Don't be fooled by the myth of John McCain

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-dont-be-fooled-by-the-myth-of-john-mccain-773072.html

A lazy, hazy myth has arisen out of the mists of New Hampshire and South Carolina. Across the pan-Atlantic press, the grizzled 71-year-old Vietnam vet, John McCain, is being billed as the Republican liberals can live with. He is "a bipartisan progressive"", "a principled hard liberal", "a decent man" – in the words of liberal newspapers. His fragile new frontrunner status as we go into Super Tuesday is being seen as something to cautiously welcome, a kick to the rotten Republican establishment.

But the truth is that McCain is the candidate we should most fear. Not only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects, he is also the Republican candidate most likely to dispense with Hillary or Barack.

McCain is third-generation navy royalty, raised from a young age to be a senior figure in the Armed Forces, like his father and grandfather before him. He was sent to one of the most elite boarding schools in America, then to a naval academy where he ranked 894th out of 899 students in ability. He used nepotism to get ahead: when he was rejected by the National War College, he used his father's contacts with the Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider. He then swiftly married the heiress to a multi-million dollar fortune.

Right up to his twenties, he remained a strikingly violent man, "ready to fight at the drop of a hat", according to his biographer Robert Timberg. This rage seems to be at the core of his personality: describing his own childhood, McCain has written: "At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious. When I got angry I held my breath until I blacked out."

But he claims he was transformed by his experiences in Vietnam – a war he still defends as "noble" and "winnable", if only it had been fought harder. (More than three million Vietnamese died; how much harder could it be?) His plane was shot down on a bombing raid over Hanoi, and he was captured and tortured for five years. To this day, he cannot lift his arms high enough to comb his own hair.

On his release, he used his wife's fortune to run to as a Republican senator. He was a standard-issue Reaganite corporate Republican – until the Keating Five corruption scandal consumed him. In 1987, it was revealed that McCain, along with four other senators, had taken huge campaign donations from a fraudster called Charles Keating. In return they pressured government regulators not to look too hard into Keating's affairs, allowing him to commit even more fraud. McCain later admitted: "I did it for no other reason than I valued [Keating's] support."

McCain took the only course that could possibly preserve his reputation: he turned the scandal into a debate about the political system, rather than his own personal corruption. He said it showed how "we need to drive the special interests out of Washington", and became a high-profile campaigner for campaign finance reform. But privately, his behaviour hasn't changed much. For example, in 2000 he lobbied federal regulators hard on behalf of a major campaign contributor, Paxson Communications, in an act the regulators spluttered was "highly unusual". He has never won an election without outspending his opponent.

But McCain has distinguished himself most as an όber-hawk on foreign policy. To give a brief smorgasbord of his views: at a recent rally, he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann". He says North Korea should be threatened with "extinction".

McCain has mostly opposed using US power for humanitarian goals, jeering at proposals to intervene in Rwanda or Bosnia – but he is very keen to use it for great power imperialism. He learnt this philosophy from his father and his granddad Slew, who fought in the Philippine wars at the turn of the 20th century, where he was part of a mission to crush the local resistance to the US invasion. They did it by forcing the entire population from their homes at gunpoint into "protection zones", and gunning down anybody over the age of ten who was found outside them. Today, McCain dreamily describes this as "an exotic adventure" which his grandfather "generally enjoyed".

Then McCain's father, John, led the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, at a time when there was a conflict on the Caribbean island. On one side, there were forces loyal to Juan Bosch, the democratically elected left-wing President who was committed to land redistribution and helping the poor. On the other side, there were forces who had overthrown the elected government and looked nostalgically to the playboy tyranny of Rafael Trujillo. John McCain Snr intervened to ensure the supporters of the democratic government were crushed, bragging that it taught the natives "how to behave themselves". He saw this as part of a wider mission, where the US would take over Britain's role as a "world empire".

These beliefs drive McCain today. He brags he would be happy for US troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years, and declares: "I'm not at all embarrassed of my friendship with Henry Kissinger; I'm proud of it." His most thorough biographer – and recent supporter – Matt Welch concludes: "McCain's program for fighting foreign wars would be the most openly militaristic and interventionist platform in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt... [it] is considerably more hawkish than anything George Bush has ever practised." With him as president, we could expect much more aggressive destabilisation of Venezuela and Bolivia – and more.

So why do so many nice liberals have a weak spot for McCain? Well, to his credit, he doesn't hate immigrants: he proposed a program to legalize the 12 million undocumented workers in the US. He sincerely opposes torture, as a survivor of it himself. He has apologized for denying global warming and now advocates a cap on greenhouse gas emissions – but only if China and India can also be locked into the system. He is somewhat uncomfortable with the religious right (while supporting a ban on abortion and gay marriage). It is a sign of how far to the right the Republican Party has drifted that these are considered signs of liberalism, rather than basic humanity.

Yet these sprinklings of sanity – onto a very extreme program – are enough for a superficial, glib press to present McCain as "bipartisan" and "centrist". Will this be enough to put white hair into the White House? At the moment, he has considerably higher positive ratings than Hillary Clinton, and beats her in some match-up polls. If we don't start warning that the Real McCain is not the Real McCoy, we might sleepwalk into four more years of Republicanism.

mailto:j.hari@independent.co.uk

Who's being fooled? McCain has no chance against Obama, and the only reason he can beat Hillary is because he's not Hillary.

Who's being fooled? McCain has no chance against Obama......

We disagree.

I do not think that either Obama or Hillary --given the bent of the Corporate owned Media in this country-- can defeat McCain.

This country imo is FAR too racist and too misogynist to elect a black or a woman. Too many mouth-breathing rednecks, too many people who despise "them n#ggers", too many people brainwashed by the relentless **Hillary is pure eeeee-ville** mantra that the Media has been pushing for over 15 years.

only is he to the right of Bush on a whole range of subjects

name one.

America needs heros.

name one.

Foreign wars and military involvement.

His remarks demonstrate him to be even more hawkish than B*sh in that area.

America needs heros.

Really?

Why?

name one.
He's actually somewhat of a fiscal conservative, whereas Bush spends like Ted Kennedy at a fancy strip club.

Really?

Why?
or we'd be a nation of sad little men, paranoid of their government, and hateful of their countryman.

living heroes are even better, and rarer;)

or we'd be a nation of sad little men, paranoid of their government, and hateful of their countryman.

living heroes are even better, and rarer;)

America is too cynical to have heroes anymore.

or we'd be a nation of sad little men, paranoid of their government, and hateful of their countryman.


What a juvenile viewpoint.

Because of the existence of "heroes" running for office, the entire nation will be magically transformed........???

What we DO have at present, "heroes" and all, is a nation of sad little men, paranoid of half the other countries in the world, and supportive of a government that kills countless thousands of innocent people abroad so they can gain control of the Middle East's remaining oil resources.

America is too cynical to have heroes anymore.

YOU think it's "too cynical"?? That's like Bill Clinton saying not to cheat on your wife.

This country imo is FAR too racist and too misogynist to elect a black or a woman. Too many mouth-breathing rednecks, too many people who despise "them n#ggers", too many people brainwashed by the relentless **Hillary is pure eeeee-ville** mantra that the Media has been pushing for over 15 years.

Gee.. you think where there is smoke, there is fire? Maybe Hilary gets a bad name deservedly so, and isn't just some victim of this so-called "corporate media". And hey, I don't know who you talk to, but I don't know too many "mouth-breathing rednecks" who despise "them n#ggers"... quit painting bullshit.

Talking about our country being "racist" is a whole different thread in its own.

Maybe Hilary gets a bad name deservedly so, and isn't just some victim of this so-called "corporate media".
I see a contradiction here in what FT says. Why would a media that FT admits favors corporatist candidates try to smear a candidate who is the pure embodiment of corporatism? The woman is squarely in the pockets of big pharma.

She does not have an R next to her name, that is why.

He's actually somewhat of a fiscal conservative, whereas Bush spends like Ted Kennedy at a fancy strip club.
I couldn't agree more.

Never seen anyone spend money in a strip club like an Irish Catholic.

Unbelieveable.

He's (McCain) actually somewhat of a fiscal conservative, whereas Bush spends like Ted Kennedy at a fancy strip club.

By my reckoning, no one in the coin op Congress is very "fiscally conservative" when it comes to spending.

If they were, we would not have a 12 trillion dollar deficit.

It isn't about whether or not McCain will cut back on spending here and there. He might do it.

But for goddamned certain, he, like every other dedicated CorporaConservative, will be sure to cut back on social and domestic spending (money that might benefit the People) while he uses the money he's 'saved' to increase military spending (money that goes to line the pockets of the owners of the military/industrial complex).

