Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd argue the 5th amendment is the most sacred. Without it (or I suppose the 14th), the government could legally authorize death squads.

Polonius wrote:Define "interfering" in such a way that a law allowing government to stop media "interference" couldn't be used for blanket censorship. I'll wait.

Spoiler:

It can't be done.

That's not even arguing that interfering in politics is the birthright of every resident of the United States.

Who said it should be stopped? I like the free press, but I see what goes on at the same time.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. As long as all viewpoints are able to put their craziness on the airwaves we can all feel good about it.

Polonius wrote:I'd argue the 5th amendment is the most sacred. Without it (or I suppose the 14th), the government could legally authorize death squads.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100831/ap_on_re_us/us_death_chamber_warden

Polonius wrote:I'd argue the 5th amendment is the most sacred. Without it (or I suppose the 14th), the government could legally authorize death squads.

You mean like this?

http://www.truth-out.org/obama-administration-authorizes-cia-kill-us-citizen58358

Monster Rain wrote:As long as all viewpoints are able to put their craziness on the airwaves we can all feel good about it.

They are all allowed to put what they want on the airwaves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"death squads" has a pretty specific meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squads

What part of CIA kill team used to murder US citizens without trials doesn't meet that criteria?

Frazzled wrote:The best antidote for one voice is many voices MM, if I can call you...MM

Mystery is my middle...no...hang on....Mystery in my lastt name.

Middle name is............................?

Anyone with a lot of money can start a media company. It doesn't even take as much money as it used to, because nowadays you can do a pretty good job just with a website like Wikileaks or The Drudge Report.

There are also political lobbyists.

So I don't see that it matters that a lot of journalists contribute to the Democrats. If you think they have undue control, start a website to explain why the electorate is nearly always split between 55/45 and 45/55.

I expect a lot of industrialists contribute to the Republicans. It doesn't mean you shouldn't drive around in cars.

djones520 wrote:What part of CIA kill team used to murder US citizens without trials doesn't meet that criteria?

What part of ties to Al-Qaeda in Yemen, links to two attacks within the US, and the fact that he lives in Yemen do you not understand?

If he were within the US or Europe...he'd probably have been snatched up by the FBI coordinating with friendly LEOs.

That's not the case. So he gets put on the same list with other terrorist wackadoos to receive a friendly neighborhood UAV Hellfire rocket, courtesy of the USAF.

djones520 wrote:What part of CIA kill team used to murder US citizens without trials doesn't meet that criteria?

well, there has always been an imminent danger loophole to constitutional protections, but really, I'd argue that these killings weren't legal. I didn't say that the US couldn't create death squads, just that they can't legally create them.

If you're point is that the US government has, on more than on occasion, violated the constitution, than congratulations on reaching a roughly 5th grade understanding of political reality.

djones520 wrote:What part of CIA kill team used to murder US citizens without trials doesn't meet that criteria?

One of the agents had three wounds.

Now I want to make a Tau Kill Team composed entirely of Seeker Missiles.

Phryxis wrote:Well, sure, there's a LOT going on all the time... I'm not suggesting that every single story is "Obama - Great President or Greatest?" Clearly there's lots of filler, and then even orgs like FOX, that are the exact opposite of the trend...

So there will be lots of stories about, say, sports. Ok, great, no politics. And stories about consumer electronics. And home repair and improvement... And lots of stuff. And the people writing those articles are writing them because they're interested in that sorta thing, not in politics.

But the guy who writes the political articles isn't doing it because he doesn't care about politics. And if you DO care about politics, you've probably picked an angle along the way, because being indifferent about something you care about is impossible.

The simple fact is that what a story is "about" is determined by your political outlook.

The simple fact is that it really isn't.

Look, my sister works in the media, nothing too high level but she's just starting out. She's pretty overtly right wing and spent most of her time doing her media degree complaining about left wing media coverage. I asked her a while back if that was still her experience and she said that most journalists are pretty left wing, including a core of really crazy left wingers, although there's a more even political balance at the editorial level. So I asked if that evened things out a little, she said it didn't balance things out because there really isn't anything to balance outr, because politics just doesn't come into media coverage.

She said the big question that really mattered was 'will a story piss off a sponsor?' After that the question is whether you can cover the story well enough in the space you've been allowed. Then you go out, get a quote from one party, get a quote from the other party saying the opposite, wrap it up and have it on the editors desk before 4.00.

That's what the media is. Most of the stories produced for FOX are produced by freelancers, who like most media tend to have left wing views, but they don't just accept FOX commissions, they chase them because FOX pays above industry standard, and it pays on time.

There simply isn't a place in the modern media to support a bias like you're claiming. The media just doesn't work that way, the focus is always on stories that won't rock the boat of any sponsors, that will rate, that can be presented adequately in the given time or space allowed, that can be produced before the editorial cut-off. That's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:The best antidote for one voice is many voices MM, if I can call you...MM

Nah, we've tried that in the last decade or so with the explosion of small on-line outlets. It's just led to more overtly political outlets telling specific political groups exactly what they want to hear.

