Media control? Doesn't happen.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

He's the catchall in that one Cow. "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." There is no free discussion down here. That's the point. The media has polarized this nation and have their own little corporate slices of the pie. You have BS debate that takes place and not actual interchange takes place. No one listens, they just spew talking points and partisan vitrol. Issues are not the issue, party is the issue. Just like on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, the sides like to balance the discussions in their favor and fight against the 98 pound weakling because they can promote their talking points with no fear of reprisal. That is how control is assumed and that is how it has all shaken out.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 15 2004, 06:12 PM
He's the catchall in that one Cow. "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." There is no free discussion down here. That's the point. The media has polarized this nation and have their own little corporate slices of the pie. You have BS debate that takes place and not actual interchange takes place. No one listens, they just spew talking points and partisan vitrol. Issues are not the issue, party is the issue. Just like on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, the sides like to balance the discussions in their favor and fight against the 98 pound weakling because they can promote their talking points with no fear of reprisal. That is how control is assumed and that is how it has all shaken out.

There is no free discussion down here. That's the point. The media has polarized this nation and have their own little corporate slices of the pie.

Aren't you implying that viewers in an increasingly polarized nation are seeking out the comfort of media sources they are pre-disposed to agree with?

And isn't that something I've said in the past.

That's different than your assertion that there is no debate since obviously there is an enormous and virulent public debate via multiple sources, which is exactly what the author of the essay suggests.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 15 2004, 05:26 PM
Its an art form, just like writing, painting etc. A form of expression that is open to interpritation. I view it a different way than you. But apparently I am not aloud to.

You are spouting about freedom of speech, that messages are being suppressed. But it seems that the only message that matters, is the one you wish to spread.

Yep, you're entitled to your opinion, but you'd be wrong.

Green Day, along with Good Charlotte and Sum 41, are among the bands slated to contribute tracks to the compilation Rock Against Bush, due April 20 (see "Good Charlotte, Green Day, NOFX To Rock Against President Bush"). Proceeds from the sale of the album will benefit the political activism Web site punkvoter.com, which Armstrong also lauded in his message.

http://www.punkvoter.com/

Old news, but I think it puts Green Day squarely against Bush. I think it'd be a stretch to say that the new album as no links to the anti-Bush movement.

[Lurch]

He's the catchall in that one Cow. "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." There is no free discussion down here. That's the point. The media has polarized this nation and have their own little corporate slices of the pie. You have BS debate that takes place and not actual interchange takes place. No one listens, they just spew talking points and partisan vitrol. Issues are not the issue, party is the issue. Just like on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, the sides like to balance the discussions in their favor and fight against the 98 pound weakling because they can promote their talking points with no fear of reprisal. That is how control is assumed and that is how it has all shaken out.

Where is your point in this? Why blame the media for giving people what they seemingly want? If provactive, thoughtful and balanced documentaries were popular, any bets on what the media would offer up? Mass culture doesn't fit into this type of media, and I'm sorry to say, but it's only going to get worse. Unless I misread your opinions entirely, you are not asking for a balanced analysis on the war from the media but rather any type of reporting that comes out on the side against the war.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 15 2004, 06:30 PM
Where is your point in this? Why blame the media for giving people what they seemingly want? If provactive, thoughtful and balanced documentaries were popular, any bets on what the media would offer up? Mass culture doesn't fit into this type of media, and I'm sorry to say, but it's only going to get worse. Unless I misread your opinions entirely, you are not asking for a balanced analysis on the war from the media but rather any type of reporting that comes out on the side against the war.

Hmm, that'd be true, if you could prove that the media gives the population what they want, instead of the other way around. That's a chicken/egg type of argument. We are 'socialized' from birth, and 'conditioned' to like certain things and dislike others, based on their popularity. It's pretty difficult to escape the likes/dislikes of the mainstream because its rammed into your skull the minute after you're born.

You're suggesting that people have 'options' when it comes to what type of literature/education/media they receive. Really, the options are those provided for them. They get to pick, but only from a limited list, unconsciously chosen by society, with a little help from profit margins and growth charts.

[Lurch]

Hmm, that'd be true, if you could prove that the media gives the population what they want, instead of the other way around. That's a chicken/egg type of argument. We are 'socialized' from birth, and 'conditioned' to like certain things and dislike others, based on their popularity. It's pretty difficult to escape the likes/dislikes of the mainstream because its rammed into your skull the minute after you're born.

You're suggesting that people have 'options' when it comes to what type of literature/education/media they receive. Really, the options are those provided for them. They get to pick, but only from a limited list, unconsciously chosen by society, with a little help from profit margins and growth charts.