I see a contradiction here in what FT says. Why would a media that FT admits favors corporatist candidates try to smear a candidate who is the pure embodiment of corporatism? The woman is squarely in the pockets of big pharma.

They're BOTH the pure embodiment of corporatism. They will BOTH be on the side of Big Pharma, if and when it ever comes to choosing to benefit either the interests of the People or the interests of the Corporations.

The fact that one segment of the Corporate owned Media slams candidate Clinton in one news cycle while another segment of the Corporate owned Media slams candidate McCain in the next news cycle is nothing more than two wolves trying to tear apart the carcass of the sheep they just killed, each hoping to get the biggest possible piece.

Either one who is elected will serve the Corporate masters......the owners of the Corporate Media will be happy either way. They have to muddy the waters and create a bit of controversy so they will make millions selling advertising time on their "news" (I use the term euphemistically) programs.

By my reckoning, no one in the coin op Congress is very "fiscally conservative" when it comes to spending.

If they were, we would not have a 12 trillion dollar deficit.
Just out of curiosity, did you get that "12 trillion" figure from the same site you did the number of "innocent" Iraqis killed by US forces? Pssssst - If so, then here's a tip.......it's wrong.

Never seen anyone spend money in a strip club like an Irish Catholic.

Unbelieveable.
Well, I'm not a Catholic, but while drunk as shit, I blew through a grand at one in Vegas.

Hope ya got yer monies worth.

Hope ya got yer monies worth.
To be completely honest, I don't remember leaving the club. :eek: I was told I couldn't speak when we left. I was that shitfaced. It takes A LOT to get me to that point.

Never seen anyone spend money in a strip club like an Irish Catholic.

Unbelieveable.

Apparently you've never been around southern Baptists when they cut loose.

:drinktoth

And theres me thought catholics and baptists would never have anything in common.

I grew up in an Irish-Catholic household, but ditched the entire church thing decades ago. I've seen & learned the restrictions of many other religions and Catholics have it easy by comparison.

And theres me thought catholics and baptists would never have anything in common.
Sure they do...Irish blood, apparently. :D

I grew up in an Irish-Catholic household, but ditched the entire church thing decades ago. I've seen & learned the restrictions of many other religions and Catholics have it easy by comparison.
try being Amish....Moromons don't even get coffee:(

It's amazing how guilt ridden folks from the more restrictive of the religions are when they finally come in for rehabilitation for their addictions to alcohol or other drugs. When they "fall" there's no half-stepping - they go from one beer tonite to a quart of wiskey a day in one fell-swoop.

Spare me! This is NO ELECTION... THIS IS PARTY VOTES!

I vote NO on both! Will do a write in... LIBERAL VS LIBERAL

American ELECTIONS are a JOKE!

Hey FT,
You keep spilling your guts about the corporate owned media.
Allow me to ask you a simple question.

If your boss told you to act like a conservative, would you do it?

Just because the media is owned by corperations, does not mean they get to tell their news people to have a right leaning slant.
The fact is, most of those in the media are liberals.
They have a left leaning slant.

Anyway, please answer the question. (THANKS!)




We disagree.

I do not think that either Obama or Hillary --given the bent of the Corporate owned Media in this country-- can defeat McCain.

This country imo is FAR too racist and too misogynist to elect a black or a woman. Too many mouth-breathing rednecks, too many people who despise "them n#ggers", too many people brainwashed by the relentless **Hillary is pure eeeee-ville** mantra that the Media has been pushing for over 15 years.

To be completely honest, I don't remember leaving the club. :eek: I was told I couldn't speak when we left. I was that shitfaced. It takes A LOT to get me to that point.
In driver's ed they had this little chart about the approximate BAC of a person with one or two or three drinks, etc., according to their weight... And yeah, according to their silly little chart I should be dead. I weigh about 115 pounds and if my calculations are right the most I've drunk in the shortest time was about 21 drinks in 4 hours. Since they estimate that a 120 pound girl has a BAC of .037 after one drink, and taking into account the supposed rate of metabolizing that says you lose .015 per hour.... That works out to an approximate BAC of 0.717... That's pretty much dead, right?? :D

It's amazing how guilt ridden folks from the more restrictive of the religions are when they finally come in for rehabilitation for their addictions to alcohol or other drugs. When they "fall" there's no half-stepping - they go from one beer tonite to a quart of wiskey a day in one fell-swoop.
ever notice how many Pentecostals use to be a whole lot of fun?

Hey FT,
You keep spilling your guts about the corporate owned media.
Allow me to ask you a simple question.

If your boss told you to act like a conservative, would you do it?

What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that the people in journalism have put in several years of schooling and aimed their entire careers at having a job in that particular field. When their Corporate bosses --as happens every day in the "news" business in the U.S.-- tell them that they have to slant the news stories in such a way as to not offend the huge Corporations that buy the advertising that make the "news" programs possible, or when their Corporate bosses tell them that because General Electric or Westinghouse OWNS the very same Media outlet that signs their paycheck and that they WILL fall into line and not make any reports that expose the wrongdoing of those companies, you had better goddamned well believe that these people "fall into line". When they work for the mainstream "news" organizations, they can either knuckle under, or they face being fired and blackballed.

What other choice do they have!?!? Are they going to say --"Ok. Screw it. I'll simply give up my journalism career and go back to school for another 4 years and have an entirely different major and begin a new career in another field"".

NO. They bow down and they do what the managers and editors -who I assure you ARE fully in thrall to the Corporate ownership-- tell them to do.

That's just the way it is.

Just because the media is owned by corperations, does not mean they get to tell their news people to have a right leaning slant.

Wrong.

That is exactly what it means when the mainstream Media --as is the case in this country-- is owned by huge corporations who also have huge monetary interests in the companies of the military/industrial complex.

The fact is, most of those in the media are liberals.
They have a left leaning slant.

The people at the lower levels of journalism.....yes. They tend to be 'more liberal'.

Although even at that , studies have been done that show that economically, they are more conservative than the average person. It is only in social issues that they have been found to be *more liberal*. Not that the upper-management Corporate toadies who run the Media and who ultimately decide which stories will run and what the slant of those stories will be are about to allow that social liberalism to have any significant presence in the overall mainstream Media coverage.

FT,

You can't make someone go against what they believe.
If they are liberal at heart, you can't make them act like a conservative.
(they don't act like a conservative, this is proven by the severe liberal slant in the general media)

Why does the media love McCain??
Because he is one of the most liberal republicans.


What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that the people in journalism have put in several years of schooling and aimed their entire careers at having a job in that particular field. When their Corporate bosses --as happens every day in the "news" business in the U.S.-- tell them that they have to slant the news stories in such a way as to not offend the huge Corporations that buy the advertising that make the "news" programs possible, or when their Corporate bosses tell them that because General Electric or Westinghouse OWNS the very same Media outlet that signs their paycheck and that they WILL fall into line and not make any reports that expose the wrongdoing of those companies, you had better goddamned well believe that these people "fall into line". When they work for the mainstream "news" organizations, they can either knuckle under, or they face being fired and blackballed.

What other choice do they have!?!? Are they going to say --"Ok. Screw it. I'll simply give up my journalism career and go back to school for another 4 years and have an entirely different major and begin a new career in another field"".

NO. They bow down and they do what the managers and editors -who I assure you ARE fully in thrall to the Corporate ownership-- tell them to do.

That's just the way it is.



Wrong.

That is exactly what it means when the mainstream Media --as is the case in this country-- is owned by huge corporations who also have huge monetary interests in the companies of the military/industrial complex.



The people at the lower levels of journalism.....yes. They tend to be 'more liberal'.

Although even at that , studies have been done that show that economically, they are more conservative than the average person. It is only in social issues that they have been found to be *more liberal*. Not that the upper-management Corporate toadies who run the Media and who ultimately decide which stories will run and what the slant of those stories will be are about to allow that social liberalism to have any significant presence in the overall mainstream Media coverage.

FT, You can't make someone go against what they believe.
If they are liberal at heart, you can't make them act like a conservative.

Of course you can make someone go against what they believe. Just threaten their livelihood, as John Swinton of the New York Times noted many years ago.

A reporter could have a story that exposes the wrongdoing of some corporation, but if his boss, the editor, informs him --"I want you to soften up that story and be less aggressive in reporting/investigating it"--, or else you can look for work elsewhere, then THAT is what that reporter --who has probably worked for many years just to get into the journalism field-- is going to do. Period.

