[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, did you read the original post? It was written by Reuters, a straight news wire service, controlled by evil exec boards. [/quote]
Nah baby, It doesn’t count. Reuters is British.
Try quoting me some of your so-called liberal media. Shouldn’t so hard, now should it?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Nah baby, It doesn’t count. Reuters is British.
Try quoting me some of your so-called liberal media. Shouldn’t so hard, now should it?[/quote]
Again, you show your misunderstanding of the media. Reuters’ news pieces are picked up by mainstream media.
They are the media you are referring to: they supply a fair portion of the straight news (along with AP).
Well done, Lixy.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Again, you show your misunderstanding of the media. Reuters’ news pieces are picked up by mainstream media.
They are the media you are referring to: they supply a fair portion of the straight news (along with AP). [/quote]
Ok, you’re either messing with me or are simply a retard.
Reuters is NOT a US mainstream media outlet! My question couldn’t have been clearer: Present us with ANY mainstream piece that equals (or even comes close to) the level of objectivity displayed by DN! on the issue.
It shouldn’t be hard to do, since you yourself claim a liberal bias in the media.
The way a news service such as Reuters presents events has nothing to do with the way it is then portrayed in your newspaper or 6 o’clock news. THAT’s the whole point. European media do a wwaaaaayyyyy better job than American ones. Why the f8ck do you think there was opposition to the Iraq war in Europe? Simply because people were getting facts rather than propaganda.
Learn what news agencies are before trying to pass them as something they are not.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Reuters is NOT a US mainstream media outlet! My question couldn’t have been clearer: Present us with ANY mainstream piece that equals (or even comes close to) the level of objectivity displayed by DN! on the issue.[/quote]
Lixy contniues to obfuscate. Reuters - a corporation, by the way - exists to serve mainstream media outlets. They sell their reporting (for a profit!) to the mainstream media outlets you see to think more biased than Democracy Now!
Here is MSNBC’s pickup of the Reuters piece:
A simple Google shows others like the Washington Post picked it up as well.
Your sloppy and false distinction doesn’t make sense. Reuters is exactly the producer of news for a mainstream American audience - that is precisely how they make money. They are as much part of American mainstream media as anything else.
I know that causes you to suffer - that doesn’t mean it is any less true.
And to follow with the clarifying question: if mainstream media wanted biased reporting, why would mainstream media purchase unbiased reporting with its own money and present it, regardless of where it originates?
Wouldn’t that completely undermine the point if keeping with biased “corporate” reporting?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Without saying Chavez is anywhere close to a saint, this particular case is a non-issue.
In 2002, that particular TV-station was evidently involved in the coup against the democratically elected government. What do you expect in such cases?
I thought we had settled this in another thread. Well, for the new comers to the issue, please read the following and then come back with a sound refutation of anyone of their arguments.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=12900
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=12933
Yes, Chavez is bad[/b], but saying that he was wrong in taking the decision not to renew the RCTV’s license is simply ignoring the facts and biting at the first chance to slash the guy.
If it happened in the US, the station would have been taken down in a matter of days. Chavez gave it five years.[/quote]
Crack is bad for you, stop smoking it. Chavez is a dictator. Our news media has been opposed and regularly speak out against the government and not one of them has been silence. They weren’t involved in any coup, that is just another lie by Chavez to get what he wants, which is total control.
Why are you always on the side of tyrants and murderers? These people would oppress you or kill you to if they could, yet you always back them up. You need to reevaluate you values and look at what you truly believe in.
You say Chavez is no saint but then you back him up and accuse the U.S. of the same or worse and that is simply not true. You always defend murderers and tyrants, like they have a point, or their point matter. They don’t, their actions matter and their actions are evil.
Let’s have some fun.
Let’s start with premise that FOXNews is evil and has an agenda. In the Chavez case, FOX would want to spin the reporting to omit mention of the fact Chavez believed Globovision supported the coup attempt - after all, FOX has a biased agenda to paint Chavez in an evil light.
