This whole article was merely a poll that people are getting nervous, and their is anxiety, blah blah blah. Everyone should have some anxiety, this is about to become a war.

I have yet to see any real arguements against war, the only ones that hold any water is to give "inspections" more time. But we have done that, will probably do it again, and then we will have to go in.

The longer period that goes on, the more people will not want to go in, the longer it goes on what coalition is built will continue to fall apart, the stall tactict is one that Saddam is an expert at - and has even said that is the key part of his strategy.

We should have went in last year, PERIOD. Actually we should have done this 10 years ago.... Waiting a few more months will lead us to Summer where we will probably not want to fight in. I doubt we will wait that long.... regardless of world public opinion.

I find it humurous that the people in Europe has so much free time to protest so much.... it must be nice to have 8 weeks paid vacation, and all the other socialist rules for employment....

Bush better go in soon, because world opinion - especially being lead by protestors will only get worse.... they are feeling embolden, and will just keep raising the level of noise.

Go in, get it over with, and move on....

Funny no one has yet to mention the people of IRaq... the people who have been surpressed, killed, victemized by Saddam... Belevie me, I realy do not care about them, I only care about US interests, but all the liberal, socialists, peacnics should examine the brutality of Saddam's regime...

Why is it these protestors, and wimpy countries like France always want to take the side of the evil dictator?

Mike, this is where I think you (and many people in America) have it all wrong... you shouldn't need an excuse not to go to war - you should need a damn good reason TO go to war.

Without solid justification for action, Bush is going to be very lonely out there... and justification isn't made of negatives, 'non-proofs' and blurry spy photos that could be anything.

As a note, the article was posted mostly as a reply to Colin's other article posting. It is key to understand that not only is Bush's support in the rest of the world slipping, but voters at home are less and less supportive of a man who is almost entirely focused on a single issue, and has spent most of his political capital, time, and efforts on it. The results in domestic issues polling is very low, and does not suggest a second term at this point, from what I can see.

Alex

JR

Jim Lehrer's Newshour on your very own PBS network.

You underrate Americans, Alex. Over and over again I read non-Americans claiming their press
coverage is so much better and balanced than that here in the US. The average American does
see both sides of stories. Debate styled news programming is very popular on the American
news networks. Think about that. "Debate". That's right. People are hearing both sides of an
argument. Who. What. When. Where. Why. That's the news. What other side IS there? After that, the rest of the story is all about what background is provided, what stories are linked and
the sneaky (aka very bright) writers getting their word in. English riters everywhere present news in pretty much the same format and with their own biases. Well, that is ALL the news. I
have found the BBC's coverage of the events to be very similar to CNN's. Maybe you are like my friend at GFY that is blinded by his passions. Read on!

I turned CNN on yesterday at 4pm because I read a post on GFY that CNN was horribly biased and was claiming that there were only hundreds of protestors out when there were
actually millions. I turned it on right at the top of the 4pm ET hour to get a fair sample. Instead of what the GFYer saw, I saw extensive coverage of the world-wide protests and about 60 seconds of coverage of George Bush's response. Terms such as "massive demonstrations" and "millions of marchers" were used and millions of marchers were shown. There was no balance. No pro-whitehouse viewpoints. There was coverage of the biggest news story of the day, as it should be.

Yeah, sure, a heavy dose of pro-whitehouse viewpoints. The US News media shreds the whiteouse to bits when given half a chance. Please, like the news media let up on the Monica Lewinski bit or the Iran Contra Affair or any other number of White House mishaps. Nope. They go to town for a news story that slams the administration. Trust me, with the nearly even number of Democrats and Republicans in this country, half the people would be happy as hell to see an anti-whitehouse news story during any administration. A sad thing but maybe that is the fuel of the American Democratic Republic.

Opinion in America is split nearly right in half because opinions are largely split on political lines. Current polls show Americans DO understand the way the US is viewed right now.

If you want to buy into the "Brainwashed Americans" myth, just go ahead. You underrate Americans.

you mean you get your best info on current world events and global politics somewhere between Mister Rogers Neighborhood, Masterpiece Theater and Alphabet Soup?

:rolleyes:

you mean you get your best info on current world events and global politics somewhere between Mister Rogers Neighborhood, Masterpiece Theater and Alphabet Soup?

:rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
Well unfortunately - here in Australia - that programme is about the best US based news programme we get.

It is actually broadcast on the one network here that is well-known for unbiased (and often locally unpopular) reporting on international events.

What plays around the Newshour in the US is a complete mystery to us down here - and probably irrelevant.

Colin, sorry, but a picture of a million protestors followed by a full minute of GWB's comments is not balanced coverage... millions of people all over the world voiced a common opinion, it was staggeringly huge international event, it merits more than a quick clip and a couple of comments.

American news is biased because of it's sources - the whitehouse (and all other political bodies) manage the news cycle very carefully, making sure that the stories they want get covered and the less desirable stuff gets buried under a sea of pro-whatever is important right now stories. Most of your political debates are really nothing more than republican vs democratic horn blowing and finger pointing, and rarely has anything to do with the real world.

More importantly, US news has moved from fact to "s'posin' " - views, opinions, theories, concepts, etc. It is hard for most people to figure out the difference between fact and editorial comments these days.

The important part of this (heading back to the topic) is that even with all of this apparatus in place, all the press flaks, spin generators, story stuffers, talking heads, and meaningless scripted "interviews", GWB and his team really haven't been able to convince the american people of the need for instant action - yes, americans support going to war, at some time - but they also appear to support giving the inspection process and the UN their time, their due, and their position in the process.

Colin, do yourself a favor - watch some BBC news, some CBC news, and whatever other international news sources you can find - pick up english language editions of a foreign newspaper - find out what other people think, how the news is reported differently, and you will see a different world.

Living in Canada means I can watch news from at least four different countries (US, Canada, UK, and France) and the stories don't all play the same... it is interesting and it is an eye opener.

Alex

you mean you get your best info on current world events and global politics somewhere between Mister Rogers Neighborhood, Masterpiece Theater and Alphabet Soup?

:rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
Hmmmm ... since PBS is not-for-profit (unless that is the problem), does it fare better by comparisson to the other shows on its network than, say, the news programs dependent upon commercial sponsorships made by networks that produce the likes of Cops, Survivor, Joe Millinaire, et al?

Lame ... truly lame. You usually do much better.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 17 2003, 04:28 PM

=======================-
Colin, sorry, but a picture of a million protestors followed by a full minute of GWB's comments is not balanced coverage... millions of people all over the world voiced a common opinion, it was staggeringly huge international event, it merits more than a quick clip and a couple of comments
========================
i saw 100% live coverage from start to finish on both BBC and CNN of the entire protest from before to after. CNN had Richard Quest reporting right there from Picadilly Circus from dawn til dusk. what are you talking about? it was a major world event and received coverage that such an event would merit

how is that or can that be biased? how did BBC cover the event and provide more objectivity than CNN?

============================
American news is biased because of it's sources - the whitehouse (and all other political bodies) manage the news cycle very carefully, making sure that the stories they want get covered and the less desirable stuff gets buried under a sea of pro-whatever is important right now stories.[quote]

explain this vast media conspiracy controlled by the Government of the United States. who calls the programming director for PBS to tell them what story President Bush said was ok to cover and which are not?

who makes these decisions? how does this process work? Ted Turner is really a Bush/Republican puppet????
==============================
Most of your political debates are really nothing more than republican vs democratic horn blowing and finger pointing, and rarely has anything to do with the real world.
==============================

uh.... thats what political debates are... everywhere.

==============================
More importantly, US news has moved from fact to "s'posin' " - views, opinions, theories, concepts, etc. It is hard for most people to figure out the difference between fact and editorial comments these days.[quote]

you are back to the ignorant and typical "GFY-like" "My news is better than your news" debate that Colin was talking about. :(

"your too dumb to understand that you are a brainwashed American, so your opinion is not as relevant as mine"
- any GFY post on politics

and typically the last words of someone who has proven himself to be out gunned

again you are continuing to imply that Americans are stupid because they dont get facts, are easily manipulated by the government, are unwittingly victems of a massive government media conspiracy to brainwash them.

b-o-r-i-n-g

============================
Colin, do yourself a favor - watch some BBC news, some CBC news, and whatever other international news sources you can find - pick up english language editions of a foreign newspaper - find out what other people think, how the news is reported differently, and you will see a different world.
============================

what is it with this assumption by non-US citizens that Americans dont watch BBC? or other news sources for that matter? I have never had cable TV in the States and not had BBC. I watch both. I watch both because they both repeat themselves on 1hr or 30 min cycles. They run the same special reports several times a day (as with the President of Nigeria on BBC today for example which i watched 4 times) They report the same stories and the same news... Mostly from wire services like Reuters and Associated Press.

