General Question

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Do you think the "mainstream media" is doing its job?

Asked by SquirrelEStuff (10007points) November 26th, 2007

The media is supposed to act as almost a fourth branch of our government. Unfortunately, what majority of Americans watch or read, are owned by a handful of corporations. Are we being fed a bunch of BS to raise corporate profits? The bottom line of a business, is profit, and since corporations are granted all the legal rights of a person, they have the right to lie. I believe we are becoming a facsist country. We are paying to kill people in other countries, bankrupting the country, while giving few people all the money and power.

Do a lil research on who owns what you watch or read, and youll see how much they have to gain by keeping this war going.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

120 Answers

sndfreQ's avatar

Holy flamebait Batman!

jrpowell's avatar

I would suggest not eating the tuna fish sandwich after it has sat is your hot car for four hours.

omfgTALIjustIMDu's avatar

I’m awating Hossman’s response to this.

mirza's avatar

i am waiting on hossman’s reply on this too

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

lol they said it not me

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

@ mirza &omfg what about your response??

mirza's avatar

@chris6137 – this is one of those questions where i feel i do not have enough knowledge (even though i have read countless books on this subject)- but i will definitely write a detailed answer tomorrow

syz's avatar

I only get my news from The Daily Show. (Kidding…kind of.)

gailcalled's avatar

I am now going to up my year-end contribution to my local Public Radio and PBS stations and NOT think about Ron Paul. I don’t even know what the Daily Show is. My Tv watching consists of JEOPARDY while I am on the treadmill, Nova, Nature, Masterpiece theatre.

Why does “fascist” appear so often in your questions?

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

bc when corporations influence and control the govt, that is facsism

gailcalled's avatar

@chris: why don’t you run for office (like councilman or local assemblyman) and try to change things? Or move to a country that you think is less “fascistic.”

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

I am getting involved in local politics. I am involved in many online forums, but I like coming here so I can talk in a broad forum, with all different types of people, rather than websites just aimed at certain interests.
And no I will not move to another country. One of the things that make this country great is that we can talk about this kind of stuff. But with all the laws they have been passing, especially HR 1955, who knows how long that will last.

And since u mentioned it, not me, why won’t you be thinking about Ron Paul?

gailcalled's avatar

I no longer think much about any politicians, prefering to leave a smaller footprint here in my local area, be loving and kind to friends, family and some folks who need help. That takes up my time. I too tried local politics for about 10 yrs and found it a murky and petty reflection of the larger forum.

bob's avatar

Thanks to the internet, the press is free-er today than at any point in our history. If Americans prefer to watch the evening news—or Fox—it’s not the fault of the media.

omfgTALIjustIMDu's avatar

@chris, I too, like mirza, feel like I do not have enough knowledge in this subject to respond. I am however, interested in others’ responses and feel that Hossman would have a particularly insightful and worldly point of view.

gooch's avatar

I hate media they have ruined the country. In WWII media helped this country to survive. Now it undermines our government.

omfgTALIjustIMDu's avatar

@goosh, in WWII media also helped to spread Hitler’s propaganda and spread his twisted Aryan supremicist ideals to thousands of people who otherwise would not have taken it up.

bob's avatar

Hossman is here to save the day!

hossman's avatar

Wow. So much here to dig into, and so little time. Especially since the question is merely a foil for the second part, chris6137’s message du jour, which actually has little to do with the question. Plus, I’m trying to be a kinder, gentler man this Christmas season.

To answer the question, no, I do not believe the “mainstream media,” which I’ll define as the three news networks, almost all of the cable news networks, the major news magazines, most of the newspapers, the wire services, and radio news (as opposed to editorial, like what is usually referred to as “talk radio,” regardless of political bent), is doing its job. I accept chris’ suggestion a large part of that job is serving as the “fourth estate,” a check on government, business and other powers, through investigation and FACTUAL reporting. I don’t think it has been doing its job since the Sixties.

While certainly there have always been some irresponsible “journalists,” I don’t believe the problem was systemic until the birth of the “professional journalist,” which I define as someone who has received formal academic training as a journalist. Before that, most journalists were largely self-educated or trained on the job. Unfortunately, two major influences corrupted journalism, the new control of academia on budding journalists, and the newfound power felt by journalists as they played a large role in the events of the Sixties, especially the Vietnam War and antiwar activism, moving into its zenith, Watergate.

I suggest that before this, most reporters saw their primary duty as investigating and reporting the facts, even when this resulted in difficulties for the powerful. The political function of the media largely grew out of the reporting function. Increasingly liberal academia in the liberal arts, shaping the new “academics of journalism,” and journalists power drunk on their growing power, began to make the political power of journalism its primary function, with reporting becoming merely one of its weapons. Today, we are blurring the line even further between editorial opinion-making and factual reporting, with “spin” or editorials no longer being clearly labeled as such.

I am not including in this group the many “shows” that are news and current events focused, but very clearly labeled as editorial, or even entertainment. I would include in this group much of talk radio, and a number of broadcast shows, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Al Franken and Air America, and also various NPR and cable shows. I’d suggest these shows have, to some degree, joined Internet sources and blogs in becoming almost a “fifth estate” as an alternative and check to the increasingly biased “mainstream media.”

I majored in broadcast journalism and print journalism (in the interest of full disclosure, I also majored in theater, and lack one class to complete the journalism majors, which irritated my Dad until dementia made it a nonissue). I worked for a brief period as a program host for NPR and a stringer reporter and critic for a regional newspaper. I contend 80% of the coursework in most journalism programs has nothing to do with obtaining the skills to be a journalist. Far too much time is spent in influencing, at times almost coercing, journalism students to think and believe in conformity.

This disturbed me throughout college, but came to a head when I was forced to leave a conference of the Illinois Broadcasters Association. Carol Murine, a very successful broadcast journalist, was the keynote speaker, and had vigorously asserted it was the purest function of journalists to (I’ll try to fairly summarize here) not merely report the news, but to guide the “misled public” in knowing how to “properly” perceive the news. In the Q&A session following, I suggested that was the function of editorials, not the news, which should confine itself to factual reporting, not opinion making. Ms. Murine became very defensive and perceived my comment as an attack on her integrity. I suggested the public might not need journalists trying to tell them how to think, as there were plenty of other power elites already doing that. Eventually, this led to Ms. Murine having security escort me out with me loudly suggesting she could scarcely claim to be a proponent of the First Amendment while censoring me. End of my career at NPR.