So what does FOX do to this end? Picks up an AP piece discussing the fallout of Chavez’ crackdown. It says:
Protesters have filled the capital’s plazas and streets since the opposition-aligned channel went off the air at midnight Sunday. Chavez refused to renew its broadcast license ? accusing it of helping incite a failed coup in 2002 and violating broadcast laws ? and police have clashed with angry crowds hurling rocks and bottles.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276356,00.html
Hmm. Why would FOX - hell-bent on skewing the news to a particular agenda - spend its precious money on a piece that undermines that agenda?
It could tell the story any way it wants - why buy a piece that mentions Chavez’ possible fair justification for taking out the media outlet on the basis it supported a coup?
What happened to the evil execs picking news to suit their agenda?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Here is MSNBC’s pickup of the Reuters piece:
[/quote]
What’s that gotta do with anything? I asked for an original piece from a mainstream paper or TV and all you can provide is a dupe from Reuters.
I’ll spit out the point for you: If any of them shows objectivity on the issue, it’ll automatically be labelled apologist, pro-Chavez and other names. Kinda like anyone opposing the war in Iraq or balancing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is shrud off as a terrorist sympathizer.
There is no fucking way you can argue that the RCTV case has been covered objectivily.
Every single piece I read has been a blatant diatribe. The very media you accuse of having a liberal bias, are actually undistinguishable from the conservative ones.
Can you honestly tell me this piece is in any way good journalism?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Can you honestly tell me this piece is in any way good journalism?
Yes, I can, genius - look at the header on the piece before the title.
It says - to anyone who can read - “NEWS ANALYSIS”.
“News Analysis” is meant to analyze the straight news report. It is a form of light editorial. They are inherently opinionated - it is an analysis, not a report of facts.
You can disagree with the analysis - and that is the whole point of it.
Poor Lixy.
Let’s see how FOX - the root of all evil in the world - initially reported Chavez’ decision.
Oh, they picked up an AP piece. How about that? Note the bolded part:
[i]CARACAS, Venezuela ? The countdown has begun for Venezuela’s oldest private television station. At midnight Sunday, Radio Caracas Television ? the most widely watched channel ? will be forced off the air after President Hugo Chavez’s government decided not to renew its license.
Talk show host Miguel Angel Rodriguez, whose program is a daily rant against Chavez, ended his Friday segment by blowing a kiss to the camera and saying defiantly: “There is no goodbye. It’s 'see you later.”’
The opposition plans street protests over the weekend to demand that RCTV be allowed to keep transmitting, while Chavez supporters are expected to hold their own demonstrations. The authorities tightened security Friday in Caracas, putting hundreds of police and National Guard troops along major avenues.
Hundreds of university students chanted “No to the closing!” as they gathered in Caracas Friday for a march to Venezolana de Television ? the main state-run channel. They said they were going to demand to use the state-run airwaves to criticize the RCTV decision.
“People have to realize that we have a totalitarian president,” said Maria Alecia Klemprer, a 25-year-old university student wearing a T-shirt reading: “Freedom of Expression S.O.S.”
Chavez defends the decision as a legal move to democratize the airwaves by reassigning RCTV’s license to a public service channel. The government provided startup funding for the new channel, TVES, and says it will start broadcasting early Monday in some parts of the country.
In a speech on Friday that Venezuela’s private TV channels were obliged to broadcast, Chavez rejected allegations that his decision threatened freedom of expression.
“There’s no country in the world where there is so much freedom of expression,” he said. “The license expires at midnight on May 27, and it’s not going to be renewed.”
Inside the studios of RCTV, meanwhile, the mood was somber yet defiant, with some employees wearing T-shirts reading “No to the closing.”
“There is a lot of uncertainty. It’s very hard,” said technician and 22-year RCTV veteran Alejandro Gonzalez Natera, who wiped away tears as he spoke.