It happens every day in this country.

That is why you see revelations of columnists being PAID by the government to write articles in support of administration policies. That is why there is such a pro-Corporate slant in the Media. That is why the Media helped the GOP peddle the buildup to war with Iraq. That is why you will never see a t.v. report showing coffins returning from Iraq. That is why you see the mainstream Media turning a blind eye to things like GW B*sh's Harken deal, where he was guilty of insider trading.

Why does the media love McCain??

Because he is a die-hard, foaming-at-the-mouth conservative. Because he is staunchly pro-war, pro-military, pro-MightMakesRight.

Because he is one of the most liberal republicans.

ROTFL. "liberal Republican" gets my vote as oxymoron of the year.

_____________________________

There is no such thing at this date in the world's history in America as an independent press. You know it and I know it. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it. And what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks. They pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.__________circa 1953, by John Swinton, editor-in-chief of The New York Times.

In driver's ed they had this little chart about the approximate BAC of a person with one or two or three drinks, etc., according to their weight... And yeah, according to their silly little chart I should be dead. I weigh about 115 pounds and if my calculations are right the most I've drunk in the shortest time was about 21 drinks in 4 hours. Since they estimate that a 120 pound girl has a BAC of .037 after one drink, and taking into account the supposed rate of metabolizing that says you lose .015 per hour.... That works out to an approximate BAC of 0.717... That's pretty much dead, right?? :D
As per my understanding, .4 is approaching total system shutdown. That's 40% blood-alcohol, for Christ's sake!?!? I've been a .35 + before, and to be completely honest with you, I'm pretty sure I was smarter at 19. :D

What you seem to be overlooking is the fact that the people in journalism have put in several years of schooling and aimed their entire careers at having a job in that particular field. When their Corporate bosses --as happens every day in the "news" business in the U.S.-- tell them that they have to slant the news stories in such a way as to not offend the huge Corporations that buy the advertising that make the "news" programs possible, or when their Corporate bosses tell them that because General Electric or Westinghouse OWNS the very same Media outlet that signs their paycheck and that they WILL fall into line and not make any reports that expose the wrongdoing of those companies, you had better goddamned well believe that these people "fall into line". When they work for the mainstream "news" organizations, they can either knuckle under, or they face being fired and blackballed.

What other choice do they have!?!? Are they going to say --"Ok. Screw it. I'll simply give up my journalism career and go back to school for another 4 years and have an entirely different major and begin a new career in another field"".

NO. They bow down and they do what the managers and editors -who I assure you ARE fully in thrall to the Corporate ownership-- tell them to do.

That's just the way it is.
Edward R. Murrow would disagree. Oh, and for the record, I think he did a great service for the American people during the McCarthy witch-hunts circa 1953. All things considered, I don't entirely disagree with you here, but I think you're missing a key point; responsible journalism doesn't lie with any ONE man's lone perspective on things. There's a bigger picture, and believe it or not, I think most journalists miss it in the quest for ratings. Catastrophe sells, and they exploit reality for network gain. That's why we only get coverage on one side of the Iraq war; the BAD side (although, I fully realize you don't believe there's a "good side", so I'm not gonna bother elaborating here either way).

In short, the Edward R. Murrows in today's media are in short supply. Instead, we get Dan Rather and his band of penny-ante Woodward and Bernsteins that embody the very core of irresponsible journalism. A piss-poor substitute, to say the least.

That is exactly what it means when the mainstream Media --as is the case in this country-- is owned by huge corporations who also have huge monetary interests in the companies of the military/industrial complex.


I call bullshit.. if the media is owned by republicans and are hell-bent on portraying a republican message and drowning out any other voices.. they either suck at it so bad that a toddler could do better, or it's complete BS.


The people at the lower levels of journalism.....yes. They tend to be 'more liberal'.

Although even at that , studies have been done that show that economically, they are more conservative than the average person. It is only in social issues that they have been found to be *more liberal*. Not that the upper-management Corporate toadies who run the Media and who ultimately decide which stories will run and what the slant of those stories will be are about to allow that social liberalism to have any significant presence in the overall mainstream Media coverage.

I have asked this question many times and have never gotten an answer from any liberals.

How does the slant get passed down to these journalists and reporters? Do they recieve an e-mail? a fax? Does some guy with a suit and sunglasses come down and control shop, telling everyone what they can and cannot report? How does this process happen FT.. i'm dying to know.

How does the slant get passed down to these journalists and reporters? Do they recieve an e-mail? a fax? Does some guy with a suit and sunglasses come down and control shop, telling everyone what they can and cannot report? How does this process happen FT.. i'm dying to know.
His contention is that it gets done in the editing room, Decka. I think he was pretty clear about that.

the editing room... so the editors of the newspaper and news report shows are instructed what to allow by the corporate ownership... is that what is being theorized?

McCain - For a war as old as he is

John McCain is 6 years old?

... so the editors of the newspaper and news report shows are instructed what to allow by the corporate ownership... is that what is being theorized?

Yes, that is exactly what is being said. And it has nothing to do with "theory" and everything to do with FACT.

In the primary Media outlets in the U.S., editors and upper management people are instructed what to allow by the Corporate ownership.

Then they tell the reporters what will and will not be broadcast or printed. It is well known that this happens. Countless reporters have revealed it to be the case.

John Swinton, the editor-in-chief of The New York Times was very WELL aware of it, and spoke about it in no uncertain terms.

But then, I guess that you have a far deeper understanding of how the Corporate Media operates --and how it has been Manufacturing Consent in this country for many decades-- than the editor of the New York Times.

:rolleyes:

If it makes you feel better, keep believing this hogwash.
Bang Bang Bang your head against the wall.

Do you have any real proof this happens on a consistand basis?

Yes, that is exactly what is being said. And it has nothing to do with "theory" and everything to do with FACT.

In the primary Media outlets in the U.S., editors and upper management people are instructed what to allow by the Corporate ownership.

Then they tell the reporters what will and will not be broadcast or printed. It is well known that this happens. Countless reporters have revealed it to be the case.

John Swinton, the editor-in-chief of The New York Times was very WELL aware of it, and spoke about it in no uncertain terms.

But then, I guess that you have a far deeper understanding of how the Corporate Media operates --and how it has been Manufacturing Consent in this country for many decades-- than the editor of the New York Times.

:rolleyes:

If it makes you feel better, keep believing this hogwash.


It was widely reported that many years ago the editor-in-chief of The New York Times actually said, in front of many witnesses, the following--

""There is no such thing at this date in the world's history in America as an independent press. You know it and I know it. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it. And what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks. They pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.""

By refusing to believe he said it, YOU are the one who is banging his fucking head against the wall.

Yes, that is exactly what is being said.

Prove it.. No shit an editor tells reporters what to report about, but they do it based on RATINGS... prove that editors are told by higher ups to go against the grain of ratings and do things just so they can get their political view across.

But then, I guess that you have a far deeper understanding of how the Corporate Media operates --and how it has been Manufacturing Consent in this country for many decades-- than the editor of the New York Times.

:rolleyes:

Did I ever say that? Nope, can't say I did...

Prove it.. No shit an editor tells reporters what to report about, but they do it based on RATINGS... prove that editors are told by higher ups to go against the grain of ratings and do things just so they can get their political view across.

I am not saying that editors are told by higher ups to go against the grain of ratings.

I am not saying that the editors skew the news in a certain way get their particular political view across.

The news is skewed by the editors and the management so as to conform to whatever best serves the monetary and political interests of their Corporate masters.

There are five corporations --"The Big Five"-- who have ownership and control of 37,000 different media outlets --daily newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, book publishers, and movie companies-- in the United States.

These companies fashion and disseminate the words and images that flash acros our teevee screens every night and that define and shape the culture and political agenda of the U.S.

They quite literally inform the herd what is "right" for them to think.

_________________________________

The New Media Monopoly. by Ben Bagdikian (http://books.google.com/books?id=p_VqW4UMcDMC&dq=bagdikian+%22the+new+media+monopoly%22&pg=PP1&ots=aUndK_TDrz&sig=aWWuYV4w5BBE57FDNA_51QZr3hM&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=bagdikian+%22The+New+Media+Monopoly%22&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1)

I am not saying that editors are told by higher ups to go against the grain of ratings.

I am not saying that the editors skew the news in a certain way get their particular political view across.

The news is skewed by the editors and the management so as to conform to whatever best serves the monetary and political interests of their Corporate masters.
Given that newspaper readership and profitability is falling like a bowling ball off the empire state building i think one can safely discount that notion.

