 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/31/2011 6:27 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 15:43:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Basically, all the evidence suggests, including statements the man made
>> himself on occasion, that Fox is *very specifically* the political
>> mouthpiece of one single man,
>
> Actually, the impression I get of Rupert Murdoch is that he's in business
> to make money. If he could make money from more a progressive/liberal
> audience, he'd probably appear to be on the other end of the spectrum.
>
> He seems to me to be mostly an opportunist, taking advantage of people
> who aren't willing to think for themselves.
>
> Jim
That may be true. And, if it is the case, then we really have a huge
damn problem, because like 2% of business owners see the long term
consequences of bankrupting the people that buy their goods as a,
"problem", the other 98% figure they can just keep paying people shit,
not hiring anyone, if they can help it, doing all their manufacturing in
other countries, and lining their own pockets. And, those people
constitute the "backbone" of the Republican support.
So long as that condition persists, there simply isn't any money in
catering to the progressive/liberal views. And, imho, it makes his
decision to do so even more stupid, dangerous, and, dare I, as a
liberal, non-Christian, use such a term, "unpatriotic". Hell, some of
these idiots I would go as far as using the term, "treason", on, except
that, until/unless some right winger gets elected and puts *that* back
into law, you probably couldn't try them on it, even if you managed to
get them in front of a judge for being stupid enough to do things damn
close to qualifying.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/1/2011 10:27 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:05:50 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2011 02:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> He seems to me to be mostly an opportunist, taking advantage of people
>>> who aren't willing to think for themselves.
>>
>> Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
>> people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
>
> Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
> the public.
>
> The problem with Fox is that they blur the line between fact and opinion,
> which results in stories being "reported" on opinion shows that push a
> conservative agenda. They do apparently have serious news shows (that
> some on the left even say do a good job reporting the news rather than
> opining about the news), but I haven't had the patience to wait for that
> 2 hour segment during the 24 hour day - always had more important things
> to do.
>
> Jim
Yeah. Most of their time seems to be spent talking about the "reported"
facts, of the opinion show, which reported on someone else's opinion or
the opinion some clown had, about the previously reported news, on the
first show. I.e., why put up new news, if you can just recycle your own
pundits opinions of your own opinion, or the news you barely reported in
the first place? The main "news" show declares, "Spot say a ball",
becomes a discussion on X show about the color of the ball, followed by
Beck (or whom ever is left there now to do this) declares it red, and
says Spot might be a communist, and a few days later the main show is
quoting how Sarah Palin's opinion of what Ann Coulter said, in relation
to Mike Huckabee's comments, about Beck's claims, that Spot is a communist.
BTW, the most stupidly dangerous thing about this isn't if its pandering
to the right, because that is what is making money, its the fact that
half the idiots that seem to be possible candidates for the next
election, or keep trying to run, now "work" for Fox. You can't tell me
that is good for impartiality, or accuracy...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:16:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> BTW, the most stupidly dangerous thing about this isn't if its pandering
> to the right, because that is what is making money, its the fact that
> half the idiots that seem to be possible candidates for the next
> election, or keep trying to run, now "work" for Fox. You can't tell me
> that is good for impartiality, or accuracy...
I suspect the FEC may need to get involved if someone like Palin or
Huckabee decides to run (Huck has decided not to, though), because there
are laws about equal time that FNC would run seriously afoul of (IMHO)
for giving someone like Palin a platform that wasn't available to the
opposition. Fred Thompson had to quit Law & Order when he decided to run
for office because of those very same laws.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:07:34 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> That may be true. And, if it is the case, then we really have a huge
> damn problem, because like 2% of business owners see the long term
> consequences of bankrupting the people that buy their goods as a,
> "problem", the other 98% figure they can just keep paying people shit,
> not hiring anyone, if they can help it, doing all their manufacturing in
> other countries, and lining their own pockets. And, those people
> constitute the "backbone" of the Republican support.
What's so maddening is how the right has convinced people that they can
live the "American Dream" and, if they (the 'little people') had money,
they wouldn't want big bad Uncle Sam coming out with his hand out asking
for more money to fund feeding the poor and underprivileged.
But most of those people who vote Republican aren't ever going to benefit
from those tax cuts because the more people there are in that tax
bracket, the less power there is to go around to those people who are in
that tax bracket. So it's in their interest to "keep the dream alive"
for those less fortunate while actively preventing the less fortunate
from actually climbing the economic ladder.
Which is class warfare. It's funny (and sad) how the right spins
increasing taxes on the rich into class warfare and paints it as a 'bad
thing' when in fact they are actively engaged in class warfare and those
who are less fortunate are told that that crap sandwich is *really*
fillet mignon.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:30:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Sure. There are voluntary codes of practise. But as far as I know,
>>> there's nothing to stop anybody that wants to from completely
>>> disregarding these at will.
>>
>> Voluntary and voluntary... It's not good publicity if your newspaper
>> gets officially reprimended by the entity that enforces the
>> journalistic ethic code.
