[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
You got it backwards.
First, a medium needs a certain reach, then, people advertise. Without people watching first it does not work.
Then, most advertisings are from completely harmless companies. 99,9 of all companies sell matresses, furniture, coffee or someting like that and they hardly have any similar interests except perhaps lower taxes and less regulation.
To focus on the oil and weapons industry which buys politicians is stupid because, it has very little to do with the mass media because their contributions are negligeable AND they have nothing to do with a free market system.
Studying other systems:
Well, theoretically there are few.
Practically, they are all some sort of collectivism. What is even more important though is that teach of these modells is so obviously flawed.
I looked up “libertarian socialism” and learned little else then that it is a different name for anarchism just without privat property.
What you can see then on such sites and in the literature is the same as with the intelligent design people, all they are doing is trying to poke holes into capitalist practice and theory, without having a consistent idea of how it might work differently.
Plus, what is the point? Capitalism is just a name for free markets, trade and private property which are the fundament of our civilization for a few thousands years now and they are pretty much in tune with what we are as human beings, so why rape us with an ill thought out alternative?
