RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 4:51:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

It is so easy to get mixed up in definitions and I believe that it is a major cause of misunderstandings amongst posters. The Founding Fathers were indeed considered liberal for their time, even radical (a country without a king? Absurd!). By today’s standards they would almost certainly be considered conservative. Where do you think they would come down on such issues as abortion or prayer in the schools?



No idea, but the concept of representation and mass participation is/was a liberal one. From my limited understanding, it was part of what they were aiming to achieve. If wrong, fair enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

but there is a condescending attitude in it that I find distasteful (not that I haven’t done it myself).



That's fine, but lets keep the discussion to the meat of the matter for a few minutes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

It is dismissing other people’s choices as uniformed or unenlightened merely because their choices are not the choices we would make.



Maybe you're underestimating the strength of the alternative argument. It is not disagreement in the same vein as one bloke liking cauliflower and the other bloke liking cabbage.

My argument is largely based on the power of propaganda and its use throughout history, and I'm sure I don't need to go into the ins and outs of when and where.

I'll give you one relevant modern-day situation:

A Canadian group produced an advert (funded by the group) which aimed to advertise the alternative view that rampant consumerism is unhealthy and irresponsible. All US television networks refused to show this advertisement on the grounds that it was not in the interests of US business (even though the group funded the advert). In the meantime, (I'm assuming) various advertisements are aired encouraging people to buy, buy, buy, and sitcoms present one view of the norm.

Absolutely every production holds a certain amount of bias, and where those with a vested interest in consumerism dominate a television company/station, then you will see heavy bias towards advertising rampant consumerism as the norm. Ultimately, people are seeing "BUY!" beamed into their homes on an hourly basis. They are not receiving all of the information from which to make an informed choice.

Is it condescending to think peoples' minds can be influenced by propaganda? Absolutely not. I mean, if a bloke can be persuaded to give his life on the grounds that someone whom he has never met tells him that someone else whom he has never met wants to kill him, then it's possible a bloke can be persuaded to keep buying. I'd call it a realistic assessment of human behaviour.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Beware of what I like to call the ideological filter – the tendency to block out information that doesn’t support one’s world view.



I know, Marc, this ideological card is a regular theme of yours. Let's have the conversation first and at the end of it make a decision on the relevance of ideology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I see alternative voices warning of the dangers of over consumption all over the place – on news programs, on cable programs (A&E, etc.), in newspapers and magazines, an right here on the internet.



I'm genuinely interested to hear of examples. The internet - definitely. I wouldn't disagree with you, but how many people search for information around consumerism. Hard to estimate, but I reckon they're a small minority.

The most popular form of communication media is the television. This is where the majority of people receive the majority of their information. Furthermore, the internet is largely filled with a similar point of view. You log into Yahoo and you'll be presented with stories which tacitly and explicitly support the prevailing view of society's norms i.e. consumerism.

Genuinely, do you honestly believe that anything more than a small minority of people are informed about the negative aspects of consumerism? As said, I'm interested to see your examples.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I’ll say it again, the power of the corporations is not monolithic. They are subject to the same market forces, the same reality, we all are. Macintosh can advertise to they’re blue in the face, if the iphone turns out to be a piece of crap that nobody wants – it won’t sell.



Really? The first rule of marketing is to give people what they think they want, not what they need. There are loads of simple and more subtle tricks of marketing a product - for example, data mining to find a correlation between products and placing those products together (nappies and beer, crisps and beer etc) in the supermarket - all designed to give people a steer to buying more than they originally considered. 

Edited to add:

Maybe the television is not the most popular form, maybe magazines are more popular.

Either way, flick through the nearest magazine or turn on your favourite television channel and consider the possibility that it is buy, buy, buy from start to finish.



caitlyn -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 6:00:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masternslave07
I agree that liberals get slammed at times by the press, and the reason for that is because the press are sharks that when they smell blood go into a feeding frenzy. But to say the reporting is balanced, please.


So, if a liberal gets slammed, its because the press are sharks, but when a conservative gets slammed, it's because of organized bias? Any chance they are sharks towards one and all, and don't really care at what political table they feed?
 
The deterioration of you logic (other than grouping one-hundred million people into one group) is when you combine bias, with fair and balanced. Those things are mutually exclusive. Those of us that are saying that the media isn't bias towards the left (like me), are not saying it is fair and balanced towards the right. I haven't seen anyone make that connection at all.
 
