Government controlled media

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I remember getting hammered by a few posters when I said that the media has been complicent all that has gone on in America because of their cooperation with the government and their willingness to be manipulated by the government. I was called a conspiracy theorist and that I was on the fringe in my thinking. So based on the happenings of the past couple months has enough proof come forward to finally admit that exactly what I said was going has indeed been going on?

When you have several media outlets admit they have overly censored their reporting to aid the war effort, that is proof of manipulation. When you have a scandal where a senior press correspondent has been paid-off to soften up the question periods during news conferences that is proof of manipulation. When the leader of the government steps forward and says that he believes propaganada is a good thing and should be used on the citizens of his own country, that is proof of minpulation. I don't know how many more smoking guns there needs to be, but this is a subject that deserves more discourse IMO.

Has there been enough evidence come forward to bring the actions of the government and the media into question?

[Agamemnon]

I think expecting the media to ever tell the 'truth' about things is asking a little much. They're corporations, owned by shareholders. They're obligated to the law, and to their shareholders... and thats it. As far as I know, the only penalty for not telling the 'truth' is that viewers may change the channel. Thus, if one can concoct newsworthy stuff, and not get caught/called out, then it makes sense to do that.

I for one think that if someone gets all of their information from a network news source, they probably deserve to be misinformed. There are a variety of independent information networks on the Web, and they're not hard to find.

Did the administration lie? Sure, of course, everyone knows it. Does that matter? Obviously not enough for anyone to really do something about it. Administrations will lie. I'm sure if Kerrey had been elected, he'd be going through his first mega-scandal right about now. My faith in the system as it stands isn't too strong.

[CaptainCrunch]

The media is always going to be compromised because it has to balance the news with its finanacial survival.

Thats why stations like fox tell things from a severe right wing slant, because thats the viewership that pays thier bills.

Or the CBC sits on the far left wing, and is overly supportive of the governments viewpoint, because the government pays thier bills.

The only way to get balance is to read multiple sources and do your own research.

[Hakan]

I think the CBC is quite moderate really. I think people perceive the CBC to be left wing because of the overwhelming amount of normalized right wing messages we receive every day. I'll qualify that by stating that traditional right wing economic messages are what we are inundated with.

When the CBC even remotely questions those messages its chastized as a commie rag or something when it clearly is not. The CBC is quite right wing on the economic-political spectrum and is only moderate on the social spectrum.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Hakan@Mar 20 2005, 08:56 PM
I think the CBC is quite moderate really. I think people perceive the CBC to be left wing because of the overwhelming amount of normalized right wing messages we receive every day. I'll qualify that by stating that traditional right wing economic messages are what we are inundated with.

When the CBC even remotely questions those messages its chastized as a commie rag or something when it clearly is not. The CBC is quite right wing on the economic-political spectrum and is only moderate on the social spectrum.

I agree.

If you look at different media from around the world, the CBC is as close to "middle of the road" as you can get when it comes to news reporting. If you watch Newsworld, it is relatively unopnionated compared to Fox, CTV, CNN, Al Jazeera, and any other network I can think of.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Mar 20 2005, 04:08 PM


Did the administration lie? Sure, of course, everyone knows it. Does that matter? Obviously not enough for anyone to really do something about it. Administrations will lie. I'm sure if Kerrey had been elected, he'd be going through his first mega-scandal right about now. My faith in the system as it stands isn't too strong.

Thats not the point man. Obviously you are going to change the channel if you KNOW someone is lieing, but it can be said that the vast majority of the people don't know they are being lied to, or if specific news organizations are really "spinning" the news in their favor.

But how many people go to the "web" to get their news of the day? How many more people watch Networks like FOX and rely on it daily for their news? I can tell you a lot more do the latter.

The press has a responsablity to tell the truth - without spin.

FOX, Bill O'reilly, Al Franken, Ann Coulter, Rush and other idiots on both sides of the equation are exactly whats wrong with news.

Now do I hold Bill, Al, Ann and Rush to the same standards as FOX? Hell no. At least going to watch them you know you are going to get some Right/Left wing loon tell you the spin of the day.

FOX on the other hand is pathetic. When Spin is masked as real news, and too many Americans eat it up without any other objective sources.

[Mike F]

Of direct relevance is this article from the NY Times talking about the Bush admin's masterful manipulation of the media and the media's willingness to go along.

"Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production"

It's an extensive article, so pack a lunch

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Mar 20 2005, 09:15 PM
The press has a responsablity to tell the truth - without spin.

I suppose...

It should be noted that they took on this responsibility themselves to 'tell the truth', there is no legislation in place that says they have to. Every news program out there 'spins' a story whether they want to or not, because truth is almost always in various angles of perception, and only rarely does a truly comprehensive view emerge on any given topic.

Some networks 'lie' more blatantly than others, but thats the way it goes. What incentive do they have to become squeaky clean?

FOX on the other hand is pathetic. When Spin is masked as real news, and too many Americans eat it up without any other objective sources.

Whose responsibility is it to provide them with these sources? Its up to two parties to get the facts straight. 1. The people have to be educated, 2. The state has to help people be educated. Simple solution, impossible to implement.

In the mean time, try to convince those around you that what's on TV is probably far from the truth, and do what you can. Not much else to do about it...

[CaramonLS]

Right there is not much you can do, it would just be nice if the state could make the press have some more accountablity.

But lets be honest... most people get into routines and really don't have time to check all the difference sources, how they report the events and compare/contrast and filter out the spin.

So I think the state has a responsablity to everyone to hold the media to higher standards. Will it happen? No, because they'd need to hold themself to a much higher standard to start. It's worse with the Bush administration, but the previous administrations are guilty of it as well, albiet to a lesser extent.

I mean is Bush going to tell Fox to "lighten up" when it is probably one of the best ways to spread his propaganda to the people? Heck no.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Mar 20 2005, 10:15 PM
The press has a responsablity to tell the truth - without spin.

That is not true. Their only responsibility is to their owners. Every person on earth is pushing his or her own agenda. The press is no different. Its role is to satisfy their consumers. If consumers prefer biased news reporting, then that is what the press is going to give them. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, there is no reason why any given media should be balanced or unbiased. What does that mean anyway? Do you print lies alongside with facts just to be balanced? The point is to come up with true statements, not with plethora contradicting opinions. Who is to decide what a spin is? The government? No, thanks.

As long as the government is not threatening the press, the press can print whatever it wants, as far as I am concerned. I don’t see any conspiracy theory when journalists willingly push through their or someone else’s agenda. Everyone does that.

[tjinaz]

Right wing bias in the media HA.....

There is a blatant liberal bias in the majority of the mainstream media. I have about the same odds of finding a Republican on a national news paper editiorial staff as a liberal at my gun club. The only reason you hear so much about FOX is because they are different. Smart move. They noticed that 90% of the media was left leaning and decided to create a news outlet that wasn't. Now they have massive ratings. Look at the BBC and CBS. Both of them have had to re-examine their processes in the last year after they got caught printing half truths with distinct liberal biaes.

Check out the links below. The second link is a study by stanford that empirically shows the media bias.

As for the CBC... I think any control by the government of the press is bad. How can it be called a free press when it is government sponsored. It is your money (through taxes) and some commitee in Ottawa is deciding what you need to see?... wrong answer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlet...00406230852.asp


http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/mediapap...ecloseMilyo.pdf

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 03:18 PM
Right wing bias in the media HA.....

There is a blatant liberal bias in the majority of the mainstream media. I have about the same odds of finding a Republican on a national news paper editiorial staff as a liberal at my gun club. The only reason you hear so much about FOX is because they are different. Smart move. They noticed that 90% of the media was left leaning and decided to create a news outlet that wasn't. Now they have massive ratings. Look at the BBC and CBS. Both of them have had to re-examine their processes in the last year after they got caught printing half truths with distinct liberal biaes.

Check out the links below. The second link is a study by stanford that empirically shows the media bias.

As for the CBC... I think any control by the government of the press is bad. How can it be called a free press when it is government sponsored. It is your money (through taxes) and some commitee in Ottawa is deciding what you need to see?... wrong answer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlet...00406230852.asp


http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/mediapap...ecloseMilyo.pdf

What a load. Ever since Nixon started running around waving his hands in the air and screaming "liberal bias" the conservatives have used this as a strategy to distract people from the truth, the media has shifted further and further to the right and become controlled by government and special interest. The sad part is that people are still buying this because they are too lazy to research the facts behind the stories. And this is just another example of someone waving their hands in the air and attemptiong to distract people from the facts.