There are five corporations --"The Big Five"-- who have ownership and control of 37,000 different media outlets --daily newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, book publishers, and movie companies-- in the United States.

These companies fashion and disseminate the words and images that flash acros our teevee screens every night and that define and shape the culture and political agenda of the U.S.

They quite literally inform the herd what is "right" for them to think.

That seems rather ludicrous in light of the end product. One hears conservatives constantly expressing their concern about what's being broadcast into their living rooms, the movie screen etc. Media is more left than right.

_________________________________

The New Media Monopoly. by Ben Bagdikian (http://books.google.com/books?id=p_VqW4UMcDMC&dq=bagdikian+%22the+new+media+monopoly%22&pg=PP1&ots=aUndK_TDrz&sig=aWWuYV4w5BBE57FDNA_51QZr3hM&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=bagdikian+%22The+New+Media+Monopoly%22&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1)[/QUOTE]

One hears conservatives constantly expressing their concern about what's being broadcast into their living rooms, the movie screen etc. Media is more left than right.


The reason you hear the "concerns" of conservatives constantly is because they dominate the media.

I am not saying that editors are told by higher ups to go against the grain of ratings.


Okay, so we agree that whatever sells will be printed.

I am not saying that the editors skew the news in a certain way get their particular political view across.


Well I never said Editor A was trying to get HIS "green party" message across... you don't have to waste our time FT LOL.

The news is skewed by the editors and the management so as to conform to whatever best serves the monetary and political interests of their Corporate masters.


You contradicted yourself, you agreed with me that editors "don't go against the grain of ratings".. so that means ratings determine what is reported, (ratings meaning "whatever sells")... So how can it be "skewed" by these editors to serve political interests if it is all based on monetary results??? They are serving their "corporate masters" by making them the most money, and pushing their stock options up so the people who BUY the stock options make money and continue to invest in the company.



There are five corporations --"The Big Five"-- who have ownership and control of 37,000 different media outlets --daily newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, book publishers, and movie companies-- in the United States.


Thanks for the newsflash, I havn't seen them neglecting the democratic race going on right now. You can proceed and call everyone who doesn't agree with you a conservative, corporate lap-dog...

*music comes on...

"It's the SAME OL SONG AND.. SAME OL SONG AND DANCE!!!"

ba-da-da-da-dah dah, duh-dah-duh-dah-duhhhhh

*jams out to guitar solo

Originally Posted by Freethinker
There are five corporations --"The Big Five"-- who have ownership and control of 37,000 different media outlets --daily newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, book publishers, and movie companies-- in the United States.

These companies fashion and disseminate the words and images that flash acros our teevee screens every night and that define and shape the culture and political agenda of the U.S.

They quite literally inform the herd what is "right" for them to think.


That seems rather ludicrous in light of the end product.

We disagree.

It seems to me entiely consistent with the end product. A product that is for the vast majority of the time pro-war, pro-Corporate, pro-religion, pro-MomApplePieBaseballChevrolet.

One hears conservatives constantly expressing their concern about what's being broadcast into their living rooms, the movie screen etc.

Of course they bitch. They are accustomed to having it their way in virtually every circumstance.

If, for instance, a nightly news program were to invite --over the course of 3 or 4 months-- 100 guests to come on to speak, and if 80 of them are Rightwingers and 15 are moderates and 5 are liberals, the conservative faction will endlessly complain and bemoan the fact that not all 100 were confirmed Rightwingers.

___________________________


The New Media Monopoly. by Ben Bagdikian (http://books.google.com/books?id=p_VqW4UMcDMC&dq=bagdikian+%22the+new+media+monopoly%22&pg=PP1&ots=aUndK_TDrz&sig=aWWuYV4w5BBE57FDNA_51QZr3hM&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=bagdikian+%22The+New+Media+Monopoly%22&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1)

I came across something interesting today, on the topic of this thread:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." —John McCain, 1998

Bipartisan? You be the judge.

We disagree.
That's obvious. But in order for your argument to hold you need to reconcile this statement The news is skewed by the editors and the management so as to conform to whatever best serves the monetary and political interests of their Corporate masters.witht the fact that newspaper readership and newspapers across the spectrum are falling in profitability. Their monetary interests are hardly being served, by delivering what you describe as right wing pap, by fewer readers and smaller profits.

It seems to me entiely consistent with the end product. A product that is for the vast majority of the time pro-war, pro-Corporate, pro-religion, pro-MomApplePieBaseballChevrolet. Your argument might be more convincing if you had some examples. On my end of the spectrum i can point to every single war movie that has come out since '01 as being anti-war. I can point to several 'documentarys' that have won academy awards for being anti-corporate. Can't think of any pro-religion movies that got any sort of widespread acceptance or acclaim by the right wing controlled press that you think seems to dominate.



Of course they bitch. They are accustomed to having it their way in virtually every circumstance.

If, for instance, a nightly news program were to invite --over the course of 3 or 4 months-- 100 guests to come on to speak, and if 80 of them are Rightwingers and 15 are moderates and 5 are liberals, the conservative faction will endlessly complain and bemoan the fact that not all 100 were confirmed Rightwingers.
And this differs from liberals in what way?

___________________________


The New Media Monopoly. by Ben Bagdikian (http://books.google.com/books?id=p_VqW4UMcDMC&dq=bagdikian+%22the+new+media+monopoly%22&pg=PP1&ots=aUndK_TDrz&sig=aWWuYV4w5BBE57FDNA_51QZr3hM&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=bagdikian+%22The+New+Media+Monopoly%22&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1)[/QUOTE]

.... in order for your argument to hold you need to reconcile this statement ...

""The news is skewed by the editors and the management so as to conform to whatever best serves the monetary and political interests of their Corporate masters.""

witht the fact that newspaper readership and newspapers across the spectrum are falling in profitability.

I can only assume you say this out of ignorance and not facetiousness. You know --or at least you should-- exactly why newspaper readership and profitability are falling. It is because people do not read as much any more. Not by a very long shot.

The masses have come to expect to receive their news in short, easily digestible little sound bites. Actually buying a newspaper and reading it to fulfill one's daily informational/news needs it is a bit akin to using a rotary phone; it still works, but --unfortunately for the people who are in the business of selling newspapers-- fewer and fewer people do it any more.

As to the content of the nation's newspapers, it is now what it has always been; slanted far toward the status quo, God, Mom and Apple Pie. And they purposely stay away from stories that would expose criminality or wrongdoing on the part of the parent company.

Whether the Corporate ownership interferes explicitly or implicitly in the newsroom, evidence of it surfaces continuously. Here are just a few examples:

During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored.

Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Victor Neufeld, the executive producer of ABC's top-rated news show 20/20, repeatedly rejected several promising stories on nuclear power hazards.

Reason: His wife is a prominent spokesman for the nuclear and chemical industries.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Walter Annenberg, owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, used his paper to attack a candidate who opposed action that would have benefited the stockholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad.

Reason: he was the single largest stockholder.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rupert Murdoch's Post endorsed President Carter in the crucial New York Presidential primary, contributing to his victory.

Reason: two days earlier, Murdoch had lunch with Carter, convincing him to lean on the Export-Import Bank of the United States to give him a taxpayer-subsidized loan of $290 million. The bank had previously rejected the loan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted.

Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Journalist Elizabeth Whelan asked ten major women's magazines to run a series of articles on the rise of smoking-related diseases in women; all ten magazines refused.

Reason: "I frequently wrote on health topics for women's magazines," says Whelan, "and I have been told repeatedly by editors to stay away from the subject of tobacco."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The above stories show specifically how editors and advertisers interfere with the objectivity of the media.

Editors and news directors play a pivotal role in deciding which stories get covered and which ones don't. The "news" is used as a tool by the Corporatists for directing and shaping the thoughts and opinions of the masses. Period.

Their monetary interests are hardly being served, by delivering what you describe as right wing pap, by fewer readers and smaller profits.

The reason for fewer readers and declining profits has nothing to do with content. The content has always been and always will be that which is palatable to Mr and Mrs America, and that which appeals to and reinforces their long held prejudices and beliefs.