While I am certainly not unbiased, my perception is that almost all journalists fall on the liberal to extremely liberal end of the political spectrum. If they were able to maintain their role as a neutral reporter of facts, this would not be a problem, but the mainstream media, in my opinion, has become the most powerful mouthpiece of liberal politics, exceeding the influence of the Democratic Party.

Further, the media can barely muster any shame as its political bias and lack of journalistic integrity is increasingly evident. The fiasco of Dan Rather’s attempts to support the forged documents regarding Bush’s National Guard service, even after it was clear this story was reported AFTER specific knowledge the documents were forged, the various cases of outright fabrication of stories at the New York Times and other outlets, the apparent subservience of some in the media to the Clintons (not the same as to the Democrats), have discredited the media as journalists to much of America. I believe this is what is leading to their diminished profitability, influence and credibility, not their feeble defenses regarding the horrors of “talk radio” or the Fox Network. I don’t think many people, regardless of their political bent, regard the mainstream media as neutral or credible anymore.

The remainder of chris’ “statement” is largely inaccurate. Corporations do not have all the legal rights of a person, in the interest of brevity (too late) I won’t bore you with the legal analysis. Neither corporations nor people have the right, legal or moral, to lie. We are nowhere near a fascist country, I believe chris, like many, does not understand the definition of fascism. I do believe we are edging closer to becoming a socialist country.

I do agree a handful of corporations do control most of the mainstream media, and that is not necessarily healthy for journalism. I believe this has led the media to blur the distinction between journalism and media, as for instance, we see news “stories” during the newscast about the following entertainment show on the same network, while important current events remain unreported. However, when actually engaged in journalism, in my perception the news media’s bias causes it to act contrary to the interests of the business world in general and frequently even their own parent corporations. I believe this is one of the last areas where the media has preserved a portion of its integrity, but only because it is consistent with the media’s political bias.

While I agree it might be in the best interest of the media and their parent corporations to keep the war (presumably in Iraq) going, I really think the media bias falls in the opposite direction, motivated more by political bias than profits. It shouldn’t be biased or influenced, but it is. Media coverage on Iraq, as an example, is statistically a much smaller part of news coverage in the last few months. While a small part of this is certainly due to burnout, in my perception much of it is due to the mainstream media wanting, either from political bias or because it makes a better story, to cover failures in Iraq, rather than the recent upturn in successes.

While we certainly are paying to kill people in other countries, we have always done that, and there are some very good reasons to do so, which I won’t comment on here. I don’t think we are giving a few people all the money and power, in reality, they already HAD all the money and power. I actually think the power base is spreading out, as the average American’s ability to communicate on a national and global basis is greater compared to the communications power of the elite than at any other time in history. This isn’t always a good thing, as it seems to be joined by increasing demands by the average American to rant rather than discuss, and for individual selfish needs to be met even at the cost of the greater good.

I apologize for the length, but believe it justified by the thread. Feel free to scroll past. As to Mr. Paul, it is certainly interesting to see how the Birch Society has mutated over time.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

wow. Great answer hossman, thanks for the insight. I have come to a very similar conclusion about journalism, but its good(?!?!) to hear about your experience.
This is the first I’m hearing of the John birch society. Ive been reading about it since last night. Are there negative things about the principles they promote? Restoring the constitution doesn’t sound so bad. Again, it is new to me, so Ill keep reading. What is your take on it though?

hossman's avatar

This is difficult for me to say. My father was a member of the Birch Society. I guess the best summary of the Birch Society is that they had some excellent principles, in my opinion, regarding constitutional interpretation and the role of the federal government. Unfortunately, there were some members who were also involved in other organizations with some very questionable principles, including some members who were also involved in racist or subversive groups. This is not unlike many of the other organizations during the 60’s and 70’s that were at the opposite end of the political spectrum, such as many of the peace activist groups, which were themselves good organizations, but included members who were also involved in organizations that were subversive or advocated violence, or were funded and supported by Soviet intelligence.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

@Hossman…. Can you please give me the definition of fascism as you interpret it?

hossman's avatar

Fascism is generally defined as a governmental system where the needs of the State are viewed to exceed the needs of the individual, thus all power is centralized in an authoritarian government, usually but not necessarily led by a dictator. Individual rights are wholly subservient to government needs and policy. While fascism, communism and socialism may have very few differences in practical application and are all usually totalitarian, fascism at least admits that power is derived from the government elite or nationalism, whereas communism and socialism usually at least pretend power is derived from the populace, but directed by supposedly populist leaders and a bureaucracy.

I believe many Americans use the term “fascism” when what they really mean is “socialism” or “dictatorship.” First, because fascism has, because of the examples of German Nazism and Italian Fascism, developed a historical negative connotation that in its pure form may be a bit more than it deserves (could you have benevolent fascism? possibly, but I doubt it is likely). Second, because liberalism has linked itself historically with support of socialism and communism, and thus is reluctant to give it as much of a historically negative connotation as it deserves (the Soviet Union’s and China’s excesses far exceed Hitler or Mussolini, yet many liberals are still hesitant to criticize the Soviet Union, China, socialism or communism). Perhaps a third reason is fascism is generally viewed as “right-wing” while socialism and communism are generally viewed as “left-wing,” and it is far more fashionable in this culture to use negative right-wing labels than negative left-wing labels.

Given the more positive view given socialism than fascism in this country (for poor reasons, I find both equally abhorrent), I find it far more likely this country would become socialist than fascist, although essentially the practical result of either system is almost identical. I also find it odd there is so much support for an increasingly socialist government in the U.S., when the rest of the world apparently views socialism as a failure and moving toward free-market economies (China, Russia and other former Soviet governments, France, many small 3rd world nations). We seem to forget we really do have less to complain about than most of the world, and are so intent on creating a cloud in our silver lining we are willing, to mix my metaphors, to kill the golden goose.

sndfreQ's avatar

well put hossman

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

So corporate power and influence has nothing to do with facsism??

Everone always tells me that we have have it so much better than most of the world. I have not traveled to other countries, so I cant say so personally. I do not doubt for a second that we have it better and are more free than most countries. I do not like to look at it from that point of view, mainly because I thought to be free, is to be completely free, not just more free than most.

My philosophy is that all men get our rights from our creator. All rights derive from property rights. The first property you own is yourself when you are born. The only thing that limits your rights, are someone else’s equal rights. Our Constitution does not grant us rights, the Constitution was written to protect our Bill of Rights. The Constitution grants the government privelages. This is from Common Sense,“For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish the means for the protection of the rest.”

