among posters of this type. They have the real dope, we only know lies. Sure, whatever you need to believe to keep your reality alive.

Here in the US, I find that Government channel #1 is all I need for the TRUE FACTS 24/7. After all, it is our only source of media, right.
there&#39;s more value to the argument that you give credit for, hobbes. there are lots of reasons why US media is more narrow, conservative, homogenous than that of other states. Have you spent some time abroad? the difference in media coverage is unmistakable.

hobbes
05-30-2003, 12:59 AM
Well, I have listened to the Iraqi information minister if that is what you mean.

Also, I like the Pakistani press. They put on the front page that the US had used nuclear weapons against Iraq and was planning to attack Pakistan next.

There is so much shit out there, how can you definitively know what is unmitigated truth.

In America, we have dissenting opinions about the war, and both sides have outlets for their viewpoints.

Everybody has an agenda, everyone spins the truth, as J2K4 said, it is all about "filtering" the information to discover the truth.

clocker
05-30-2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@29 May 2003 - 18:46

there&#39;s more value to the argument that you give credit for, hobbes. there are lots of reasons why US media is more narrow, conservative, homogenous than that of other states. Have you spent some time abroad? the difference in media coverage is unmistakable.
I&#39;m not in agreement with you on that point at all,files.

But it&#39;s really irrelevant anyway.

Thanks to the miracle of modern technology I can access media information from anywhere in the world. I can be exposed to international bias.
I must agree with hobbes.
Until shown otherwise, I will simply assume that your sources are as biased as you accuse ours of being.
Prove me wrong.

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-30-2003, 01:48 AM
Every single day I get more impressed with you guys.
Your all just out looking for a good fight.
When I first came here and read some of the opinions I got so mad that I just lashed out.
You all saw that, and it didn&#39;t matter all that much what you believed, you came after me and MADE me defend my position.
It was rough too and only a few reluctantly(because of the language) came to my defense.
This really is great stuff sometimes&#33;

myfiles3000
05-30-2003, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by clocker+30 May 2003 - 02:32--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 30 May 2003 - 02:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000@29 May 2003 - 18:46

there&#39;s more value to the argument that you give credit for, hobbes. there are lots of reasons why US media is more narrow, conservative, homogenous than that of other states. Have you spent some time abroad? the difference in media coverage is unmistakable.
I&#39;m not in agreement with you on that point at all,files.

But it&#39;s really irrelevant anyway.

Thanks to the miracle of modern technology I can access media information from anywhere in the world. I can be exposed to international bias.
I must agree with hobbes.
Until shown otherwise, I will simply assume that your sources are as biased as you accuse ours of being.
Prove me wrong. [/b][/quote]
well, this is a huge topic, so to start from scratch is daunting, especially since my background is in media. but perhaps we can begin with the rather uncontentious point that american politics is the, or at least one of the, most homogenous in the West. I&#39;ve recently posted on this, to the effect that there&#39;s no viable communist, fascist, nationalist, etc parties -- you&#39;ve got yours Ds and your Rs. This isn&#39;t meant as a criticism of american politics necessarily, just a neutral observation.

and just out of curiosity -- have you spent time abroad, ie, at least a couple of weeks consecutively outside of NAFTA territory? I think those that have will offer much less resistance to my statements.

hobbes
05-30-2003, 02:23 AM
I think the Iraqi information minister is outside of NAFTA. He was spot on. Wish we could get this kind of unbiased reporting here.

I think Pakistan also is outside these boundaries.

clocker
05-30-2003, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@29 May 2003 - 20:17


and just out of curiosity -- have you spent time abroad, ie, at least a couple of weeks consecutively outside of NAFTA territory? I think those that have will offer much less resistance to my statements.
I spent summers in Europe (all over) for five consecutive years.

I do remember that you guys have more tits in the newspaper than we do.

sArA
05-30-2003, 02:39 AM
Of course, the greatest problem with any amount of information, particularly since the Internet, is that we suffer from information overload....

What this essentially means, is that whilst there is a wealth of viewpoints, stances, and opinions &#39;out there&#39;, the difficulty is differentiating the true from the not so true.

So...as the US is one of the most wired in the world...access to this information is relatively easy for those wishing to look...the problem of course is sifting through the chaff....essentially, we have to make our own minds up, and even if we think we are well informed, it can only be as far as our research to date combined with a few preconceptions.

Americans, Europeans....all have access to it....its the interpretation that is the issue and the problem. There will allways be those willing to take the side they are most comfortable believing, and those who are looking for a radical take...majority opinion is not necessarily the right one any more than the minority.

Ahh well......perception is as always.....subjective....I think therefore I have an opinion&#33;

myfiles3000
05-30-2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by hobbes@30 May 2003 - 03:23
I think the Iraqi information minister is outside of NAFTA. He was spot on. Wish we could get this kind of unbiased reporting here.

I think Pakistan also is outside these boundaries.
hobbes, don&#39;t be daft. for one thing, I&#39;m comparing, rightly i should think, the media of the US with other DEMOCRACIES, namely in the West. To point to systems that are worse, ie iraq (totalitarian) and pakistan (pseudo-democratic, and on the brink of war for years) is not advancing your argument against mine.