============================
Living in Canada means I can watch news from at least four different countries (US, Canada, UK, and France) and the stories don't all play the same... it is interesting and it is an eye opener.
============================

so what? i watch BBC World, CNN International, Euronews and read all day long. so what? you make it sound like one network will report a UFO is landing and killing people while another ignores it all together or tries to say its just a weather balloon. the reporting is not that different. you have not made the case that it is.

Are you spelling "ROOSEVELT" wrong on purpose? You repeatedly mispelled it several times.



Last edited by Evil Chris at Feb 17 2003, 06:00 PM

Hmmmm ... since PBS is not-for-profit (unless that is the problem), does it fare better by comparisson to the other shows on its network than, say, the news programs dependent upon commercial sponsorships made by networks that produce the likes of Cops, Survivor, Joe Millinaire, et al?

Lame ... truly lame. You usually do much better.[/b][/quote]
uhhh... PD. do you know what PBS is? is a non-profit broadcasting company that survives on private donations and corporate sponsorships. and that makes them more objective why?

excuse me, i wont reply in the next couple hours. i am going to watch the "ExxonMobil Masterpiece Theatre" on the most objective TV station on the planet though they have to beg for money constantly from Corporate donors.

somehow, a mainstream program sponsored by Budweiser and Tampax is less objective than a TV station sponsored by Oil Companies, Insurance companies and Banks who are partipants in a PBS advertising program called "enhanced sponsor image" which is to track the favorable improvement of a viewers image of the sponsor due to their sponsorship of a particular program.

http://www.kcet.org/membership/on_air_spon...ip/imgfavor.htm
http://www.kcet.org/membership/on_air_spon...rship/image.htm?

the purpose of advertising on normal television is to promote a product. the purpose of sponsoring PBS is to promote a better corporate image. that sounds pretty objective to me... hahaha

you guys are really keeping me rolling on the floor tonight. my kidneys hurt, my stomach hurts and i am about to piss myself, laughing at all this "objectivity and enlightenment".




Last edited by JR at Feb 17 2003, 02:07 PM

Are you spelling "ROOSEVELT" wrong on purpose? You repeatedly mispelled it several times.[/b][/quote]
Michael, while admittedly is a horrible speller (I'll bet you money he didn't do it on purpose) IS consistent :okthumb:

Just have a camera handy - some gay or straight pissing shots would be handy right now.

JR, I don't have an opinion on whether PBS is more or less credible than CBS, NBC, ABC, or FOX. I am aware of the way PBS is funded, and why large corporations sponsor shows on PBS. Your stomach and kidney ailments appear to have affected your mentation, as you took my post as an attack on commercial news and a defense of public broadcasting, which it certainly wasn't.

You attacked the credibility of the show by pointing out that it was sandwiched in between Sesame Street and MasterPiece Theatre. I'm still trying to find out why that makes it less credible than a show that follows Cops and leads into The Simpsons, or a show that follows Wheel of Fortune and precedes [insert sitcom here]. Please, if you can pick yourself off the floor long enough to type, I'm just dying to know.

JR: it isn't about what you PERSONALLY do, it is what americans on average do - and they get their news in a half hour around dinenr each day and then watch dateline NBC or 20/20 and think they are informed. That is where the average american finds out what is going on in the world.

Yes, CNN covered the story of the protests... and gave as much coverage to the responses from Condi Rice and GW etc... balanced coverage from an american point of view, I guess.

It isn't about "our news is better than your news", and if that is what you think, you miss the point. The point has to do with the control of the news media by the politicians - not direct ownership or direct ordering, but by controlling the news cycle, they control what the american public in general sees, hears, and understands. They spin stories to create public opinion - and the media are often the willing lapdogs attempting to fill up time in newsmagazines and "debate" programs that don't debate anything.