I agree with the socialist part of the government. We are brought up to depend on government from cradle to grave. We are going bankrupt because of it. They are devaluing our money like crazy while doing this. Now there are some candidates that want to give EVERYONE health care. How can we do this? When the government controls how much of your own pay, that you work for, this is not only socialism, it is slavery. We are working approximately 4–6 months to pay for just our taxes. This is absurd. What is even more absurd, is that 40% of our federal income taxes, are doing nothing but paying interest on the money we borrow from other countries and the federal reserve. Thats right, we borrow paper, backed by nothing, from the federal reserve. We can not maintain this. It is unconstitutional and immoral.

Watch this short video involving the federal reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Also, when defining fascism, do you think that certain corporations owning dictionarys, can influence the definition of words?

bob's avatar



mirza's avatar

how do you guys have so much spare time to type such really long answers ?

gailcalled's avatar

I would say that one of the few areas where corruption is NOT rife is connected to the scholars who put together the dictionaries (sic).

bob's avatar

Chris, the conspiracy theories you believe in are baseless. I don’t know how to convince you of that. Hossman can do a better job. But capitalists of all stripes (liberals, conservatives, libertarians, mixed-market types and free-market types)—all of us think that the market is efficient at doing some things. One of those things is putting together dictionaries.

I am sure that dictionaries have a long and sordid history, and our dictionaries probably reflect the dominant ideology in many ways. But a company that attempted to influence the definition of words in some subversive way would be heavily punished by the market.

The underlying question—why do you believe in so many conspiracy theories?—is the one I’m most interested in.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

@bob i dont feel strongly or even think about who owns dictionarys or who owns them. It was just a follow up question. What baseless conspiracy theories are you talking about?

bob's avatar

I’m sorry to have said your theories were baseless; I don’t mean to be quite so dismissive. Here are some conspiracy theories you’ve suggested: the media is trying to deceive us; 9/11 was an inside job; the federal reserve is going to make our economy collapse. These are all conspiracy theories. That doesn’t mean that they’re baseless—though I find most conspiracy theories deeply flawed.

I think you tend to look for complicated explanations that depend on intricate organized deception of the American public. I find that interesting, particularly as I tend to be very skeptical of the same kinds of explanations. Investigating those theories—and asking questions about them here—isn’t a bad thing.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

No need to apologize. If you feel they are baseless, thats what we have fluther for. We can talk about why I believe these things. I do not necessarily believe 9/11 was an inside job. I do feel that there are many questions that need to be explained. Not just to me, but to the public and more importantly, the family members that have several questions not answered by the 9/11 Commission Report. As youll see in the link below, many people do not believe the official story. Its wether you take the time to look for yourself, rather depend on the tv to do all the thinking for you.

As far as the media and the federal reserve goes, I guess you can call them conspiracy theories. I dont think the way I feel about these two things are necessarily wrong though. I feel the media does not tell us what we need to know. For instance, the day the Military Commissions Act was signed, the story about Mark Foley broke, leaving nothing to talk about but him. I can go on and on with omissions. I have been reading about the Federal Reserve for quite some time. Now there is a congressman running for president, that got into congress because of economic worries, and confirms almost everything I have read. He has been talking about the Fed and our monetary policy for years. That is now starting to catch up to us. Remember, there was no Federal Reserve before 1913. We have money that is backed by nothing, and the devaluation is finally starting to effect lower and middle class families.

Over the last year and a half, the main thing I have learned is to question everything. I am 25 years old. Im a union electrician. I just wanna know how I am supposed to buy a house and raise a family if we keep on going in this direction.

PS I dont think it is as hard to deceive the American public as you think. Most people are so wrapped up in their jobs and family that most people I encounter, dont have time to pay attention to what really controls their lives.

mirza's avatar

@chris6137: there are very few countries in the world where money is still backed by gold. All most all the major powers have switched to backing their money with trust. As for the devaluation of the American dollar itself, i personally feel that it is a bi-product of globalization which involves America being dependent on the whole world. It’s interesting that you have brought up 1913, but keep in mind back them America for the most part was still following its isolationist policy and had just started its imperial empire a few years ago(we started fighting with other nations for land in 1898).America did not have that huge debt which we incurred after WWII and the fact that we were pretty much self-sufficient. The scenario today is different – we are fighting a (pointless) war in Iraq which is draining our treasury. We need other countries for resources and they in turn need us

You seem to have alot of hatred against the Federal Reserve. I do hope that you have actually read how the Federal Reserves helps our county every day by trying to prevent inflation or how it protects your money in the bank. Before you develop these conspiracy theories against the federal reserve, look through all the information as to how helpful it is for the economy

With that said, do not let a few documentaries and books try to change your outlook of society. I agree there is a lot of lies in today’s media but there are also news mediums that deliver the truth. Just remember anything you watch or hear or read (including the documentaries and the new article you pointed out) can be propaganda and make sure they are backed by actual proper sources ( because even I can say right now that America does not exist and if some believes then that person is obviously stupid)

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

@mirza Do you know which countries still use gold? Do you think that us being dependent on the whole world is good for our sovereignty? Do you think our imperial empire is bankrupting us? Dont most empires fail because they go broke?

I dont have hatred toward anyone or anything. I feel that everyone should understand our monetary system. I am not an expert at all. As far as inflation goes, check this out.
And sure they protect our money in the bank, but if the dollar crashes, they can give you back all the dollars you had in the bank and then some. If its worth nothing, whats the difference? I know he is not god, but noone has been able to counter what Ron Paul says about our economy. Check out the video up a couple of a posts about Ben Bernanke. Check out a couple Ron Paul economic videos. These are not conspiracy theories. This is our money. This is the basis of our everyday living.

I appreciate the advice about books and docs. I understand your point and like I said, I have learned to question everything. I do not rely on mass media for my news. I compare it to what I have read. I like the internet b/c you can read new articles, and read peoples comments. I often read all the comments on the storied I read, just to hear things left out or mistaken, whereas the news and newspapers, tell you what they want you to know.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Is this an accurate definition?

hossman's avatar

Not a bad definition, but the dictator part is optional (many are run by oligarchies or juntas), racism is wholly optional (but usually a convenient form of manipulation, i.e. did Hitler really hate Jews, or was anti-Semitism a useful way to nationalize the assets of Jews and manipulate/motivate the German people?), and the most important element is that a precept of the government is that the needs of the State outweigh individual rights, which you have left out. Your definition, and mine, could also be used to describe, with only a few additions, communism, socialism, and totalitarianism. Really, these are all, in essence, the same thing, it is only the “marketing” that is different.