1) The President admitted that using propaganda on Americans is okay and is in practice.

2) The media has taken it easy on the government and have self censored the material so as not to be damning toward the present administration.

3) The Whitehouse got caught paying a senior reporter to toss the President softballs, and no one is covering it at all.

So if there is a liberal bias in the media why are the sharks not circling and ripping the Whitehouse and the other media sources to pieces. Its not like George W. Bush is not the easiest target in the world (well, yes he is). If the media were indeed liberal Bush would not have even come close to being re-elected based on the dirt that was available on him. Instead the feeding frenzy was on the "liberal" Kerry. The liberals ate their own? Not likely. The fact of the matter is that the conservative media ran a President out of office (Clinton) for a nothing issue, yet they allow the most corrupt administration in a century to have free reign. Liberal media bias? Not at all. The conservatives are driving this agenda and there is little doubt about it.

Bonus Question: So if there is a liberal bias in the media, and the conservatives are afraid of the liberal media, why would Ronald Reagan (the most conservative of Presidents) strike down the fair play doctrine that media outlets had to live by (giving equal time to Republican and Democratic representation on issues)? Why would he kill the only thing that allowed for the conservative voice to have a fair chance in the "liberal dominated" media?

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 03:18 PM


As for the CBC... I think any control by the government of the press is bad. How can it be called a free press when it is government sponsored. It is your money (through taxes) and some commitee in Ottawa is deciding what you need to see?... wrong answer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlet...00406230852.asp


http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/mediapap...ecloseMilyo.pdf

Who cares if its government controlled. Its more unbaised than American News Media outlets thats for sure. Not enough Punditry going on at the CBC for ya maybe?

Oh and btw Lanny just took you to school.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Mar 21 2005, 05:44 PM
Who cares if its government controlled.

I don’t know how many people care, but it is an important point. It’s funny when you want unbiased media and at the same time you don’t mind government sponsored/controlled media. Government control over the media is the first sign of totalitarianism. But who cares, right.

[tjinaz]

Dude - read the study.... If you can refute the data... I will listen.

1) The President admitted that using propaganda on Americans is okay and is in practice.

2) The media has taken it easy on the government and have self censored the material so as not to be damning toward the present administration.

3) The Whitehouse got caught paying a senior reporter to toss the President softballs, and no one is covering it at all.

What is propaganda? Oh is that the special tag propaganda news gets that makes it that much more readable than the normal spin. Like the secret ingredients in Kentucky Fried Chicken. Since when haven't all presidents used it everyday?

The media have taken it easy on the current administration? When did this happen? CBS got caught printing lies in order to influence the election. 90% of the press voted for Kerry. The only major news channel to come out for the war was Fox, all the others were anti. It wasn't until the Iraqi election actually worked that the press even started to warm up to the concept that Bush chould be right.

Don't recall this softball issue. I remember something about a blogger but not a reporter. Can you put in a link?

Oh yea and still waiting for you to tell me how 90% of all reporters being admitedly liberal has no effect on their reporting and how the published study from Stanford means nothing compared to your conspiracy theories.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 08:18 AM
Right wing bias in the media HA.....

There is a blatant liberal bias in the majority of the mainstream media. I have about the same odds of finding a Republican on a national news paper editiorial staff as a liberal at my gun club. The only reason you hear so much about FOX is because they are different. Smart move. They noticed that 90% of the media was left leaning and decided to create a news outlet that wasn't. Now they have massive ratings. Look at the BBC and CBS. Both of them have had to re-examine their processes in the last year after they got caught printing half truths with distinct liberal biaes.

Check out the links below. The second link is a study by stanford that empirically shows the media bias.

As for the CBC... I think any control by the government of the press is bad. How can it be called a free press when it is government sponsored. It is your money (through taxes) and some commitee in Ottawa is deciding what you need to see?... wrong answer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlet...00406230852.asp


http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/mediapap...ecloseMilyo.pdf

Well if the National Review says it, it must be true.

Both those links claim that Fox is centrist. The Stanford one says Drudge is right in the middle. I bet even they would disagree.

The whole "60 Minutes" fiasco is an interesting one. Dan Rather gets positively raked over the coals, and deservedly so, for lying about George W. Bush's service record.

Oddly enough though, George W. Bush doesn't get raked over the coals for lying about George W. Bush's service record.