The only real answer is to teach people to be smart about the media, and to never tolerate dishonesty, even if it's telling someone what they want to hear. It is a difficult solution, but it is the only solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Who said it should be stopped? I like the free press, but I see what goes on at the same time.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. As long as all viewpoints are able to put their craziness on the airwaves we can all feel good about it.

The answer to someone putting crazy, disingenuous stories into the media isn't to make it easier to put out the other sides' crazy, disingenuous stories.

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Who said it should be stopped? I like the free press, but I see what goes on at the same time.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. As long as all viewpoints are able to put their craziness on the airwaves we can all feel good about it.

The answer to someone putting crazy, disingenuous stories into the media isn't to make it easier to put out the other sides' crazy, disingenuous stories.

It's an ugly byproduct of freedom.

It is preferable to the alternative.

sebster wrote:
Look, my sister works in the media, nothing too high level but she's just starting out. She's pretty overtly right wing and spent most of her time doing her media degree complaining about left wing media coverage. I asked her a while back if that was still her experience and she said that most journalists are pretty left wing, including a core of really crazy left wingers, although there's a more even political balance at the editorial level. So I asked if that evened things out a little, she said it didn't balance things out because there really isn't anything to balance outr, because politics just doesn't come into media coverage.

with respect to your sister.... its impossible to keep politics out. Whether you write about "undocumented workers" or "illegal aliens" for instance is a political decision. Or whether you talk about "abortion" or "reproductive rights." Depending on where you are on the political spectrum theyre all fair descriptions.

Im always suspicious when journalists use general or vague language. Specifics are the only way to keep people honest imo. I remember reading one time about how a certain republican was "against civil rights" - this description was based on an interview he gave where he said he didnt like Al Sharpton. Things like that, for instance, are blatantly biased and can only be fixed by nailing down specifics and avoiding vague generalities like "civil rights."
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Who said it should be stopped? I like the free press, but I see what goes on at the same time.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. As long as all viewpoints are able to put their craziness on the airwaves we can all feel good about it.

The answer to someone putting crazy, disingenuous stories into the media isn't to make it easier to put out the other sides' crazy, disingenuous stories.

It's an ugly byproduct of freedom.

It is preferable to the alternative.

Agree. you cant force people to be honest.
really democracy is based on the idea that people have a core of goodness to them and if you leave them alone they'll do the right thing. If that idea turns out to be wrong then authoritarianism in one form or another may be the only workable government. Alot of people said just that in response to the American and French revolutions. The experiment is still going on - they may end up being vindicated.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Im always suspicious when journalists use general or vague language. Specifics are the only way to keep people honest imo. I remember reading one time about how a certain republican was "against civil rights" - this description was based on an interview he gave where he said he didnt like Al Sharpton. Things like that, for instance, are blatantly biased and can only be fixed by nailing down specifics and avoiding vague generalities like "civil rights."

I basically agree with this, but I'm left to wonder why you're impugning the journalist. He or she said what he or she wanted to say, and you were then sufficiently informed to do your own leg-work.

he told the truth in one place and a lie in the other. so he was a liar.
AF

i think you are confusing 'lie' with 'interpretation'. Lies are statements made with the knowledge of their falsehood. Interpretations are statements that speakers believe, and may be false, but are not made with the knowledge of their falsehood.

In the case of the example, it is possible that the reporter believed that being critical of Al Sharpton was tacit to being against civil rights. This is, to my mind, an absurd idea, but it is something that someone could believe.

well if he wasnt a liar he was a moron. no rational person would confuse civil liberties with al sharpton.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw love that pic. whats up with the platypi?

Based on your view point, isn't it possible that the story you read was itself the victim of bias?

I dont understand. Could you elaborate?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:with respect to your sister.... its impossible to keep politics out. Whether you write about "undocumented workers" or "illegal aliens" for instance is a political decision. Or whether you talk about "abortion" or "reproductive rights." Depending on where you are on the political spectrum theyre all fair descriptions.

The thing is the stories largely pick themselves, or at least, the political stories are selected by the political parties. If the government want to announce a new policy, they tell the media and the media turns up. Then the media scurries off to get a comment from the opposition as to why that's bad, slaps the story together and the job is done.

I agree that bias and a subjective view of the world is a part of all of us and is unavoidable, the point I'm trying to make is that most political coverage is mechanistic, and really there's no scope for any commentary from the journalists. When there is scope to present the story, that is used almost entirely to make the story seem a lot more exciting than it is... because the priority above and beyond all else to get people excited.

Im always suspicious when journalists use general or vague language. Specifics are the only way to keep people honest imo. I remember reading one time about how a certain republican was "against civil rights" - this description was based on an interview he gave where he said he didnt like Al Sharpton. Things like that, for instance, are blatantly biased and can only be fixed by nailing down specifics and avoiding vague generalities like "civil rights."
AF

Oh, absolutely. There are dozens of stories in the paper everyday where the headline and first paragraph make the story seem shocking, before reading further gives a completely different approach. But it's a trick used to make a story sound more exciting than it is, it isn't used to misrepresent politicians. The media and legal machines behind modern day political parties are fearsome things and media org's will not tolerate bad blood because some journalist is a true believer in whatever.