And while I agree with chris that property rights have been the underlying foundation of all Western law since feudalism, property rights does not HAVE to be the underlying foundation of individual rights or law, as there have been a number of cultures which have done quite well with no traditional concept of property. I would agree individual rights spring from the way Mankind was made by its Creator (there is a beautiful song that says life itself begins with a baby’s cry for freedom). I contend what gives our system greatness (other systems have other strengths) is its sense of Liberty, that certain things are simply right and others are simply wrong and it is our obligation to express the law as a natural extension of what we know in our hearts to be true about how we treat each other. With this Liberty, however, comes great responsibility, and I am far more concerned with the loss of our sense of responsibility than I am about the losses to our Liberty, for without the moral and responsible conduct of its citizenry, our system will collapse of its own weight and Liberty will expire. Our system, unlike others, is not inherently strong and productive when operated without responsible and moral people, as citizens, bureaucrats and representatives.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

@mirza check out this short video
the fed isnt doing its job if thats what you think its supposed to do

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Did you have a chance to check out that video? What do ya think?
Check this text out on gold and economic freedom.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

I like what you say about the loss of our sense of responsibility that comes with liberty. You also say that without the moral and responsible conduct of it citizenry, our system will collapse and liberty will expire. Since my growing interest in our history lately, I see many patterns. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I feel like our history in the past 100 years, maybe more, has been made up of a whole bunch of “conspiracies,” that have been slowly breaking down our freedoms and liberty. I feel like our loss of morals and responsible conduct is mainly due to our breaking up of the family(both parents working)and mostly our educational system. In the end of part two of“The Communist Manifesto,” one of the things that communist states have in common is free public education. Being a high school graduate in 2000, I have a good idea about the current public education system. Now that I am set with my career, for now, I have had alot of time to reflect on what I have learned, and what I feel is going on with our country. I feel that one of the main things we should be taught about in school, is our freedom and rights. Without understanding these two things, we are basically taught to obey authority, do what we are told, and be a corporate slave.

I feel that 2008, is going to be a very important election for the direction of this country. I know that everyone might not agree with me about my opinions on this site, but if you look at what has really been going on here for the last 7 years especially, we are not headed in a good direction. One of the biggest patterns I see over time, is the Council on Foreign Relations. I think that majority of our problems, has to do with people involved with this organization. Hossman, since I see that we are having more common thoughts than I originally thought, do you know anything about that organization, do you agree that there are huge problems in this country, and do you see any solutions? I know you might not agree with some of Ron Paul’s solutions, do you agree that in order to solve any problem, you must first identify the problem? Do you see any candidates that are actually talking about the real problems in this country, not just using the politics of fear to scare us from the evil terrorists? After all, Thomas Jefferson put it best, “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”

mirza's avatar

@chris: i did see the video. Some of it might be true. I do agree on some of the thing like the war on Iraq is costing us millions. But I still do not believe the Fed Reserve is responsible for the dollar’s value going down.I don’t want to be rude heres the thing : no matter what video i see, I am not going to overthrow the ideals that I learnt in Economics or the Fed Challenge.

On a side-note: i think Ron Paul is going to end up as a Willing Jennings Bryan (populist and later a democrat). The main reason why Bryan lost every time was his demand for free silver.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

I respect what you say about your studies. I am sure you know much more about economics than I do, but would you agree that the dollar is losing its value, especially over the last 10 years? Have you ever learned about Austrian economics or Ludwig Von Mises?

mirza's avatar

@chris: I am familiar with Ludwig Von Mises through his book “Human Action”. I agree that the price of the dollar has gone down, but its not the FED’s fault. Somewhere along this huge argument, you argued that it is wrong to give out money without backing it by gold, but I hope you were AWARE of the fact that one of the main ways through which we got out of the great depression was by Kohn Maynard Keynes’s idea that“governments should spend money they don’t have may have saved” .

Also you seem to have a lot of respect of Thomas Jefferson. What about Sally Hemings controversy ? Theres even DNA results to prove that he did father illicit children with his slave and yet you act as if Jefferson’s government policy was like the Utopian version of democracy. Also keep in mid that Jefferson did repeal some taxes which cost the government millions of dollars

PS. since you have so many angst against the Fed, you should sometimes visit Federal Reserve Bank of New York (33 Liberty St, NY, NY) . The people there are pretty friendly. You should try discussing some of your arguments about your “conspiracy theory” and maybe they can get you a better judgement. If you do not want to talk, just read some of their free comics – the comics themselves are good enough to teach a child as to how important the Federal Reserve is to the United States

Charlie's avatar

Hiding the truth by the media is called ‘OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD’. Go to AOL’s Reserch and Learn and you’ll find all kinds of good stuff there. Also, try typing in 9/11. What WE got isn’t what happened but it sure got the “TERRORIST” idea going so Bush could start his private war.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

This is an excellent article from today about the corporate media. Before I get attacked about it being about Ron Paul, it is a progressive website that does not mention Ron Paul once. It mentions Edwards and Kucinich, but should include Paul. In the fourth quarter of 2007, Ron Paul got more active duty military donations than all other candidates combined, democratic and republican. Hows that for supporting your troops.

Charlie's avatar

Sapport the troops but NOT the people that put them there ILLEGALLY!! It is the NATIONAL GUARDSMEN over there, not the Navy, NOT the ARMY, NOT the ARMIES Air Force, IT IS THE NATIONAL GUARDSMEN/WOMEN!!! What does that tell you? NATIONAL MEANS, in this sense, OUR people that is here to guard our Nation!!! By law, They cannot be over in any foreign country. As for Ron Paul, what did He do, sit behind a desk behind the lines? McCain did the same thing. Give me a brake and wake up people. Illegal means something isn’t LEGAL. Sell your country if you want to but I’m NOT!!

mirza's avatar

@Ron Paul supporters: ok here’s the deal – Ron Paul has no chance whatsoever of winning the Republican nomination. So far he has only 16 delegates whereas McCain has 723. The Republican GOP is not going to chose Ron Paul since they don’t seem to like him that much and chances are they’ll probably chose McCain ( if they chose Huckabee, it’ll split up the party). So anyways it doesn’t matter what his views are – the fact is he is not going to elected.

Do i think it’s wrong to be Ron Paul supporter ? No – it’s a free country. But I do think that the die-hard Ron Paul fans (some of which even refer to him as President Ron Paul on digg) need to realize that they are wasting their times to even try.

And what is up with this conspiracy theories ??