The media has one bias ... selling more media. They will fuck anyone they can, to get the job done. It may seem to you that your party is beng overly picked on. Well, no shit ... your party has been in power for quite some time now. When the Democrats are in power, they will feel picked on.
 
The media is fair and balanced towards one group ... themselves.



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 6:05:44 AM)

quote:

The media has one bias ... selling more media.

I'm glad that someone else gets that.  And controversy sells, not status quo. 



caitlyn -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 6:20:28 AM)

I don't get how people don't get that.
 
It's hard for me, because I've sworn to stay off the 'insulting people' thing ... kind of a promise made to myself, because clearly you can get away with it here.
 
That said, it's a major challenge when you see someone from the party that has been in power for so long ... griping about media bias against their party.
 
Geesh ... any chance those two things might just go together????? [;)][8|][;)]



dragone -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 6:47:24 AM)

Hi Caitlyn; Well, when one has no facts of substance, and one wants to run off one's mouth, because they don't like what is said,.... there is always, insults. With insults you can always bring any arguement and discussion to a screeching halt, limiting any further intelligent interaction, thereby shutting down any meaningfull, enlightening discussion, which will educate and inform, broading one's understanding of the world and the workings thereof.

And, if insults are not enough to shut down any intelligent interaction; you can always demand the other party to prove their 'extrodinary claims', with demands of a URL. while they go off and take a nap. Never mind the party demanding, doesn't make any effort whatsoever to do any reserch on their own.

Insults and intelligence, are a universe apart. But, it works here, and is alive and well on this CM network.

I tip my Sarratteli to you.



dragone -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 7:05:32 AM)

Hello Mr. Northerngent; I tend to disagree a little with your 'First rule of  marketing is to give the people what they think they want.' Marketing is basically this: create a product; create the perception of a need for that product; saturate the media with the perception of the need of that product. Then you have, what you say, people thinking this product is want they want and need. Next comes: selling that product to the consumer, who now believes the producer of the product is suppling the consumer with the product they desire, have needed and wanted all their lives, filling that void of their existence.

Having worked years in the media advert industry, your other statements, I agree are dead on target.

Further, may I add, in my humble opinion; all media is geared to sell, and to consumme; nothing you see or read is there to enlighten, and educate. Once magazine publishers, would run articles, from intelligent writers, authors, now, the US magazine is filled with advertising...basically a catalog of wares being sold. If there are 184  total pages in a US magazine, 14 pages are devoted to some banal article. This is an example of course.

The television is the greatest medium for dispensing information, contrived or not; second is the internet; and third the pulp magazines, and last, far down the list, as far as one can go; is the book.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 12:47:18 PM)

"A Canadian group produced an advert (funded by the group) which aimed to advertise the alternative view that rampant consumerism is unhealthy and irresponsible. All US television networks refused to show this advertisement on the grounds that it was not in the interests of US business (even though the group funded the advert)."

Any chance of getting some details on this, I would like to investigate it a bit more.  What Canadian group?  And All TV networks refused to accept the buy based on the same reason.  This story has the smell of propaganda to me.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 1:18:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"A Canadian group produced an advert (funded by the group) which aimed to advertise the alternative view that rampant consumerism is unhealthy and irresponsible. All US television networks refused to show this advertisement on the grounds that it was not in the interests of US business (even though the group funded the advert)."

Any chance of getting some details on this, I would like to investigate it a bit more.  What Canadian group?  And All TV networks refused to accept the buy based on the same reason.  This story has the smell of propaganda to me.


'Interesting that you label the "story" as propaganda before seeing the details.

I'm going out for a beer, but give me an hour or two and I'll have laid out all the details including examples of television companies who refused to broadcast it. I'll throw in a few quotes from TV bosses for good measure.

I'll be interested to see if you can find mention of this in the US media.



Musicmystery -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 2:50:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Some Democrats think there is a "market failure" when it comes to talk radio and want legislation that would force the FCC to bring back the fairness doctrine that it abandoned in the late 1980s.
The Fairness Doctrine would require talk radio shows to include commentary from opposing viewpoints and refrain hosts from making their own opinions known. However Democrats only want this to apply to talk radio and not to newspapers or television news....in other words, they only want this to apply to a segment of the media that they do not control nor dominate.

