Oh man.. I know you guys love our country, and I love ot to death to, but can you stop for a second and look at this objectively?

Just take a look at facts like in surveys 50% of americans believe that some or all of the hijackers were Iraquis!! DAMN NEAR A MAJORITY has no clue as to who was involved in the 9-11 hijackings! Only 17% said for sure that no Iraqis were among the hijackers the other 33% refused or had "no opinion" on the issue. If that doesn't give you room for pause nothing will. The amount of ignorance that requires is ASTOUNDING! Just how stupid and inattentive to news can people in the US be to get a result like this? http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/4911975.htm And 2/3 of the people who responded in that survey felt they were well informed and had a good grasp of the issues.

Read that article and the ignorance will scare the living daylights out of you!!

TheEnforcer,

Didn't your mom ever teach you to not to jump in on the losing side after that battle is already over?

ROFLMAO!! With all due respect Colin, if that doesn't scare the living daylights out of you on the level of attention we as Americans pay attention to the news, I don't know what will.

That's about as bad a picture you could paint as to the level of depth we pursue to our knowledge of even the most horrific event that has befallen this country.

Alex doesn't just claim that news in the US is biased. He claims that it is MORE biased than everywhere else in the world. Alex doesn't just claim that Americans have a lack of knowledge regarding current events but that they have less knowledge than people elsewhere in the world.

Everything is comparative.

He hasn't demonstrated that and neither have you. If you say "People are stupid" there must be some comparative meter stick you have in mind. Most people mean "They are more stupid than I" when they say something like that. I don't know what YOU mean. Please enlighten us. I am really surprised. Who are Americans more stupid than?

I used to think it was liberals who were compassionate and thought of all people as being equal. Now I see liberal after liberal calling "the people" dumb and incapable of thought. "Sheep". A change in the weather? The times they are a changing. Hopefully PD will take the other side so my fears don't run away from me.

Colin, I am not going to participate in this discussion any further. But can you please refrain from attributing things to me that I did not say? I never said that the US media is "MORE biased than everywhere else in the world". I hate it when you have to make shit up to think that you won. Old conservative trick, did you learn it listening to Rush on the radio? Or maybe from reading the Rush website (bullshit half truths 24 hours per day)?

The level of discussion drop when people are forced to lie ti make others look bad, Colin, I honestly thought better of you. I guess I learned something today :(

Alex

Here's a small example of something Serge posted earlier and how it relates to what we are talking about.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/ge...quiz/index.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurve...RoperSurvey.pdf

I highly suggest you look at pages 19 and 20 of the PDF.

You don't need me to position you. You do it yourself when you insult "average Americans" and say the White House controls the US news media.

You say the "news media is controlled by the politicians". You also say "party politics governs access". Yet you are faced with the contradiction of there being two political parties in the US with nearly equal sized constituents, with somewhat equal representation in the press, and having to explain via "hocus pocus you're not in focus" mechanisms how CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, and the Washington Post all deliver "White House propaganda" that is digested and read by non-thoughtful Americans that believe whatever they are told depite that fact that opinion regarding these current events is very split.

You can't wave your hands and dismiss the fact that you said 'Colin, you live in a country that is required to put "caution, filling may be hot" on a mcdonalds "hot apple pie"... ' You have many negative things to say about the US. I'd say you are obsessed with it.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 18 2003, 04:18 PM

Translation.

DON'T CLOUD THE ISSUE WITH RELEVANT FACTS.

Translation.

DON'T CLOUD THE ISSUE WITH RELEVANT FACTS.[/b][/quote]
So you agree with Alex that a liberal reporter will write positive things about a Republican president? By the same extension of logic, conservative reporters during the last administration pumped out positive news story after positive news story about Bill Clinton? Must have missed those. When Bill Clinton was in office, even a Rush Limbaugh will start to say positive things about the administration because, well, --hocus pocus-- everyone distributes white house propaganda? "Take me to your leader"?

People's opinions are so split on party lines it would be absurd to think that reporters are more likely to print pro- white house stories more than pro-their party stories.

I don't think those conspiracy theories will ever go away, will they? Paranoia and patronization. Invisible forces work behind the scenes to force people to vote Republican, to back the White House (only when a Republican is president, of course), and to rig elections so that the powerful and underhanded Republicans can take office and the downtrodden fair-playing Democrats will have been robbed.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 18 2003, 04:58 PM

Colin, sorry, but you obviously are having an understanding problem. Nothing I can post here can fix it. You don't seem able to even read what is posted without misunderstanding simple statements, and taking statements on one issue and applying it to another.