America is one of the two major parties in the event - your news is not likely to be 100% unbiased, now is it? (and if you think it is, just wait for the next "soldier away from home" or "suffering back home" fluff piece created mostly to tug at your heartstrings and create sympathy.

Have some fun - watch the news tonight (say NBC Nightly News, example) and check to see how things are presented - try to keep a non-emotional view of things, and look at how much of the news is "fact", how much is "s'posin'" , how much is "sympathy" and how much is "fluff". You will find that mostly you aren't getting news, you are getting OPINION and SPIN. Try to watch the news discounting that stuff, and you will find the real stories hiding underneither.

How do you think the media keeps finding sympathy plays to put into the news? You think they just turn up?

JR, you are better than this... stop the fluff, get to the guts dude! :-)

Alex

Alex,

I have access to the same variety of news sources as you and yet I see that coverage is remarkably the same everywhere. Who. what. when. where. why. That's it. That's the news.

The anti-establishment conspiracy websites you read that tell you how to think and present opinions as fact shouldn't be considered news sources.

An article titled "The Real Reason George Bush is Going to War" is not a news piece. It's an opinion editorial and that is all. No one can read minds in the real world. "ESP for Dummies" is just that.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 17 2003, 07:40 PM

Colin, too often, US TV news runs exactly that type of story: "the real reason" or "the truth behind" or "war exposed"... the CNN tagline for all of this current thing is "SHOWDOWN IRAQ"... and most of the time anything in that framework is opinion, interviews of past military people, spinning politicos, etc. Not news, but views.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_75174...latestheadlines

Looks like Blair is taking it on the chin... this will be his last mandate unless things change dramatically.

Alex

Let me try. JR is not saying that PBS is less credible. He's saying it's no more credible ... in a very humorous way.

I hope I'm correct. Do I get a cookie, JR?

Just want to add:

the problem is too many people don't know the difference between news and views, and the politicos use that to spin public opinion... every time public opinion slips, more "stuff" comes out, not fact, but possibles, data, "new sat pics"... whatever it takes to keep pumping things back up.

Colin Powell had a whole bunch of things he could have distributed to the UN weeks earlier - but the timing was important in the cycle of news and public opinion - created to get the public onside and put pressure on the inspectors to make a bad report so that the US can go to war.

That leads to the "why we should go to war" opinion pieces that crowd the evening news up, and give the general population the mistaken impression that these possible things are facts. Back it up with a heartstring puller of a personality fluff piece on a soldier stuck away from his or her family, and you have a "spin"... none of it is news, all of it is just creating positive feelings towards engaging war.

It's just tough to watch, knowing that too many people aren't able to see the difference between fact and spin.

Alex

Alex, your brain must be froze. You haven't said anything new all day. A day in the life of Alex.

"The news cycle" blah blah blah
"Americans are stupid" blah blah blah.
"Americans are brainwashed" blah blah blah.
"Blah blah blah news spin"

You said "all of it is just creating positive feelings towards engaging war". Yeah, right. Interviews with Democrat after Democrat on the Hill that say we need more time for inspections is creating positive feelings for war? (Yes, opinions are roughly split by party. big surprise.) Showing millions of people on TV protesting is creating positive feelings toward war? Polls are shown which show split opinion on the war.

Let me guess. You think Americans that favor a war watch CNN and Fox and think that because they don't have the same information as you. If they read your "alternative news sources" they would suddenly be convinced that your position is correct and they are wrong.

Have you nothing good to say about my fellow Americans?

I agree. Everyone tries to time their efforts for the best effect.

I wonder why the protestors didn't wait another month before they protested. Why do you think they chose the timing they did, Alex? It was meant for maximum effect. The wisest of people have the best timing.

Nothing new here.

I never knew you were such an elitist. Alex is wise. Americans are stupid. Sad.

Colin, you live in a country that is required to put "caution, filling may be hot" on a mcdonalds "hot apple pie"...

'nuff said.

yes, the media is presenting all these different views, but at the end of the day the whitehouse controls the news cycle for the major 6pm newscasts, and it plays them like a fiddle... unless something is really out of whack, the first news story ALWAYS goes to Washington, and usual for the President's view. Using the media to create positive feelings is a fact of life.

