[quote=“spook”][quote=“jdsmith”]
Did I buy which hype? The WMD hype or the let’s just get rid of this asshole who will cause trouble sooner or later hype? Honestly, I based my decision to agree with the war on the slew of UN sanctions violations.[/quote]
Would that include the one where “Saddam didn’t let the weapons inspectors in so we had to invade” UNSCR ‘violation?’ 
[/quote]
Ugh, I hope to not have to go back and dig out the sanctions.
been there
done that
[quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“STOP_Ma”]
Just curious: Did you refuse to “buy the hype” about Iraq’s imminent threat in 2003?[/quote]
Did I buy which hype? The WMD hype or the let’s just get rid of this asshole who will cause trouble sooner or later hype? Honestly, I based my decision to agree with the war on the slew of UN sanctions violations.
[/quote]
Did you also believe the President of the U.N.'s hype that this war violated the U.N. charter and, is in fact, an illegal war?
And did you also believe the hype coming from one of the chief architects of this Iraq invasion, Richard Perle, also calling this war “illegal” – in 2003?
What was it you said earlier? Oh yes,
It seems you believe this. One war criminal voiding the other, that is.[/quote]
Wow, quoting the UN, which can neither enforce its own sanctions nor prevent rouge nations from doing whatever the hell they want; telling me that after Bosnia, after Rawanda, after Somalia, after Sudan, after the systematic rapes and abuse by UN troops and staff in Africa, what makes you think I give a flaming crap what the UN President has to say about the successful military action to remove Saddam from power?
I don’t suppose you will care much if the US gets into an illegal with China over Taiwan though will ya?
On that note, we are way off topic here.
[quote=“STOP_Ma”]Compare the Clinton / Lewinsky blowjob scandal to:
[quote=“jdsmith”] what makes you think I give a flaming crap what the UN President has to say about the successful military action to remove Saddam from power?
[/quote]
You show quite a remarkable selectivity when it comes to using the U.N.
Quite similar to Bushco.'s selective use of the UN when it suits them.
I also noticed how you avoided Richard Perle’s comments.
It’s quite clear that you support the U.S. being an imperialist power. That’s fine. I don’t.
And that’s why you have no problem with the U.S. media sucking on the teat of a fascist-like executive.
I would have to agree.
I personally believe that non-bias is a myth attainable only by gods and a few noble peons. 
All humans, and indeed all living things, surely carry some sort of ingrained bias based on their subjective experiences. This bias, whether in belief or behaviour, would seem to be one of the bases from which evolution would follow its course. And one shouldn’t stop evolving, should one?!
Now, I would posit that when it comes to humans expressing themselves in any way beyond primordial grunting (I’m actually rather good at it), it would seem that expression, by it’s very definition is a subjective affair. True objectivity is a myth, it’s the wholy grail of journalism. A subtle attempt at objectivity often occurs by those writers that recognize their own biases, and the relative flammability of certain buzzwords. :stinkyface:
Throw in buckets of cash, a ready & willing audience, advertising revenue to consider, and the actual ownership of said media, then most attempts at objectivity fade away. But it’s not a bad thing to keep trying.
And the gripping irony (kinda like steely and goldy) is that the non-mainstream media is often much more biased than that of the mainstream. 
[quote=“TheGingerMan”]
And the gripping irony (kinda like steely and goldy) is that the non-mainstream media is often much more biased than that of the mainstream. [/quote]
Perhaps. But it is the non-mainstream media that covers stories that the mainstream media wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole – and I’m talking important (we should know) news.
You see, “media bias” does not simply include the content of the stories – it also encompasses what stories are covered (or not covered) by the corporate media.
[quote=“STOP_Ma”]
You see, “media bias” does not simply include the content of the stories – it also encompasses what stories are covered (or not covered) by the corporate media.[/quote]
I agree.
But then why should the public KNOW everything? Never in the whole of human history has this been the case, and there’s not many good reasons now, when we are headed back into another phase of “The Dark Ages”.
And most of the public doesn’t even want to know! They are much happier with their regurgitated pap, where they don’t even have to think.
Every society throughout history has had elements of both: the concealer, and the sloth. They cannot function without each other, like parasite and host.
Why is it in the 21st Century we’ll supposed to act in a way that humans have never acted, in a political & social sense?
[quote=“TheGingerMan”][quote=“STOP_Ma”]
You see, “media bias” does not simply include the content of the stories – it also encompasses what stories are covered (or not covered) by the corporate media.[/quote]
I agree.
But then why should the public KNOW everything? Never in the whole of human history has this been the case, and there’s not many good reasons now, when we are headed back into another phase of “The Dark Ages”.
[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean here.
Did I say “know everything”? Or rather, did I say “the media should inform the public about everything”?
I would be happy if the mainstream corporate media would cover a fraction of what should be covered – at the expense of creampuff stories.
This is disingenuous. I don’t think this is the case at all. I think you could make the argument that the public don’t want to put any effort into doing research to find out the hidden truth behind news stories, but to say the majority don’t even want to know – bull-biscuits!
[quote]
Every society throughout history has had elements of both: the concealer, and the sloth. They cannot function without each other, like parasite and host.[/quote]
Last time I checked, the free press was not supposed to “conceal” anything (unless prohibited by law).
We already are – bypassing the corporate media through the internet.
The availability, somtimes in actual ‘real-time’, via the internet, has greatly contributed to the demise of the MSM as a sole sourcing for news & events.
People now can access items of interest and obtain several, if not many, reports and see for themselves what is actually happening.