Anyway, can we at least agree that American politics is more homogenous than other western democracies? I making a good faith effort to find some scrap of common ground from which to proceed.

clocker
05-30-2003, 03:28 AM
Okay Myfiles.
For the sake of moving past this sticking point I am willing to stipulate that American politics are more homogenous than other western countries ( although how you get more homogenous than a monarchy I&#39;m not certain...).
So how does this pertain to our media access/media bias/general ignorance?

sArA
05-30-2003, 03:32 AM
I am not trying to be pedantic here, nor am I anti American... (you lovies&#33;) but the homogeneity of US politics in such a diverse country is perhaps one of the problems that is being discussed here....Of course, in politics the difficulty of reaching agreement in a hetergeneous state means that most people just go for the lesser of evils....in the case of the US this is 2...in other western nations...the 3rd or 4th choice often acts only as a protest vote for dissenters of the majority view and not a real choice per se.

Seems like we are all buggered then&#33; Hobsons choice&#33;

clocker
05-30-2003, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by sara5564@29 May 2003 - 21:32
....Of course, in politics the difficulty of reaching agreement in a hetergeneous state means that most people just go for the lesser of evils....in the case of the US this is 2...in other western nations...the 3rd or 4th choice often acts only as a protest vote for dissenters of the majority view and not a real choice per se.

&#33;
An interesting observation Sara.

Here in Denver the leading candidate for Mayor is a man who owns brewpubs. His primary asset ( as revealed in polling) is that he is not a insider/professional politician . He has never held any elected office.
The consensus seems to be ( and for transparency I&#39;ll admit he has my vote ) that he certainly can&#39;t fuck things up any worse than the pros have, so why not?
And he does make killer beer, of course.

The perception of homogenity breaks down below the national level, also. Local officials may be labeled Republican or Democrat but most often bend to currents felt only in their district/bailiwick. A Republican in Maine is quite a different animal than a Republican in Texas.

After our last national electoral debacle ( I&#39;ll leave Michael Moore out of this if you will, j2) I would be surprised if the third party candidate (Nader?) doesn&#39;t gain more strength (i.e. bargaining power) and over the course of say, the next 5 elections, present a real possibility of winning.

Back atcha, myfiles.

myfiles3000
05-30-2003, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by clocker@30 May 2003 - 04:28
Okay Myfiles.
For the sake of moving past this sticking point I am willing to stipulate that American politics are more homogenous than other western countries ( although how you get more homogenous than a monarchy I&#39;m not certain...).
So how does this pertain to our media access/media bias/general ignorance?
actually, i&#39;m not sure. I&#39;ll have to think about it. but i&#39;m pretty sure i have some brilliant things to say, if i can only get my bearings.
ps-i never said i was born in, or lived in a monarchy. my citizenship(s) is/are a closely guarded secret. fyi.

clocker
05-30-2003, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@29 May 2003 - 22:04

ps-i never said i was born in, or lived in a monarchy. my citizenship(s) is/are a closely guarded secret. fyi.
I never implied that you were.
I respect your Caped Crusader act. ;)

myfiles3000
05-30-2003, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by clocker@30 May 2003 - 05:02
After our last national electoral debacle ( I&#39;ll leave Michael Moore out of this if you will, j2) I would be surprised if the third party candidate (Nader?) doesn&#39;t gain more strength (i.e. bargaining power) and over the course of say, the next 5 elections, present a real possibility of winning.

Back atcha, myfiles.
aha. okay. here we go. its a big topic. where to start.

I would disagree with the idea that a party based on Nader&#39;s values would ever have a change of winning. Believe me, its not that I would mind particuarly, but it gets back to the USA being the only uberpower in the world (uberpower is my own word, i can&#39;t guarantee its in common usage anywhere). Much of my thinking about the world is rooted in the systemic limits over individual achievement, so for me, the election of a Rader-esque president would signal nothing less than a revolution. I don&#39;t use the word lightly. literally, a revolution, perhaps a peaceful one, but completely incompatible with the way the USA operates today.

Basically, my view of media can&#39;t really be evaluated without looking at the big picture. Now, this may appear very much like a cop-out, but i think such an approach is necessary. You can&#39;t really discuss media without addressing the business context, as the vast majority of media products are created, distributed and sold by corporations. Now, before the connotations of the C word get some people all excited, let me say that I believe in capitalism. So for me, "corporation" is a neutral word (believe me, if you knew who my current employer was, you&#39;d never question this assertion).

Nonetheless, if i continue on, likely someone will accuse me of a conspiracy theory. there&#39;s nothing i can do about that, i&#39;ll just move forward, with the hope that you&#39;ll actually give my world view some thought before out-right rejecting it.

Now, as I can&#39;t really discuss media without addressing the business context, it would be silly not to make note of a vital element of the US biz context: namely, that the US is the economic hyperuberpower of the world. Peerless.

