Elite's Rule

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
“Surely in a democracy it’s time for us to quit being sentimental and say the question we settle in an election is not whether elites shall rule , but which elite shall rule”.
- George Will

This frank admission goes to the heart of what is wrong with today’s news. We need television news that doesn’t represent one section of the elite or another, but reports with ordinary people’s interests in mind.[/quote]

They have ordinary peoples interests in mind.

They report on J-LO, and Micheal Jacksons funeral and Paris Hilton and so on.

The things that you think they should be interested in are of no interest to them and a company that reported them would go broke.

It is not the media, or the “elites” or the church, or the evil companies that are to blame, no, most people lack the intellectual capacity or the will to learn something new and no amount of top down tinkering will ever change that.

[/quote]
This is mis-directed. Do people waste time on the absurd and mundane? Yes, however if the real issues of the day were front and center and being discussed in an open and unbiased way the world would be a much different place. The purpose of the mass media, which after all is a large corporation, is to maximize profits at just about any expense. They bombard the masses with the unimportant so as to marginalize them and keep them out of the real discussion. The mass media is biased to those who own it. It is their interests that it serves not the people of the United States.

I just thought it interesting that George Will admitted this on national TV.[/quote]

Not sure about the context in which George Will made the statement. But taken by itself and taken at face value, the statement says nothing about how or whether the mass media is biased. Taken by itself and at face value, “Surely in a democracy it’s time for us to quit being sentimental and say the question we settle in an election is not whether elites shall rule , but which elite shall rule” pertains to the government, not necessarily to the mass media. Furthermore, taken at face value the statement states nothing one way or the other about whose interests will be served by the rulers, but merely states who the rulers will be.

George Will’s statement might imply any number of things, but taken at face value it admits far less than what the OP said it does.

22

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
“Surely in a democracy it’s time for us to quit being sentimental and say the question we settle in an election is not whether elites shall rule , but which elite shall rule”.
- George Will

This frank admission goes to the heart of what is wrong with today’s news. We need television news that doesn’t represent one section of the elite or another, but reports with ordinary people’s interests in mind.[/quote]

They have ordinary peoples interests in mind.

They report on J-LO, and Micheal Jacksons funeral and Paris Hilton and so on.

The things that you think they should be interested in are of no interest to them and a company that reported them would go broke.

It is not the media, or the “elites” or the church, or the evil companies that are to blame, no, most people lack the intellectual capacity or the will to learn something new and no amount of top down tinkering will ever change that.

[/quote]
This is mis-directed. Do people waste time on the absurd and mundane? Yes, however if the real issues of the day were front and center and being discussed in an open and unbiased way the world would be a much different place. The purpose of the mass media, which after all is a large corporation, is to maximize profits at just about any expense. They bombard the masses with the unimportant so as to marginalize them and keep them out of the real discussion. The mass media is biased to those who own it. It is their interests that it serves not the people of the United States.

I just thought it interesting that George Will admitted this on national TV.[/quote]

Not sure about the context in which George Will made the statement. But taken by itself and taken at face value, the statement says nothing about how or whether the mass media is biased. Taken by itself and at face value, “Surely in a democracy it’s time for us to quit being sentimental and say the question we settle in an election is not whether elites shall rule , but which elite shall rule” pertains to the government, not necessarily to the mass media. Furthermore, taken at face value the statement states nothing one way or the other about whose interests will be served by the rulers, but merely states who the rulers will be.

George Will’s statement might imply any number of things, but taken at face value it admits far less than what the OP said it does.
[/quote]

Haha, naivety.

23

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Just think of the elite as being the naturally talented individuals whom bring a superlative quality to the market that consumers demand.

edited for precision.[/quote]

do you belong to this elite?[/quote]

Not that I am aware of.

24

[quote]Fallen wrote:
Much like the rat pressing down on the lever when the LED light goes on…so do the American masses when they vote.

Welcome to America. Democracy exists because of the elite. The masses are too stupid to run their own country. Get over it[/quote]

Yes, but a government governed by democracy is actually anti-elitist.

Think about it…

25

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

I also want to point out that Mass Media is in fact SEVERAL large corporations, often with competing editorial positions, whose primary motivation is not money.[/quote]

Well, then the mass media corporations are the first corporations in history whose primary motivation isn’t money.

Of course it is about money (and advertisers).

CNN caters to a particular audience, just as Faux does.
[/quote]

Right, but businesses adapt. IBM switched to consulting, 3M switched to… knick-knack production (and a lot of other interesting gadget-type stuff) when their original core-capacity went belly-up.

Last time I checked, most ‘liberal’ media companies were losing shameful amounts of money (with notable exceptions, like the Washington Post), wheras Fox was kicking ass despite people moving to get their information online. You’d think that CNN would change their tune when faced with overwhelming odds at survival with their current editorial staff. They have not. They have not even positioned themselves to make such a change.

Hence, either they are not good at business, or money is not their prime focus.