Charlie's avatar

Understand what a Therory is. It is an idea but not in fact. Conspiracy comes from “to Conspire” which is to plan something to be, this can be legal or not. And what then is the Conspiracy Therties? I never knew there was any because I find it in Black and white right here in this cyber world. There is a Conspiracy going on against the People of America but it sure isn’t a theory, it is a fact.

bob's avatar

I want Charlie to write a book.

gailcalled's avatar

Remember what he said: Give me a brake (sic).

Poser's avatar

@Mirza—Just because something isn’t a “sure thing,” doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. If the American revolutionists had followed your logic, we would still be paying tea-taxes and singing “God Save the Queen.” When one considers the sheer magnitude of their endeavor, it must have seemed to many at the time a suicide pact (indeed, for many it was). It’s easy to say it was the right thing to do with 230 years of hindsight to back you up.

Similarly, Ron Paul’s candidacy may not be a sure thing, but he is the only candidate for which my conscience will allow me to vote. In the ten years I’ve been able, the Florida Primaries this year was the first vote I’ve cast. I’d rather “throw away” my vote on a candidate in which I truly believe than support the status quo candidates that wipe their collective backsides with the Constitution (metaphorically speaking).

Furthermore, this revolution isn’t contingent upon Paul’s election to the presidency, or, for that matter, to Congress. If nothing else, this election has taught me there is still a chance to salvage the conservative movement in America. It may still be possible to wrestle America back from the socialist ideals toward which we have been sliding over the past several decades and bring true conservatism back to Washington—smaller government, individual liberty, Constitutional principles. No revolution is ever a sure thing.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

You are a wacko, just like Ron Paul.
Well said.

This is not about Ron Paul, John Edwards, or any conspiracy theories. This is about the people, not the corporations picking our President, now and later. Majority of the people in this country are apathetic towards politics, yet sense something is wrong here, realize corporations are taking over our government and country, yet decide who they are going to vote for based on who the corporations are telling you to vote for via the media. No one wants to waste their vote, so these “polls” tell alot of people how to vote. I think polls are the first thing that needs to go. There is absolutely no need for them. All they do is influence people that do not pay attention to the details. Do me a favor please, ask an Obama supporter ,besides health care, why do you support him, and what past achievements has he had as Senator?

Can you honestly tell me that Ron Paul has got his fair share of free publicity from the media like all of the other remaining candidates? I still meet people everyday, that have never heard of Ron Paul.
Mike Huckabee was a media creation. Here I go with another “conspiracy theory,” but I find it funny that as soon as Ron Paul started raising a massive amount of money, all of a sudden the dark-horse candidate was Mike Huckabee. And I mean ON THE SAME DAY.

Did you see the movie, Network, from the 70’s? I highly recommend watching it, but here is a 3 minute clip from it that couldnt be any more true for todays media. Please watch it.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

And isnt it scary that the Republican front-runner lost to Bush?

Charlie's avatar

Well people, It is all cut and dried. You all make alot of noise but the whole fact is there isn’t one person running for President that is worth voteing for and the other fact is that if you don’t vote for the choosen few, your vote doesn’t count. Your vote doesn’t count if you are not a dummycrat or a Republirat because, due to our “POWERS THAT BE” will not allow any other party into this system that “THEY” have set up. Further your vote isn’t worried about is because the ones that DO elect anybody is the Electorial Collage, not ME or You. When it really comes down to it, YOU waste your time to even go vote because the “POWERS THAT BE” has all ready picked the one that will be in there. Anyone that thinks this is a FREE country had better start wakeing up because WE no longer have any say because the USA people have been rideing a hay rack too long and have no IDEA what is going on with government. TELL me why a guard at a State prison can sit on his ass all day, all week, watching people that have minorly broke the law, and get paid $45,0000 a year? Because the idea at hand is to BRAKE the American people to the point that “THEY” can come in and rule YOU because most of you can not stand up and take care of yourselfs or have the knowledge to stand up and say “NO, NO MORE, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”. And, If you trust the people within OUR government, you surely need to go see a shrink. They are over paid, mostly incompitant, and really don’t care what your problem is. I guess all I can say is that most people are too ignorant of what FREEDOM is nor do they know it ISN’T FREE
Have fun with this

sndfreQ's avatar

wow charlie-didn’t realize all that had to do with the mainstream media doing its job…

Poser's avatar

Charlie for President.

Charlie's avatar

NO. I wouldn’t want to be president! I have more power of being a citizen of this great country IF people would take the time to learn and know their rights. Read the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and the stuff related to it. The Government has power only because WE gave it to “THEM”, otherwise the Government people have NO power. Check it out! Tell me one thing. Why and What makes it the Business of the Government if You want to get Married. Why do you need a license from the government to get married. Check that out!
Have fun with this. HA!

Poser's avatar

You’re right, Charlie. Maybe we should just require licenses to procreate.

bob's avatar

incompitant? irony.

breedmitch's avatar

Charlie is Maad az Hel and hees not gonna taek it anymoer.

Charlie's avatar

The Laws about marrage is in the States codes and most are all alike just worded a bit differant. Most say that “Wards of the State must have a license to get married.” That is the catch. Wards of the State means you are being taken care of by the State which would be people in prison, mental institutions, etc., whereas you are incapisated to consumate a marrage without the help of the Governing State. So when you BUY a marrage license from the State, you are saying you are incapable to consumate a marrage without the help of the State which THEN gives them juridiction over that marrage and anything that comes forth from the union——which is ownership of any Children born under that license. A neat way of saying Slavery, don’t you think? Check it out since most of the State Codes are written alike.

gailcalled's avatar

@Charlie; stop shouting, check your spelling and please give me a brake. (maybe from Midas Muffler?)

Charlie's avatar

As I said, Check it out before you throw stones!

mirza's avatar

@charlie: how old are you? i remember going through a phrase during my teen years whereas i was like “the governments sucks, power to the people”,etc.

Anyways if you are an adult and still chose to live with this attitude, then stop COMPLAINING. seriously if you think the government sucks and that most politicians are corrupt, why not run for office to make an effort to change things. But most of you probably wont do this and will hope that someone else does it. When someone like you does run for office and does not win due to their lack of merit, it becomes a conspiracy theory against that person.

And you bring up a point about reading the constitution. Seriously did you ever take american history or what ? Last time I checked the constitution was written by the people in power back then. And wait you are saying that the people should have all the power to run the country ?

ps. i can already tell by response that i am probably going to get some angry replies by some ron paul fan boys who probably don’t even understand how the government works

bob's avatar

Charlie, I don’t have to read the marriage laws to know that the state doesn’t have ownership over children born in legal marriages. The state does not own children; to the extent that some laws do affect children, that jurisdiction is not based on marriage laws.