>
> Well, that's true enough.
>
>> Besides, the media cannot break the law either.
>
> That's what I'm saying. As far as I can tell, there's no actual *law*
> against printing outright lies in a newspaper. It's just considered poor
> journalistic practise by some.
Depends on the lie. Some lies certainly would be illegal if they were
libelous (for example).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
>> people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
>
> Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
> the public.
This seems to be the fundamental divide, yes. If you think about it,
these two beliefs are fundamentally opposed. Either the media serves the
public, or it serves itself. Which is it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/1/2011 5:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:16:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> BTW, the most stupidly dangerous thing about this isn't if its pandering
>> to the right, because that is what is making money, its the fact that
>> half the idiots that seem to be possible candidates for the next
>> election, or keep trying to run, now "work" for Fox. You can't tell me
>> that is good for impartiality, or accuracy...
>
> I suspect the FEC may need to get involved if someone like Palin or
> Huckabee decides to run (Huck has decided not to, though), because there
> are laws about equal time that FNC would run seriously afoul of (IMHO)
> for giving someone like Palin a platform that wasn't available to the
> opposition. Fred Thompson had to quit Law& Order when he decided to run
> for office because of those very same laws.
>
> Jim
Yes, but they only have to quit. Not that it wouldn't be a damn screwed
up scandal if they claimed to quit, but actually got caught still
getting a pay check, but.. some of these people are either way too
clever for their our own good, or just stupid enough, to do that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/2/2011 1:01 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Isn't the whole point of news producers to basically produce whatever
>>> people want to read, because it's more profitable that way?
>>
>> Well, some believe that. Others believe that the purpose is to inform
>> the public.
>
> This seems to be the fundamental divide, yes. If you think about it,
> these two beliefs are fundamentally opposed. Either the media serves the
> public, or it serves itself. Which is it?
Third option? It serves the corporate world, i.e., the money, so which
ever side those people are on, determines what gets on the air. Mind,
given that the modern corporate world tends to be made up of Ayn Rand
fans, mixed with the plain greedy, and less than 2% of the "big" ones
probably comprehend, or care, how screwed up they are making the
economy, this is nearly indistinguishable from, "It serves itself." Its
own self interest will, naturally, be to kiss the ass of the people with
the power, regardless of what the end game is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/1/2011 5:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:07:34 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> That may be true. And, if it is the case, then we really have a huge
>> damn problem, because like 2% of business owners see the long term
>> consequences of bankrupting the people that buy their goods as a,
>> "problem", the other 98% figure they can just keep paying people shit,
>> not hiring anyone, if they can help it, doing all their manufacturing in
>> other countries, and lining their own pockets. And, those people
>> constitute the "backbone" of the Republican support.
>
> What's so maddening is how the right has convinced people that they can
> live the "American Dream" and, if they (the 'little people') had money,
> they wouldn't want big bad Uncle Sam coming out with his hand out asking
> for more money to fund feeding the poor and underprivileged.
>
Yeah, because the companies that *had* a social conscience 50-100 years
ago where all, "communist!" Isn't it obvious? Long, slow, slide into a
state where, instead of half of them giving a shit about their workers,
even the ones that do now often have their hands tied by legislators,
who create laws that make it impossible to compete, by paying what the
ones who still have a damn conscience, or concept of basic civics (never
mind economics) think their people deserve.
> But most of those people who vote Republican aren't ever going to benefit
> from those tax cuts because the more people there are in that tax
> bracket, the less power there is to go around to those people who are in
> that tax bracket. So it's in their interest to "keep the dream alive"
> for those less fortunate while actively preventing the less fortunate
> from actually climbing the economic ladder.
>
> Which is class warfare. It's funny (and sad) how the right spins
> increasing taxes on the rich into class warfare and paints it as a 'bad
> thing' when in fact they are actively engaged in class warfare and those
> who are less fortunate are told that that crap sandwich is *really*
> fillet mignon.
>
I thought of the perfect example to show this. Everyone with an Olympic
sized swimming pool gets an extra ration of 500 gallons of water, and
doesn't have to give anything back, if they are clever enough. Everyone
with a smaller pool has to fight, tooth and nail, to just break even.
The people that only hope to own a pool, but might not even have a
bathtub, are asked to spit in a cup, because the government needs the water.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That's what I'm saying. As far as I can tell, there's no actual *law*
>> against printing outright lies in a newspaper. It's just considered poor
>> journalistic practise by some.
>
> Depends on the lie. Some lies certainly would be illegal if they were
> libelous (for example).
Right. So if I say that vitamine C overdoses cause cancer, that's fine,
but if I say that Dr Smith has proved that vitamine C overdoses cause
cancer, that's libel. (?)
In short, you can lie all you want, so long as you don't lie about
people or commercial entities, or if you do, you make sure that whatever
ficticious claims you make can't be rigoriously refuted.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
