What Should We Do About A Lying Billionaire Who Dominates the Free Press?

Did he make some salient points? Sure.

To blanketly state that his post is right is to play into the myth that those that disagree with you politically are somehow bad or evil. This type of thinking will lead nowhere good. Ironically, it is the very line of thinking that he purported to decry in his post.

Also, you have to view his post through the lens of his political bent. glynch seems to believe that government and more taxation is the answer to virtually everything. While government certainly has its role in society, IMO a better result will be achieved through balance.

 

All I said was that there was nothing that was literally untrue in his post. Can you find something there that was?

 

wait until he dies? if that hasnt been said yet

 

Pravda circa 1975? The left wing vs. right wing.

Or would the antonym an organization that strives for facts.

People that get paid to talk will say things whether they know what they are talking about or not because they want to get paid, be they doctor lawyer of Indian chief.

 

So in the same vein, you would have preferred George Bush run the media?

 

You. sir, are guilty of extending glynch's logic. Hence, in the Batman world of logic, you are guilty of an unsupported opinion with made up facts in contrast to the real facts. :grin:

Afterall, Bush was never really the elected President as most people thought. He was merely the charge d'affairs for Presidents Gore and Kerry.

 

You don't have a right to have your views be as widespread or popular as those expressed by Fox. That's not what freedom of the press means.

If you're annoyed that their isn't a demand for the expression of your sympathies, that's a you problem. Do something about it, don't shut others down.

 

So at this point in time, what is good about Chavez shutting down (taking control of) media outlets in Venezuela?

 

Agree they should be questioned. But have you brought forward any counter studies? Have you brought forward any published critique of the studies and how they were conducted?

I don't believe you have, and yet you continue to just place full faith in your observations. Other people who have their opinions also have broad studies to back them. You don't, nor do you have any examination and critique of these studies.

 

Love how this went from a serious discussion to bashing Tea Partiers and getting in a shameless "But you watch Fox News!" quip.

The fact is that ALL media sources nowadays that are tied in with corporations or the military industrial complex are not to be trusted. How can a news source speak out against the military when it is broadcasting advertisements to join the Army? How can they speak out against any product or service that it advertises? There are issues that they can't even touch because of the backlash they'd receive.

The overall scam runs much deeper than this but if this line of reasoning makes any sense to the casual observer then you may be paying attention.

 

All efforts to produce "news" are initiated with some particular motivation, true. And the individuals and corporations do have innate biases because of their socialization, culture and goals.

But some are efforts to promote an informed electorate so they can make good decisions on their own, while making money.

And some efforts are to incite the electorate toward a predetermined conclusion, while making money.

That's the difference between propaganda and news, Good Faith.

The only controls over it in a free society are peer group evaluation and condemnation or the general public's realization that they are being used.
Fox's peer group is pretty clear in their condemnation. The general public is having a hard time seeing their subversion disguised as self interest wrapped in the Stars and Stripes. But it looks like the most far fetched of it is getting exposed with Glen Beck's decline.

 

Owners? You mean shareholders? Sure, ok, let's assume the owners are conservatively biased but ultimately are motivated by making money. Then you have producers, journalists, writers....also motivated by making money. Who do you think have more idealistic desires to influence though? And let's be honest, we all know that journalists tinge questions in a way to demonstrate their beliefs. You can challenge an interviewee much harder, show flaws, question motives, etc etc....with someone you want to make look back versus someone who you want to pass through with flying colors. It's not even conscious half the time.

But if Murdoch thought he could make billions selling anti-American b.s. to Muslims in Yeman - guess what, he'd find a way to do it.

 

But Bush was only elected because of FOX and because Americans are generally easily swayed idiots. Democracy only works in Venezuela.

 

When I read the thread title I thought this was about George Soros.

The whole premise of this thread is very sad. Some of you are proposing to limit press and to stop all opposing views. When the hypocrisy of the Obama administration is exposed it drives some of you people crazy. I personally am very glad that we have a media outlet who is not afraid to tell the other side of the story. IF YOU DON"T LIKE FOX DON'T WATCH IT!!! it is as simple as that. There are a whole lot more Obama cheerleader networks out there for you guys to watch. I happen to want to know when our President does something like appointing a communist like Van Jones to a position in his administration and how many lies have been spread about global warming. The American people have a right to know these things!!!

 

It's amusing how there is one conservative news network among the dozens of them (two if you count the new business network), and it's characterized as dominating the free press.

Sorry if your views aren't as popular.