Do Americans realise that...

[sppunk]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp


Hmmm....

The UN also suggested that America not go to war, with everyones best interests in mind... But hey, we know what happened there!

For the third or fourth time, you've blamed a few peoples' policies on the American public that had nothing to do with it. When Bush was elected, no one knew he would attack Iraq like he did. If he would have, the election would have been completely different.

The UN as a whole should be disbanded anyway. It served its purpose and needs to be replaced.

Really, your arguments are fine but you don't know a lot about American society to back them up. More than half of Americans are against the war in Iraq. The stereotype you keep digging up should be, "Americans just want to leave Iraq." But, you chose not to do it. It's all how you spin things.

[phaedrus]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp


Yes, this could be the flaw. But I feel something is wrong on the other side of the argument if the biggest counter argument is that the actions of the government are seperate from opinions and desires of the people. That makes no sense to me, and is not a democracy. And if this is fact the case, then the patrotic back slapping attitude of Americans is misplaced and confused.

you're crazy. it DOES make sense to you. you just told me so. it's not much of a democracy. Americans should stop being so damn proud of it. besides, they are only proud of it because their government told them that they should be in the first place.

[phaedrus]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp
Basically, to summarise, you agree that America has issues. Big issues.

I have a problem with these issues and so do you.

Something needs to be done, actions like this cant be tolerated.

And the fact that you are aware of it makes it even worse.

But then, that could just be a reflection of the typical apathy / laziness of the stereotyped American

bingo.

[barden]

Originally posted by phaedrus


you see, you see it from the top down like me.

I do too, actually.

But I was referring more the the entertainment side of the media, and how inbred and stupid it is, and how this reflects American society.

Just to clear that up.

The other points made on the specific media influence I cant argue, cause I agree.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp


I'm an idiot for assuming your media has profits in mind when tryign to respresent the views of the majority and cater to the desires of the market?

This argument rules because this simple reason: If the media is in it to benefit the majority, then why is the media always referred to as "liberal" when more than 55 percent of the country identify themselves as Republican or conservative?

The logic behind it just isn't there. The media is of course attempting to make money, but almost every outlet also is attempting its best to do good. Even Fox News, God help them, believe they are doing good for society.

[barden]

Originally posted by phaedrus


bingo.

I hope that cleared up your other reply too?

I agree, but my argument is if they dont like it, something needs to change.

And for that reason I did not seperate the individual from the government / media. If you're not fighting against, you're standing with. Basically.

[barden]

Originally posted by sppunk


This argument rules because this simple reason: If the media is in it to benefit the majority, then why is the media always referred to as "liberal" when more than 55 percent of the country identify themselves as Republican or conservative?

Yeah, Good question.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp


Yeah, Good question.

The answer: because both are wrong. The media is not in it "just for the money" and they are not "left-wing socialists" like hard-line conservatives believe. Sorry to attack you on a subject you obviously can't have much knowledge about, it's just my biggest pet-peeve.

[phaedrus]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp


I hope that cleared up your other reply too?

I agree, but my argument is if they dont like it, something needs to change.

And for that reason I did not seperate the individual from the government / media. If you're not fighting against, you're standing with. Basically.

yeah, i think you've got a fair argument now. although i still feel the need to differentiate the two. you don't hate the two for the same reasons, you hate them for different reasons, although those reasons are connected.

[barden]

Originally posted by sppunk


The answer: because both are wrong. The media is not in it "just for the money" and they are not "left-wing socialists" like hard-line conservatives believe. Sorry to attack you on a subject you obviously can't have much knowledge about, it's just my biggest pet-peeve.

I just learn more, so I take no offence.

I suppose the answer to that question is really based on your opinion on the motives and power of the media. I think pure profit is quite high, and like all closet conspiratists (i dont know if this is really a word, I just went with my gut when trying to spell it too), like to believe some outside influence is involved too.

But thats a whole other conversation / debate that was tounched on briefly before.

[I Ate My Hamster]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp
Basically, to summarise, you agree that America has issues. Big issues.

I have a problem with these issues and so do you.

Something needs to be done, actions like this cant be tolerated.

And the fact that you are aware of it makes it even worse.

But then, that could just be a reflection of the typical apathy / laziness of the stereotyped American

Democracy is just a theory. It doesn't work like it's supposed to. The people don't have as much power as you would think they should. It's those underground government agency's running our country for the time being. The president is really just a p.r. man for the CIA/FBI.

[barden]

Originally posted by phaedrus


yeah, i think you've got a fair argument now. although i still feel the need to differentiate the two. you don't hate the two for the same reasons, you hate them for different reasons, although those reasons are connected.

To clarify:

I dont hate the individuals. I'd have to hate them all for a very specific, personal reasons, and thats a lot of reasons.

Its the other side where my problem is.

[phaedrus]

Originally posted by sppunk


The answer: because both are wrong. The media is not in it "just for the money" and they are not "left-wing socialists" like hard-line conservatives believe. Sorry to attack you on a subject you obviously can't have much knowledge about, it's just my biggest pet-peeve.

you also have to take into account the old definition problem in that "liberal" doesn't by definition mean "left-wing socialist"

[sppunk]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp


I just learn more, so I take no offence.

I suppose the answer to that question is really based on your opinion on the motives and power of the media. I think pure profit is quite high, and like all closet conspiratists (i dont know if this is really a word, I just went with my gut when trying to spell it too), like to believe some outside influence is involved too.

But thats a whole other conversation / debate that was tounched on briefly before.

I've worked at a few big newspapers, the Dallas Morning News, Boston Globe and Miami Herald. None of them, even the smaller paper I work at now, cares about turning huge profits and revolving their editorial decisions around that. Papers squeeze every penny because they have to ... they realize something could happpen and they might lose that advertising account or whatnot. But "pure profit" just doesn't exist in these kinds of newspapers.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by phaedrus


you also have to take into account the old definition problem in that "liberal" doesn't by definition mean "left-wing socialist"

Of course not, but that's what people jump at. They think the first time the economy goes downhill the media jumps at it to make Bush look bad. In actuality, no one seems to realize America's economy is worse now than it was two months ago - and we keep losing more and more jobs. Bush promised to create 2 million jobs, but we've lost 3 million. His fuzzy math will be his fate in November.

[phaedrus]

Originally posted by I Ate My Hamster


Democracy is just a theory. It doesn't work like it's supposed to. The people don't have as much power as you would think they should. It's those underground government agency's running our country for the time being. The president is really just a p.r. man for the CIA/FBI.

now you're starting to get at the root of the problem that he's been getting at all this time.

[barden]

Originally posted by sppunk


I've worked at a few big newspapers, the Dallas Morning News, Boston Globe and Miami Herald. None of them, even the smaller paper I work at now, cares about turning huge profits and revolving their editorial decisions around that. Papers squeeze every penny because they have to ... they realize something could happpen and they might lose that advertising account or whatnot. But "pure profit" just doesn't exist in these kinds of newspapers.

I understand the journalists quest for the truth, but I also understand what some people don’t want you to know, with enough money, you wont know. I also know that some things people are willing to pay a lot for you to know about…

I think it would be stupid to assume the government / ‘other’ has not caught on to the influence and impact of media, and use this to their advantage as much as possible.

I mean, take into account everything we heard about the limited freedom of the journalists reporting on the war…

[phaedrus]

Originally posted by sppunk


I've worked at a few big newspapers, the Dallas Morning News, Boston Globe and Miami Herald. None of them, even the smaller paper I work at now, cares about turning huge profits and revolving their editorial decisions around that. Papers squeeze every penny because they have to ... they realize something could happpen and they might lose that advertising account or whatnot. But "pure profit" just doesn't exist in these kinds of newspapers.

No matter what they're all fighting to survive or even expand. they're all still trying to make a buck. and a bigger buck than before.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp


I mean, take into account everything we heard about the limited freedom of the journalists reporting on the war…

Journalists report freely from the war. Of course they don't endanger lives, but their reports don't have any censor or whatever.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by phaedrus


No matter what they're all fighting to survive or even expand. they're all still trying to make a buck. and a bigger buck than before.

Not really. Back in the early 1900s journalists would walk around with money and pay people for an interview and "extra" information. That just doesn't happen anymore. Newsrooms across the country have tightened spending and cut extras just to be able to run the business. Of course a business wants to make money, but buying a $.50 paper does not help make money. Papers lose money off newstand and subscription sales.

[barden]

Originally posted by sppunk


Journalists report freely from the war. Of course they don't endanger lives, but their reports don't have any censor or whatever.

The reports from the war was that information was controlled and journalists were limited on what they received.

I think the media is too widely regarded as a strong tool to not be controlled. It would be done by force, or with influence, but I am convinced that it is affected.

You can only censor what you know.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by Agony_Imp


The reports from the war was that information was controlled and journalists were limited on what they received.

I think the media is too widely regarded as a strong tool to not be controlled. It would be done by force, or with influence, but I am convinced that it is affected.

You can only censor what you know.

Some of the embedded journalists did not report certain things, but the others did. There is nothing to censor these stories.

[barden]

Originally posted by sppunk


Some of the embedded journalists did not report certain things, but the others did. There is nothing to censor these stories.

I don’t know hey, I remember hearing about the camp the journalists were designated to, with controlled access to information on the developments of the war. The fact that they reported on this attempted control does work in their favor.


Anyway, my point is, in the big picture, one journalist is a small person.

To make what they write worth anything, they have to be aligned to a reputable name.

The chance that the reputable name has aligned itself with certain contracts etc to not report specific things, or to play up attention on others, would directly affect the journalist. With or without their knowledge.

Now we’re getting into something else completely… But. I. Cant. Stop.

Must. Try. Concentrate. On. Work.

[phaedrus]

Originally posted by sppunk


Journalists report freely from the war. Of course they don't endanger lives, but their reports don't have any censor or whatever.

that's downright naive.

[sppunk]

Originally posted by phaedrus


that's downright naive.

No, it's not. I've reported from instances where it would be easy to distort facts and whatnot, but you don't do it. You are a professional and are doing a job. Writers can mostly always take out a personal bias. It's hard many times, but it is done.

[barden]

Originally posted by sppunk


No, it's not. I've reported from instances where it would be easy to distort facts and whatnot, but you don't do it. You are a professional and are doing a job. Writers can mostly always take out a personal bias. It's hard many times, but it is done.

Same argument, different context.

Corruption of Individual journalists VS Corrupt Corportation that journalist works for.

[phaedrus]

Originally posted by sppunk


No, it's not. I've reported from instances where it would be easy to distort facts and whatnot, but you don't do it. You are a professional and are doing a job. Writers can mostly always take out a personal bias. It's hard many times, but it is done.

i think sensorship occurs at a higher level than that. it occurs at the level of editors and the newspaper owners, and on the government level by failing to give reporters free access to information. in this way governments choose what we know, and when we know it. (although we are still able to pass judgment as to the validity of what they tell us, HOPEFULLY)

even by planting reporters with units in Iraq, they were controlling what we knew. obviously the units were on best behaviour, and i'm sure that someone at some government or military level was very careful about what they did with that unit at any time during the war.

maybe sensorship wasn't the best word. in any case, i don't think journalists often try very hard to be very objective, but ultimately either they're not, or other external facts prevent them from being completely truthful.

[Why Am I So Ugly?]

if you can tell the difference between Americans and shitty American foreign policy we dont seem that bad. I do concede that its ignorant rednecks like Nimrod that give us a bad name