mattp Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 practically every home in the DPRK has a box that continually broadcasts rhetoric of the state Freeclimb9 wrote that in another thread. Isn't the same true in the U.S.? The "box" is called a TV set. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and this morning I believe I heard a similar idea expressed on NPR but honest - I thought of it first. In the discussion of the war on terrorism, and particularly with regard the Iraq war, there has been absolutely no credible opposition in the mainstream press and absolutely nothing on television that would present the case against the war -- even though most of the citizens of this nation are either against it or have serious misgivings about it. Example: the president and his men says we are going there because they are going to get us if we don't get them first. He says we are going to fight for freedom. He says that if we fight this war against terrorism by invading countries like Afghanistan and Iraq we are going to be more secure at home. The TV and the newspapers parrot this message to us every day, with no attempt to give equal press or even significant press to any critical view of these ideas. Example: Somebody from the administration is on TV every day telling us about the latest terrorist threat that never seems to materialize, and about how our intelligence community is preparing to protect us. And there is no serious publicity of the idea that they may be alarmist or that the new security structures may not be very effective. Example: Saudi Arabia reverses their position on the U.S. use of their bases in any invasion of Iraq and it is reported with no background given and no follow up. This is probably the single biggest story in the middle east in the last two months and there are no questions asked about what actually happened. Clearly, there must have been some kind of background deal but the press asks no questions. Example: There has been no link shown between Iraq and terrorism. There was a reported meeting in -- where was it? East Germany or some place -- between some Iraqui official and al queda guys. bbut the Iraqi's deny it, Al queda denies it, and the German's deny it. It was asserted as fact, but all indications are that it never happened and there is no real discussison of how this appears to be blatant propaganda. You may agree with Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney or you may not. But clearly the TV set and the newspapers are only spraying propaganda. Anybody who criticizes the administration's rhetoric is portrayed as some kind of traitor like Sean Penn or Patty Murray and there is no serious discussion presented to the American public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegetablebelay Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Did anyone see the Simpson's last night where there was a cult of movementarians who had a leader who was going to take them all to the planet blisstonia or something? Classic episode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I don't know, Matt. I would say that the "opposing viewpoint" you are looking for would be in the form of editorials; which probably do NOT appear in state-run press vehicles. The mass media outlets report what the White House has to say is because that is who is making news. I know that the liberal media isn't championing the Bush Administration's platform; that is what a state-run press/propaganda machine does. Watch FoxNews for balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Matt, why don't you send your post to the President. Maybe he'll rethink his plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 That's my point, Greg: The "liberal media" is a complete myth. Anybody with any opposition to the war is portrayed as a traitor. How "liberal" is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 mattp---I call it the AIPAC connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Matt, I think the mainstream media IS liberal. But more than that they are whores who thirst for sensationalism to get ratings. News is no longer news, it is an entertainment business and a political arm of the Democrats and liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 What we don't know won't hurt us. Just remember guys, there's the news for the media and the real news the pentagon won't release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 GregW said "more than that they are whores who thirst for sensationalism to get ratings. News is no longer news, it is an entertainment business" yep!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Greg- Do you care to address my argument or discuss my examples, or do you merely reassert that the press is liberal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 No offense Matt, but your argument is redundant and open-ended. We've hashed this out for two months now. There's no satisfying answer for all parties concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Ah the liberal media ploy. This is an ingenious strategy despite the evidence. Newspapers are businesses; they live via their advertisers who buy space in the paper. When you look at the examples matt provided, you have to ask why is mainstream press always just mouthing what is put out by the establishment. If you’re a cub reporter you quickly learn where the boundaries are in reporting. You go off to the left and the leash is quickly pulled back. It’s so much easier to just regurgitate the latest press release from the White House than conduct some investigative reporting. If you do, you had better watch whose toes you step on. Remember when 60 minutes had filmed a piece on nuclear power in the US? It was scheduled to air and then GE came knocking at the door – show canceled. If a pretty high-powered group like this can get free press, who can. While there is a thin voice of the left in editorials, the big syndicated voices are way right – William Safire and Thomas Freedman of the NYT for instance, George Will of the Washington Post. On the air waves you have Rush and his ilk. Funny you never see Noam Chomsky on Meet the Press. The liberal media chant would be funny, if it were not so sad. There is little diversity in news reporting in the US, and it’s getting worse with the consolidation from the Telecommunications Bill that was pass a couple of years ago (and Billy boy signed it). You can get a more diverse world view with Canadian or even British news, or the few magazines with low circulation in the US that offer an alternative view. How else do you explain the specific examples provided by matt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Anybody who criticizes the administration's rhetoric is portrayed as some kind of traitor like Sean Penn or Patty Murray and there is no serious discussion presented to the American public. Okay, Matt, I'll take a shot. Regarding the above quote, these two individuals were not vilified for just criticizing the Administration's rhetoric. They were vilified for the extremeness of their actions AND their words. Patty Murray calling Saddam a humanitarian? What the fuck? Sean Penn visiting leaders of a country obviously at odds with his home country and not realizing that they would use it for propaganda purposes? What the fuck? Stupid words and actions. Watch the sunday morning news shows and other shows that have round table discussions. It seems like Demos from Congress are always holding press conferences to tell the world that they think Bush is an idiot. Here's another example: Trent Lott's statement at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. Why didn't anyone come out to give some balance to the attacks that were made on Lott for what he said? Another thing: these talking heads on the major networks aren't going to do anything that would jeopardize their access to the heavy hitters in Washington, D.C. - they are sellout whores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 So, Jim, you're trying to tell me that the Seattle Times/PI is a conservative newspaper? Give me a fucking break. Subscribe to a conservative news website for a month and then wonder why the mainstream/liberal media doesn't run the same stories. Shouldn't you be out hugging salmon or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Trask: can you cite a single example of an issue that the TV and the Seattle newspapers have concistently presented with a "liberal" slant? I honestly can't. Take another example: Global Warming. Last week the paper had a front page article headlined "Global Warming Uncertain" - or something like that. What the story said, if you actually read the lengthy article, was that there had been a recent study of the complex ecological happenings that have resulted from global warming, not that there was anything uncertain about the existence of the phenomenon. But most people look only at headlines or read the first paragraph of such an article and then get bored and look for the latest footbal score. People like Mtn Goat, who still believe that the greenhouse gas thing is "junk science" will have their belief confirmed when they look at the newspaper even when the article in fact supports the opposite conclusion. In the context of the story about greenhouse gasses, the "opposition viewpoint" (the one the administration would like to present to us even though their own scientists admit is untrue) is given equal coverage and credibility. When the headlines and the content is so slanted in favor of the administration's message while over half the AMerican public disagrees, or when almost all scientists disagree, our newspaper is spewing propoganda at us along with the sensationalism that Greg complains about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 it realy doesn't matter what "side" the news is comming from. It is the fact that it is comming from a side at all that is wrong... I think that the media is just telling the majority what they think the majority wants to hear, and that is all about the dollar truth flew outa hear a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Matt - I agree with your original "propaganda" premise. That is why I don't watch the television news or get news from the newspapers; I find what I need newswise on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Truth and Elvis have left the building... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 What I’m saying is that for papers with a major circulation, there is only the normal establishment bylines (functionally rightist), or papers with a specific right agenda, such as the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal. While all papers have a business section, why isn’t there a worker/labor section? Oh that’s right they’re responsibly covered in the business section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 NPR---Anybody who cannot detect the liberal messages so overtly built into their broadcasts is blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Actually you could still be blind and listen to the radio ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toast Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun Times, Washington Post to name a few major liberal rags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 were you jumping the gun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COL._Von_Spanker Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Did anyone see the Simpson's last night where there was a cult of movementarians who had a leader who was going to take them all to the planet blisstonia or something? Classic episode. Yes, a true classic. "You know, I pride myself on being a good host, so I'm obliged to offer you a beer, but I'm so darn mad, it's going to be mostly head!" -- Ned Flanders, "The Joy of Sect". episode info The most expansive simsons info site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.