That's changes when the organisation as a whole positions itself on side or another, such as NewsCorp deciding to switch from Labour to the Conservatives in the UK, or FOX/MSNBC targeting specific political groups with coverage they like to hear.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
btw love that pic. whats up with the platypi?

Steampunk, sort of a platypus Gargant.

I bet the Snakebites would love that thing.

sebster wrote:
I agree that bias and a subjective view of the world is a part of all of us and is unavoidable, the point I'm trying to make is that most political coverage is mechanistic, and really there's no scope for any commentary from the journalists. When there is scope to present the story, that is used almost entirely to make the story seem a lot more exciting than it is... because the priority above and beyond all else to get people excited.

well I listen to NPR alot and I can tell you their definition of news and whats newsworthy is definitely political.
For instance a mexican gets pulled over in arizona for a broken tail light, hes asked to prove hes a citizen, he cant do it, he gets thrown in jail, the aclu takes up his case, its headed to a local court. To NPR thats news. 500 guys swimming the rio grande bc they're looking for lawn maintenance work isnt news to the same people, but to Fox it is. Major stories you cant do much with except slant it a little bit this way or that but when it comes to the vocabulary you use and the kinds of filler stories you run, thats almost all political.

sebster wrote:
That's changes when the organisation as a whole positions itself on side or another, such as NewsCorp deciding to switch from Labour to the Conservatives in the UK, or FOX/MSNBC targeting specific political groups with coverage they like to hear.

True. You know the thing about Fox is, even though I think their reporting is pretty wild, conservatives basically had a valid point about liberal slant in the media. It needed to be balanced out somehow. As with so many of the battles in the culture wars its the *liberals* who picked the fight in the 1st place, in this case by moving the standard of "objective reporting" steadily to the left starting in the 60s. It would have been better for everyone if they'd just stayed fair in the first place, instead of turning news reporting into a platform for political advocacy.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The shame about the Republican party in general is that its so populist. Its almost entirely a vehicle for peoples prejudices at this point, and incidentally also for the interests of wealthy people who dont want to pay taxes or have any kinds of restrictions whatever on what they can do. I'd like to see some respectable people taking leadership of that party instead of ranters and ravers like Beck. William F Buckley I could respect for instance.
AF

Oh my, me and AB agree on something. Scary...

The press has always been used for political purposes.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I listen to NPR alot and I can tell you their definition of news and whats newsworthy is definitely political.
For instance a mexican gets pulled over in arizona for a broken tail light, hes asked to prove hes a citizen, he cant do it, he gets thrown in jail, the aclu takes up his case, its headed to a local court. To NPR thats news. 500 guys swimming the rio grande bc they're looking for lawn maintenance work isnt news to the same people, but to Fox it is. Major stories you cant do much with except slant it a little bit this way or that but when it comes to the vocabulary you use and the kinds of filler stories you run, thats almost all political.

That's not political. Or more specifically, only Fox is being political in your example. The story about the Mexican getting arrested in Arizona under the new law and the ACLU taking the case is news. It is new, in that it is not something that has already happened and happens regularly. It's also timely and relevant, as there is still significant interest in the Arizona law from both the right and the left. Liberals might be glad to hear the ACLU is taking this guy's case, but conservatives should be just as interested to know that the law will be facing its first real test.

A bunch of guys swimming across the Rio Grande to get into Mexico is not news. That happens regularly, and is pretty much the definition of old news. A story like that seems to intended solely to stoke the embers of anger at illegal immigrants, not to inform the public of a new, relevant and timely piece of information. That's just political manipulation -- propaganda.

What's the old joke? "Dog bites man" isn't news. Now "man bites dog," that's news.

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I listen to NPR alot and I can tell you their definition of news and whats newsworthy is definitely political.
For instance a mexican gets pulled over in arizona for a broken tail light, hes asked to prove hes a citizen, he cant do it, he gets thrown in jail, the aclu takes up his case, its headed to a local court. To NPR thats news. 500 guys swimming the rio grande bc they're looking for lawn maintenance work isnt news to the same people, but to Fox it is. Major stories you cant do much with except slant it a little bit this way or that but when it comes to the vocabulary you use and the kinds of filler stories you run, thats almost all political.

That's not political. Or more specifically, only Fox is being political in your example. The story about the Mexican getting arrested in Arizona under the new law and the ACLU taking the case is news. It is new, in that it is not something that has already happened and happens regularly. It's also timely and relevant, as there is still significant interest in the Arizona law from both the right and the left. Liberals might be glad to hear the ACLU is taking this guy's case, but conservatives should be just as interested to know that the law will be facing its first real test.

A bunch of guys swimming across the Rio Grande to get into Mexico is not news. That happens regularly, and is pretty much the definition of old news. A story like that seems to intended solely to stoke the embers of anger at illegal immigrants, not to inform the public of a new, relevant and timely piece of information. That's just political manipulation -- propaganda.

Actually both are. That you can't see it is the example that proves the theory.