You post a poll, I post a poll, I discuss yours, you call me "obsessed" and don't even both to comment on anything. Every time any fact comes up you don't like, you just dismiss it with name calling and extremism.

You quote things to your advantage, in order to change meaning. Yes, I said the "news media is controlled by politicians", but I said it like this:

"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"

You make it sound like the politicians write the stories and use the newscaster as puppets, shoving their politican hands up their asses to make them puppet the party line. Wrong. I said that by controlling the news cycle, they color and control what stories are important and which ones gets buried.

However, I know you won't actually read what I just posted, rather you will pick a few words out, string them together, and laugh at the results, rather than actually considering the concepts presented. It's pointless, it's useless... your a victim and you don't know it... which makes you the best victim possible.

You may now mentally masturbate for your own benefit.

Alex



Last edited by RawAlex at Feb 18 2003, 05:22 PM

While I was posting, Colin, you once again proved that you aren't reading what I post, rather you make it up and try to pin the entire "liberal / commie conspiracy" on me.

Your stunning in your gall - and stunning in how silly you make yourself look.

I shake my head in disbelief.

Alex

Since you're so fond of pointing out my "debate techniques" every other post, how do you feel about bait, Alex?

Swallow hard.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 18 2003, 05:45 PM

It's not at all clear what you ARE trying to say, Alex.

For two days you have been saying nothing but "White House". Waves hands. "Media". Waving more hands. "Control".

"You're the victim of Propaganda. If you don't believe you are the victim of propaganda, you are the victim of propaganda".

Some sort of lefty communist witch hunt. Bedevil or be deviled. No examples. No illustrations. No explanations. Just a frozen tundra of statements with no roads leading to the real world.

One man's news is the next man's propaganda. Put that in your pipe and light up, my friend but don't inhale.




Last edited by Colin at Feb 18 2003, 06:08 PM

So you agree with Alex that a liberal reporter will write positive things about a Republican president? By the same extension of logic, conservative reporters during the last administration pumped out positive news story after positive news story about Bill Clinton? Must have missed those. When Bill Clinton was in office, even a Rush Limbaugh will start to say positive things about the administration because, well, --hocus pocus-- everyone distributes white house propaganda? "Take me to your leader"?

People's opinions are so split on party lines it would be absurd to think that reporters are more likely to print pro- white house stories more than pro-their party stories.

I don't think those conspiracy theories will ever go away, will they? Paranoia and patronization. Invisible forces work behind the scenes to force people to vote Republican, to back the White House (only when a Republican is president, of course), and to rig elections so that the powerful and underhanded Republicans can take office and the downtrodden fair-playing Democrats will have been robbed.[/b][/quote]
Colin, my comment wasn't meant to imply agreement with Alex. Alex has a typical liberal view of the media as biased in favor of the Administration. I'm sure Dig would agree with him (yes, I'm a liberal, but they would kick me out of most liberal clubs - and both John McCain and Barry Goldwater could be liberals on Oprano :)). However, there are just as many people who would scream about the "obvious liberal, anti-Bush slant" of the media (Torone, you out there?). Considering that most of the time there are equal numbers of chipmunks chirping on both sides of the issue, I'd say the American media does a damn good job.

No ... Alex is contending that many American people are ignorant of the issues involved in this war because the media is biased in favor of Bush. I don't buy it for a minute. The majority of American people are ignorant of the issues involved in the war for the same reasons that As a hippie high school student who did not look the part - I could have passed for a member of the Young Republicans Club - I went to the mall and asked people to sign a petition that contained ten ideas. They were the first ten ammendments to the Constitution of the United States. Many people refused to sign them, suggesting (we asked) that they were "too radical", "communist inspired," yada-yada-yada.

The information is out there for all Americans, and IMHO it's been pretty balanced. It would be very interesting to see how many people watched the State of the Union this year compared to the number of people who watched "Joe Millionaire" last night. Like (I suspect) everywhere else in the world, far too few of them take advantage of it.