Good riddance I say. The public has been shaken awake from the tiredome pablum it has been spoon-fed by the MSM. ASnd the public has also discovered where the biases were and how the reportage was skewed. Those days are over. :bravo:
Knowledge has never come easy to anyone. It takes effort. If folks want to know, they will make the effort and question things. However, most of the folks who ingest mainstream media have slowly gotten used to the bastardization of the news. This is what usually happens when there’s a war on. And you know it’s gonna get worse before it gets better…
What is this about “the free press”? Whenever has there been a free press? There’s been a press, but it’s never been free. Always expensive, and always tied to some discernable interest. The 4th Estate, Indeed!
Well, I suppose on a situational level, ya got me there. But it’s impossible to predict the development of this insidious, subversive, seditious, sloth-saturated suckhole that is the Internet.
May the force be with it.
I think we need to have a definition of MSM. Does it only consist of left wing media? Or is FOX part of it? NYT? I suppose ABC, CBS, and NBC. How about WSJ? My guess is that there won’t be an agreement here.
[quote=“TheGingerMan”][quote=“STOP_Ma”]
I would be happy if the mainstream corporate media would cover a fraction of what should be covered – at the expense of creampuff stories. [/quote]
But this is again a subjective matter, who are we to decide what SHOULD be covered? And indeed, what actually constitutes “creampuff”.? Isn’t that the job of the advertisers?[/quote]
You want to see the difference between corporate pablum news and good hard creampuff-free news?
Watch any network news broadcast in the U.S. and then watch “DemocracyNow.org”. Democracy Now! Does have a definite liberal progressive spin to it, but you will find that the news and interviews on this 1 hour show puts any network broadcast to shame in terms of depth and quality.
The government of both the U.S. and China (and probably elsewhere) are currently trying very hard to limit the internet for both you and I – When do you hear THIS in mainstream corporate news? Not surprising.
[quote=“STOP_Ma”]You want to see the difference between corporate pablum news and good hard creampuff-free news?
Watch any network news broadcast in the U.S. and then watch “DemocracyNow.org”. Democracy Now! Does have a definite liberal progressive spin to it, but you will find that the news and interviews on this 1 hour show puts any network broadcast to shame in terms of depth and quality.[/quote]Until they start talking about Haiti. Then it’s about as crap, biased, and totally unobjective as it comes. She literally nearly burst into tears at the insinuation that Aristide was saying exactly what he wanted people to believe because he’s a power-hungry megalomaniac.
That said, though, I usually like Democracy Now. But they’re not without problems.
Here’s another story indicating that the “golden age” of the equal-access internet in America is about to die soon. Will CNN stories be much easier to load and find on a search engine than, perhaps, “Democracy Now!” stories?:
[quote]The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies – including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner – want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video – while slowing down or blocking their competitors. . . .
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control – deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There’s no middleman. But without net neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without net neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether people can choose the content and services they want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for them.[/quote]
[quote=“Richardm”]I think we need to have a definition of MSM. Does it only consist of left wing media? Or is FOX part of it? NYT? I suppose ABC, CBS, and NBC. How about WSJ? My guess is that there won’t be an agreement here.[/quote]So you want us to believe that you are intelligent enough to find your way to Taiwan, use the internet and live in a foreign country…but you still not do understand the term 'MSM" ?
Sorry…that dog just don’t hunt. In lieu of calling you ‘stupid’…I’ll just settle for calling BS on your post and view it as an attempt as dissembling the issue rather than answering it. Nice try…but no ceegar.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Richardm”]I think we need to have a definition of MSM. Does it only consist of left wing media? Or is FOX part of it? NYT? I suppose ABC, CBS, and NBC. How about WSJ? My guess is that there won’t be an agreement here.[/quote]So you want us to believe that you are intelligent enough to find your way to Taiwan, use the internet and live in a foreign country…but you still not do understand the term 'MSM" ?
Sorry…that dog just don’t hunt. In lieu of calling you ‘stupid’…I’ll just settle for calling BS on your post and view it as an attempt as dissembling the issue rather than answering it. Nice try…but no ceegar.[/quote]
Okay, that settles it then. FOX News and the Wall Street Journal are as much a part of the U.S. MSM as any other major news medium in the U.S. and trying to paint it otherwise would just be “stupid.”
In the age of the Internet though the question whether news media are biased or not is nearly irrelevant. The real question in this age of instant global communications at nearly everyone’s fingertips is whether or not people are too lazy to ferret out the truth for themselves.
[quote=“spook”]
In the age of the Internet though the question whether news media are biased or not is nearly irrelevant. The real question in this age of instant global communications at nearly everyone’s fingertips is whether or not people are too lazy to ferret out the truth for themselves.[/quote]
You’re forgetting one thing, though.
Real investigative journalism requires money.
Sure, bloggers can analyze what’s out there – and in many cases – out perform the corporate media on this angle. However, for retrieving the information, we need a news organization that generates money. That’s the sad truth.
And “making money” leads to a right-wing bias, most of the time. I can’t believe people actually believe this nonsense that the corporate media is “liberal”. LOL! What are you basing that on? Entertainment shows?
And I can’t believe you can get anyone to actually believe this tripe. What are you basing that on?
On right wing blogs, they use ‘MSM’.
On left wing blogs, they use ‘Corporate Media’.
Are they the same? Some of them are I think.
And I can’t believe you can get anyone to actually believe this tripe. What are you basing that on?[/quote]
Making money is an evil right wing thing??
Ted Turner must be a closet conservative.