""What is the nature of "all the news that fits"? U.S. newspapers are comprised of approximately 70% advertising and 30% editorial content. Thus, about 70% of any U.S. newspaper consists of strictly commercial propaganda, advertising. The remaining 30% of news is imbued with "highly specific motives". In other words, the news is not neutrally selected, but originates from government spokespersons, government agencies, public relations firms, industry, corporate and commercial organizations, and publishers. Moreover, government and business often engage in what is known as planting within media, that is, infiltrating the media with its own personnel. In the Kosovo Crisis in 1999, this was evident when it was disclosed that U.S. Army psyops (psychological operations) Specialists, i.e., military propagandists, were working for the largest news network, CNN. These propaganda specialists, psyops specialists, were involved in propaganda operations and dissemination during the Persian Gulf War and the Bosnian Civil War. Such plants by government and industry are long-standing, common, and routine, especially in newspapers. Moreover, most readers of newspapers do not read to gain information per se, but to gain reinforcement of established stereotypes, prejudices, and predispositions, to maintain the status quo and to sell products, what appears in newspapers is "all the news that sells". Thus, much of what appears as news in newspapers is not neutral, but biased and selected with connections to government and industry. Very little of the so-called free press is actually free.""



Your argument might be more convincing if you had some examples. On my end of the spectrum i can point to every single war movie that has come out since '01 as being anti-war.

Why stop at 2001??

The movies Pearl Harbor and Black Hawk Down were nothing less than fawning worship of the machinery of war.

The recent movie 300 was a call to war, or worse, to some kind of Aryan jihad against a dark-skinned "evil" and immoral Middle-Eastern/African hoard.

""The filmmakers took great pains to depict the Scottish-looking Greeks as defenders of freedom, reason and democracy against an "enslaved," dark-skinned, liberally pierced Middle-Eastern/African hoard.....300 is the "Clash of Civilizations" propaganda at its most gruesome."" (http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2007/3/27/2834134.html)

Vietnam veteran and film director Oliver Stone says Hollywood glorifies war
---By Tirdad Derakhshani (http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=15287)

I can point to several 'documentarys' that have won academy awards for being anti-corporate.

Really??

Name a few.

Can't think of any pro-religion movies that got any sort of widespread acceptance or acclaim by the right wing controlled press that you think seems to dominate.

Right.

I guess you'll tell me you never heard of *the Passion of the Christ*.

Originally posted by Freethinker ; -- Of course they (the Conservatives) bitch. They are accustomed to having it their way in virtually every circumstance.

If, for instance, a nightly news program were to invite --over the course of 3 or 4 months-- 100 guests to come on to speak, and if 80 of them are Rightwingers and 15 are moderates and 5 are liberals, the conservative faction will endlessly complain and bemoan the fact that not all 100 were confirmed Rightwingers.

And this differs from liberals in what way?

It differs in that the Conservative faction in America gets their way and their say in virtually everything, and complain to high heaven when they don't.

It differs thusly;

""A growing trend is the increasingly conservative selection of experts to be quoted in the news. Think tanks are ideal places to find such "experts." (True academics have a low opinion of think tanks, which are simply propaganda outlets for the giant corporate foundations that pour millions of dollars into them.) Think tanks are highly partisan, and the quality of their work is mediocre at best. Why? They lack the checks and balances which keep academia honest, such as peer review, the scientific conference and independence of funding. Unfortunately, it has been a growing trend in journalism to rely on think tanks more than academia. That's because think tanks have conducted an aggressive campaign to become media friendly, packaging their findings in nice sound-bites and faxed press releases. This is in stark contrast to academics, who have little interest, expertise, funding or organization to conduct mass media relations. And this is not to mention that corporate-owned media organizations are encouraged to gather their facts from corporate-funded think tanks.

So, how many times do journalists quote conservative think tanks over liberal ones?

The media watchdog FAIR conducted a Nexus search of major newspapers, radio and TV transcripts for 1995, and came up with the following answer:

Total Number of Think Tank Citations in Major Newspapers, Radio and TV transcripts:

Conservative 7792
Centrist 6361
Progressive 1152

______________________________________


The New Media Monopoly. by Ben Bagdikian (http://books.google.com/books?id=p_VqW4UMcDMC&dq=bagdikian+%22the+new+media+monopoly%22&pg=PP1&ots=aUndK_TDrz&sig=aWWuYV4w5BBE57FDNA_51QZr3hM&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=bagdikian+%22The+New+Media+Monopoly%22&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1)[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I came across something interesting today, on the topic of this thread:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." —John McCain, 1998

Bipartisan? You be the judge.
Psh... He so didn't even think that up...

(I don't think Chelsea is ugly anyways.)

FT... if you could so kindly respond to the following point I made:

You contradicted yourself, you agreed with me that editors "don't go against the grain of ratings".. so that means ratings determine what is reported, (ratings meaning "whatever sells")... So how can it be "skewed" by these editors to serve political interests if it is all based on monetary results??? They are serving their "corporate masters" by making them the most money, and pushing their stock options up so the people who BUY the stock options make money and continue to invest in the company.


Thanks

We disagree.

It seems to me entiely consistent with the end product. A product that is for the vast majority of the time pro-war, pro-Corporate, pro-religion, pro-MomApplePieBaseballChevrolet.
No, it's not the media that shapes that reality, FT; it's a reflection of our culture (or, at least, your perception of that reflection). The media doesn't "shape" who we are; it panders to our culture and reflects the trends in an effort to make money.
Of course they bitch. They are accustomed to having it their way in virtually every circumstance.

If, for instance, a nightly news program were to invite --over the course of 3 or 4 months-- 100 guests to come on to speak, and if 80 of them are Rightwingers and 15 are moderates and 5 are liberals, the conservative faction will endlessly complain and bemoan the fact that not all 100 were confirmed Rightwingers.
You mean like you guys do with FOX? That aside, what show has that dynamic, 'cause I've never seen it?

The recent movie 300 was a call to war, or worse, to some kind of Aryan jihad against a dark-skinned "evil" and immoral Middle-Eastern/African hoard.
LOL!!!!!! That's what you took out of it!?!?!? You're fuckin' hilarious. This IS Sparta, bitch.

""The news is skewed by the editors and the management so as to conform to whatever best serves the monetary and political interests of their Corporate masters.""



I can only assume you say this out of ignorance and not facetiousness. You know --or at least you should-- exactly why newspaper readership and profitability are falling. It is because people do not read as much any more. Not by a very long shot.

The masses have come to expect to receive their news in short, easily digestible little sound bites. Actually buying a newspaper and reading it to fulfill one's daily informational/news needs it is a bit akin to using a rotary phone; it still works, but --unfortunately for the people who are in the business of selling newspapers-- fewer and fewer people do it any more.

As to the content of the nation's newspapers, it is now what it has always been; slanted far toward the status quo, God, Mom and Apple Pie. And they purposely stay away from stories that would expose criminality or wrongdoing on the part of the parent company.
That doesn't explain why they would continue to publish information that leads to better profits. According to you they should be delivering stuff that improves their profits, not diminishes them.

""Whether the Corporate ownership interferes explicitly or implicitly in the newsroom, evidence of it surfaces continuously. Here are just a few examples:

During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored.

Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Victor Neufeld, the executive producer of ABC's top-rated news show 20/20, repeatedly rejected several promising stories on nuclear power hazards.

Reason: His wife is a prominent spokesman for the nuclear and chemical industries.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Walter Annenberg, owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, used his paper to attack a candidate who opposed action that would have benefited the stockholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad.

Reason: he was the single largest stockholder.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rupert Murdoch's Post endorsed President Carter in the crucial New York Presidential primary, contributing to his victory.

Reason: two days earlier, Murdoch had lunch with Carter, convincing him to lean on the Export-Import Bank of the United States to give him a taxpayer-subsidized loan of $290 million. The bank had previously rejected the loan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted.

Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Journalist Elizabeth Whelan asked ten major women's magazines to run a series of articles on the rise of smoking-related diseases in women; all ten magazines refused.

Reason: "I frequently wrote on health topics for women's magazines," says Whelan, "and I have been told repeatedly by editors to stay away from the subject of tobacco."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The above stories show specifically how editors and advertisers interfere with the objectivity of the media.

Editors and news directors play a pivotal role in deciding which stories get covered and which ones don't. The "news" is used as a tool by the Corporatists for directing and shaping the thoughts and opinions of the masses. Period.
Great examples of individuals pursuing their ecnomic interests and then tying them together with the label of 'corporatist agenda.' That type of analysis has great appeal in frosh/sophmore polisci classes but little basis in the real world.

For fun why not define the corporatist agenda? Who is part of it? How does one become part of it.

""The reason for fewer readers and declining profits has nothing to do with content. The content has always been and always will be that which is palatable to Mr and Mrs America, and that which appeals to and reinforces their long held prejudices and beliefs.
IOW people do things without any determinable reason? That doesn't fit with the rest of your analysis.

