Announcement From The American People

[isoFlux]

Quote:prop?a?gan?da
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propaganda

in a nutshell: one-sided reporting of information.


Punshier, did you even read my post? or did it just not click for you?

say we have news station A, that rates a -30 on your \"std scale\" (that cannot be unbiased itself). and then we have news station B that rates +2. (im using a regular number line).
you can\'t define a middle point. because the middle point is in constant fluxuation and cannot be measured. i.e. we cant set the origin to 0, because the world is never going to be exactly split between extreme left and right.
so, you have to compare. you cant say \"the distance between point A and point B is 32.\" this means that station B is 32 points more to the right than station A, and vice versa.
now, the average of the world on that political scale might be -1, or 8, or -67. we dont know. thats the whole point. so we can just use comparisions.
the only conclusion we can draw from observation of political views and so forth is a comparative statement. things are just waaaay too complicated to just stick numbers on news stations and say \"well, they are the best because they have __ for a score!!\"

whats wrong with Noam Chomsky?

[=D.C.L.I=Everest]

Nothing; personally I haven\'t read any of his material, but I always intended to do so. I do know what he is about and all. And that leads me to believe that, in general, it\'s not that popular to say \"hey I like Noam Chomsky!\" in your land of the free.

[Yellowbelly]

Fox has taken propaganda to the next level? Not quite. They are there to offer a different side of the story while everyone else just puts one. They actually balance the media to a certain extent. But propaganda? I don\'t see how one can accuse Fox of such without thinking about CNN and NBC and CBS.

Have you by chance ever read A Brave New World? One of the ways that they condition clones is to repeat statements over and over again, in and out of their sleep so it\'s burned into their minds. This is the same psychological tactic that these media groups use. If a fairly neutral person (as in not leaning toward the left or right) hear\'s: \"the war is bad\", \"bush failed\", \"3 soldiers died\", everyday for a year, he\'s not going to bother question it because all his liberal friends are going to tell him the same thing and that\'s what the media is going to tell him. I fail to see that Fox says constantly: \"Bush wins in Iraq\", \"No casualties in raids\", \"53 terrorists killed and captured\", \"Marines kill 1,000 terrorist with minor casualties\", \"The Iraq Threat is Over\".

[The_Punisher]

All I\'m hearing Flux is your excuses trying to say that most news sources aren\'t extremely biased.

[isoFlux]

Quote:All I\'m hearing Flux is your excuses trying to say that most news sources aren\'t extremely biased.

you must not be reading my posts.

isoFlux Wrote:withholding, biasing, or fabricating facts for the purpose of proving or disproving a point is propaganda.

this means that just about every news organization in existance is propaganda of sorts

isoFlux Wrote:don\'t be fooled: all news is biased. when something big happens in the news, watch CNN, FOX, BBC, and a French news station (i am not familiar with any). you will get very polarized views on that very same event. does this mean that one is right? no. does it mean that one is wrong? no. it just means that they all put a twist on the story based on public opinion, advertisers, and whoever is writing the story.

both me.

news is biased. period. no way around it. most news sources are biased toward big businesses and the government. i will cite Noam Chomsky\'s 5 filters for news:
1) news syndicates are owned by big corporations
2) advertisers, who are being sold the audience, are also big businesses and provide most of the funding
3) newsgathering is very dependent on government infrastructure
4) pressure groups that attack the media for supposed bias
5) the news can\'t violate the coneptions within the company (i.e. the reporter\'s views)

i will repeat:
news is biased

the most leftist news reporting firms in the US i guarantee you are probably not very comperable to many newsgroups in Europe. not \"good\" or \"bad\", but America\'s news, and therfore populace, is more right-wing than most Europeans. its just a fact.

as Americans, if we want to be active, progressive, supportive members in the international community, i think we need to stop being so abrasive and militant and start work with other countries to solve problems.

then again, many Americans have the \"fuck the UN, we dont need pussy foreigners criticizing us. we are right, they are wrong. thats it.\" attitude toward international relations. which, as many of us learned in elementary school, is not the best way to make friends and get along in the big sandbox of our world.


p.s. i dont care if somebody is popular, unpopular, or jerks off to Judge Judy. i am open to their ideas in the hopes that they are good ones. i had never heard of Noam Chomsky untill a few weeks ago, and have not heard any criticism of his work, other than \"wait, isnt he that linguistics guy?\" from my father. what ive read so far is pretty good stuff.

[The_Punisher]

Yes, but you overlook what actually happens in the news sources. I say that CNN is biased because of the people they bring on, the news pieces they show and the comments they make.


I say Fox News isn\'t nearly as biased because of the equal time they give to each side of the argument. From what I\'ve seen (don\'t have too much time to stare at the TV), they show all stories that they can possibly fit in and don\'t discriminate against what they show.

Now, people freak out about Fox News because of it\'s moderate standpoint. Most people are used to hearing nonstop liberal stuff from all news sources that when Fox enters the scene, it seems ultra conservative. But it\'s not.


It\'s sort of like the Grey Davis / Arnold Schwarzenegger type thing. Grey Davis (being a member of the communist party) had been in California for a good long time. People were used to his BS. Suddenly he was being kicked out and replaced. When compared to Davis, Arnold looks like a reactionary, but he isn\'t. He\'s almost a dead center moderate.

[andius]

isoFlux Wrote:51% isnt landslide.

Yes it is, just a very small one.

Anywho, I agree with Reno on this one, I just didn\'t get why people were crying when Bush won, I mean the world isn\'t over, he has been running things for the past four years too. My opinion on things is that no matter whos \"running things\" things will probably be almost the same as when the last guy was \"Running things\", so don\'t get yer panties in a bunch now. Also all these kids at my school were getting so into the elections it was unbeleivable, I mean your 15 for christsakes, still have three years before anyone will listen to your puny voice...add to that that most of their \"debates\" ran along the lines of \"Bush is like...so dumb..i mean c\'mon, he came from texas..\" and the other side\"Kerry is like such a pussy, I can\'t beleive he like ran away from like..umm what was that war called again?\" :\\

[The_Punisher]

Actually, he has not been running the country. The senate also does a lot of the work.

[=D.C.L.I=TuRb0jUg3nD]

The_Punisher Wrote:While all of Europe might be incredibly liberal and sees all the major news source as being unbiased because they have the same viewpoints, it doesn\'t change the fact that Fox News is the most unbiased news network out there.

:rofl:

You really believe that, don\'t you? :\\

You know, questioning authority doesn\'t automatically turn you into a commie, even if your daddy says so.

[The_Punisher]

Thanks turbo, you just proved my point.