Pop quiz: Macdonalds makes fast food, ford cars; what does nbc make?

echidna
05-30-2003, 04:54 AM
i don&#39;t think that the Goering quote was misplaced
it seems he was historically correct :: the cart follows the hands with the reins

peoples do seem to follow leaders to war

the allied governments all acquired and integrated axis technologies and methods very quickly after WWII [icbm, magnetic-tape, jet-tech]
beyond the specific black recruitments, no film/media/advertising student/professional worth half their salt wouldn&#39;t have studied Leni Riefenstahl who worked for Goering, and who invented many of your favourite shots from sports telecasts to car and beer ads
-- i am definitely not trying to tint advertising with national socialism

all media is biased. Just as people follow leaders to war corporations like GE [who sell many components for missiles & own NBC] know that war is great business, and seem willing to follow leaders to war too.

the most succinct way to understand how a diverse commercial media could foster propagandistic bias is for everyone to read this (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html); it&#39;s from a fascinating book of rigorous, academic, media case studies

Rat Faced
05-30-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by clocker@30 May 2003 - 03:28
Okay Myfiles.
For the sake of moving past this sticking point I am willing to stipulate that American politics are more homogenous than other western countries ( although how you get more homogenous than a monarchy I&#39;m not certain...).
So how does this pertain to our media access/media bias/general ignorance?
It depends upon the monarchy.

The Queen in the UK has a lot of power, IN THEORY.

The Queen is unable to use any of this power.

The Royal Family is removed from politics, and any Royal that utters anything that can be taken as giving an opinion in a political sense is hauled through the coals.



The Prime Minister can use the Powers that in theory are reserved for the monarch, he therefore has more &#39;Power&#39; than the President of the USA (in a purely relative sense obviously).


The &#39;Monarchy&#39; therefore are completely removed from any politics in a Constitutional Monarchy. They sign papers that Parliament/Prime Minister lays before them and are a tourist attraction and tradition.

They are also &#39;ambassadors&#39; for the country.


The other type of Monarchy, absolute....OK we&#39;ll agree on that one.

cyprushil
05-30-2003, 10:14 AM
I stand by the original Hermann Goering quote.

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked"

The whole point of war in Iraq was to protect the British and American people from Sadam Hussians WMD, to date no such weapons have been found.

It was also billed as the "War on Terror"

During the war, I watched a US Soldier being interviewed on CNN, he said he wanted to fight in Iraq to and get some "payback" for the 9/11 attacks.

The link between Hussian and the terroist attacks has never been proven.
yet it was openly banded about by US Officals to the point that a majoity of Americans belived it to be truth. (I did see figures for this, I will try to them find again and post the link)

Look at the way the US Government has manipulated the media during the War. The Jessica Lynch Story, and why wer&#39;nt the Pictures of the American Prisoners of war shown? I saw them, (Ogrish.com) They wer&#39;nt shown because as soon as the American Public started see bodies in bin bags support for the war would be lost.

I am not anti American, I live in a country with a fairly large American Ex Pat Community, and have made some great friends, I often disuss with them the issues that I see in this forum. One of them once said " Here you will met two type&#39;s of American, Those that have lived here for some time, and those that have just arrived".

I&#39;m not denying that Saddam Hussian was a ruthless evil man who needed to be ousted. What I object to is the way in which the case for war was made.

clocker
05-30-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@29 May 2003 - 22:20


Pop quiz: Macdonalds makes fast food, ford cars; what does nbc make?
POP QUIZ

What does NBC make?

a.) Tom Brokaw comfortable

b.) "Good things for life"

c.) Money

answer : erm, C?*


I assume you&#39;re referring to the National Broadcasting Corp. and not the National Bank of Canada- cause, like, dude, that would change everything

myfiles3000
05-30-2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@30 May 2003 - 05:20
Pop quiz: Macdonalds makes fast food, ford cars; what does nbc make?
NBC makes tv shows, generally speaking, or at least makes them available to their viewing audience. But programming is NOT their primary product, and not where most of their money comes from. The only point of bothering with Friends, ER, whatever is to create an audience that has commercial value to advertisers -- ie, programming is means to an end. In a strange kind of way that has no obvious parallels in other industries, advertising-based media create one thing (shows), and sell another (audiences).

For the record, its true that audiences do pay some media some amount of money (print media, cable, satellite, etc), but if memory serves correct, advertising revenue accounts for about 75-80% of total revenue. Which means that a lot of the more profitable media business could give away their content for free and still remain profitable.

Now, here&#39;s where we get into what someone out there is likely to discredit as conspiratorial: because media depend on advertisers as their primary source of revenue, they are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds, like any other business. Very generally speaking, the profit motive tends to compromise the coverage of certain topics, and influence the kind of content found in for-profit media, because doing an investigative report on how slimy your number one customer has acted is not in your best interest.

That&#39;s the basic point as regards what some call &#39;corporate media.&#39; i will elaborate as time permits.

clocker
05-30-2003, 01:26 PM
Okay Myfiles.
Let me save you some more time...

I&#39;m willing to stipulate that "corporate media" bends to the will of Money. Even "corporate media" reports on a fairly regular basis how some producer ( for a recent example see the brouhaha about the producer of "Hitler") got in hot water with the main office or some advertiser.
Have the big media corps of other countries achieved primacy by "biting the hand that feeds"?
Wasn&#39;t the BBC a goverment owned outlet altogether?

I will also stipulate that as a whole the American populace is woefully underinformed about world affairs.
But, in our increasingly media saturated environment, who isn&#39;t?
I&#39;m guessing ( and yes, it would have to be guess) that the general conversation in a British pub, a French bistro, an Italian trattoria or a German beerhall would all be indistinguishable if translated to Esperanto.
Soccer/football, taxes, tits and how crappy the job is.
So we&#39;re all sheep, so what?

hobbes
05-30-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by sara5564@30 May 2003 - 03:39
Of course, the greatest problem with any amount of information, particularly since the Internet, is that we suffer from information overload....