What is more important? The President lying about military service, or a reporter lying about military service? I know which one the Liberal Media Machine went after, and he wasn't even on the ballot.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Mar 21 2005, 04:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Mar 21 2005, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Mar 21 2005, 05:44 PM
Who cares if its government controlled.

I don’t know how many people care, but it is an important point. It’s funny when you want unbiased media and at the same time you don’t mind government sponsored/controlled media. Government control over the media is the first sign of totalitarianism. But who cares, right.[/b][/quote]
I don't see how the government controlling a media outlet is _so_ much worse than corporations controlling them. At least the government is supposed to look out for the people (whether they achieve that aim or not) as compared to the companies, whose sole purpose and motive is the bottom line.

How are corporations preferable as media outlets? Are they somehow fundamentally honest, and governments fundamentally liars?

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Mar 21 2005, 04:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Mar 21 2005, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Mar 21 2005, 05:44 PM
Who cares if its government controlled.

I don’t know how many people care, but it is an important point. It’s funny when you want unbiased media and at the same time you don’t mind government sponsored/controlled media. Government control over the media is the first sign of totalitarianism. But who cares, right. [/b][/quote]
If the government can hold it self to higher standards and actually provide objective news, it really does not matter who owns it.

The CBC is by far one of the most unbaised of NA news Media outlets.

So no I really don't care who owns it because at this current time the CDN government is doing a HELL of a lot better than Rupert Murdock.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Mar 21 2005, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Mar 21 2005, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 08:18 AM
Right wing bias in the media HA.....

There is a blatant liberal bias in the majority of the mainstream media. I have about the same odds of finding a Republican on a national news paper editiorial staff as a liberal at my gun club. The only reason you hear so much about FOX is because they are different. Smart move. They noticed that 90% of the media was left leaning and decided to create a news outlet that wasn't. Now they have massive ratings. Look at the BBC and CBS. Both of them have had to re-examine their processes in the last year after they got caught printing half truths with distinct liberal biaes.

Check out the links below. The second link is a study by stanford that empirically shows the media bias.

As for the CBC... I think any control by the government of the press is bad. How can it be called a free press when it is government sponsored. It is your money (through taxes) and some commitee in Ottawa is deciding what you need to see?... wrong answer.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlet...00406230852.asp


http://www.stanford.edu/~wacziarg/mediapap...ecloseMilyo.pdf

Well if the National Review says it, it must be true.

Both those links claim that Fox is centrist. The Stanford one says Drudge is right in the middle. I bet even they would disagree.

The whole "60 Minutes" fiasco is an interesting one. Dan Rather gets positively raked over the coals, and deservedly so, for lying about George W. Bush's service record.

Oddly enough though, George W. Bush doesn't get raked over the coals for lying about George W. Bush's service record.

What is more important? The President lying about military service, or a reporter lying about military service? I know which one the Liberal Media Machine went after, and he wasn't even on the ballot. [/b][/quote]
Rogue hits it dead on. Rather makes of the few mistakes in his journalist career and gets absolutely destoryed by everyone involved. The guy is forced to make a huge apology on national TV to his audiance and it ends up ending his career as well.

Lets also let it be known that Rather gets grilled for not checking all the facts and the sources before going on the air.

Compare and Contrast with GW, who uses faulty intellegence to invade a country for "WMDs". No apology whatsoever, not held accountable by the media to even within a degree of Dan Rather.

[tjinaz]

If the government can hold it self to higher standards and actually provide objective news, it really does not matter who owns it.

Here is where you run into problems. Define objective news.... You don't trust Drudge and Fox for your own reasons. I don't trust CBC and CBS for my own reasons. We both pay taxes and have equal right to what news we see. Who decides that? In your OPINION the CBC is less biased than Rupert. In my OPINION it is not. So now it is up to the government to decide. What if the government has a stake in the story? Which one do you think they will pick? The non elected government functionary that actually decides on a daily basis what your opinion should be will tell you. That is not a free press.

[/QUOTE]How are corporations preferable as media outlets? Are they somehow fundamentally honest, and governments fundamentally liars?[QUOTE]

Corporations are about profit and advertising they sell hoping you buy, they want your wallet. Politicians are about power and control. They want to keep the power they have or get more. They are infinitely more dangerous. If the press is supposed to keep the government in line and they are owned by the government, who do you believe?

Still waiting for the counter to the Stanford study...

Anyone?