Charlie's avatar

Want to bet? What is the license and what is it for and why? Why, if you are aFREE person do you need permission from the State to get marreid, drive a car, to have a bsiness, own a gun, go hunting or fishing, etc. The whole problem is that people don’t know the law and won’t check it out or even care. Just do what some Politician said without a thought of their own until NOW it is to the point where they will raise your kids for you and even tell you what you can do and can’t do in your own home. Ignorance is bliss. Freedom isn’t Free and the mainstream of Government can shove it because I read the Constitution and the Codes of my State. AND yes, the Laws regarding children are based upon YOU getting permission from the State to get married. Understand that if the State gives you a license, which is permission to do something, They also have the right to take that license away from you AND anything that you have gained under that License which is YOUR KIDS because under that license (permission) you had them. It is the same as a Drivers license. You don’t do what THEY say and they take it from you. A marrage license is no differant.
As I said, don’t beleive me just go look it up and find out for yourself. The last thing you would want to do is TRUST this Government that is no longer OURS.
Keep your guns handy cause you’re going to need’um.

mirza's avatar

@charlie: are you an anarchist ?

sndfreQ's avatar

@ Charlie:
I have a lot of friends with children out of wedlock; are they all criminals by your definition? Are all of their children wards of the court by definition? Furthermore, when marriages are dissolved, do parents have to reapply for their parenthood? Is it revoked? When parents take their children across state and federal lines (vacation let’s say), are they kidnapping?

Charlie's avatar

Basically YES, if the Government wanted to push it. The ones born out of Wedlock are called illigitamate for a reason as defined by the State. I know it all sounds nuts but what I am saying is a fact. It is easy to get a license but try to get a divorce is another matter but in the eyes of the State a marrage and the license is the formation of a corporation. They really don’t care about love, affection,etc. Just remember that IF you ask anything from the State then the State has the power to grant or refuse their permission.
As for what I am, I am someone that takes the time to read between the lines of the law. Ask yourself if you are a FREE pwerson. WHY do I need a license to get married? Isn’t that a Right? Isn’t this part of your religion. Think about it because there is a seperation between Church and State BUT no church will marry you if you do not have a license from the state. And I am an ordained minister. I don’t ask anyone to beleive me. All I ask is that if you don’t just check it out. A marrage in the eyes of the State and the Courts, the Law, is the same as an article of Incorporation.

gailcalled's avatar

L’état, c’est moi. And here in the US there are 50 states and one Fed. gov’t.

For those who care:

someone “who”

bob's avatar

Charlie, no, seriously, what you’re saying is nuts. Do you have any sources for these beliefs? What are these beliefs based on?

There are plenty of lawyers in the US, and 99.99% of them will tell you that you’re wrong. What will convince you that their legal judgment is superior to your own? What sort of evidence would it take to convince you that you’re wrong?

Charlie's avatar

In the first place who ever said Lawyers have to be lawful? And who said even judges have to have legal judgement? It’s the Buck that counts and as long as the Lawyers/Judges/Courts can get your money legality goes out the window. But, it is people that trust the Judicial system that makesit Bad for the whole country because they basiclly can write their own law as long as you beleive it is legal law. SOMEONE said that people must have a license to get married. Then that same SOMEONE told the Churches/Ministers that they couldn’t marry anyone unless they had a licence or the churches/minister would loose their tax exempt statues. The Law is in your State Codes under Marrages/License/ etc. You may have to do some digging but if you go to AOL’s research and learn you can type in your State name and Code. Then look under marrages/License. Ask yourself, Why would the State or any State want you to get a license. Why does the IRS have a differant tax for married people and a differant one for Singles. The reason is that a License of Marrage falls under the Corporate tax laws. I know it sounds “Funny” but it is a fact. And WHY can’t I have superior Judgement? Is a Lawyer got better judgement or a Judge? Doubtful. Remember this. There is two things that is told in the Bible to watch out for. One was the money changers ( The Federal Reserve System) the second was the Law-makers (Judges and Lawyers). So in the end because people have been told to buy a license they do without giveing it a thought as to why. They have even made a law resently that if two people live togthere for so long then they are considered married BY the State even tho there is No license plus in case of a seperation and there is a problem with seperateing the two involved must go to Divorce Court. So how FREE is your FREEDOM? Beleiveing the people on the hill is the worst mistake this country has done. Start reading the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES and see how much Freedom you should have BUT don’t.

bob's avatar

In judgments of law, I take the considered opinions of the vast majority of lawyers over my own.

In judgments of medicine, I take the considered opinions of doctors over my own.

And I’m no doctor, but I’m beginning to think that you’re mentally ill.

On the bright side, I love the idea of that someone might “loose their tax exempt statues.” What would the statues do if they were loosed? Free the statues!

No, really. Free the statues.

sndfreQ's avatar

Charlie-okay so please tell us you’re Allen Funt reincarnated and we’ll all be in on the joke…you have got to be kidding…

I accept valid arguments when they can be substantiated by fact. Please show us the chapter and verse in the Bible where I should be leery of the Fed and Law-Makers-by the way that would be Congressmen and Senators que no? (or N’est pas for Gail ;)

Please tell us you’re really hossman playing an early April Fool’s joke here…

@bob: you just quoted my new slogan o’ the week: “free the statues!” LOLs…

Charlie's avatar

I don’t always spell right but you get the idea. NOBODY reads the law, the codes, the Constitution. Everyone leaves it to the politicians which are 99% lawyers. So, since everyone seems to be so smart, tell me WHY do you need permission from the Government to get married IF you are suppose to be a FREE man/woman. If you where owned, as the slave was years ago, you had to get permission from your OWNER to get married (after He tried her so see if she was any good). He could either grant it or deny it. So, What is this that You need permission from the State or whatever to get married? Are We nothing but slaves of the state then? If you buy a car who’s car is it? If it is YOUR’S why do you need to have it titled by the State, put a State license plate on it, then get a State license to drive it. I thought it was owned be the person that baught it
but apperantly not if I have to include the State in on my PRIVATE Property. And Remember, if the State can issue a License then they also have that power to revoke it whenever THEY want. That is why, before you all get upset and talk stupid, you should take the time and read the Laws and the Codes of your State, respectively. Who said these people in the Government is honest? Who said a Lawyer was honest? Even a Judge isn’t beyond the all mighty $$$$. As for the Bible and the religion. WHY should I tell you where to find this. Go look it up as I did. Learn it for yourself and maybe it will mean more to you. You’ve been told by the Liars and theifs that this is what you HAVE to do and you never took the time to question a thing they told you, Blindly, in ignorance, did what THEY told you, you had to do and never gave it a thought that THEY are Wrong. I walk in a Courhouse and most of the people I am going to see really don’t want to deal with me because I take them to the wall if they are wrong which most of the time they are. I am a FREE man and I demand that Freedom when I go into a place of LAW. BUT, you had best KNOW what your FREEDOM is before anyone questions me OR try’s to tell me I’m wrong. I’ve studied Law for years. Most Laws today that are on the Book is illegal because they cannot uphold under the one Supreme LAW which is the one they cannot change, The Constitution of the United States which, by the way states, No law shall be a LAW unless it is in harmony with that Constitution. Don’t beleive me. Go look, go read, go learn. Otherwise, go back and play games on your PC or Nintindo and forget about your FREEDOM.

