Paul M Foster wrote:
> I'll agree in part to the former, but not the latter. The press is all
> in favor of any democrat who comes down the pike, and uses every
> opportunity they can to push them.
John Pedersen wrote:
> I think you've got a very simplistic view of things. You're basically
> saying that the PRESS are pushing toward one candidate instead of
> another. Yes, that's true, perhaps because journalists tend to be
> liberals and haven't had much experience in business--who knows. But
> the press vs candidate dynamics is only the miniscule tip of the iceberg.
Has nothing to do with it.
The TV media merely caters to its audience. The TV audience is one that
wants the news quick and sensational. For the longest time, the "Big 3"
have been pushing a very "pro-socialist" agenda, because it's
emotional. They can flash images and push the buttons of fear and
rage. Many times, because they can use all 3 senses, they can do it in
a way that _conflicts_ with the actual news.
At the same time, outlets like Fox News have discovered that an "income
earner" agenda can be just as sensational. I don't like it any more
than the "Big 3," but I don't there there is any more "arrogance" in
their approach than the "Big 3." In fact, the "yes, I want to keep my
money" attitude of the "income earner" agenda is a nice break from the
"we know how to spend your money better than you" agenda of the "Big 3."
Once you move to print or radio, things change.
Print media can still be a little sensational, because they show
pictures. But most are still very word-oriented, and it's difficult to
fudge facts. Yes, there can still be an agenda. And yes, there can
still be a sensationalist tone. But there is a far better balance
here. In fact, the _only_ issue with any "bias" in the print media is
because they are typically aligned with a TV media outlet. Plus the New
York Times seems to exert a lot of influence in what is reported.
That's why 1 paper towns tend to be more "pro-socialist," but 2 paper
towns typically have both a "socialist" and an "income earner" agenda.
It's only when you get the 2nd paper that you get the "big 2" views,
instead of one.
Radio is the sensationalist realm of "income earners." People who work
a lot typically listen in their car or at work, and don't have time for
TV. At the most, they read the papers, but then we're back to the
alignment issue. The socialist agenda does not cater to the income
earners, so radio is their escape.
With radio, you can't flash pictures that conflict with your story. It
still amazes me how many times I see an image that is 180 degrees from
the reporting. You can only use tone. It more free, but at the same
time, radio comes under far greater scrutiny than TV media -- because if
you say something that isn't true, it's _very_difficult_ to say "oh, we
flashed the wrong image." The FCC barks at a lot, but when it comes to
fact reporting, radio is far ahead of TV media. That's why legislation
trying to censorship radio is in full swing, because the FCC can't fault
radio because it would look hypocritical versus TV.
There is also a backlash against the "polite, but ignorant/arrogant
reporting" of the TV media. I'm not a huge fan of the approaches used
by Stern, Limbaugh and most other sensationalist radio hosts -- but they
are people who are the most "real" I have ever heard. They report stuff
that other outlets won't, but are completely factual.
In more recent years, Neil Boortz has probably re-interested me in the
news. His "don't believe a word I say, I'm here for entertainment value
to sell advertising time" is the most honest I've ever heard. Although
sometimes he goes off the "Libertarian deep end," I agree with over 80%
of his views.
> First of all, I said that the people who push the billions of dollars
> around will control the politicians.
The _only_ way out of that is to have smaller government. If the
government is smaller, there is less to influence.
It's ironic because most people believe regulation protects us. It only
means that there is now a government lobby that you can "buy off."
> One way, is via the media. They happen to control the MEDIA, among
> other things, and the MEDIA isn't just the print press, nor just the
> "news" types of shows. It's MTV and late night Leno et al.
The media does its job, and protects our freedoms, even if it affects
the elections. I don't agree with 90% of the outlets, but they are a
necessary evil. There is only one exception.
When the media's own interests are at stake, then there is a conflict of
interest. The DRM crap is something that is going to _destroy_ our
rights. Basically, where the government _failed_ to install the Clipper
chip in any communication device we use -- the media will lobby the
government, and _fail_ to report its own abuses, to the point where
we'll have it. Not because of "big brother," but because the media is
blind to its own "IP over-protectionalist" attitude.
To me, the right to "freedom of assembly" is going away in the digital
world. And because it conflicts with the media's own self-interest, the
media is not protecting our interests.
> But, be that as it may, I believe that by the time you're voting for
> Bush vs Kerry, 90 percent of the work is already done.
The fact that when you vote Bush or Kerry, Democrat or Republican,
you're not voting for much difference is the real problem. Republicans
increase the size of government, not as much as the Democrats, but still
just as bad.
And don't even get me started on healthcare or immigration. _Both_
parties are so screwed up going back and forth, they forget that _they_
created the regulation that _now_ is our problem. Blind to the truth.
> They have made sure that the candidates who run are ones they can "work
> with". These people probably care very little who wins.
True.
> If you think that mega-biz/banker elites don't pull strings in dozens
> of ways to narrow the field of choices, just think about this: of all
> the tens of thousands of smart, polished, maybe even honest, people
> that one might put forth as candidates, are Bush and Kerry really the
> best?
Of course not.
But it's not about the best. It's about who the party things can take
the seat. And that's the problem.
> Wow. No comment.
A debt is not a bad thing. Alexander Hamilton showed that a debt that
is 4x the revenue of a government is actually the most ideal money
multiplier for a capitalist economy.
The problem is that back when taxes were not past the 47% point of
"diminishing returns." As JFK proved in the 1960s, Reagan did in 1980s
and W. cut's will prove this decade, we are over-taxed to the point
where it actually hurts growth.
Higher tax percentages are _not_ a reality of life. What happens at
100%? In reality, once you go beyond 50%, you've now prevented the
economy from helping itself. And God knows I pay more than 50 cents of
every dollar on taxes.
> So we'll just wait, and it will swing the other way? Wow. No comment.
It's so easy for the government to create jobs, and spend more money,
taking from the private sector, and only increasing the cost of goods.
In fact, over-regulation is the killer right now.
But it is so difficult for the government to cuts jobs. I mean, what do
the expect, people to find private sector jobs? The ones that were cut
to pay for the new government jobs?
I don't know if we're ever going to get out of this one. And it doesn't
matter if there is a Democrat or Republican in the White House.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:56:34 EDT