And is the implication that those who choose from the 'fringe list of options' is somehow brighter or less malleable than those in the mainstream?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 15 2004, 06:52 PM
And is the implication that those who choose from the 'fringe list of options' is somehow brighter or less malleable than those in the mainstream?

Not at all. They've merely been 'exposed' to those 'choices'. If you aren't aware that the Green Party exists, or that Ralf Nader is its leader, you don't really have the option of supporting that party, do you?

If you live in the country or a small town, you're probably not exposed to nearly as many 'fringe' elements as an urbanite can find.

Has nothing to do with intelligence, as I clearly pointed out. It's about the options society makes available to you.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 15 2004, 06:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 15 2004, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lurch@Oct 15 2004, 06:52 PM
And is the implication that those who choose from the 'fringe list of options' is somehow brighter or less malleable than those in the mainstream?

Not at all. They've merely been 'exposed' to those 'choices'. If you aren't aware that the Green Party exists, or that Ralf Nader is its leader, you don't really have the option of supporting that party, do you?

If you live in the country or a small town, you're probably not exposed to nearly as many 'fringe' elements as an urbanite can find.

Has nothing to do with intelligence, as I clearly pointed out. It's about the options society makes available to you. [/b][/quote]
I think you could go into any small town in America and find a quotient of tree-huggers and rednecks.

There are places in Maryland that might be more likely to vote for gay marriage just as there might be more places in Texas that might be disposed to vote against it, as an example, but each community will have its representatives, almost regardless of size.

These days, with cable television and the internet, there are few places that wouldn't have access to what you want to hear if you decided to go find it.

That's a vast improvement on even 20 years ago. If you think that people finding sources of news they agree with is a positive.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

I think you could go into any small town in America and find a quotient of tree-huggers and rednecks.

Maybe. Though do you think it's that way in every single town? The point that I'm trying to make is that we all have options based on those provided to us. You can't examine a concept if its never been introduced to you. Also, for every small town that has it's quota of tree-huggers, I'm sure there's another that has none. If you're only exposed to one or two ways-of-life, chances are probably pretty good you'll pick one of them, not because you're naturally inclined towards it, but because it's one of your available options.

There are places in Maryland that might be more likely to vote for gay marriage just as there might be more places in Texas that might be disposed to vote against it, as an example, but each community will have its representatives, almost regardless of size.

Probably. But this example seems to support a 'it all evens out in the end on a grand scale'. Again, my point is about individuals and they're ability to choose they're political/social preferences based on the information provided. If a kid in Maryland is exposed to homosexuality, and a kid in Texas isn't, which is more likely to be tolerant of it? Not judging Texans (or Marylanders), but you have to admit, if your whole town hates a 'way of life' (or even most of your town), you're going to be naturally predisposed to go along with that ideology, and why not?

These days, with cable television and the internet, there are few places that wouldn't have access to what you want to hear if you decided to go find it.

That's a vast improvement on even 20 years ago. If you think that people finding sources of news they agree with is a positive.

Great point, if you're talking only about people who actually DO have access to these information sources. I think less than half of Americans have access to the internet. Don't you think that an inner-city kid, presented with a tough life and tough options, is much less likely to say, vote for the Green Party, as a kid who's parents are middle-class, and environmentally concsious? Obviously they have different options presented to them, and, as such, are very likely to pick one of them. Clearly every individual case is different, which is exactly what I'm suggesting. My lifestyle 'options' are different than yours, because my upbringing was different. Add into that different places, countries, languages, parental politics, education format, etc., probably means that not everyone has 'equal access to the same social/political choices'.

Seems obvious to me.

[Lurch]

If you live in the country or a small town, you're probably not exposed to nearly as many 'fringe' elements as an urbanite can find.

It's not clear to me that this is true, but 'fringe' is a matter of taste. Also, I'm still not sure I see your point. Does society shape people - yes, of course it does. Can you point out a culture or timeframe where this was not true - of course not. OTOH, people and ideas shape society, and this has always been true. Beyond an interesting philosophical discussion, what is the point? Unless there is someone or some group outside the feedback loop controlling things, what does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Unless this 'outside the loop' control is obliquely your point, I'm not sure where this is going.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 15 2004, 07:20 PM

Maybe. Though do you think it's that way in every single town? The point that I'm trying to make is that we all have options based on those provided to us. You can't examine a concept if its never been introduced to you. Also, for every small town that has it's quota of tree-huggers, I'm sure there's another that has none. If you're only exposed to one or two ways-of-life, chances are probably pretty good you'll pick one of them, not because you're naturally inclined towards it, but because it's one of your available options.