mirza's avatar

@charlie: people should not have the freedom to do anything. Just because you are a free man doesn’t give you the right to kill someone else. That’s why there are laws. Yes some of them might be a little unfair, you have to suck it up and follow laws because that is how societies exist in peace.

As for learning, I think we are for the most part pretty educated here in fluther. Also there is no quote on the constituion that says ”No law shall be a LAW unless it is in harmony with that Constitution”. So yeah don’t accuse others of not reading. I think you are just judging these concepts based on propaganda films. Tell me did you watch a lot of those Google Video Documentaries ?

sndfreQ's avatar

@charlie: Although your posts are almost entertaining, I’m afraid you have turned the thread into a soap box (poor taste in netiquette terms). Your rhetoric is fast becoming an annoyance and off-topic-btw, what was the topic of this thread-oh yeah-Mainstream Media? If this were The Gong Show (now I’m dating myself here but Chuck Berris was rad)...

Well since you seem to be calling me (and others) out on points of research and support (oh the irony), I suppose I’ll indulge you this once:

“So, since everyone seems to be so smart, tell me WHY do you need permission from the Government to get married IF you are suppose [sic] to be a FREE man/woman?”

>As you mentioned, the government considers a marriage (legal union) as an incorporation, not exactly vis a vis corporations, but couples who are legally married get benefits and tax breaks, as well as other perks in areas such as health care, auto insurance, and other premiums.

“If you where [sic] owned, as the slave was [sic] years ago, you had to get permission from your OWNER to get married (after He tried her so see if she was any good). He could either grant it or deny it. So, What is this that You need permission from the State or whatever to get married? Are We nothing but slaves of the state then?”

>This is a somewhat myopic, if not tasteless statement, but as far as slavery went, slaves were chattle, and considered by their owners as commodoties that could be traded as with other goods and property. Our being “Slaves of the state” is pretty far fetched by comparison to the realities of slavery-so in response-NO. Although I studied this in the 5th grade (and several other occasions throughout my education), I only had to google amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th to be exact) to verify this, but I’m sure AOL will say the same.

“If you buy a car who’s [sic] car is it? If it is YOUR’S [sic] why do you need to have it titled by the State, put a State license plate on it, then get a State license to drive it. I thought it was owned be [sic] the person that baught [sic] it but apperantly not if I have to include the State in on my PRIVATE Property.”

>Wrong. Cars are the property of the bank who loans the money to you when you purchase the vehicle (in the case of financing)-it’s called a lien, but once the loan is payed, the pink slip (title) that is signed over to you legally grants you full ownership of said property. The State licensing/registration requirements for your vehicle give you the owner of the car the right to operate it on public streets/roads (federally or state/locally funded). Licensing fees (if you take the chance to read for yourself) charged by the state’s DMV is largely used to register the vehicle and defray some of the costs of roads, traffic signals, and other infrastructure costs that are shared by your fellow drivers/automobile owners.

“And Remember, if the State can issue a License then they also have that power to revoke it whenever THEY want.”

>On a whim, right? Wrong…c’mon, Charlie-the rights of “law abiding” citizens who are licensed to operate motor vehicles are preserved and upheld by state and federal vehicle codes, and peace officers, therefore making the “right” to drive on public roads technically not a right, but a privilege. “They” will revoke that privilege if you are proven to be negligent or an obvious hazard to other law-abiding drivers/citizens/pedestrians who share the road with you. I think I learned this when I was fifteen or so in driver’s ed class-Nu (hi Gail!)?

“As for the Bible and the religion. WHY should I tell you where to find this. Go look it up as I did.”

>Well, you should tell me because I don’t believe your rhetoric, straight up. As you said in your previous thread: “There is (sic) two things that is told in the Bible to watch out for. One was the money changers (The Federal Reserve System) the second was the Law-makers (Judges and Lawyers).”

Sorry but your preposterous commentary requires proof for me to believe…should be no problem for an ordained minister who studied Law for years, right?...there are other religious flutherers who would dispute your claims as well, though for the record, I’m disputing them because they’re unsupported and baseless.

“Otherwise, go back and play games on your PC or Nintindo [sic-surprise…] and forget about your FREEDOM.”

>Can’t speak for others but I own neither a PC nor a Nintindo -but I do own a Mac, which comes with spell and grammar check…I’d go into it more, but your inability to support your arguments with citations limits this conversation and quite frankly, strains credibility.

…Forensics 101-maybe you can go look that up on AOL.

In this country, freedom isn’t free-we pay taxes on income and payroll to fund many projects which protect our collective freedoms, the rest of the bill is charged to China…LOLs, but not really.

Charlie's avatar

At last there is someone out there that knows something. HA! The whole reason behind me doing this is to get people to think altho I may not agree to some of what you have said most of it is right. As for Freedom, it isn’t Free.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Tucker Carlson Unintentionally Reveals The Role of The American Press

Charlie's avatar

One must consider who owns the News Media before anyone really beleives anything they say as a fact. The “real” news is never told.

Spargett's avatar

I think the bigger question is: What is the mainstream media’s job?

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

The job of journalists and the media is to inform the people and report facts and truth. Instead, it is the stories that the journalists bosses want you to hear, loaded with lies and doublespeak. The media tells the people who to vote for. No one wants to waste their vote and vote for the person not leading in the polls.

Poser's avatar

I do. To me, a wasted vote is one for a candidate you can’t stand, no matter what their chances are of winning.