At least some of the station’s roughly 2,500 employees will stay on, producing soap operas that are watched on other stations throughout Latin America.
RCTV was founded in 1953 and broadcasts a mix of talk shows, sports, locally produced soap operas and an immensely popular comedy program called “Radio Rochela,” which often pokes fun at Chavez. RCTV has regularly been the top channel in viewer ratings.
Groups such as Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders have called the government’s move a flagrant effort to silence criticism, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday passed a resolution condemning it. It was sponsored by Republican Dick Lugar had bipartisan support, including from Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Chavez said the fact that only 65 of the European Parliament’s 785 members participated in a vote condemning the government’s decision showed the issue was of little interest, and added that Venezuela’s “oligarchy has lost some money” lobbying for that resolution.
[u]Chavez accuses RCTV and other opposition-aligned private media of supporting a failed 2002 coup against him. The channel has been accused of violating broadcast laws and showing programs with violence and sexual content that are morally degrading.[/u]
RCTV’s general manager, Marcel Granier, challenged the government’s decision, but Venezuela’s Supreme Court dismissed one legal challenge and declined to intervene in another, even as it has agreed to keep considering RCTV’s appeal.
While many Venezuelan journalists have taken to the streets in protest, others have sided with the government.
Eleazar Diaz Rangel, editor of the newspaper Ultimas Noticias, argued that the “immense majority” of media organizations openly oppose the government.
On television, however, pro-government channels are dominant. Aside from RCTV, Globovision is the only other major opposition-aligned channel, and it is not seen in all parts of the country. Two other channels that used to be staunchly anti-Chavez, Venevision and Televen, have recently toned down their coverage.[/i]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275532,00.html
Let’s have an accounting. The station got its say. Chavez got his say. Both sides were presented. Chavez even got to say the lukewarm reaction in European parliaments was proof that it wasn’t a big deal.
All this from FOXNews, who should - by Lixy’s feverish ideological slant - never have published such a story. After all, Chavez got his to defend himself. Yet FOX did publish it.
But the evil execs at FOX should never have spent the money on such a balanced story and they should have never published it on their website. After all, how can you keep your agenda moving if you publish something that undermines your agenda?
So FOX not fairly presenting the Chavez story to its readers in its straight journalism? Hogwash.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, they picked up an AP piece. How about that? Note the bolded part: [/quote]
Yeah, you said so already. How hard is it for you to understand that it is NOT the staff at Fox that wrote the piece. They merely dumped the AP piece. You may argue that they could’ve chosen not to pick it up, and I’m not gonna debate this because I have no idea what the circumstances were at Fox at the time. They could’ve been on a deadline. They could have had nobody based in Venezuela. I don’t know and neither do you.
AP was picked up because they’re biggest, NOT because they included a paragraph that you deem sufficient for objectivity.
Get an original article/broadcast then we can analyze its objectivity and see how much weight they gave to both sides.
Seriously TB, arguing with you is sometimes like communicating with a stubborn kid that also happens to be on the slow side. See? I can do ad hominems too. Nah!
lixy, you really don’t understand how the news business works, do you?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Yeah, you said so already. How hard is it for you to understand that it is NOT the staff at Fox that wrote the piece. They merely dumped the AP piece. You may argue that they could’ve chosen not to pick it up, and I’m not gonna debate this because I have no idea what the circumstances were at Fox at the time. They could’ve been on a deadline. They could have had nobody based in Venezuela. I don’t know and neither do you.[/quote]
This has become hilarious. The major networks all use wire services for their straight news. Picking up a piece is standing behind it.
If FOX - or any other mainstream media - decide to pick up a news wire piece for a story, why would they then turn around and print the exact same one written by a staff writer? Why would FOX write a news piece on a story they just bought a news piece for?
Embarrassing levels of stupidity.