""""What is the nature of "all the news that fits"? U.S. newspapers are comprised of approximately 70% advertising and 30% editorial content. Thus, about 70% of any U.S. newspaper consists of strictly commercial propaganda, advertising. The remaining 30% of news is imbued with "highly specific motives". In other words, the news is not neutrally selected, but originates from government spokespersons, government agencies, public relations firms, industry, corporate and commercial organizations, and publishers. Moreover, government and business often engage in what is known as planting within media, that is, infiltrating the media with its own personnel. In the Kosovo Crisis in 1999, this was evident when it was disclosed that U.S. Army psyops (psychological operations) Specialists, i.e., military propagandists, were working for the largest news network, CNN. These propaganda specialists, psyops specialists, were involved in propaganda operations and dissemination during the Persian Gulf War and the Bosnian Civil War. Such plants by government and industry are long-standing, common, and routine, especially in newspapers. Moreover, most readers of newspapers do not read to gain information per se, but to gain reinforcement of established stereotypes, prejudices, and predispositions, to maintain the status quo and to sell products, what appears in newspapers is "all the news that sells". Thus, much of what appears as news in newspapers is not neutral, but biased and selected with connections to government and industry. Very little of the so-called free press is actually free.""

That's some not so interesting stuff. Lots of allegations, no proof and few connections to any wider thesis.




""Why stop at 2001??

The movies Pearl Harbor and Black Hawk Down were nothing less than fawning worship of the machinery of war.

That's certainly one opinion. I thought ph was a love story and bhd was recreation of the fuck-up and heroism that was somalia. Maybe it's me but when 18 die because of incompetent military planning it doesn't seem like much of an advert for joining the military.

""The recent movie 300 was a call to war, or worse, to some kind of Aryan jihad against a dark-skinned "evil" and immoral Middle-Eastern/African hoard

""The filmmakers took great pains to depict the Scottish-looking Greeks as defenders of freedom, reason and democracy against an "enslaved," dark-skinned, liberally pierced Middle-Eastern/African hoard.....300 is the "Clash of Civilizations" propaganda at its most gruesome."" (http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2007/3/27/2834134.html).
A comic book, based on an historical event between the greeks and persians, turned into a movie is now an aryan call to jihad? :rolleyes: Are you that gullible?





Name a few. Moore and Gore.



""Right.

I guess you'll tell me you never heard of *the Passion of the Christ*.
Yep that received great critical acclaim from the right-wing press. Oh wait. NOT. How many awards did it win? Why can't these films that you think are so representative of the right win any awards? One would think they would be capturing them left right and centre.





""It differs in that the Conservative faction in America gets their way and their say in virtually everything, and complain to high heaven when they don't.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

""It differs thusly;

""A growing trend is the increasingly conservative selection of experts to be quoted in the news. Think tanks are ideal places to find such "experts." (True academics have a low opinion of think tanks, which are simply propaganda outlets for the giant corporate foundations that pour millions of dollars into them.) Think tanks are highly partisan, and the quality of their work is mediocre at best. Why? They lack the checks and balances which keep academia honest, such as peer review, the scientific conference and independence of funding. Unfortunately, it has been a growing trend in journalism to rely on think tanks more than academia. That's because think tanks have conducted an aggressive campaign to become media friendly, packaging their findings in nice sound-bites and faxed press releases. This is in stark contrast to academics, who have little interest, expertise, funding or organization to conduct mass media relations. And this is not to mention that corporate-owned media organizations are encouraged to gather their facts from corporate-funded think tanks.

So, how many times do journalists quote conservative think tanks over liberal ones?

The media watchdog FAIR conducted a Nexus search of major newspapers, radio and TV transcripts for 1995, and came up with the following answer:

Total Number of Think Tank Citations in Major Newspapers, Radio and TV transcripts:

Conservative 7792
Centrist 6361
Progressive 1152

This is excuse making, not analysis. The press wants answers or explanations. They got to those who will provide them. If liberals are incapable of presenting their side of the case this is the media's fault. Spare us the whining.

That's certainly one opinion. I thought ph was a love story and bhd was recreation of the fuck-up and heroism that was somalia.
Correction; Michael Bay should've had his ass handed to him for making such a piss-poor movie. Talk about missing the point. I think the creators of South Park said it perfectly in the movie, "Team America" when they wrote the song "Pearl Harbor sucks just a little more than I miss you"; a parody on the love story contained within.
Maybe it's me but when 18 die because of incompetent military planning it doesn't seem like much of an advert for joining the military.
LOL - Exactly. :)
A comic book, based on an historical event between the greeks and persians, turned into a movie is now an aryan call to jihad? :rolleyes: Are you that gullible?
"Gullible"? No, I'd say extreme.

The movies . . . Black Hawk Down were nothing less than fawning worship of the machinery of war.



Wow, you certainly managed to miss the point of that movie.

This IS Sparta, bitch.
ROFL:banana:

That doesn't explain why they would continue to publish information that leads to better profits. According to you they should be delivering stuff that improves their profits, not diminishes them.

They are --as they always have-- delivering the *stuff* that sells the best. God, Motherhood, the Flag, American exceptionalism, Apple Pie, Rah Rah USA!, etc.

The fact that their profits are declining is due to people being less inclined to spend long amounts of time reading.

Great examples of individuals pursuing their ecnomic interests and then tying them together with the label of 'corporatist agenda.'

I have about had it up to here with your willful fucking ignorance. You are completely mischaracterizing what the examples illustrate.

The examples listed are ones where "individuals" who have control of some Media outlet are exposed as doing what best serves their and/or their company's own monetary interests, even when it means suppressing stories and refusing to report the truth.


Moore and Gore.

You spoke of documentaries you could name. I have not heard of any named "Moore" or "Gore".

But let's say you're talking about those two people's latest films.

That would be 2 (two) that you have come up with.

You said you could name several documentaries that had won academy awards for "being anti-corporate".

Let's hear about the rest of them. :rolleyes:

(two does not equal "several")

Yep that (the Passion of the Christ) received great critical acclaim from the right-wing press. Oh wait. NOT.

OH!!!!!, so you HAVE heard of it. Very interesting

I read reviews that praised it very lavishly.

How many awards did it win?

Winning of 'awards' was not included in your assertion.

You stated --""Can't think of any pro-religion movies that got any sort of widespread acceptance or acclaim by the right wing controlled press"".

You now seem to clearly be asserting that the movie in question did not receive *widespread acceptance * by the Right. If that's what you're now claiming, you're demonstrably full of shit.

Why can't these films that you think are so representative of the right win any awards?

Winning of 'awards' was not the only included in your assertion. You asserted that you could think of NO religious movie that had received either widespread acceptance or acclaim.

This is excuse making, not analysis.

Yes, you seem to be the absolute master at **excuse making instead of analysis**. As your infantile riposte concerning the movies illustrates.

I guess FT is doin the ol Rope-a-dope...

I guess FT is doin the ol Rope-a-dope...
Hold on a sec. I don't understand this reference. Isn't that a wrestling style or something?

It's actually a boxing reference: what Muhammad Ali would do, "ducking and weaving" off the ropes to dodge opponent's punches.

They are --as they always have-- delivering the *stuff* that sells the best. God, Motherhood, the Flag, American exceptionalism, Apple Pie, Rah Rah USA!, etc.

The stuff that sells best leads to lower readership. What a fatuous argument.:rolleyes:


The fact that their profits are declining is due to people being less inclined to spend long amounts of time reading.

You can't argue that the media delivers stuff that sells best and in the next breath argue content is irrelevant. (Well you can but it's not a logical argument.) Either content is meaningful and promotes your supposed agenda or its not and what they print is irrelevant.



I have about had it up to here with your willful fucking ignorance. You are completely mischaracterizing what the examples illustrate.

The examples listed are ones where "individuals" who have control of some Media outlet are exposed as doing what best serves their and/or their company's own monetary interests, even when it means suppressing stories and refusing to report the truth.

Thta's great but you still haven't explained how it fits into a larger corparatist agenda.
Do you beleive that newspapers have some larger moral purpose or role that is incumbent upon them? That they have a public responsibiity? Such an idea is indeed noble but any examination of the history of the press, the sides they've taken or reasons why completely belie that notion. The press does indeed take sides. Any other beleif is naive.



You spoke of documentaries you could name. I have not heard of any named "Moore" or "Gore".

But let's say you're talking about those two people's latest films.

That would be 2 (two) that you have come up with.

You said you could name several documentaries that had won academy awards for "being anti-corporate".

Let's hear about the rest of them. :rolleyes:

Now he wants to argue semantics.:rolleyes:




OH!!!!!, so you HAVE heard of it. Very interesting

I read reviews that praised it very lavishly.