Many Senators, who blame conservative talk radio for the demise of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, have made comments privately that they do intend to introduce legislation that would put the fairness doctrine back in place in an attempt to sideline popular radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh.

Legal analysts say it is unclear whether the fairness doctrine is constitutional. Some argue the doctrine is a violation of the "freedom of the press" clause of the 1st amendment. With a conservative Supreme Court that now appears to be leaning to literal interpretations of the constitution, it does not appear as if the fairness doctrine will be law for very long if it is ever passed by congress.
There is also legal cases already on the books against the fairness doctrine. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that parts of the fairness doctrine are unconstitutional because it leads to a limit of public debate. Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." The case was Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo.

But this is type of crap is typical and consistant with an elitist Senate and far-left Democrats that seem to be more concerned with finding ways to silence and limit debate on issues instead of finding real solutions to problems facing the nation. And it won't stop here. Once they get control of the airwaves, they will then set their sights on trying to control the internet.

Since the beginning of civilization, governments have always strived to control and constrict the flow of information. It seems our government today is no different. The greatest danger to a corrupt government is an informed public that constantly watches over the shoulders of their elected officials. And this is why many career politicians in Washington today do not want you to read their bills and watch what they are doing.


I'm just confused about why you think this is a Democrat problem, when a Republican adminsitration is striving mightily to dismantle the Constitution.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/7/2007 7:06:01 PM)

nope Northern Gent I said it smelled of Propaganda to me (vauge stories like this that intentionally leave out all details so it can't be checked usually smell like propaganda to me), and I asked for some details so I can research it myself.   You have had over 6 hours to post your promised proof....



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/8/2007 4:08:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dragone

Hello Mr. Northerngent; I tend to disagree a little with your 'First rule of  marketing is to give the people what they think they want.' Marketing is basically this: create a product; create the perception of a need for that product; saturate the media with the perception of the need of that product. Then you have, what you say, people thinking this product is want they want and need. Next comes: selling that product to the consumer, who now believes the producer of the product is suppling the consumer with the product they desire, have needed and wanted all their lives, filling that void of their existence.

Having worked years in the media advert industry, your other statements, I agree are dead on target.

Further, may I add, in my humble opinion; all media is geared to sell, and to consumme; nothing you see or read is there to enlighten, and educate. Once magazine publishers, would run articles, from intelligent writers, authors, now, the US magazine is filled with advertising...basically a catalog of wares being sold. If there are 184  total pages in a US magazine, 14 pages are devoted to some banal article. This is an example of course.

The television is the greatest medium for dispensing information, contrived or not; second is the internet; and third the pulp magazines, and last, far down the list, as far as one can go; is the book.


Hello Dragone,

It's fascinating that a significant proportion of the population don't appreciate what you're explaining. 

People think they have real, informed choice and can't see that they're having their strings pulled.

It'll be future generations who understand this, I'm afraid, not the present one.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/8/2007 4:32:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

nope Northern Gent I said it smelled of Propaganda to me (vauge stories like this that intentionally leave out all details so it can't be checked usually smell like propaganda to me), and I asked for some details so I can research it myself.   You have had over 6 hours to post your promised proof....


LuckyDog, what is it with you:

1) You aim to discredit an opposing view without actually listening/seeing the full details of that opposing view.
2) You then attempt to claim you're not discrediting it, but in the same post go on to discredit it further.
3) You then stamp your feet because the supporting information hasn't been provided within your time limits.

That's exactly how children behave. This may come as a surprise to you, but I'm not here to fill the gaps in your education when you feel you need some guidance.

In terms of the details:

1) It was 1997.
2) The Candian organisation is called Adbusters.
3) The advert was basically this: an animated pig superimposed on a map of North America smacked its lips while saying "The average North American consumes 5 times more than a Mexican, 10 times more than a Chinese person, and 30 times more than a person from India....GIVE IT A REST! NOVEMBER 28th IS BUY NOTHING DAY".
4) Examples of US stations who flatly refused to run it were NBC, CBS and ABC (even though the funds were in place).
5) 'We don't want to take any advertising that's inimical to our legitimate business interests' - Richard Gitter, vice-president of advertising standards at the General Electric Company's NBC network.
6) Westinghouse Electric Corp's CBS sent a letter explaining the rejection of the advert saying, 'Buy Nothing Day is in opposition to the current economic policy in the United States'.