FOX gives a balanced story by buying it instead of writing it. You keep trying to squirm out of it on that basis, and your latest excuse is guess what? A conspiracy theory that FOX probably really didn’t want to publish the piece.
As usual, when confronted with rational, factual evidence, you trail off into a world of no proof, only suggestion, speculation, theory, and ideology.
FOX is the most propagandistic of all the corporate media you whine about - and yet, the initial story FOX ran on the situation was balanced, factual, and not biased.
There isn’t better evidence to refute your theory than this, by any reasonable observer - why can’t you just admit that you got it wrong?
No, no, no - Lixy, if FOX is as interested in propaganda as you say they are, with evil execs carefully screening stories that won’t help its agenda, then why would FOX publish such a piece?
You don’t have an rational answer, do you?
That was an original article. AP provides news stories for all the mainstream media you hate - how is that not original?
I provided you with exactly what you wanted - now, like a mindless robot, you say “it wasn’t original”. Well, sure it was - it could be cited to the mainstream media outlet that carried.
It satisfies all you were asking for - mainstream media, article written for mainstream media, etc. How hard is it to admit you were wrong?
Still hurting over that whole NYT “News Analysis” mistake, are you?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Yeah, you said so already. How hard is it for you to understand that it is NOT the staff at Fox that wrote the piece. They merely dumped the AP piece. You may argue that they could’ve chosen not to pick it up, and I’m not gonna debate this because I have no idea what the circumstances were at Fox at the time. They could’ve been on a deadline. They could have had nobody based in Venezuela. I don’t know and neither do you.
This has become hilarious. The major networks all use wire services for their straight news. Picking up a piece is standing behind it.
If FOX - or any other mainstream media - decide to pick up a news wire piece for a story, why would they then turn around and print the exact same one written by a staff writer? Why would FOX write a news piece on a story they just bought a news piece for?
Embarrassing levels of stupidity.
FOX gives a balanced story by buying it instead of writing it. You keep trying to squirm out of it on that basis, and your latest excuse is guess what? A conspiracy theory that FOX probably really didn’t want to publish the piece.
As usual, when confronted with rational, factual evidence, you trail off into a world of no proof, only suggestion, speculation, theory, and ideology.
FOX is the most propagandistic of all the corporate media you whine about - and yet, the initial story FOX ran on the situation was balanced, factual, and not biased.
There isn’t better evidence to refute your theory than this, by any reasonable observer - why can’t you just admit that you got it wrong?
AP was picked up because they’re biggest, NOT because they included a paragraph that you deem sufficient for objectivity.
No, no, no - Lixy, if FOX is as interested in propaganda as you say they are, with evil execs carefully screening stories that won’t help its agenda, then why would FOX publish such a piece?
You don’t have an rational answer, do you?
Get an original article/broadcast then we can analyze its objectivity and see how much weight they gave to both sides.
That was an original article. AP provides news stories for all the mainstream media you hate - how is that not original?
I provided you with exactly what you wanted - now, like a mindless robot, you say “it wasn’t original”. Well, sure it was - it could be cited to the mainstream media outlet that carried.
It satisfies all you were asking for - mainstream media, article written for mainstream media, etc. How hard is it to admit you were wrong?
Seriously TB, arguing with you is sometimes like communicating with a stubborn kid that also happens to be on the slow side. See? I can do ad hominems too. Nah!
Still hurting over that whole NYT “News Analysis” mistake, are you?[/quote]
its not always what the mainstream media says but what it doesnt say. for example it doesnt say that RCTV led venezuela for communications infractions with 652, that in 2007 peru did not renew the license of 2 tv stations and 3 radios stations. that a mandate in the constitution (that was implemented before chavez became president) allows chavez to not renew the license. that chavez passed a law which legalizes all pirate radio stations (pirate radio stations are illegal in the U.S.), that more than half of all media outlets are still anti-chavez.