Without that "pearl harbour moment" (thread is about this, after all), the court of public opinion is being blitzed hard from all sides.

I don't think your media is trying to lie - but I think they are working with the information as provided and are being played by the whitehouse for all it's worth... and it's sometimes very tough to watch.

that's all.

Alex

I never knew you were such an elitist. Alex is wise. Americans are stupid. Sad.[/b][/quote]
Nope, Alex isn't wise - Alex is a little more cynical, a little more critical, a little less likely to get swept up in the madness of the crowd.

It might surprise you that I didn't march in the local anti-war protest, because, guess what, I am not against the war - I am just against the US going it alone.

Just remember, even if I am just average compared to the american public in general, 50% of them are less intelligent...

Alex

How to Win Friends and Influence People?

Nope... facts are facts. Spin them how you like...

The best propaganda is done in a way that the people being targetted don't realize it's anything but the complete truth.

Alex

Let me try. JR is not saying that PBS is less credible. He's saying it's no more credible ... in a very humorous way.

I hope I'm correct. Do I get a cookie, JR?[/b][/quote]
Close, but no cigar - or cookie. See, the only reason that this PBS v Commercial television sideshow came up is due to JR's contention that Jim Lehr's "News Hour" somehow is not worthy of serious consideration as it appears on the same network as "Sesame Street" and "Alphabet Soup." Still trying to figure out the rationale behind that.

Alex, thanks for you good bit of information about "how the average american finds out about the world"

i think most average americans would disagree. if fact, i am not sure where your "average american" statistics are from that tell you what they do exactly to "tell themselves they are informed"

BBC is in every home that has cable TV as far as i know (i have never had cable in the US that did not have BBC). Same with CNN. Same with all other local and national news programs.

i am still not 100% sure why you feel the "average Canadian" or the "average Briton" or the "average Eskimo" is MORE informed, does more to inform themselves or why they for some strage reason has a better perspective on life, the universe and everything. I dont know why you feel there is this massive conspiracy on the part of the Government of the United States to "control the news cycle" - and thus the opinions, beliefs and minds of US citizens.

of course i guess its all easy to say when you cannot do better than making vague and unsubstantiated remarks about "the average american"

you continue to talk about the "government controlling the news cycle" - i really dont understand that. i dont understand what information you think is shown on CNN that is not shown on BBC for example, or visa-versa. i was not aware that the government controls what people see. Was the US government controlling what people saw when CNN and BBC and other journalists were reporting on Desert Storm in Iraq directly from the Al Rashid Hotel in Bagdad (which was hit with a cruise missile)? What the government controlling what people saw in Kosovo when they were busy blowing up bus loads of civilians? exactly where does your government conspiracy (presumably a Republican conspiracy) begin and end?

You just said again that the US Government controls what the "american public in general sees, hears, and understands". thats where Colin is saying that you start to sound like the typical 14 year old gallery submitter from Helsinki on GFY.

You are saying the same thing over and over but in different ways.

1) american news cannot be trusted or believed
2) american people cannot be trusted to have an opinion because if they do, it was the direct result of being brainwashed by the government
3) foreign news sources are more credible than that news which can be seen in the US
4) the opinions of Americans are less credible than those of non-Americans.

Americans are stupid and brainwashed again
:(

Close, but no cigar - or cookie. See, the only reason that this PBS v Commercial television sideshow came up is due to JR's contention that Jim Lehr's "News Hour" somehow is not worthy of serious consideration as it appears on the same network as "Sesame Street" and "Alphabet Soup." Still trying to figure out the rationale behind that.[/b][/quote]
PD, it was humor and sarcasm.
i was not the first to make an issue of credibility of news sources. i was
i was pointing out the sillyness of saying "PBS" is somehow more credible.

its all there in the posts. go back and read the first chapter again, then we
will let you rejoin the class.
:nyanya:

JR, no, and I don't really want to go 10 more rounds...

:headwall: :headwall: :headwall:


News: Go look at the viewership numbers... about a 30 share watches the nightly news each day. Datelilne, 20/20 and similar shows are very popular.

:headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :headwall:

prop·a·gan·da ( P ) n. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

You are a victim of propaganda... you don't understand the word, it appears... it doesn't mean LIES...

Thus, the rest of your two posts are not important, because you misunderstood me.

Alex

ok... we are making progress.

so far we understand and agree that Dateline and 20/20 "and similar programs" may be popular. so is Teletubbies and Wheel of Fortune.

What does that have to do with Americans not being able to make a competent decision regarding world politics?

you say i am "a victem of propoganda" and then use your word a day dictionary to impress us, but fail to explain why and how government controls me (assuming i am the "average American") the media, my opinions and beliefs.

you conclude by saying the rest of what i said is not important because i did not understand you. i never claimed to understand you. i am telling you again and again that i am trying to understand you. you keep repeating the same things, you cant back it up with facts (other than supposed ratings of 20/20 which has no relevant connection to anything)

you can say anything you want and that does not change the fact that you have repeatedly said, implied, inferred, suggested or stated that:

1) Americans are brain washed.
2) Americans opinions are not relevant or credible.
3) American news is less credible than foreign news
4) the US government controls the news, peoples opinions and beleifs of the citizens of the USA

then you back it up only by posting a websters definition of propoganda and posting alleged ratings for 20/20 and proclaim "Case Closed!". how convienent.

you have made a lot of pretty strong statements about how fucked up and ignorant Americans are - but still have yet to back them up with some concrete facts or a solid, credible explanation... or show why and how the situation is different in Canada or any other Western Country.

Dont be deterred by the impending flood of jokes about Canada and Candian politics... make your case.




Last edited by JR at Feb 18 2003, 12:10 AM

Alex, I'm shocked. You have shown your true colors. You are an Uber-elitist. You are smarter than everyone. You dismiss the opinions of everyone but yourself. You are wise. We are stupid. You have a general disdain for humanity. I'm dismayed. You remind me of those on other boards who claim everyone in America is brainwashed and that we are all sheep. Everything is a conspiracy. Our government controls us. "All follow shepherd Bush!"

Yes, spin is put on everything by everyone. Even your choice of words, Alex, is intended as spin -- to influence people with a certain viewpoint. What you completely fail to understand is that most people understand that every article and every reporter has a point of view that shows in their articles and stories . Most people understand commercials slant the truth to sell more product.

Do you really think you are educating anyone on this board as to the definition of spin? Oprano is FULL of spin masters.

Your "whitehouse controls the news" theory from "The Book of Communist Tricks 101" is laughable. Comrade Alex, I call you a communist because you think you like one. Everyone is out to get you. People in positions of power control you but you have figured it out and are exempt. You're the only smart one. Matrix was a movie, man. Not reality.

It does not stand up to scrutiny at all. The problem with such mass psychology 101 theories is that in countries with free press and free markets - there are many of them today - each individual acts on their own accord. Some of us like to say there is a liberal bias in the media. Some today say there is a conservative bias. In truth, it is an average effect only. Some stations are more slanted one way than others and some reporters are more biased than others. One NY Times writer always write pro-liberal stories, for example. She always uses the polls and news that reflect her viewpoints. What Republican is going to write a news story about how great the welfare system is? The same is true of writers for the Times of London, the Jersusalem Post, the Toronto Star, and the Moscow Times. In the end, there are contrasting points of view side by side in any media in the US. The same is true everywhere where there is free press. This is not a top-down referendum from the white house but rather just the individual bias that we all use.

A great example. There are polls that show mixed results on the same subject matter depending on how the questions are asked. You did not go and find the poll that shows the opposite of what you wanted to demonstrate. You showed only the supporting poll. I will assume that you are aware of the fact that there is a wide-range of mixed opinions and polls re: the soon-to-be Iraqi conflict. Maybe you only seek out stories and media that agree with your point of view.

You really think a die-hard Democratoc reporter is going to write a pro-whitehouse speech under a situation in which public opinion is so evenly split?

Your mistake is simple. Any news story you disagree with is propaganda. Any news story you agree with is news. You think you are reading balanced news coverage whereas in reality you are reading only those stories that agree with your position. Self enforced propaganda.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 18 2003, 06:45 AM

Alex, sigh. You really think you are the only Opranite that reads a variety of news sources? More elitism. I still disagree with your assessment. Mainstream news is pretty much the same everywhere. Some slant. Some rant. Reuters here. Reuters there. Reuters is really everywhere.

