Real World 101 - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #46 09-07-2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeitgeist
...I don't fully accept the premise, but in the U.S., the conservative viewpoint has so permeated our popular culture, that one would be hardpressed to find an example of Liberal, let alone Leftist advocacy of any sort on the media airwaves. These days, you can't even find a politician who'll readily admit to being a Liberal...

??????!!!!!!!!!??????????!!!!!!!!??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

HUH? What? That is the most ridiculous statement I have heard in a LONG time! What rock are you living under? Apparently you haven't watched any CNN lately!

Mike

kerry · #47 09-07-2003, 08:52 PM

Zeitgeist is correct. The range of political opinion available in the mass media in the US is skewed way to the right.
I spent most the summer in Europe and it is surprising and refreshing to find a much wider range of political opinions in the daily newspapers.
The press in the UK is daily attacking Blair for his administrations lies about the reasons for the war in Iraq. No such sustained criticism is evident in the mainstream US media outlets.

Zeitgeist · #48 09-07-2003, 08:58 PM

Ah yes, you subscribe to the so-called liberal media (SCLM) conspiracy theory--what a cruel hoax.

CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS et al have a never-ending supply of shows devoted to Labor issues, rampant U.S. poverty, the corporate malfeasance of their ubiquitous 'sponsors', the abject failures of the 'free-trade' agenda, ad nauseum.

Come on, give me a break.

You make me chuckle Mr. Mover, you really do...

mikemover · #49 09-07-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kerry edwards
Zeitgeist is correct. The range of political opinion available in the mass media in the US is skewed way to the right.
I spent most the summer in Europe and it is surprising and refreshing to find a much wider range of political opinions in the daily newspapers.
The press in the UK is daily attacking Blair for his administrations lies about the reasons for the war in Iraq. No such sustained criticism is evident in the mainstream US media outlets.

Another person who appartently never tunes in to CNN! They haven't earned the nickname "Clinton News Network" without good reason!

Mike

mikemover · #50 09-07-2003, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeitgeist
...You make me chuckle Mr. Mover, you really do...

We often laugh at things that we don't understand, don't we?....

Mike

kerry · #51 09-07-2003, 09:02 PM

Good Lord Mike!! If you think Clinton was a liberal you're in deep trouble. He may be a Democrat but he deliberately pushed the party away from liberalism.

Zeitgeist · #52 09-07-2003, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Another person who appartently never tunes in to CNN! They haven't earned the nickname "Clinton News Network" without good reason!

Let me get this right, you think Clinton is/was a Liberal? Wow! Who's been living under a rock?

The last real Liberal we had in the Whitehouse was Richard Milhouse Nixon....ah, the good ol' days!

mikemover · #53 09-07-2003, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kerry edwards
Good Lord Mike!! If you think Clinton was a liberal you're in deep trouble. He may be a Democrat but he deliberately pushed the party away from liberalism.

It's not about Bill so much as it is Hitlary...ummm...oops...Hillary, I mean!

Freudian slip there, sorry...

We all know who REALLY wore the pants in that Presidency, don't we! Both of them are about as far from a TRUE conservative or libertarian as one can get! OK, Bill supposedly smoked pot...so he could be seen as pro-decriminalization of marijuana, but he didn't inhale, so it doesn't count, right?

Hillary is downright SCARY, both visually AND politically!

Mike

kerry · #54 09-07-2003, 09:17 PM

If you want to find someone on the political spectrum as far removed from your version of libertarianism as you can get, you need to go to libertarian socialism--someone like Noam Chomsky. To suggest that either of the Clintons are anywhere near the left end of the spectrum is inaccurate.

Zeitgeist · #55 09-07-2003, 09:21 PM

Yes Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Liberal, if a Liberal is a free-trade loving, Iraq war voting, welfare (de)forming, corporate cash whoring, finger-to-the- wind kind politician.

But, then again, you knew that already...

Botnst · #56 09-08-2003, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kerry edwards
Zeitgeist is correct. The range of political opinion available in the mass media in the US is skewed way to the right.
I spent most the summer in Europe and it is surprising and refreshing to find a much wider range of political opinions in the daily newspapers.
The press in the UK is daily attacking Blair for his administrations lies about the reasons for the war in Iraq. No such sustained criticism is evident in the mainstream US media outlets.

We define liberalism by who gets attacked?

The liberal method of argumentation is to assume one's opposition is lying?

Liberality is exemplified by euro-socialism?

Botnst

kerry · #57 09-08-2003, 09:15 AM

No, liberality is not defined by whom one attacks. The range of political opinion can be determined in part by asking if there are media outlets willing to consistently challenge the existing government from one side of the political spectrum or the other. Since Blair is a Labourite and he is challenged from the left, this means that the media political spectrum in the UK is broader than the in the US.

No, liberality is also not assuming that the opposition is lying. In this instance, there is a fair amount of evidence that the Blair administration made claims in the document that justified their decision to war against Iraq that their own intelligence sources thought were exaggerated. The BBC called it 'sexed up'. A euphemism for lying in my opinion.
Again in this case, the media challenge to Blair is not coming from the right but from the left, at least at the Guardian.

The point I was making was the the New Democrats, the ones inspired by the Democratic Leadership Council, are rarely, if ever, challenged in the media outlets by critics from the left. This is not the case in some European countries where the political spectrum of the media is broader.

I conclude from this, that despite what Mike claims, and comparatively speaking, the US media is skewed to the right.

Botnst · #58 09-08-2003, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kerry edwards
The point I was making was the the New Democrats, the ones inspired by the Democratic Leadership Council, are rarely, if ever, challenged in the media outlets by critics from the left. This is not the case in some European countries where the political spectrum of the media is broader.

I conclude from this, that despite what Mike claims, and comparatively speaking, the US media is skewed to the right.

I agree with the first paragraph, above. Clinton was the most effective moderate Republican since Nixon. If he'd only kept his pecker in his pants...and not bequethed rich patron fugitives and felons with clemency, most of the USA would admire him, precisely because of his moderate-right political perspective. That is the direction this country is headed. Al Gore is certainly no left-winge, either. Had he not been so totally, offishly inept, he'd have won by a landslide.

The media, despite their personal political leanings, does a fairly good job of reflecting the political perspective of the market which they serve--the final arbiter of any successful product. News is a product....people buy the news that reflects their views. The vast rightwing conspiracy has been starving for a source that reflects their world views and has entered a love-affair with Fox, which MSNBC is desparately trying to court. The remainder of the old-timey news sources cling to their perspectives as though perspective is a virtue.

Honesty, not perspective, is a virtue.

Botnst

kerry · #59 09-08-2003, 12:13 PM

There seems to be some tension between the view that news is a product and honesty is a virtue. It suggests that news can't be virtous?

Do you think truth is available independent of any perspective?

Zeitgeist · #60 09-08-2003, 01:45 PM

Isn't there a public interest in providing a broader range of ideas, than just what folks will willingly accept? I always return to the big picture issue, to paraphrase Clinton's '92 campaign slogan, "It's the Democracy stupid!" It may be a bit short-sighted to assume that the media should just 'reflect' the public's mood and attitudes. I think the media should challenge and demand more of its consumers, than merely appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Here in the states, we consistently have the lowest voter turnout of the developed world. I can't help but believe that this is correlated with the diminished scope of 'acceptable' opinion allowed on our airwaves, and in the 'establishment' press. It's a bit ironic that the nation most associated with 'free markets', has the most stunted depth of opinion and political choice nearly anywhere, outside of one-party states.