Point 6 is particularly enlightening - consumerism is equated with economic policy. In other words, according to your corporate masters, you're on this planet to be bought and sold, you're not here for self-possession or informed decision making in the interests of human need.

As said, I'll be interested to see if you can find mention of this in the US media.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/8/2007 4:18:02 PM)

Thanks for the details NG.  As I assumed several points in your statement were incorrect (exxagerated to inflate your point).  All TV networks did not refuse to run it.  It ran, and has reguarly for years on CNN(turner stations).  I have seen it.  I am sure every American in these forums has heard of "Buy Nothing Day".  It is true that the Big three TV networks (ABC, NBC,& CBS) have policies of not running advocay Ads.  This goes accross the boards, and affects all action groups the same.  If they accepted any ads there would be nonstop issue ads, which the comapnies have decided to not do.  It in no way was a supression of a view because of the nature of the view, as you implied.  The Quotes you provided partial clips of were part of statements defining the ads as having an agenda (advocacy), and then pointing out the long standing policy against running advocacy ads.  If you think such a policy would be more profitable, feel free to start up a station doing so, as one set of market research you might consider where people go in the World of Collarme.  Compare how many people want to post on these issues compared to those wanting to talk BDSM or hook up, is that also part of some grand nefarious programing?
So your vuage story was not accurate (even figuring in the vaugness) and relies on partial Quotes....Smells like propaganda to me.



Marc2b -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/10/2007 7:09:35 AM)

quote:

repeating somthing that is incorrect does not by dint of weariness assume correctness.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

quote:

My aims are purely altruistic, I feel I am indebted to the common good, and those of limited horizons and even meaner intelligence should no more be allowed to be continously indoctrinated with radical right flawed reasoning than a sex criminal should be allowed pedastery.

Limited horizons and meaner intelligence? That is a very arrogant, very condescending attitude. It is also one, I must confess, that is very easy to fall into. How much respect can you have for people who show a greater interest in what Paris Hilton wore on her way to jail than what their leaders in Washington are up to? The problem here is thinking in terms of "the masses." Such thinking dehumanizes people. You strip away their individuality, reducing them to something malleable, like clay. Something you can form into a shape more pleasing to you. All you have to do is bring them your message of enlightenment. But, of course, if that doesn’t work, if they refuse to listen, then sterner methods must be used (for their own good, of course). You need to force your message upon them. Of course, they still might not listen (having the audacity to have minds of their own, God Damn it) so laws must be passed to cajole them into proper behavior and thinking. We must invoke sin taxes, ban their SUVs, enact speech codes (i.e. the Fairness Doctrine – a speech code in effect if not in name), etc. The fact that we are trampling over other people’s rights is irrelevant (and eventually, becomes the purpose – power is so intoxicating).

We have no right to do that to other people in the name of stroking our own ego. They are not "the masses." They are individuals, each with their own likes and dislikes, their own needs, desires and dreams. 

Your analogy doesn’t hold up. A pederast is doing actual, provable, physical and psychological harm to another (utterly defenseless) human being by way of action. To equate that with Rush Limbaugh expressing his opinions on the airwave is ludicrous. It is also dangerous.

quote:

We even now are faced with the eroding of our nations principles in the name of the flag and patriotism and God and all manner of imbicilic horseshit.

We have been faced with the eroding of our nation’s principles since day one. Indeed, I don’t think we ever fully agreed on what our nation’s principles are.



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/10/2007 8:09:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"A Canadian group produced an advert (funded by the group) which aimed to advertise the alternative view that rampant consumerism is unhealthy and irresponsible. All US television networks refused to show this advertisement on the grounds that it was not in the interests of US business (even though the group funded the advert)."

Any chance of getting some details on this, I would like to investigate it a bit more.  What Canadian group?  And All TV networks refused to accept the buy based on the same reason.  This story has the smell of propaganda to me.


I heard about this on both the BBC World Service and German TV news.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/10/2007 11:50:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

The Quotes you provided partial clips of were part of statements defining the ads as having an agenda (advocacy), and then pointing out the long standing policy against running advocacy ads. 



The above is at the heart of your argument. Based on this, can you expand on your statement that the following is a partial quote and open to being misconstrued:

'Buy Nothing Day is in opposition to the current economic policy in the United States'.
 