[quote]orion wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
OMG. It is corporate media who live in a world of propaganda. They are the voice of the rich and powerful. Why shouldn’t they be, they are owned by the same group of people and serve their interests. Isn’t this modern day capitalism at work?
No it is your fantasy version of it at work.
Truly independent media takes money only from donations of it’s readers/listeners and not the corporate interests. Therefore it reflects the views of those people who almost always are “the masses”.
So you are saying propaganda “for the masses” is good and “corporate propaganda” is bad?
If these donations are called a “price”, has the media been allready been corrupted?[/quote]
Propaganda can be quantified. It has been exposed time and time again. But not by corporate media. Only through independent media and foreign press can you begin to find the true motives of those in power. So if you don’t search outside the mainstream media’s narrow viewpoint you wind up taking on the role of characters in Plato’s Allegory In The Cave.
Corporate media have an agenda. It is th agenda of those who own them!
What I’m saying is that corporate media filters news and discusses the viewpoints of those who pay for them. We(the masses) aren’t those people so our viewpoints don’t recieve any serious disscussion. The public is marginalized at every turn. We don’t count. You can find the public’s interest seriously discussed only in the independent news sources and to a lesser degree the foreign press.
People here may be worried about what Chavez is doing but we should be more concerned about what is going on here in our own country. Namely the consolidation of more news sources by fewer and fewer corporations.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What I’m saying is that corporate media filters news and discusses the viewpoints of those who pay for them. We(the masses) aren’t those people so our viewpoints don’t recieve any serious disscussion.
[/quote]
Yes, you the masses, pay for them, with either money or attention that sells advertising space and time.
Since you, the masses, have the attention span of a 3 year old and the average education and intellect of a 15 year old, mainstream media tends to reflect that.
You, the masses can also not follow a discussion that involves more than Paris Hiltons bikini wax.
If you, the masses, were truly interested in education, you`d get a library card, available for 1 hour of manual labour, hundreds of years of ideas await you.
If you, Zeppelin795, were really interested in how some things work you would get a decent education of economics , politics and how that shit works together.
Start here:
You may think that this is the same sort of site you get your ideas from, but no, they have their bias because they have studied some ideas, instead of only studying ideas that support their bias.
Rant over.
[quote]orion wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
What I’m saying is that corporate media filters news and discusses the viewpoints of those who pay for them. We(the masses) aren’t those people so our viewpoints don’t recieve any serious disscussion.
Yes, you the masses, pay for them, with either money or attention that sells advertising space and time.
Since you, the masses, have the attention span of a 3 year old and the average education and intellect of a 15 year old, mainstream media tends to reflect that.
You, the masses can also not follow a discussion that involves more than Paris Hiltons bikini wax.
If you, the masses, were truly interested in education, you`d get a library card, available for 1 hour of manual labour, hundreds of years of ideas await you.
If you, Zeppelin795, were really interested in how some things work you would get a decent education of economics , politics and how that shit works together.
Start here:
You may think that this is the same sort of site you get your ideas from, but no, they have their bias because they have studied some ideas, instead of only studying ideas that support their bias.
Rant over.[/quote]
Corporate media make most of their money from their sponsors. “They” ain’t the masses.
You are talking about “sensationalism”(e.g. Paris Hilton). I’m talking about NY Times, FoxNews, Viacom…etc. They make the majority of their money from other gigantic corporations who pay them a shitload of money to advertise whatever they want to sell. It could be dangerous drugs from the pharmacuetical companies, etc.
If you are truly interested in thinking outside the box you may do a search and find out their are other alternatives to capitalism vs. communism economics.
orion:
By the way, I’m familiar with the Mises Institute. I used to belong to The Conservative Book Club and The Lassiez Faire Book Club.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
orion:
By the way, I’m familiar with the Mises Institute. I used to belong to The Conservative Book Club and The Lassiez Faire Book Club. [/quote]
“Laissez faire” is an atttitude, Lassie was an extremely bright Collie…