What this essentially means, is that whilst there is a wealth of viewpoints, stances, and opinions &#39;out there&#39;, the difficulty is differentiating the true from the not so true.

So...as the US is one of the most wired in the world...access to this information is relatively easy for those wishing to look...the problem of course is sifting through the chaff....essentially, we have to make our own minds up, and even if we think we are well informed, it can only be as far as our research to date combined with a few preconceptions.

Americans, Europeans....all have access to it....its the interpretation that is the issue and the problem. There will allways be those willing to take the side they are most comfortable believing, and those who are looking for a radical take...majority opinion is not necessarily the right one any more than the minority.

Ahh well......perception is as always.....subjective....I think therefore I have an opinion&#33;
So guys, you stay up past my bed time, but after reading Sara&#39;s quote, I thought she summed up my point quite nicely and so I turned in.

Those who live in America, via the internet, have access to media from sources all over the globe and therefore it is just a matter of personal investigation. We are not over here in a box with a dem. speaker on the left and a reb speaker on the right, we have as many speakers as we chose.

Myfiles, I beg you to bear with me if I misunderstand you, I&#39;m not a morning person. You seemed to be implying that our politcal homogeneity restricts the different perspectives our media sources will have on a subject. So instead of hearing about an event from the Rs and Ds, we would get several more points of view in your country.

It seems that 1 event with 5 different points of view and 5 different agendas, just leads you back to "filtering" additional data.

I would like to think news reflects reality and is not motivated by political or financial agendas, but alas.....

So back to the original poster, I have access to everything that he does via the internet, why does he think I am in the dark?

j2k4
05-30-2003, 02:41 PM
Ah-to sit back and merely read....

Beautifully done, one and all.

I would add only this:

In our two-party, media atrophied, homogeneous country, it seems we have an incredible amount of variety politically, culturally, and in our media, and unless I&#39;m terribly mistaken, movements are afoot (afeet?) to accomodate more every day.

Rat Faced
05-30-2003, 02:53 PM
Wasn&#39;t the BBC a goverment owned outlet altogether?


A popular misconception.

The government have no control over the BBC, except influence who is appointed Director General.


That appointment is via a multi-party committee, so no political party has any undue influence over the decision.

The BBC is financed, not by Taxes, but by the levy of an Annual License Fee to those that own Radios&#39;s and Televisons (even those that will never listen to a BBC broadcast)...thereby the government has no control over the purse strings either.

clocker
05-30-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 May 2003 - 08:53

Wasn&#39;t the BBC a goverment owned outlet altogether?


A popular misconception.


I stand corrected.
Thanks for the clarification.

At least my misconception was popular. :P

Rat Faced
05-30-2003, 03:12 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:

It is.

Its also annoying having to pay for 100&#39;s of channels you&#39;ll never watch/listen to....including the World Service and channels you cant even receive.


Personally, i think they should take advertising and COMPETE like everyone else.

myfiles3000
05-30-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by clocker@30 May 2003 - 14:26
Have the big media corps of other countries achieved primacy by "biting the hand that feeds"?

I will also stipulate that as a whole the American populace is woefully underinformed about world affairs.
But, in our increasingly media saturated environment, who isn&#39;t?
yes, the basic dynamics apply to all corp media. But as i intend to get into, there is a difference twn a danish media corp, for example, and an american media corp. First, the US exports an enormous amount of their cultural industry to the rest of the world, its BIG business, and these corps operate on a huge scale. just as importantly, media corps are owned by or own other corps in entirely different industries. The GE/NBC example is the most often cited, and for good reason: GE is HUGE, so is NBC, and its naive to think that NBC editorial isn&#39;t affected by the corporate ties. This was clearly demonstrated in the jeffrey wygand/big tobacco event, to show another example at a different network, where CBS was restricted in its news reporting by corporate deal-making considerations. This is not an anomolous event.

on a different matter, i think some clarification is needed on the issue of information overload. clocker attributes "media saturation" to a growing ignorance, whereas others have cited the information explosion as improving the general level of understanding.

My own view is that the majority of the content of the information explosion has been more of the same. The internet is an important difference, because smaller, previously poorly organized groups are now much better able to create communities. But here we&#39;re talking about politically active types, not mr. joe six pack.

Mr and Mrs. joe six pack are passive media consumers, as are something like 80 to 90% of the population. They do NOT seek out alternative media or international media. They turn on the tube and watch whatever&#39;s there. simply because people have the *opportunity* to gather information from a wide variety of sources obviously doesn&#39;t mean that they actually do. And most don&#39;t.


Now, this is more or less true around the world, and not an american-specific phenomenon, but here we get into the political climate in the states, and the relatively narrow spectrum of political opinion, which is reflected in the mass media. I could start citing academic studies if you prefer, but this really isn&#39;t a very contentious statement, its accepted that european politics are much more varied....when was the last time the US had a coaltion government, for example?

more later.

myfiles3000
05-30-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by hobbes@30 May 2003 - 14:29
It seems that 1 event with 5 different points of view and 5 different agendas, just leads you back to "filtering" additional data.

I would like to think news reflects reality and is not motivated by political or financial agendas, but alas.....
first, i&#39;d rather do the filtering myself than some institution, governmental or corporate or otherwise, which necessarily has institutional biases. I hardly think public debate can be enhanced by *narrowing* the spectrum of opinions competing in the marketplace of ideas.