The alternative newspapers you read that were written by some guy from his basement in France that claim "America, the Fourth Reich?" certainly ARE "different". I know you read those, Alex. You've posted links to them here before. We remember!

Do you think "The Economist" is controlled by the white house when a Republican is president but suddenly switches to a non-state newspaper when a Democrat is elected? Do you think a NY Times writer that has voted Republican for 28 straight years is going to write pro-white house pieces when Bill Clinton is in the office?

tee-hee, nice to see you all tie yourselves in knots.

Colin, notice I talk about "the average american" not "the average opranaut" for an important reason - most of the people here are better informed than most of their fellow country-men-women.

Your government doesn't control your media in that it doesn't WRITE the stories - but it provides a good deal of the material used to build the stories. You all pride yourselves on "balance" such as the democratic reply to the republic president's "state of the union" address - yet nothing in that speech is discussed more than 15 seconds after it is done, because the whitehouse controls the news cycle, has the press on speed dial, has a spokesmen, news confercences, releases, and the authority of being "right" every time they speak, because it is the whitehouse.

The whitehouse doesn't write the news, but they sure do lay down a strong trail of breadcrumbs to lead the media to the required result. The media is independant, but with only a certain collection of facts to work from, the results can for the most part be planned and guided.

If you can't see it, well, then your a victim of it.

Alex

What next? Are you going to say "you people"?

I didn't say anything was "state run"... nice to see you using the "black/white" debating tactic of taking the othersides opinion and taking it to the extreme to try to make it silly. I have stated before, and will state again, in case your not reading it all: the US government doesn't RUN the media - but they spoon feed it, poke it, prod it, and make it do the tricks they need it to do. They don't write the stories... but they provide the material, the leads, the tips... breadcrumbs.

The rest of this is such ignorant bullshit that it surprised me it comes from you, Colin. Party politics governs access.

Let's go to the extreme, shall we? When Bush is in office, do you think that Rush Limbaugh often complains about government policy? Nope... cheerleader to the max... rah rah... he gets access, he gets interviews, he gets guests, he gets the inside scoop from the whitehouse, and is certainly one of the recipients of "unnamed whitehouse sources" when it comes to things that make the opposition look bad. With republicans in power, and a conservative feel to the US at the moment, well, he is big man on campus - and an important part of the process of putting pro-bush views out there for people to hear, and understand.

When the tide changes (and it always does), Rush sinks back to being a strident voice of dissent that isn't anywhere near as powerful....

BECAUSE mainstream media isn't on his side at that point. He won't have the inside scoops, he won't have the powerful guests, and he won't be on the side of the majority of voters, and his message won't match that of the spun media, and as a result, his message (right or wrong) won't be as heard or as agreed to - he will be a victim of spun media.

Can I repeat myself one more time? Your government doesn't CONTROL the media in a communist manner, but it spoon feeds it in such as way that the end result is mostly what they want.

BTW, calling someone a communist or an Elitist is just way of say "I don't have a good reply, so I will sink down to name calling and belittling..." - and it really takes away from the experience of trading points of view.

My last on this thread... enough, nothing more to learn here. :-(

Alex

By the same extension of your faulty conspiratorial logic, Chirac and Putin control the US media because the US media covers their statements - statements which are opposed to the US administration's views. Do you REALLY expect the White House to not to respond to statements by foreign leaders that are opposed to their viewpoints, statements that are being expressed freely through the US media?

Colin Powell gives a press conference. You read what he said in the news.
Chirac gives a press conference. You read what he said it in the news.
Putin gives a press conference. You read what he said it in the news.

Its called humor. You might want to try it sometime, Comrade. Humor by hyperbole, those dangerous daggers demonize devils. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You hardly need ME to make your position seem silly, Alex.

well, i would say that its safe to say that this pleasant conversation about who is the "one true master race according to Alex" has totally derailed.

to close this thread, i would like to quote for Alex the words of someone much wiser than both of us.

"its one thing to believe that you are smarter than everyone else... its quite another thing entirely, to believe that everyone else is dumber.
it is the difference between optism and arrogance"