Us Versus Iraq

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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..

Quote:

---

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,

Quote:

---

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...

"If it bleeds, it leads."

Edit:

Quote:

---

...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:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@31 May 2003 - 15:29
"If it bleeds, it leads."

Edit:

Quote:

---

...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)

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......

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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????

Live long and prosper, Sara.

Sarah&#39;s Bill

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

Quote:

---

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. :(

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....

Yeah, I know. Blows doesn&#39;t it?

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;.

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

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...)

Myfiles-

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

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

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@31 May 2003 - 21:29
"If it bleeds, it leads."

Edit:

Quote:

---

...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".

Hobbes,

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

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

OH&#33;OH&#33;

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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)