How many people in Europe (or Canada), when polled, would state that this is only an effort to secure more oil because the U.S. gets ALL its oil from the middle east? There are some Americans who think the answer to everything is war. There are some Americans who really want to see a war whenever France is against it because they are too simple-minded to understand why France maintains an independent foreign policy. There are some Americans who think attacking Iraq will help solve terrorism (and boyohboy, I sure hope I'm wrong, but they could be in for a very rude suprise). At the same time, there are just as many Europeans (and, I suspect, Canadians) who have a knee-jerk reaction against any move the U.S. makes on an international issue.

Dumbshits know no international bounds.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 18 2003, 07:42 PM

Maybe this will help you understand what White House's do while dealing with the media and what Raw Alex is referring to:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068...7456017-7800800

Amazon.com
With a slew of simultaneous scandals to his credit and numerous ongoing investigations pending, President Clinton has been bombarded by the media in a fashion not seen since the last days of the Nixon administration. Despite this unwanted attention, Clinton has managed to maintain lofty approval ratings and successfully deflect even the most ardent attacks. How does he do it? This question is answered in full in Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine, an engrossing, backroom look at how news is created and packaged in the White House and the methods used to distribute it to the public. In painting a detailed picture of the hand-to-hand combat known as a press conference, Kurtz shows how the use of controlled leaks, meticulously worded briefs, and the outright avoidance of certain questions allows the White House to control the scope and content of the stories that make it to the front page and the nightly network news. As Kurtz makes clear, the president and First Lady are convinced that the media are out to get them, while the journalists covering the White House are constantly frustrated at the stonewalling and the lack of cooperation they encounter while trying to do their jobs. In the middle is White House press secretary Mike McCurry, a master at defusing volatile situations and walking the fine line with the press. Though less paranoid and cynical of the media than Clinton, he often finds himself on both ends of personal attacks and vendettas that veer far outside the arena of objective reporting. The anecdotes and carefully buried information Kurtz has uncovered give Spin Cycle a brisk pace, along with ample invaluable information that cuts to the core of this age of media overkill. The author of Hot Air and Media Circus and a longtime media reporter for the Washington Post, Kurtz is uniquely qualified to report on the status of news dissemination in the United States. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ALL White Houses have and continue to do this type of stuff. It happens with everything from scandal to war.

PD,

I like your post.

TheEnforcer,

I know EXACTLY what Alex is referring too. It's all in the story telling though. Everyone is acting in their best interest and we'd be insane to think that Clinton or Bush or Reagan or Carter would not make statements in their best interest. That's all though. If you want to use worlds like "spin cycle", "propaganda", and "stonewalling" you're painting a certain picture and making a leap of faith. "meticulously worded briefs"? Those damned scammers! What is the author trying to convince me of?

Everyone is acting in their best interests; Chirac, Blair, Bush, Putin, Democrats, Republicans and it is all on the news here. The BBC is not covering the secret european meetings and CNN ignoring them. If you want to read what the white house is saying, you can read it on the BBC website also. Are they part of the white house news cycle too?

Alex may try and skirt around it now but he said "As soon as you leave the US and start looking at other news sources you start to see that there are at least 2 sides to every story". Well, in the US we have a two party system that keeps that in check very well. World events are political events and in America opinions are often split down party lines. Some make fun of the "tabloid-like news shows" of FOX, CNN, MSNBC but we can turn on the television at any time of the day and watch interviews with congressman, former presidents, and leaders of other countries. Much of them have opinions that differ from the white house position. Our television news shows create airwaves of dissent.

Alex's contention is that we don't receive balanced converage in America because we have a lack of information resources, our media is controlled by the white house, and in his exact words "The point has to do with the control of the news media by the politicians".

I argue that we DO receive balanced coverage precisely because of the two party system. People participate in that system, the politicians do, and do does the media.

There is no major issue regarding the US/Iraq situation that is NOT being covered by FOX, CNN, etc. I've heard the BBC covers news differently and in my experience it doesn't. It's the same old song and dance. Yes, the format and style is different - in the same way that FOX and CNN are drastically different from each other but the news is the same.

Alex is one of those people that turns on one of those news talk shows with one liberal and one conservative and gets so upset at what the conservative says that he thinks the show is anti-liberal biased - despite the fact that there are two hosts - one on each side.

Alex wont reply now.

He is busy negotiating his surrender to France.

It's an awful catch-22, just like the one Alex thinks Bush is in. Alex painted himself into a corner by twice saying he won't post anymore but then he is not showing backbone by NOT posting.