Second, to suggest that news reflects reality is...just....crazy. Again, this is not a lefty idea, any media scholar worth his weight in trendy eyeglasses will tell you that news reality is a social construction. For example, there is a direct correlation between how much tv you watch, and your perceived risk of being a victim of violent crime. The heavy tv watchers have a horribly skewed perception, much worse than crime statistics bear out. But that&#39;s the reality they operate within. this is not limited to anecdotes: the world has far too many stories to report, so what ends up on the news follows a particular filtering process.

clocker
05-30-2003, 03:50 PM
Okay Myfiles.

I have ceded two major points and your eloquence/reasoning/exposition has been impeccable.
But...
Where are we headed here?
If you&#39;d like assert that the world is afflicted with a huge alphamale ape with a frighteningly persuasive Big Stick ( the US and WMD) I&#39;ll gladly cede you that point also.
And?
Let&#39;s hear a constructive proposal.
One that takes reality into account ( no linking of hands and singing "I&#39;d like to buy the world a Coke...")

Okay?

myfiles3000
05-30-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by clocker@30 May 2003 - 16:50
Okay Myfiles.

I have ceded two major points and your eloquence/reasoning/exposition has been impeccable.
But...
Where are we headed here?
If you&#39;d like assert that the world is afflicted with a huge alphamale ape with a frighteningly persuasive Big Stick ( the US and WMD) I&#39;ll gladly cede you that point also.
And?
Let&#39;s hear a constructive proposal.
One that takes reality into account ( no linking of hands and singing "I&#39;d like to buy the world a Coke...")

Okay?
i thought i already made the assertion, and the response was, yeah prove it (ie, narrow, superficial media in USA). that&#39;s what i&#39;m trying to do. Its not a simple topic, and it can&#39;t be addressed in 25 words or less. i&#39;m fleshing out the systemic reasons why politics in general, and more specifically as regards this thread, the media, is more narrow, more superficial, less dependable.

This is not to say that the nation is bereft of dependable journalism from all points on the spectrum -- as often has been said, the USA has the best and worst of everything. My focus is not on the intellectuals/social elites but on the average american media consumer and the average american citizen. They are less informed of world events, largely due to media that are less rigourous, and less critical than that of western counterparts, ie the average news agency, average television show, average viewing habits, etc.

i&#39;d say thats a mouthful, hopefully it qualifies as an assertion.

clocker
05-30-2003, 05:55 PM
OOps, sorry, you&#39;re right.

By all means then, continue.
At your leisure, of course.

remember to breathe in, breathe out...
care to brush up on your Lamaze technique?

hobbes
05-30-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+30 May 2003 - 16:27--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 30 May 2003 - 16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--hobbes@30 May 2003 - 14:29


I would like to think news reflects reality and is not motivated by political or financial agendas, but alas.....


Second, to suggest that news reflects reality is...just....crazy. Again, this is not a lefty idea, any media scholar worth his weight in trendy eyeglasses will tell you that news reality is a social construction. For example, there is a direct correlation between how much tv you watch, and your perceived risk of being a victim of violent crime. The heavy tv watchers have a horribly skewed perception, much worse than crime statistics bear out. But that&#39;s the reality they operate within. this is not limited to anecdotes: the world has far too many stories to report, so what ends up on the news follows a particular filtering process.[/b][/quote]
That is what the "but alas" was for. Yes, if the statement were to be interpreted at face value, it would be crazy.

Is a man not allowed to have an idealistic moment while sipping his moring coffee, only to be roused from this escapist interlude by the first crisis of the day.

The "but alas" acknowledges that I know my thoughts about the news being about truth are fantasy.

You must have been in a bad mood, that one was pretty obvious.

hekterskelter
05-31-2003, 02:54 PM
I think it would be best for us the U.S. to return to an isolationist government. The when what ever country in the world starts ww3 we could just wait for Great Brittian to beg us for help, that is after france is overrun of course. People just don&#39;t seem to realize as Amerucans we will do what we want. I think everyone in England would feel a lot different if one of your major places was destroyed right in frony of your eyes.

clocker
05-31-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by hekterskelter@31 May 2003 - 08:54
I think it would be best for us the U.S. to return to an isolationist government.
Best for who?

cyprushil
05-31-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by hekterskelter@31 May 2003 - 14:54
I think it would be best for us the U.S. to return to an isolationist government. The when what ever country in the world starts ww3 we could just wait for Great Brittian to beg us for help, that is after france is overrun of course. People just don&#39;t seem to realize as Amerucans we will do what we want. I think everyone in England would feel a lot different if one of your major places was destroyed right in frony of your eyes.
Ask any Brit if he/she thinks we would like the Help of the US Army.

Seeing as we lost several soldiers in both Gulf Wars to &#39;friendly&#39; US fire, sometimes in broad daylight with clearly marked vehicles.