Probably. But this example seems to support a 'it all evens out in the end on a grand scale'. Again, my point is about individuals and they're ability to choose they're political/social preferences based on the information provided. If a kid in Maryland is exposed to homosexuality, and a kid in Texas isn't, which is more likely to be tolerant of it? Not judging Texans (or Marylanders), but you have to admit, if your whole town hates a 'way of life' (or even most of your town), you're going to be naturally predisposed to go along with that ideology, and why not?

Great point, if you're talking only about people who actually DO have access to these information sources. I think less than half of Americans have access to the internet. Don't you think that an inner-city kid, presented with a tough life and tough options, is much less likely to say, vote for the Green Party, as a kid who's parents are middle-class, and environmentally concsious? Obviously they have different options presented to them, and, as such, are very likely to pick one of them. Clearly every individual case is different, which is exactly what I'm suggesting. My lifestyle 'options' are different than yours, because my upbringing was different. Add into that different places, countries, languages, parental politics, education format, etc., probably means that not everyone has 'equal access to the same social/political choices'.

Seems obvious to me.

Though do you think it's that way in every single town?

As a matter of fact, "yes."

Moreso in the North America where people are pre-disposed to migrate all over the place for work, thus bringing their ideas and habits with them.

There's rarely uniformity of thought, almost regardless of upbringing.

As an example, from a poll on gay marriage:

Sixty-seven percent of Southerners oppose gay marriage, according to the Pew poll, compared to 50 percent of Easterners.

It implies 33% of southerners and 50% of Easterners favour gay marriage. The difference is probably what you might expect given the cultural variables in those regions but far from being uniform with the stereotypes of those regions.

Just because someone grows up on a farm in rural Texas doesn't mean they'll turn out to be a Bush-lovin' Redneck. Just because someone grows up within sight of Cambridge doesn't mean they'll be a tree-huggin' Liberal.

Why is that?

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Though do you think it's that way in every single town?

As a matter of fact, "yes."

Moreso in the North America where people are pre-disposed to migrate all over the place for work, thus bringing their ideas and habits with them.

There's rarely uniformity of thought, almost regardless of upbringing.

Aren't you implying uniformity in variety? (ie, there will always be a similar percentage of 'fringe' elements in every town). Don't you think that, realistically, a predominantly hispanic town close the southern border will differ drastically socially, politically, and economically than a small town in northern Minnesota? Aren't the 'choices' provided to you to adopt as an ideology going to be different in both?

As an example, from a poll on gay marriage:

Sixty-seven percent of Southerners oppose gay marriage, according to the Pew poll, compared to 50 percent of Easterners.

It implies 33% of southerners and 50% of Easterners favour gay marriage. The difference is probably what you might expect given the cultural variables in those regions but far from being uniform with the stereotypes of those regions.

Just because someone grows up on a farm in rural Texas doesn't mean they'll turn out to be a Bush-lovin' Redneck. Just because someone grows up within sight of Cambridge doesn't mean they'll be a tree-huggin' Liberal.

Fine. But you seem to be saying that there's an equal chance of being a Liberal if you're born in Texas or Cambridge. Do you believe that?

Again, my point is that your social choices only range between those that are provided to you. If a conservative ideology is provided much more clearly and consistently in Texas, there's a better chance you'll be conservative if thats where you're from. Nothing wrong with that, nor did I make any political judgements based on region or party.

I think where you're from significantly impacts your life-choices. I also think that different places provide different choices. You disagree?

My original point was that if you're not exposed to the 'fringe' elements of society, chances of you joining them are drastically reduced.

[Lurch]

Fine. But you seem to be saying that there's an equal chance of being a Liberal if you're born in Texas or Cambridge. Do you believe that?

Isn't the real implication that there's an equal chance you'll stray from the majority in each place?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 15 2004, 07:30 PM

It's not clear to me that this is true, but 'fringe' is a matter of taste. Also, I'm still not sure I see your point. Does society shape people - yes, of course it does. Can you point out a culture or timeframe where this was not true - of course not. OTOH, people and ideas shape society, and this has always been true. Beyond an interesting philosophical discussion, what is the point? Unless there is someone or some group outside the feedback loop controlling things, what does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Unless this 'outside the loop' control is obliquely your point, I'm not sure where this is going.

Lol, yeah, this has gone off a little. My point way up the thread was in response to someone saying that "the media gives us what we want", whereas I argued that 'what we want' has a lot to do with what the media (society's tool) tells us. We don't get to watch anything we want, we have to pick from the channels provided. We're not free to use any information we want, we have to pick from the info provided.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Lurch@Oct 15 2004, 07:59 PM

Isn't the real implication that there's an equal chance you'll stray from the majority in each place?

Well, I don't know about that, but for argument's sake I'd be willing to accept it.

