RE: What if ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Moonhead -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 2:36:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Hmmm, maybe, but all newspapers have their own agenda, if employed the employee has to tow the party line or get fired. Now which is, do you think a journalist will stand behind their own morals and risk their employment, or do what the boss says ?


I think most would stand behind their principles.


You'd hope so, but as I've suggested, there's probably less of a conflict there than many would expect.



Aneirin -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 2:45:08 PM)

Then there must be many forgiving employers, a hard thing to have when sales in a very competitive market are under attack from new forms of media reporting, i.e. the internet.



Termyn8or -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 3:02:15 PM)

FR

As I said before, it's all in the definition. Forget the water injection, quashing of the electric car over the years and all that. Let's just get down to the bare facts.

Automakers build cars to operate on a certain fuel. Fuel refiners make the fuel for the cars. They actually fit a good part of the definition of course, but common sense does not see it that way.

What if fuel producers laid a few bucks on the bigwigs in the auto industry to build gas guzzlers ? Conspiracy or not ?

People are hooked on entertainment, so "they" produce DVDs. An entertainment addict needs a DVD player just like a smack addict needs a fit. But is that a conspiracy ?

And we are all aware of the banking situation and bailout of course. We know they still intend to use the system to the maximum advantage. Has anyone been charged under the RICO act, or even antitrust laws or anything of the sort ?

The supreme court ruled that the media can lie with legal impunity, but right in the FCC licenses it clearly states that if found to not be operating in the public interest, that license may be forfeit, or subject to non-renewal, so what's up with that ? What of Michael Powell's actions in the FCC, allowing big conglomerates to literally buy just about every media outlet even in a major market ?

You decide whether it is a forest or just a bunch of trees.

T



NorthernGent -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 3:08:21 PM)

It's pretty simple....I don't know the truth....you don't know the truth....so what in fuck's name makes you think anyone else knows the truth?

What's that old saying: nothing is certain in life except that nothing is certain and even that isn't certain.

So..I'm afraid...you're born...you make a nest....have a few bairns...then die....and along the way you may acquire some fridge magnets or something.



Moonhead -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 3:09:34 PM)

You can't take the fridge magnets with you, though.



rulemylife -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 3:11:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

I think most would stand behind their principles.


You'd hope so, but as I've suggested, there's probably less of a conflict there than many would expect.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
A question from that posit: do you think you get (to pick the two obvious examples) a lot of Marxists applying for jobs with Murdoch owned redtops or neo-Nazis applying for a job on the Grauniad in the first place? I'd suspect that most papers with a political bias employ very few hacks who don't share that bias in the first place.

I have absolutely no idea what a redtop is.  I guess it must be one of those quaint British expressions.

Though I do understand your general argument.

And sadly it is becoming true.

We have gone from objective to subjective journalism, especially with Murdoch-owned organizations.

That doesn't mean that every news outlet is run that way.  There are still many that adhere to journalistic standards.






zephyroftheNorth -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 3:17:07 PM)

*scowls*

sez who????



rulemylife -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 3:21:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Then there must be many forgiving employers, a hard thing to have when sales in a very competitive market are under attack from new forms of media reporting, i.e. the internet.


It's also interesting to note that this whole idea of media bias started with the onslaught of websites promoting themselves by claiming media bias and that they were the source for the truth.

So where is the real bias?



NorthernGent -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 3:21:30 PM)

True....they're the property of the Queen...as any half decent conspiracy theorist will tell you.....and on that very subject.....it's the puzzle that keeps people interested....not 'the truth'.



Moonhead -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 3:30:02 PM)

Redtop is (as you say) an anglicism for a tabloid: the titles are set in red over here.

I really think this problem is one that set in a long time ago. It's a bit late to start breaking up the two or three companies that own almost all of the print news, sadly.



Aneirin -> RE: What if ? (6/7/2010 8:40:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Then there must be many forgiving employers, a hard thing to have when sales in a very competitive market are under attack from new forms of media reporting, i.e. the internet.


It's also interesting to note that this whole idea of media bias started with the onslaught of websites promoting themselves by claiming media bias and that they were the source for the truth.

So where is the real bias?



Alfonso Gumucio
Dagron, the managing director of programs for the Communication for Social Change Consortium, has
bluntly stated that “Commercial mass media serves its own interests in Latin America as in every other
region of the world…. For decades, some of us in Latin America have been saying that private commercial
media is not helping to bring about democracy and social change. They're helping only the political interests
of the powerful and wealthy.”17 As the BBC report summarized: “Most media in most societies are
politically biased or aligned in some way, have tendencies towards sensationalism and simplification,
balance self interest—whether of profit or power—with acting in the public interest. The debate on the
accountability of the media to the public is a global

(http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Conference/Conference%20papers/Moeller.pdf )



rulemylife -> RE: What if ? (6/8/2010 5:26:23 AM)

From your link:

The media landscape has become both more dynamic and more crowded over the last two decades as a
result of new technologies and liberalized environments that have lowered the financial and political costs
of ownership and access. These trends have also put pressure on old business models, created new classes
of commercial, advertising‐dependent media and politically‐oriented outlets and shifted the editorial
interest of many news organizations away from public service news‐you‐need principles and towards
entertainment‐driven news‐you‐want standards.