I think most of us would answer with a resounding NO..

myfiles3000
05-31-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by hobbes@30 May 2003 - 22:25
You must have been in a bad mood, that one was pretty obvious.
quite right old boy, i did jump the gun. apologies.

but i would have written it anyway, as some people just don&#39;t realize just arbritrary the definition of "news" is. I, for one, could care less if some bus crashed half way around the world, some earthquake struck half way around the world, some hurricane destroyed a village half way around the world. this is politically useless information. there are agencies in place to provide aid. if you care about random disasters, by all means, join a club. but why the entire populace has to sit there and watch something they cand do nothing about, and has no connection to their own lives, is beyond me.

cheerio,

clocker
05-31-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@31 May 2003 - 10:22


but i would have written it anyway, as some people just don&#39;t realize just arbritrary the definition of "news" is. I, for one, could care less if some bus crashed half way around the world, some earthquake struck half way around the world, some hurricane destroyed a village half way around the world. this is politically useless information. there are agencies in place to provide aid. if you care about random disasters, by all means, join a club. but why the entire populace has to sit there and watch something they cand do nothing about, and has no connection to their own lives, is beyond me.

cheerio,
This is the problem with television news.
Being a visual medium they need something of interest to show you.
Most real news stories are just not that interesting to look at , hence the predominance of useless but watchable stories.
I agree with you, one bus crash/ ferry disaster ( why do people get on those things anymore? Seems like hardly a week passes without another 500 people drowning...) looks pretty much like another. And, although it&#39;s a tragedy for the locals involved, it&#39;s not really news per se.

So that would leave the print media.
And we all know how many folks (anywhere&#33;) read anymore...

MagicNakor
05-31-2003, 08:29 PM
"If it bleeds, it leads."

Edit:
...some people just don&#39;t realize just arbritrary the definition of "news" is. I, for one, could care less if some bus crashed half way around the world...

Well, the word "news" actually is just an acronym. When newspapers were first printed, they claimed to bring events from all four corners of the globe: north, east, west, and south. ;)

:ninja:

j2k4
06-01-2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@31 May 2003 - 15:29
"If it bleeds, it leads."

Edit:
...some people just don&#39;t realize just arbritrary the definition of "news" is. I, for one, could care less if some bus crashed half way around the world...

Well, the word "news" actually is just an acronym. When newspapers were first printed, they claimed to bring events from all four corners of the globe: north, east, west, and south. ;)

:ninja:
MN-

My assessment of your ongoing contribution is thus reinforced. B)

sArA
06-01-2003, 12:46 AM
Unfortunately...the problem with real &#39;news&#39; is that it is infinately boring to most people..

A good example is the introduction of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, that was snuck into the British statute books with barely a mention or a whimper in the press.....

It is a direct attack on our civil liberties, allowing imense powers of search, siezure and imprisonment to authorities seeking access to computerised and in particular encrypted information and communicationand yet the issues are just of little or no interest to the average &#39;Joe&#39;....unless they happen to be affected directly of course....

&#39;News&#39; media is merely another form of entertainment, with ratings and sensationalism being more important than the delivery of important information to the masses.....ho hum......

clocker
06-01-2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by sara5564@31 May 2003 - 18:46
Unfortunately...the problem with real &#39;news&#39; is that it is infinately boring to most people..

A good example is the introduction of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, that was snuck into the British statute books with barely a mention or a whimper in the press.....


Sad but true.

But surely Sara, you are confused about the country of origin of your example. Judging by the tenor of the board surely you are referring to the USofA?
Things like that only happen here in the sad, benighted,mongrel US, never in wise, enlightened, culturally mature Europe.

Please check your sources.
Otherwise, a lot of fingers currently pointed right up my nose will have to be redirected to their former homes up the pointer&#39;s asses.

myfiles3000
06-01-2003, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by clocker@1 June 2003 - 02:14
Things like that only happen here in the sad, benighted,mongrel US, never in wise, enlightened, culturally mature Europe.
i feel your pain.

sArA
06-01-2003, 01:42 AM
Ahhhh clocker.....the sad but true thing is that my example is correct...and that Britain is becoming less and less free.....(my sources are sound I suggest you check yours)

As for the UK as a mongrel nation how about our mixture of......Roman, Saxon, Norman......Indian, African, Bangladeshi, Polish, Arab....etc, etc,

Of course, as kissing cousins of the US, the UK are often considered in the same breath anyway....

Cultural maturity does not necessarily lead to sociological wisdom and it could be considered that the immaturity of the US is analogous to the senility of Europe.....and to take it one step further...how many adults and teenagers agree, and if considered from one step back, it is often easy to see both sides of the same argument.

Perhaps we should consider a more enlightened culture....say....Vulcan????

clocker
06-01-2003, 02:34 AM
Live long and prosper, Sara.

Rat Faced
06-01-2003, 11:22 AM
Sarah&#39;s Bill (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm)

For those that like reading Double Dutch.........

j2k4
06-01-2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by sara5564@31 May 2003 - 20:42
Ahhhh clocker.....the sad but true thing is that my example is correct...and that Britain is becoming less and less free.....(my sources are sound I suggest you check yours)

As for the UK as a mongrel nation how about our mixture of......Roman, Saxon, Norman......Indian, African, Bangladeshi, Polish, Arab....etc, etc,

Of course, as kissing cousins of the US, the UK are often considered in the same breath anyway....

Cultural maturity does not necessarily lead to sociological wisdom and it could be considered that the immaturity of the US is analogous to the senility of Europe.....and to take it one step further...how many adults and teenagers agree, and if considered from one step back, it is often easy to see both sides of the same argument.