Now you want to argue that rex reed's and gene shalit's reviews are useful?:rolleyes:

Winning of 'awards' was not included in your assertion.

You stated --""Can't think of any pro-religion movies that got any sort of widespread acceptance or acclaim by the right wing controlled press"".

You now seem to clearly be asserting that the movie in question did not receive *widespread acceptance * by the Right. If that's what you're now claiming, you're demonstrably full of shit.

Winning of 'awards' was not the only included in your assertion. You asserted that you could think of NO religious movie that had received either widespread acceptance or acclaim..

Now you want to argue that a segment of society is widespread? That the passion was a big hit across a broad cross-section of the population? Pfffffft.


Yes, you seem to be the absolute master at **excuse making instead of analysis**. As your infantile riposte concerning the movies illustrates.
You've spent more ink on attempting to argue that the passion was a meaningful movie than your basic theory. IF this movie is that critical to your position that says everything there is to say about your theory.

The stuff that sells best leads to lower readership.Waldo, newspaper readership would be in decline no matter what they printed. What a fatuous argument.:rolleyes:No more so than yours.

i liked him better before he got sucked in by the bush type politics

The stuff that sells best leads to lower readership. What a fatuous argument.:rolleyes:

I am going to -one more time- attempt to explain this to your ignorant, fatuous ass.

After that, you're on you're own.

They put into their newspapers that which they think will be most palatable to/less offensive to Joe Sixpack and Mr and Mrs America. The fact that their newspaper readership is declining has to do with the reading habits of the people, NOT the content, which is basically what it has always been.

You can't argue that the media delivers stuff that sells best and in the next breath argue content is irrelevant. (Well you can but it's not a logical argument.) Either content is meaningful and promotes your supposed agenda or its not and what they print is irrelevant.

They put into their newspapers that which they think will be most palatable to/less offensive to Joe Sixpack and Mr and Mrs America. The fact that their newspaper readership is declining has to do with the reading habits of the people, NOT the content, which is basically what it has always been.


Thta's great but you still haven't explained how it fits into a larger corparatist agenda.

It *fits into it* becuase these are but of few examples of the SAME sort of dishonest, self-serving actions by Corporatists that are repeated a thousand times a day across America.


Do you believe that newspapers have some larger moral purpose or role that is incumbent upon them?

Yes.

That they have a public responsibiity?

Yes.

Such an idea is indeed noble but any examination of the history of the press, the sides they've taken or reasons why completely belie that notion. The press does indeed take sides. Any other beleif is naive.

Okay.


Now he wants to argue semantics.:rolleyes:

Translation; ""I made a bullshit claim, and now that I've been called on it I cannot back it up, so I'll just make some remark about "semantics" and quietly slink away"


Now you want to argue that rex reed's and gene shalit's reviews are useful?:rolleyes:


Translation; ""I made a bullshit claim, and now that I've been called on it I cannot back it up, so I'll just make some asinine remark about who some of the reviewers were and quietly slink away"

Now you want to argue that a segment of society is widespread? That the passion was a big hit across a broad cross-section of the population? Pfffffft.

YOUR claim was that no religious movie had enjoyed widespread acclaim.

Translation of your response; ""I made a bullshit claim, and now that I've been called on it I cannot back it up, so I'll just make some remark about whther or not it was a "big hit" and quietly slink away"

You've spent more ink on attempting to argue that the passion was a meaningful movie than your basic theory. IF this movie is that critical to your position that says everything there is to say about your theory.

I said nothing about it being "meaningful", you ignorant ass.

YOU made the claim that no religious movie had enjoyed rightwing acclaim. I showed you that one did, and now you're twisting and turning every way imaginable to deny it.

Fuck you and good bye.

You have not offered any proof.
The media in general is left of center. You say it is right of center.
You can't prove it is right of center. I can't prove it is left of center.
I have shown plenty of things that would point to the media in general having a left leaning slant.



I am not saying that editors are told by higher ups to go against the grain of ratings.

I am not saying that the editors skew the news in a certain way get their particular political view across.

The news is skewed by the editors and the management so as to conform to whatever best serves the monetary and political interests of their Corporate masters.

There are five corporations --"The Big Five"-- who have ownership and control of 37,000 different media outlets --daily newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, book publishers, and movie companies-- in the United States.

These companies fashion and disseminate the words and images that flash acros our teevee screens every night and that define and shape the culture and political agenda of the U.S.

They quite literally inform the herd what is "right" for them to think.

_________________________________

The New Media Monopoly. by Ben Bagdikian (http://books.google.com/books?id=p_VqW4UMcDMC&dq=bagdikian+%22the+new+media+monopoly%22&pg=PP1&ots=aUndK_TDrz&sig=aWWuYV4w5BBE57FDNA_51QZr3hM&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=bagdikian+%22The+New+Media+Monopoly%22&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1)

Waldo, newspaper readership would be in decline no matter what they printed.

IOW their reach is limited, their impact declining. Such info obviates ft's argument. You should be pointing this out to him.

I am going to -one more time- attempt to explain this to your ignorant, fatuous ass.

After that, you're on you're own.

They put into their newspapers that which they think will be most palatable to/less offensive to Joe Sixpack and Mr and Mrs America. The fact that their newspaper readership is declining has to do with the reading habits of the people, NOT the content, which is basically what it has always been.

What you describe is pandering to an audience. Weren't you telling us they drive the agenda?:rolleyes: Is this what passes for rational, linear thinking in your crowd?


They put into their newspapers that which they think will be most palatable to/less offensive to Joe Sixpack and Mr and Mrs America. The fact that their newspaper readership is declining has to do with the reading habits of the people, NOT the content, which is basically what it has always been.
Repeating yourself now.




It *fits into it* becuase these are but of few examples of the SAME sort of dishonest, self-serving actions by Corporatists that are repeated a thousand times a day across America.

So people, acting in their own self-interest, are now part of a larger corporate agenda? When someone makes a decision that affect their personal pocket book they're part of a corporate agenda? What is this corporate agenda you keep referring to but won't define?

You don't understand basic human nature do you.

Translation; ""I made a bullshit claim, and now that I've been called on it I cannot back it up, so I'll just make some remark about "semantics" and quietly slink away"
you got me there. Two and several.:woohoo:


Translation; ""I made a bullshit claim, and now that I've been called on it I cannot back it up, so I'll just make some asinine remark about who some of the reviewers were and quietly slink away"
Actually you haven't demonstrated that it was widely recognized. You've merely made the claim. I'm sure there are those reviewers among the fundamental christians who thought it was a wonderful movie. Perhaps you could cite some outside of that group.




YOUR claim was that no religious movie had enjoyed widespread acclaim.
If you can prove that it has please do.

Translation of your response; ""I made a bullshit claim, and now that I've been called on it I cannot back it up, so I'll just make some remark about whther or not it was a "big hit" and quietly slink away"



I said nothing about it being "meaningful", you ignorant ass.

YOU made the claim that no religious movie had enjoyed rightwing acclaim. I showed you that one did, and now you're twisting and turning every way imaginable to deny it.You haven't shown one that has right-wing support. You've pointed to a movie that enjoyed a good run among fundamental christians, only a segment of the right-wing, and claimed that it was widespread, try again.

Fuck you and good bye.What? Your diaper all wet from arguing?

Waldo, newspaper readership would be in decline no matter what they printed.
A valid point, for sure, but there does seem to be a contradiction inherent to FT's logic here (using his premise, that is).

The fact that their newspaper readership is declining has to do with the reading habits of the people, NOT the content, which is basically what it has always been.
Psssst - I'll give you a clue as to why circulation is down - it starts with the word "The", and ends with the word "Internet".

THAT'S how you need to rebut Waldo's point.

Not really. ft's arguement is These companies fashion and disseminate the words and images that flash acros our teevee screens every night and that define and shape the culture and political agenda of the U.S.

Which they clearly don't. His suggestion is that there is a malign influence that shapes everything. Bullshit.

Do they influence? In some instances, for both liberal and conservative issues. But they don't fashion or disseminate them every night as he suggests.

And I'd agree with that, but he could counter your "profit" argument concerning newspaper circulation with the point I (and probably, Sedan) made earlier.

Here's my problem with waldo's argument.

He posits:That's obvious. But in order for your argument to hold you need to reconcile this statementThe news is skewed by the editors and the management so as to conform to whatever best serves the monetary and political interests of their Corporate masters. witht the fact that newspaper readership and newspapers across the spectrum are falling in profitability. Their monetary interests are hardly being served, by delivering what you describe as right wing pap, by fewer readers and smaller profits.There's no need for FT to reconcile the two because waldo's premise is false. Newspaper readership and hence profitability are falling for reasons independent of content -- and the main reason is quite literally staring him in the face.