What I wouldn't accept is that every town has %35 Democrats, %35 Republicans, %10 Green, %20 non/other.

I'd expect different regions to have different percentages, based on region, race, economics, politics, social factors, etc. The point is your environment shapes who you are. Is the US your 'environment'? Maybe. I'd consider your immediate neighbours, schools, parents, newspapers more as youre 'environment' than a grander, national concept.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 15 2004, 07:54 PM
My original point was that if you're not exposed to the 'fringe' elements of society, chances of you joining them are drastically reduced.

But you seem to be saying that there's an equal chance of being a Liberal if you're born in Texas or Cambridge. Do you believe that?

Equal? No. I said as much above.

I only disagree with your inclusion of "fringe" and the use of the word "drastically." Those imply the far left or the far right. Your basic basic part-time redneck or your basic part-time tree-hugger, normal folks, are what we're talking about.

I think we agree there is a probability you might be leaning one way due to the region you might be in BUT you would have plenty of company if you didn't. If you oppose gay marriage in Maryland you're not alone. If you are in favour of gay marriage in Texas, there are enough people for a parade. In spite of the cultural inflection, people have their own thoughts and ideas and leanings and that shows up in polling on a variety of issues all the time.

Aren't you implying uniformity in variety? (ie, there will always be a similar percentage of 'fringe' elements in every town). Don't you think that, realistically, a predominantly hispanic town close the southern border will differ drastically socially, politically, and economically than a small town in northern Minnesota? Aren't the 'choices' provided to you to adopt as an ideology going to be different in both?

Pointing to a Texas border town with 80% foreign born residents of which half might have arrived in the last 10 years and a quarter in the last five would be fixing the result to your side of the argument as they would likely have more exposure to the uniformity of Mexico than the cultural mores and differences of the USA.

Point to a small town in Georgia and then compare it to the small town in Minnesota.

My experience is there are all types in any community, the common left, the common right and the small wingnut fringe on both sides to anchor the goalposts.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Something, not really related to the discussion, that I just saw that is interesting is that HBO is broadcasting a documentary they have made featuring letters written to home from those stationed in Iraq. They are broadcasting this on November 11th, seven days AFTER the federal election. This film could have been a political piece and have made a serious impact on the election, and make them a killing, but they are not going to do this and will air it when it will not have an effect. It is too bad that they refuse to counter Sinclair and their "documentary". Funny how motivations are different when you don't have a political axe to grind.

[Agamemnon]

But you seem to be saying that there's an equal chance of being a Liberal if you're born in Texas or Cambridge. Do you believe that?

Equal? No. I said as much above.

I only disagree with your inclusion of "fringe" and the use of the word "drastically." Those imply the far left or the far right. Your basic basic part-time redneck or your basic part-time tree-hugger, normal folks, are what we're talking about.

Then maybe our definitions of 'fringe' and 'drastically' don't jive. I never said that it was impossible for one to be of an political/social orientation that doesn't match the majority of their region, what I said was that the majority of the region will 'drastically' impact your list of options, and tendancies towards them. I would surmise (and have) that some regions (or towns) have a majority that simply feels strongly towards an issue. You're more likely to care about that issue if you're surrounded by people that do. You're less likely if the people around you don't.

Pointing to a Texas border town with 80% foreign born residents of which half might have arrived in the last 10 years and a quarter in the last five would be fixing the result to your side of the argument as they would likely have more exposure to the uniformity of Mexico than the cultural mores and differences of the USA.

Point to a small town in Georgia and then compare it to the small town in Minnesota.

I don't see why pointing out a Mexican-American town is an issue. Just because the residents happen to be Hispanic and may have emigrated (or may not have) from Mexico recently. They're still in the USA, and they're still an 'American' town. The reason I used this extreme case was to point out, again, that your surroundings are going to influence your beliefs. If you're surrounded by poor, destitute individuals, you might be more inclined to favour social programs. You certainly are not pre-destined to favour them, but the chances are much higher, no? Just the same if you're in a wealthy family, you might naturally believe in tax cuts or privatised healthcare. It's not because you were born to believe those things; they came out of your surroundings. Doesn't matter if it's American, Canadian, Mexican, etc (or does, but in a local, regional sense as opposed to national)

My experience is there are all types in any community, the common left, the common right and the small wingnut fringe on both sides to anchor the goalposts.

Possibly. My experience has shown that certain regions I've visited 'generally' support certain ideologies. Are the percentage of 'lefties' the same in Quebec and Alberta? Surely left-wing ideologies exist in both places, but do you think that if you're born in Alberta or Quebec, that your chances of becoming 'left-wing' are the same? I don't think so, but that's my opinion.