Perhaps we should consider a more enlightened culture....say....Vulcan????
Wait until next month when your vote is rendered moot as Mr. Blair signs you on for full membership in the E.U.; if you think you are aggravated now.....
Mr. Chirac&#39;s inane statements as regards the E.U.&#39;s "business" will assume a whole new dimension. :(

myfiles3000
06-02-2003, 02:40 PM
New York Times
June 2, 2003
Behind the Media Ownership Rule and Its End, One Man
By STEPHEN LABATON

ASHINGTON, June 1 — Nearly 30 years ago, a young Republican lawyer named Richard E. Wiley led the Federal Communications Commission as it approved a landmark regulation that restricted a company from owning both a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same city.

On Monday the F.C.C. is expected to repeal that rule in more than 100 cities as part of the most significant overhaul of media regulations in a generation. The change would be the culmination of a long campaign by the nation&#39;s biggest media conglomerates, which are intent on entering new local markets and expanding in those where they already have a presence. And it would come despite objections from an array of politically liberal and conservative critics who fear broad consolidation in the news and entertainment businesses.

But those objections were no match for big media, whose top lawyer and chief Washington strategist is none other than Mr. Wiley, now 68 years old, and by all accounts the most influential media and telecommunications lawyer in the country.

To critics who would accuse him of selling out the very public-interest safeguards he helped put in place as F.C.C. chairman during the Ford administration, Mr. Wiley says simply that his policy views are now different because the industry is different....

clocker
06-02-2003, 02:51 PM
Yeah, I know. Blows doesn&#39;t it?

j2k4
06-02-2003, 03:05 PM
I must say-I find such turns-about disturbing.

To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum&#39;s character in the movie "Jurassic Park":

&#39;They became so enamored of the fact that they could, they never stopped to consider whether or not they should&#39;.

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

myfiles3000
06-02-2003, 03:28 PM
none of what i have said about the media is relevant without keeping in mind that the presence of a free media is a pillar of democratic philosophy. You can&#39;t have a people deciding how to run society if they aren&#39;t well informed. Originally, media were non-profit and highly political, with fractured markets of dozens of competing papers. Then publishers realized how much money could be made from classified ads ("slave for sale..."). And we now have the system before us.

I&#39;m not rejecting the idea of for-profit media in a democracy, but its important to recognize the inherent tension between making money and preserving democracy, they are not the same thing: politically, there is one vote per citizen; economically there is one vote for dollar. Since the distribution of wealth is not even close to a level playing field, the media often exhibits anti-populist, anti-democtratic tendencies.

For example, a generation ago, shows like the beverly hillbillies were hugely popular and garnered a big chunk of the viewing audience for its time slot, easily out-performing time slot rivals. Unfortunately for the business people, the KIND of people who watched were overwhelmingly rural, not particularly affluent, and therefore largely irrelevant to advertisers. the show was cancelled, and CBS (?) came up with shows much much better, ie more profitable, demographics. which they sell to advertisers for a profit.

the point of this example is simply to show that "popular" success is not the same thing as business success. this basic feature shapes media content, and influences which stories are emphasized and which are largely ignored.

Today, the vast majority of popular shows are designed to attract a young, affluent, urban crowd. Ever hear seniors complain about nothing to watch on tv? its no coincidence: they are not the hyper-consumers that their grandchildren are, they&#39;ve already got more crap than they need, and seniors are not particularly interesting to advertisers. Of course, this is starting to change in a big way as baby boomers age.

And so the corporate media, for profit business, have a vested interest in certain kinds of content: why in the name of god would they produce a documentary about the evils of GE&#39;s defence contracting businesses, if GE is their #1 customer? And, in the case of NBC, it would be a bad career move for any news producer to focus on the distasteful side of corporate america, like, say, GE&#39;s contractor businesses. So instead you focus on issues that don&#39;t directly undermine your customers (who also happen to be your bosses, depending on the corporate structure...)

j2k4
06-02-2003, 04:33 PM
Myfiles-

You have given here an impeccable exercise and example in logical thought.

Just thought I&#39;d let you know.

myfiles3000
06-02-2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@2 June 2003 - 17:33
Myfiles-
You have given here an impeccable exercise and example in logical thought.
Just thought I&#39;d let you know.
why thank you.

clocker
06-02-2003, 05:37 PM
Myfiles,
All you say is (sadly) true, but is it an exclusively American phenomonon?
How willing is Rupert Murdock to piss off his big advertisers? Or Le Monde? Or any newpaper owner?
Aren&#39;t they all subject to the same economic pressures?
Isn&#39;t corporate media a worldwide business now?
I seem to recall that in the dim mists of this thread&#39;s history, the original point was somehow going to demonstrate how America was the primary victim of inadequate media.
Are we there yet?

j2k4
06-02-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by clocker@2 June 2003 - 12:37
Myfiles,
All you say is (sadly) true, but is it an exclusively American phenomonon?
How willing is Rupert Murdock to piss off his big advertisers? Or Le Monde? Or any newpaper owner?
Aren&#39;t they all subject to the same economic pressures?
Isn&#39;t corporate media a worldwide business now?
I seem to recall that in the dim mists of this thread&#39;s history, the original point was somehow going to demonstrate how America was the primary victim of inadequate media.
Are we there yet?
Alas, no.