Which is what I was trying to say.

There is no grand conspiracy here.

What has happened is the lowering of journalistic standards because reputable media outlets now have to compete with Alex the blogger who takes whatever crazy nonsense that pops into his head and publishes it as fact on his website.

Then people who are already inclined to those views take it as gospel and start spreading the "truth".






Aneirin -> RE: What if ? (6/11/2010 5:23:03 AM)

Conspiracy theorists have always been riduculed as nut jobs, people who perhaps fail to accept the evidence and perhaps think there is more to a story than has been provided, are they wrong in this or is the right way to think all about accepting what we are told.

Designers, engineers, scientists take what there is and dream of possibilities, some of those possibilities come to be established fact, because they had the ability to think outside of the box and seek their own answers.

How is this different to a person who have been given the established facts, but also chooses to think outside of the box regarding other things.

Could it be dreaming and speculating is only acceptable if there is a possibility of money at the end of it.



Musicmystery -> RE: What if ? (6/11/2010 6:58:28 AM)

quote:

What if all those people who are ridiculed and named conspiracy theorists for their findings or beliefs are in fact correct

What if they bring forth solid evidence to support those beliefs and meaningfully address the evidence against?



Moonhead -> RE: What if ? (6/11/2010 6:59:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

What if all those people who are ridiculed and named conspiracy theorists for their findings or beliefs are in fact correct

What if they bring forth solid evidence to support those beliefs and meaningfully address the evidence against?

When have any of them ever even tried to do that? Complaining that anybody who questions them is a dupe of the conspiracy seems to be a lot more common.



Musicmystery -> RE: What if ? (6/11/2010 7:04:21 AM)

Yeah. "Well, could be, if..." is groundless imagination, not an alternative theory.

Not at all the same as creative thinking--one is doa, the other produces change and fresh approaches.




Moonhead -> RE: What if ? (6/11/2010 7:13:36 AM)

Fair enough.
My own feeling has always been that conspiracy theories are there to provide excuses rather than explanations, in any case: "It's not my fault I'm unemployable and live in a trailer park, it's because the conspiracy have blacklisted me." Mostly pathetic and often horribly racist compensatory fantasies about a whole global conspiracy that doesn't seem to have anything better to do than picking on me...



Rule -> RE: What if ? (6/11/2010 8:08:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
What if its all true?

Well you have to ask the question - what you gonna do about it? If those behind all this stuff truly are as all powerful as they should need to be to plan and execute such schemes, the answer is nothing

Quite.



AnimusRex -> RE: What if ? (6/11/2010 6:13:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

What if all those people who are ridiculed and named conspiracy theorists for their findings or beliefs are in fact correct in what they have come to believe and what everyone else sees as a conspiracy theory is in fact wrong and there are devilish plans afoot in this world, would this world be any better for it or worse ?


In that case, the Jews, Muslims, Larry Silverstein, the Trilateral Commission, the Bush Administration, the Bilderbergs and of course Saul Alinsky conspired together to bring about 9-11.

Damn, they must have held their planning meetings in a fucking convention center.



But actually, I wish it were all true; the prospect of getting abducted and forced to do cruel and humiliating sexual experiments by tentacled alien girls sounds kinda hot.

oh, wait, was that out loud?



thompsonx -> RE: What if ? (6/11/2010 7:22:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

the problem with most conspiracy theorists is that their info cannot be backed up, there is no scientific or historical basis. Most of it is speculative at best.

They ignore any facts given to them.



Here are four conspiracies that have been proven true with time.

The u.s. entry into wwII was a planned conspiracy. The bassis in truth is that it is now known that roosevelt had the u.s. navy attack german subs in the atlantic and that the u.s. had broken the japanese codes. Even the u.s. ambasador to japan had given roosevelt evidence of the impending attack on pearl harbor.

The second was that the german attack on russia in june of 1941 caught the russians by complete surprise.
It is now known that the attack was known in great detail and the russian military was well prepared for it and had even "war gamed" it twice to validate their preparations.

The bay of pigs invasion of cuba by the cia...who does not know about the particulars of that one.

How about just for grins the "gulf of tonkin" attack on u.s. ships that never happened.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
1.46875