Feel free to provide a link to the full quote.



Marc2b -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/10/2007 11:53:28 AM)

quote:

Maybe you're underestimating the strength... etc.

First, let me say, the ideology is always relevant. The ideology is the most pernicious force of evil in human history, responsible for millions of deaths and untold misery. The ideology brooks no opposition and therefore cannot be reasoned with, cannot be compromised with. So long as people cling to ideologies, there can be no peace on earth.

Second, the first rule of marketing is to sell an image, of which the product is presented as absolutely necessary to attaining/maintaining the image:

"You’re not a rugged manly man unless you smoke Marlboros."

"You’re a bad mother if your kitchen floor isn’t spotless. Be a good mother, buy Pinesol."

"You’re a cultured, sophisticated person, prove it by coming down to our art gallery."

My problem is not with your desire to get an alternative message out but the means in which you intend to do so – government fiat. If you accept the government’s right to dictate speech for some, then you accept that the government has the right to dictate speech. A policy which could come back and bite you on the ass. Sauce for the goose...

If you want to get your message out, you just going to have to try harder and find alternatives. Depriving other people of their rights is not the way to go.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/10/2007 12:10:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Maybe you're underestimating the strength... etc.

First, let me say, the ideology is always relevant. The ideology is the most pernicious force of evil in human history, responsible for millions of deaths and untold misery. The ideology brooks no opposition and therefore cannot be reasoned with, cannot be compromised with. So long as people cling to ideologies, there can be no peace on earth.

Second, the first rule of marketing is to sell an image, of which the product is presented as absolutely necessary to attaining/maintaining the image:

"You’re not a rugged manly man unless you smoke Marlboros."

"You’re a bad mother if your kitchen floor isn’t spotless. Be a good mother, buy Pinesol."

"You’re a cultured, sophisticated person, prove it by coming down to our art gallery."

My problem is not with your desire to get an alternative message out but the means in which you intend to do so – government fiat. If you accept the government’s right to dictate speech for some, then you accept that the government has the right to dictate speech. A policy which could come back and bite you on the ass. Sauce for the goose...

If you want to get your message out, you just going to have to try harder and find alternatives. Depriving other people of their rights is not the way to go.


I'm scratching my head and wondering why you've posted this in reply to my post. It bears almost no relation.

I expected the wittering about ideology. I mean, same old etc.

'Not sure what this is, though:

My problem is not with your desire to get an alternative message out but the means in which you intend to do so – government fiat.

Presumably you missed the part of my post stating an advert was declined on the basis it was in contradiction to US economic policy. This pretty much supports my original point that people will not receive all the information through a TV screen. The government stepping in was never mentioned.

Spare me the ideology line, it's as boring as bat shit.



Marc2b -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/10/2007 12:11:18 PM)

A commentary on the alleged liberal/conservative bias of the media:

The media, being a business, has only one bias – profits. Both liberal and conservative voices are well represented in the media but they have their different niches (although exceptions can be found in all cases). Conservatives clearly dominate talk radio. Liberal clearly dominate newspapers and broadcast television. Magazines, books, and cable television is a mixed bag.

People perceive a bias for one reason and one reason only (groan, here he goes again) – the ideological filter. That which you are comfortable with, that which you perceive as a proper world view, doesn’t spark much notice (air is all around you but how often do you really think about it). It is part of the paradigm of your life – reinforcing your basic assumptions. That which offends your world view is what makes you take notice (like a really noxious fart) because it seems wrong and out of place.



luckydog1 -> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? (7/10/2007 12:15:06 PM)

Northern Gent, because it is a partial quote, taken out of context.  Do you honestly not understand that using only part of the sentance is by definition a partial quote?  If this is the case I would certainly be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.   Partial quotes can be used honestly for the sake of brevity, or they can be used to distort waht is meant and hide the context.  As was the case in your story.   I am not going to go look it up again, you can do real research, ie look for some other sides, if you want.  I already explained the quote to you, and pointed out that it is and has been the longstanding policy to not run issue ads of any sort.  The partial sentance you are quoting ( out of context), is the ad in question being defined as an issue or advocacy ad, hence they did not take the Buy. 

As pointed out the other part of your claim was an absolute lie.  Turner Networks ran the ad.




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875