One could argue this latest spate of consolidation and apparent monopolization of various media is an outgrowth of the "felt" need to counter bias (no sense denying it exists, CNN and network fans) extant in the news.

If I were to put myself in Rupert Murdoch&#39;s shoes, I would surely put my resources into "breeding" the biggest, fastest, and "MOST WATCHED AND READ" horse I could.

All apologies for the preceding metaphorically mixed, folded, spindled and mutilated sentence.

clocker
06-02-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@2 June 2003 - 12:07


One could argue this latest spate of consolidation and apparent monopolization of various media is an outgrowth of the "felt" need to counter bias (no sense denying it exists, CNN and network fans) extant in the news.

If I were to put myself in Rupert Murdoch&#39;s shoes, I would surely put my resources into "breeding" the biggest, fastest, and "MOST WATCHED AND READ" horse I could.

.
Ah, j2,

You left Fox News off your list, and, as I&#39;m sure it was inadvertent, I&#39;ll just add it for you.

Personally I&#39;m glad you&#39;re not in Murdock&#39;s shoes. His posts here have been rather thin on the ground. :P

j2k4
06-02-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by clocker+2 June 2003 - 13:12--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 2 June 2003 - 13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@2 June 2003 - 12:07


One could argue this latest spate of consolidation and apparent monopolization of various media is an outgrowth of the "felt" need to counter bias (no sense denying it exists, CNN and network fans) extant in the news.

If I were to put myself in Rupert Murdoch&#39;s shoes, I would surely put my resources into "breeding" the biggest, fastest, and "MOST WATCHED AND READ" horse I could.

.
Ah, j2,

You left Fox News off your list, and, as I&#39;m sure it was inadvertent, I&#39;ll just add it for you.

Personally I&#39;m glad you&#39;re not in Murdock&#39;s shoes. His posts here have been rather thin on the ground. :P [/b][/quote]
Fox News was not mentioned because I was attempting to demonstrate the solidarity and sameness which exists in the coverages of CNN, et.al., which coverages most assuredly do not resemble those of Fox News.

Surely you agree? ;) :D

clocker
06-02-2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@2 June 2003 - 12:28

Fox News was not mentioned because I was attempting to demonstrate the solidarity and sameness which exists in the coverages of CNN, et.al., which coverages most assuredly do not resemble those of Fox News.

Surely you agree? ;)&nbsp; :D
Gotcha.

Of course I consider Fox News to be an oxymoron anyway...

hobbes
06-03-2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@31 May 2003 - 21:29
"If it bleeds, it leads."

Edit:
...some people just don&#39;t realize just arbritrary the definition of "news" is. I, for one, could care less if some bus crashed half way around the world...

Well, the word "news" actually is just an acronym. When newspapers were first printed, they claimed to bring events from all four corners of the globe: north, east, west, and south. ;)

:ninja:
Sometimes the story is better than the truth. I told everyone at work about this.

Unfortunately, http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorn.htm#News it is probably not true.

Oh well. This site also denies that "kangaroo" means, "I don&#39;t understand what you are saying/asking".

clocker
06-03-2003, 11:51 PM
Hobbes,

Your ( and my) life will be so much poorer if you let facts get in the way. ;)

j2k4
06-04-2003, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by clocker@3 June 2003 - 18:51
Hobbes,

Your ( and my) life will be so much poorer if you let facts get in the way. ;)
AHA&#33;&#33;&#33;

ZO YOU ADMIT TO BEING FACT-AVERSE, JAH?

:D :D :D :D B)

clocker
06-04-2003, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@3 June 2003 - 22:04

AHA&#33;&#33;&#33;

ZO YOU ADMIT TO BEING FACT-AVERSE, JAH?

:D :D :D :D B)
Well it works so well for Bill O&#39;Reilly&#33; :D

j2k4
06-04-2003, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by clocker+3 June 2003 - 23:25--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 3 June 2003 - 23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@3 June 2003 - 22:04

AHA&#33;&#33;&#33;

ZO YOU ADMIT TO BEING&nbsp; FACT-AVERSE, JAH?

:D&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :D&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :D&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :D&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; B)
Well it works so well for Bill O&#39;Reilly&#33; :D[/b][/quote]
I really shouldn&#39;t publish this, but:

I generally enjoy ole&#39; Bill, but sometimes find him simplistic; he assumes a stance of preternaturalism I find cloying.

At such moments I find myself referring to him as BILL O&#39;REALLY. :D

clocker
06-04-2003, 04:57 AM
OH&#33;OH&#33;

Watch out downstream there&#39;s a crack in the dam&#33;

j2k4
06-04-2003, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by clocker@3 June 2003 - 23:57
OH&#33;OH&#33;

Watch out downstream there&#39;s a crack in the dam&#33;
DO NOT DOUBT MY RESOLVE&#33;

Crack? Damn-not a chance&#33; :D

clocker
06-04-2003, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@3 June 2003 - 23:33


Crack? Damn-not a chance&#33; :D
O&#39;Really?

Methinks thou dost protest too much.... :P

j2k4
06-04-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by clocker+4 June 2003 - 00:39--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 June 2003 - 00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@3 June 2003 - 23:33


Crack? Damn-not a chance&#33; :D
O&#39;Really?

Methinks thou dost protest too much.... :P [/b][/quote]
There is no greater rock, nor cynic, than a conservative.

Thas&#39; me. B)