2

[Edited on September 17, 2006 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

9/17/2006 10:47:56 PM

Quote :

"dont underestimate the "silent majority" how often have they even tried reporting the good things to see if it will take ahold of the market?"

when was 30% a majority?

9/17/2006 11:02:17 PM

Quote :

"hahaha. you dont think the media skews things with a liberal bias? how come we hear nothing good from iraq, when good things are happening in MANY areas? "

the media doesn't have a liberal bias, it has a SENSATIONAL bias, it selectively puts on the air that which will get attention

hence the reason clinton's sex thing caught more airtime than any of the economic boom

hence the reasons republican corruption scandals are catching more flack than liberal fallacies in congress

hence the reason we hear more about a bombing on our own troops in iraq rather than the fact that they have boring old running water

also the SAME reason we have more coverage of murders and robberies when statistics show the actual number of both occuring to be dropping

9/18/2006 2:12:56 AM

a) i walked an old lady across the street today

b) a man shoots five people in a Circle K

which will be on the news?

9/18/2006 9:47:16 AM

ooo ooo is it b?

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 10:51 AM. Reason : no it must be a]

9/18/2006 10:50:52 AM

^^ Dentaldamn's is an EXCELLENT question worth asking ourselves. Why do we select (b) for our news consumption?

The state has more than a little control over our media, but less over our news, which is left primarily to be competed over by corporations--who are subject to many competing ideologies. Those corporations found years ago that more people watch the news when it contains stories of violence than "feel good stories." Since corporation's incentives are behind turning profits, not always promoting a psychologically healthy and intelligent society, they went with what brought people to the television.

That's the history. Plain and simple. The rest is speculation on why it happens, and how its effects can be seen in the media.

In basic terms, I'd argue that Chomsky nailed it on the head in many respects in some of his work on the state of modern media.

The biases available in our media isn't liberal or conservative per se, so much as it is: competing ruling force (a) vs. competing ruling force (b) vs. competing ruling force (c) vs. (d), (e), (f), ad infinitum. I argue that those competing ruling forces can be viewed as government--who protects you from abroad, from individuals, from religious ideology, and from corporations--and corporations--who protect you from government, and because of it protect you from religious ideology--and religious institutions--who ideologically protect you from the influences of different combinations of the other two.

Often the competition between these forces takes place within the individual in subtle forms. The individual can be an editor, news journalist, news junkie, anchorman, broadcasting corporation's CEO, US policy advisor to the President, or anyone affected by the news or who could impact the news.

These leads to biases construed as liberalism or conservatism in varying times because those paradigms of allegiance to corporation, government, and religion vary at minimum in our society every eight years when the constituents of government goes through vast changes. Messages from government and corporation tend to vary more widely than those from religious institutions. Messages from corporation and government seem to covary.

As such, biases that reflect the interplay of these roles within the individuals who write from different ideological orientations affect what these messages become. More stories about liberal bias will be charged when liberals aren't in charge of something worth bitching about. More stories about conservative bias will be charged when conservatives aren't in charge of something worth bitching about. This is just fundamental psychology at work, people.

The argument about liberal bias and conservative bias in the news is just smoke and mirrors, people.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ...]

9/18/2006 2:33:44 PM

Quote :

"and corporations--who protect you from government"

Since when and How the hell?

I have never heard of a liberty-destroying law being passed through congress without a long list of Corporations lobbying for its passage.

Enron tried for years to get Kyoto passed. Progress Energy not only lobbied for but wrote the latest North Carolina clean-air bill. etc. etc.

Corporations use Government against each other, that is how it has always been and always will be, it is the Anglo-Saxon way.

9/18/2006 4:51:05 PM

Corporations also use government to reduce the tax rate.

I'm sure you're no crybaby when that happens.

Certain corporations have been rather effective at teaching the public something they weren't aware of, and wouldn't have learned much about in public schools (most of the public, you'll recall, doesn't go to college, finish college, get higher education, etc). It's usually lost in the debate, but the existence of bias within the media wasn't as seared into our consciousness as it is today until a corporation aiming to disseminate news emerged using "bias" as a differentiative market strategy. I'll give Rupert Murdoch the ups he deserves for at least making that much clear.

Investigative journalists have also been responsible for the unearthing of scandals within the governments, at times better at exposing them than the government by themselves. Certain CIA prisons come to mind, as do certain provisions leading to the tapping and taping of private phone calls. There's literally a treasure trove of information we've only learned of from the private sector, and never would've had it been up to the government.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 5:12 PM. Reason : ...]

9/18/2006 5:07:42 PM

Quote :

"Corporations also use government to reduce the tax rate."

No, I wouldn't cry, of course to the best of my knowledge it has never happened.

You see, corporations would much rather get a unique exemption, that way their competitors must continue to pay the full tax, giving themselves a sustainable competitive advantage.

The net result of all these special exemptions is higher tax rates on the non-politically connected and economic inefficiency.

9/18/2006 5:14:14 PM

Right.

Which means that when the politically-connected--if the current intermarriage of Capitalism and Democracy is the best way for society to operate--are the ones receiving most of the benefits, it's the best of all possible worlds. To admit otherwise, implies that man is corruptible, subject to self-interest, driven by power-motives. Going further by advocating abolishment of government would suggest that corporations just need more direct control over the ability to wield their resources in capacities beyond the comprehension of the individual, and without oversight.

This is where the argument reduces to some form of: "Because no evidence that a better system currently exists to distribute or enable the conditions of freedom and equality to people anywhere on Earth, there can not be such a system, and it's silly to speculate that such a thing could exist." That just doesn't hold water. Ask, or read Candide.

So what's the solution, if not simply the abolition of government? What emerges from decades of operating under that hypothesis--a virtually unchecked oligarchy of unimaginable power to conceal information and deceive the public--isn't particularly pleasing. Clearly, the issues involved in arguing against government would be involved in future arguments about the shared pacts between monopoly CEOs...

9/18/2006 5:23:51 PM

Quote :

"So what's the solution, if not simply the abolition of government?"

Simple, I suggest you read the Federalist papers, our founding fathers answered this question long ago.

The answer was Constitutional Government. By limiting the power of the Federal Government it would limit the incentive for corporations and other special interest to interfere (with no taxation there can be no push for tax-breaks).

Finally, but limiting the power of the Federal Government, it would mean most decisions were being made locally, either by city or state governments. It is this closeness to the electorate that was intended to keep government accountable and fight corruption.

This is the short-short version, and the system worked remarkably in-so-far as the checks were maintained.

It is not that Democracy+Capitalism is ideal, it is actually quite bad. Philosophically speaking Monarchy or Foreign Rule combined with Capitalism are better systems. But these systems only work better because the Rulers are insulated from the corrupting influences of Capitalism. However, this can also be said of Constitutionalism combined with Capitalism. If the rules of the game are fixed and cannot be corrupted by the legislature, then individuals would give up trying to rig the system and busy themselves with customer service. It is only when corruption is a viable option that individuals give up trying to profitably make paperclips and instead hire lobbyists.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 5:56 PM. Reason : sp]

9/18/2006 5:55:52 PM

Let me tell you how some of our systems founders solved the problem you're talking about.

They made it so the nation elected literally thousands of representatives. You know why? They knew it'd be corrupted. They just wanted it to be VERY difficult, and VERY expensive to do so, or to maintain.

What's fundamentally wrong with asserting we make a change in that direction?

9/19/2006 1:27:44 AM