Oh just tell him what it is, he'll be looking at that wall for days now :)

Here's my problem with waldo's argument.

He posits:There's no need for FT to reconcile the two because waldo's premise is false. Newspaper readership and hence profitability are falling for reasons independent of content -- and the main reason is quite literally staring him in the face.

Au contraire. Readership has declined because readers don't like the content or analysis of the newspapers. The internet has grown because newspapers are not providing what people want/are interested in. Decisions by newspapers to print whatever are impacting their readership levels and thus diminshing their influence.

The internet is a vehicle that provides the (ex)readership with the news/analysis they want. (It has the ability to cater, unlike a newspaper, to even the whackiest perspectives out there.) The internet is the alternative/preferred source of info for the fringe.

Here's my problem with waldo's argument.

He posits:There's no need for FT to reconcile the two because waldo's premise is false. Newspaper readership and hence profitability are falling for reasons independent of content -- and the main reason is quite literally staring him in the face.

I've written on this before,at least a couple times.
Newspapers are in a world of hurt.All the major New rags,
particulalry the New York AND L.A. Times are undergoing drastic
reduction in both readership as well paid circulation.
The reason,has to do entirely with BIAS and Fairness.
Eventually even a Very republican Scandal may seem overboard
ridiculous,given the scoop many Beat Reporters at those and other
Liberal bastions of Mouthings { Louisville Courier-Journal } have
consistently felt obligated to take sides and report,not Unfairly,
but flat-out unruly like what our founders feared,if the mases succumbed
to unCzeched Mob-rhetoric.

Au contraire. Readership has declined because readers don't like the content or analysis of the newspapers. The internet has grown because newspapers are not providing what people want/are interested in.
You are so full of shit. Once the newspapers put all their articles online, it was only a matter of time before people started reading them there as a matter of convenience instead of picking up a paper every morning. We still read the newspapers, just their online formats now.

The "looney-whacko" fringe you refer to has always used the internet to propagate their ideas, they had it first. It's only when newspapers themselves started putting their stuff online that people started moving.

Newspapers and news networks are still the only truly reputable sources of late breaking news we have. People will continue to read them, in whatever format they want, until this ceases to be the case.

I wouldn't say they're truly reputable. Reputable compared to other sources, yes.

They are less reputable than they were just a couple decades ago.

Au contraire. Readership has declined because readers don't like the content or analysis of the newspapers. The internet has grown because newspapers are not providing what people want/are interested in. Decisions by newspapers to print whatever are impacting their readership levels and thus diminshing their influence.I haven't subscribed to a newspaper in over ten years. Why? Because I can find far more content from far more varied sources online -- and it costs me nothing.

Of course, I'm probably an isolated example and there aren't tens of millions of others who have done exactly the same thing. :rolleyes:

We'll pick up the Atlanta paper & the local "daily planet" on Sunday, more for the ads & coupons than anything else. Otherwise, all the news comes from online and television.

We get the paper on Sunday... I like the comics & the Washington Post Magazine. Also read the Parade magazine, the Sunday Source and Style & Arts sections, and the Books section. Sometimes I might read the Travel or the Metro sections if something on their front page catches my eye.

I also sometimes read the paper on the Subway... There's a guy outside every station giving out a free paper called Express. It's a pretty good paper, with comics and a crossword puzzle and a sudoku and everything, although it is short.

You're regurgitating my comments.
Should we measure the daylight between these two statements ....

Because I can find far more content from far more varied sources online -- and it costs me nothing.

The internet is a vehicle that provides the (ex)readership with the news/analysis they want.

in picometers or angstroms?

I worked for a large newspaper from 1996-2001 and it was kinda funny watching stodgy ole newspaper guys with ink running thru their veins try to figure out how to compete with the internet. My employer came up with the "Cue Cat" -- dumbest invention EVER and all the employees could see what a stupid idea it was, but nobody could tell the honchos anything. They were MANAGEMENT, by God!

The Cue Cat looked like a mouse and you hooked it up to your computer and while you read the newspaper, if you came across an article you wanted to know more about, you could use the CC to scan the code at the bottom and it would take your computer to a more detailed story.

They handed those things out, free of charge, all over the city at a cost of about $14 million. Needless to say, it was a HUGE flop.

The next thing they tried (that actually seems to be working) are the small, quickie newspapers like DF described. The one in Dallas is called QUICK and is published jointly with another large newspaper company (Knight-Ridder). The Dallas Quick's targeted audience is the 18-35 age group. Although the papers are small, they're FREE. They're also FULL of advertisements... which is where newspapers have always made their $ anyway.

And Sedan, if you think what you see online is FREE, you're not paying much attention to all those ads around the edges. Very little in life is actually FREE, especially news.

:)
SMW

You're regurgitating my comments.Are you really this stupid?

I negated your contention that "readership has declined because readers don't like the content or analysis of the newspapers". If you have a counter-argument to make I'd like to hear it, but please dispense with the childish obfuscations.

And Sedan, if you think what you see online is FREE, you're not paying much attention to all those ads around the edges.You're right -- I don't pay them very much attention.

None at all, in fact.

I actually subscribe to the local paper. I just prefer getting my news in a nicely packaged and portable format, plus I think I read articles I might have missed or ignored online. Having said that, I do occasionally read the Cincinnati and Twin Cities papers online to catch up with what's going on in my former haunts. And the Milwaukee paper daily to see what's up with the Packers. These things are important.

I see John McCain stating in trference to Fidel Castro ''I hope he has the oppertunity to meet Karl Marx very soon''.

Meaning he hopes he dies.

This is a disgraceful comment for a Presidential candidate to make about the President of another nation.

Sadly, the right wing glory boys love this sort of shit.

I see John McCain stating in trference to Fidel Castro ''I hope he has the oppertunity to meet Karl Marx very soon''.

Meaning he hopes he dies.

This is a disgraceful comment for a Presidential candidate to make about the President of another nation.

I agree. It is an abominable thing for a person to say who is intent on becoming the most powerful person on the planet.

But then, it is all about the mindset that the ConservaFascists have been indoctrinating the masses with for the past several decades; a hatred for anything that is not 100%, bend-over-backwards conservative.

But then, it is all about the mindset that the ConservaFascists have been indoctrinating the masses with for the past several decades; a hatred for anything that is not 100%, bend-over-backwards conservative.

A hatred McCain himself has been on the receiving end of.

A hatred McCain himself has been on the receiving end of.

Not in any serious way. Virtually every reichwing sheep in this country who votes will be voting for McCain, or whoever the ConservaFascists select as their nominee.

A few people who nearly always vote Democratic will even be voting for him. I've heard them say it myself.

A large portion of the people --Democrats included-- that I have heard comment on who they might vote for in the upcoming election have indicated that -- "I'm never going to vote for a n*gger, I'll vote for anyone -who isn't black- from the other party instead."

Of course, with the 15 year long indoctrination process there has been in this country to make all the sheep hate and fear Hillary, it goes without saying that they will not vote for her under any circumstance. The very few people I know who are not conservative have even said that they'll instead vote for any Republican should Hillary be the nominee.

Looking at a propaganda accomplishment of that magnitude, you have to marvel at how well the extremely conservative status quo in this country have mastered the art of *Manufacturing Opinion*.

Ads? What ads?

Are you really this stupid?

I negated your contention that "readership has declined because readers don't like the content or analysis of the newspapers". If you have a counter-argument to make I'd like to hear it, but please dispense with the childish obfuscations.

Feel free to explain the difference between our statements.

Originally Posted by sedan
Because I can find far more content from far more varied sources online -- and it costs me nothing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by waldo
The internet is a vehicle that provides the (ex)readership with the news/analysis they want.

Feel free to explain the difference between our statements.Gladly.

You are claiming that the primary reason newspapers are in decline is because former subscribers disagree with the content found therein. I say that's hogwash. Newspapers are in decline because the same content that was available before, plus a veritable cornucopia of further content, can now be found on the internet -- for free.

I am right about this and I think you know I'm right. And I think any reasonably well-informed and rational person reading these words knows that I'm right about this. But you can't bring yourself to admit it so you retreat into a semantic weasel-hole where you can pretend we're saying the same thing. Well, we're NOT saying the same thing.

The day I 'regurgitate' anything you say is the day they can take me out back and shoot me.

Hah... "semantic weasel hole"... :lolhit: