 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Bill O'Reilly's a Fooking Kook |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES                    Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skydude-felinian That's anti-corporate/anti-big business. It may have its roots in various political forms, but to call it a sort of offspring of socialism is wrong. Socialism has many forms. The most common of which in the modern day (social democracy) is quite embracing of corporations. Look at the Scandinavian countries or the Third Way system of Great Britain or Singapore's political systems. Suffice to say to denounce something as "socialistic" is a McCarthy-esque tactic that falls flat on its face due to its lacking of merits as an argument. As for your assumption that outside of FOX most media is left-wing is false. I get lots of major American channels here. MSNBC, CNN, ABC GO! and other networks have a fairly right-wing slant with regards to various issues. Although they do have centrist commentators on their networks the editorial staff obviously favours a slightly right-wing slant. The only network that I've noticed that doesn't have this slant is CBS - which of course has changed since the days of Ed Murrow. |
|||
Skydude Armos Knight  Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| You proved my point exactly in the way you rather rudely critiqued my view. Socialism does have many forms...and in America, at least, one of its offshoots is anti-corporate interests. Whether that's true in an ideological sense or not is debateable, but I know from talking to a number of people who are in these sorts of groups that they consider themselves to be descended from those sorts of ideals. So straight from the horse's mouth we get exactly what I'm talking about.
You want a good report on media bias, go read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Before you say anything, know that he considers himself a liberal and votes for democrats. So it's not the same as suggesting you go read Ann Coulter's books. Granted, they can make some good points, but unlike Bias, they obviously carry with them a right-wing agenda. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skydude-felinian No, it's not a form of SOCIALISM. It's a form of counter-culture and rebellion. There are anti-big business fascists, and anti-big business everythings. Your choosing to label anti-corporate beliefs as socialism is down-right wrong...even if those people believe themselves to be descended from socialist groups. The truth is that their ideology is often very seperate from that of socialism and do not carry much of the blood that that political movement once did. The Britons think that they are the descendants of the Trojan kingdom through Brutus. Does this mean that this is true? |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| You're arguing far too much over semantics and not enough on the real point, while actually missing the point even on the semantics argument.
Snow's point was that she was using the examples of stories about anti-labor pieces, specifically anti-union transit strike, and anti-social security pieces, and saying that meant that the stations were conservative. My point was that just because they weren't extremely left-wing doesn't mean they're extremely right-wing...and socialism is indeed extremely left-wing. Moreover, labor issues and social security issues are VERY much related to socialist ideology. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Skydude, you're in the UK currently. What do you think of the Beeb?
Anyway, I've watched American news. Fox's outrageous Murdochian sensationalism aside, I'm surprised anyone can read any sort of real political views into the shallow, mile-wide inch-deep coverage of the sort CNN and co put forth. To me, they're like most modern TV news... biased towards shitty, sensationalised, contextless, historyless reporting of events, with no analysis or background. Skydude: Word to the wise. Using "socialism" as an epithet doesn't work outside of America and it makes you sound silly and unbalanced and vaguely McCarthyist to attribute anything vaguely leftish to "socialism". There's a vast spectrum of views that exist BETWEEN American "liberals" and actual socialists (hell, the fact that "liberal" means "left wing" in America is illustrative of how distorted the spectrum is there). CENTRE-LEFT IS NOT SOCIALIST. PERIOD. For example, the country you're in at the moment is ruled by a member of the Socialist International... |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| I haven't really watched BBC news, so I haven't really formed an opinion on that.
And I'm not using socialism as an epithet...but rather as a statement of what the extreme left is. And my whole point is that the stations are NOT to the extreme left...but they're still to the left of center, and just because they're NOT to the extreme left it doesn't follow that they're to the right. That's all I was saying by that comment. Jeez, why do people argue semantics rather than the issues? |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Because semantics is fun.
And now we get to argue that the mainstream news services in the US are not "left of centre" because they, well, aren't. As I already said, with the exception of the overtly slanted Fox News most of the US news, like most other TV news elsewhere, isn't really slanted in any direction except towards sensationalist, contextless reportage. I don't understand how, with the pace CNN moves at (a "global minute", what the FUCK?), with its "he said this, she said that" style, anyone can read a bias into it. Oh and finally, people need to get the false ideal of "objective media" out of their freaking heads. It's a myth, it's impossible, and the ideal damages journalism by making people mistake blandness and lack of analysis for "objectivity". (edited by Arwon on 03-07-06 10:13 PM) (edited by Arwon on 03-07-06 10:15 PM) |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| You just contradicted yourself there. If there can't be an objective media, then obviously there is a bias, even if it's a shallow one, in those other sources. I think Dan Rather presents the most clear example of an intentional left-wing bias. Most of the others that exist are, I think, and I hope, actually, there as a result of the personal views of the journalists coming out in ways they don't actually know are biased. Because I'd like to believe that they're not trying to distort, even if it is relatively shallow.
As for good examples, like I said, Bernard Goldberg's "Bias" tells them well and with more detail than I'd want to put into a post. A cursory search for examples brought up this page, which while likely run by someone who has his own views explaining why he sees it's an issue, let you see some examples of it. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| I mean it ain't systematised, intentional, or anything like that. They just say shit according to what's newsworthy. Or to put it another way, their primary bias is sensationalism and ratings and sponsorship. They're not there to peddle a political viewpoint, it's not in their interests, and with the exception of Murdoch they really don't.
If they didn't behold themselves to this false notion of journalistic objectivity, they'd probably actually do more analysis and contextualising. Which they don't, and news reportage is poorer for it. It's the lack of critical analysis and reference to the past and the extent to which they just present people's statements without question, that allows politicians to get away with so much. There's a reason the Daily Show is actually a more trustworthy news source than most of the other media, and it's because they actually approach the day's news with a critical mind. Your assignment now is to go watch BBC news services with frequency and report back on any differences in style or slant compared to the American media. (edited by Arwon on 03-07-06 11:24 PM) |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Well, O'Reilly isn't really a reporter, he's a "pundit". I wouldn't really expect him to be "fair an balanced". He takes the news stories, interviews people about those stories and gives his opinions on them. It just that he clearly doesn't think those opinions all the way through, and therefor comes off as a jackass. | |||
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6643 days Last view: 6643 days |
| ||
| I thought the reason he came off as a jackass was because he's clearly giving his opinion on things, but claims to be an unbiased reporter of only quantifiable truths. | |||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| Well in all fairness, maybe he's not so much 'balanced' as 'balancing' all the biased pundits on the other side? Some serious, some not
For an example of the latter, the Daily Show, while yes, meant to be funny, and succeeding in that regard, does make it rather clear where John Stewart stands, rather painfully obvious during the election in 2004. (edited by Skydude on 03-08-06 07:15 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skydude So, he's an Anakin Skywalker figure in your eyes? Basically he's creating a weird equilibrium? I'm sorry, but that is very silly. He's VERY far right. The farthest left that American stations have is (was) former governor Jessy Ventura (when he grilled the US Drug Czar on his show...That was AWESOME!). Tossing in extremists to balance things out is naive, and assuming that it will actually fix a non-existant situation is even more naive. Why would you bother doing it? It's giving air-time to stupidity. |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| Well, I think you're taking my argument a bit to the extreme as well as showing a blatant disregard for the actual situation by denying any bias whatsoever. He's not nearly as extreme as you make him out to be, for one thing. The problem is that the media have created an environment where the left is seen as the mainstream, and anything to the right, including the extreme right, the moderate right, and those right about in the middle, are all seem as radical right-wingers. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Oh bollocks. It's not necessarily "left" merely to criticise el presidente. That's kinda what the press is for. Do you remember the time Clinton was in power? Exactly the same situation, except now that there's a really shit president on the throne instead of a shiftless mediocre one, there's going to be even more criticism.
It's a massive stretch to claim "the left" is mainstream in the US at all... genuine left-wingers, genuine social democrats and labor party people, the sort that are pretty mainstream in Western Europe or Australia or New Zealand, would likely scare the crap out of many Americans with some of their views. Besides, how can you claim "the left" is the mainstream view when the republicans control everything in government? It's this sort of fucking cognitivite dissonance and persecution complex that shits me no-end... I STILL see people blaming the Democrats and left-wingers for all the problems in the govenrment and in America in general, despite the fact that the Republicans can now do whatever they want and can't be blocked. It's an absurd conspiracy theory and while a rhetorical device that helped them get power, it shouldn't still be effective now that they've got it. Yet somehow it is. Madness. (edited by Arwon on 03-08-06 05:36 PM) |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| I suppose I wasn't clear. The left isn't mainstream. I wasn't claiming that it was. What I'm saying is that the media attempt to portray the left (the American left, that is...I believe you're probably right on your point that the real extreme left would be feared) AS the mainstream.
And I'm not saying that it's "left" to criticize the president. It is, however, suggestive of a bias in the way certain things are reported. For example, poverty in the US has been pretty similar for the past 15 years or so. While Bush Sr. was in office, lots of stories about it. Current president, lots of stories on it. But while the problem didn't actually get any better during the Clinton administration, the news stories evidencing the problem mysteriously disappeared. Basically, the left isn't mainstream...nor is the right, really. I think most people with brains, despite the rather polarized nation of the country, fall largely in the middle. The problem is that the mainstream media typically presents a view that the left is mainstream while the center is right. In relative terms, true, but in actuality, not so much. Another example being that when people are quoted, if it's someone from a left-leaning thinktank, it's just "...from the ____ institute" while if it's from a right-leaning one, "...from the conservative _____ foundation"...a good quote being (and I'm paraphrasing) "the only time you'll hear the words 'left wing' is in a news story about what went wrong in an airplane crash." |
|||
Snow Tomato Snap Dragon  Since: 12-31-05 From: NYC Last post: 6316 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skydude But if the news is supposed to be fair and balanced (as I prefer my news)... how can they even run anti-labor pieces, and anti-social security pieces? Wouldn't that be advocating some sort of conservative agenda... and kind of like PROPAGANDA? I don't want to hear about why unions are harmful and evil... I want to hear about what the union is trying to accomplish, and about why they're so ticked off. I'll decide on the issues at hand myself. The Liberal Media doesn't exist. Any newstation or newspaper that isn't biased towards conservatism is considered liberal. Did anyone here actually ever read the New York Times? You're going to tell me that's liberally biased? I've seen anti-labor articles in it (during the transit strike.) And then they'll call the New York Post "fair and balanced".. right. But then again... the newstations and the papers have to cater to the popular opinions of the era. People like to open a newspaper and see a reflection of themselves. Otherwise, the paper won't sell. If the media doesn't represent the majority of the people... the ratings go down. The real problem started when we began to see the news as a form of entertainment. Sensationialism and yellow journalism... all that jazz. Instead of news... we're only being exposed to what sells. And right now... the country has shifted dramatically towards conservatism. So, that's what we're seeing. |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| I cant speak about the rest of the country, but in my area the reason you might not have heard about poverty as much during the Clinton-era was because there was less of it. In the 90's people in this area regularly got decent jobs with little problem. Since about 2000 we've become a depressed area and chances of finding a good job are very small. If you like minimum wage then you'll be happy. | |||
1117 Mumbies Since: 03-16-06 From: Peoria, Illinois Last post: 6627 days Last view: 6627 days |
| ||
| Awe... Come on you guys. Everyone knows that Bill O'Reily is a god among men. And besides, it's his day to celebrate his ancestry and get drunkDrunkdrunk. xD |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Bill O'Reilly's a Fooking Kook |
| |