A vote for McCain, Hillary, Obama, Huckabee—Wasted.

mirza's avatar

@chris6137: who says that the job of journalists is to inform the people about the truth? Its not in the law and we have had “yellow journalism” in this country as far back as the late 1800s. As far as journalists are concerned, their job is to earn a living by making money and they will report whatever news that sells the most. It’s unfair but the reality is no one is going to spend a $ 1 for a report on global warming but instead they’d rather spend the $1 on the paper that has pictures of Spitzer’s hooker. As for the media telling the people who to vote for, yes the journalists are really biased on politics. But to be honest, I think a person who gets easily brainwashed by the media shouldn’t vote in the first place. I dont think its true that polls matter when it comes to vote. For the past two elections, the idiot President was not ahead in the polls and yet he won.

sndfreQ's avatar

see, that’s exactly _where journalism has _lost its integrity and sense of ethics…compare the answer these last answers by chris6137 (Edward R. Murrow school) and mirza (Rupert Murdoch school) and it’s clear why today’s consumer is confused about media’s function in context to society. People, we have to dispel this myth and muck by educating ourselves about the values of journalism in its ideal, not in the current reality. It’s a matter of choice (or that we perceive that yhere is none), in that empowering oneself to choose your own channel, most of today’s youth think of media the same way they think of fast food-many choices, yet all the same. The irony here is that in the ‘freedom’ that we all take pride in as citizens, we have allowed corporations to capitalize and commoditize information…it’s a very slippery slope and we as a society have chosen to climb it barefoot and blindfolded.

sndfreQ's avatar

although I think mirza was being either facetious or cynical in his assessment-I believe he is much more sophisticated than most youth his age, and maybe just pointing out that that is the perception of most people today…mirza correct me if I’m wrong.

mirza's avatar

Just to prove my point about polls not working and the fact that the media does not have that much power to influence voters , remember this infamous picture

@sndfreQ: i wouldn’t classify myself in the Rupert Murdoch School . Maybe a cross between John Maynard Keynes and Jack Kerouac.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar


Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

When the smaller CLECs faced financial problems, the trend toward competition slowed, turning into a decade of reconsolidation. [Marcus] The two largest CLECs, Teleport Communications Group (TCG) and Metropolitan Fiber Systems (MFS) were acquired by AT&T and MCI/WorldCom.

Robert crandall of the Brookings Institutehas argued that the forced-access provisions of the 1996 Act have had little economic value, and the primary, sustainable competitive forces in phone and related, non-‘radio’, telecommunications are the wireline telephone companies, the cable companies, and the wireless companies.

The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 [1], reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.[6]

Consumer activist Ralph Nader argued the act was an example of corporate welfare spawned by political corruption, because it granted broadcasters valuable licenses for broadcasting digital signals on the public airwaves at relatively little cost.[7]

An FCC study found that the Act had led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners, even as the actual number of commercial stations in the United States had increased.

I know the media has been corrupt for a long time, but I think this act has helped push it to a new level during this election. This time around, we have polls being thrown at us all the time, along with very hackable voting machines. Plus, the corporate owned media has everything to gain going along with the very people that will give them their billions of dollars.

When is the last time we had elections based on fear like the last 8 years? People sense something is wrong in this country. We know there is a problem and we try and fix it, but we fix it without actually identifying the true problem first.

Again, I am not well read in economics, but I understand that if you keep pumping money into the system, you are not fixing the problem. I do not see this money, I see prices go up. The problem is that there is not a sound currency. Sure, there maybe advantages to what the Federal Reserve can do, I guess it got us to where we are technologically and many other ways. But when such a system ends up in the wrong hands, it can be deadly. Who appointed Ben Bernanke?? What makes him so smart and special that he can determine what our money is worth? But three days ago, the Fed put $200Bln into the system. Too bad everyone is so worried about Spitzer.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Since we seem to have gained alot of new member on fluther in the past few months, would anyone object if I repost the question and see if there are any new contributors?

mirza's avatar

nope – go ahead re-post – also if possible put a link back to this orginal post

sndfreQ's avatar

@chris: yes the last comment about spitzer is exactly the tactic the media and g$vm’t have in distracting the public with propaganda to throw off ‘the scent’.

@mirza and chris: sorry the last post did sound like I was labelling you guys-it was the responses you were giving that caused me to reference two different ‘eras’ of Journalism (reporter-centric vs. corporate-centric). It wasn’t meant to label your thinking or position (unintended).

Charlie's avatar

There is much BS in the news that if you want to get the truth a person has to look for it and it surely isn’t going to be on anyones favorite TV broadcast. There was Waco, the Oklahoma Bombing, the 9/11 towers. We heard what “they” wanted to tell us and now , if anyone wants to look, it was all a setup to convince the public that We have terrorist in this country in order for certain people to create a war that wasn’t and to enrich themselves by declareing an illegal war. The REAL terrorists are located in Wasington D.C. But, to make this even worse, the only way it can be stopped, is for the American people to stand up and possibly with guns and force the current Adminnissators of our Government out of office by force. There is NO one to vote for because the ones that are running are part of the overall problems that is faceing this country. There is 545 elected officials that are directly, morally, legally, and individually responsible for all the domestic and national problems this country has today. WHY?? Because they have not done the job they where elected to do and that was to run this country for US and desided it was easier to run it for their own self and wealth. WE, as Americans, have let the fox into the hen house to guard the chickhens. If it is your Hen house what would you all do to the fox??
Freedom isn’t Free. Just ask any Veteran of Foreign Wars. WE the People must wake up to reality that We have an illegal government operateing and most of the people within it should be in jail particularly some of the ones wanting to be OUR (HA) president?????
Keep your guns handy cause before these people are done with US, we are going to need’um

noraasnave's avatar

I can tell you that I don’t even bother to watch the news here in Iraq. Many fellow flutherers have agreed that the media is not covering Iraq because good things are happening here. I know in the region I am in, we are turning it back over to the well trained fully capable Iraqi police and army units.

We haven’t had a death in my unit and we have been here over three months now. Perhaps it would make the current Administration ‘look good’ if the news organization actually reported what is going on here.

The Reporters aren’t here; even though this is ‘real news’ that is happening, they would rather cover the hometown kitten in a tree story and spin it to reflect all that is wrong with our society. They can’t really spin “Success in Iraq” to reflect poorly on the people that planned and initiated the concept so they don’t give it much air time.

I have answered quite a few letters from random patriotic Americans who ask about the state of Iraq. I tell them what I see and hear and they are relieved. They tell me that they haven’t seen Iraq on the news and are curious what is happening. I guess I am at heart what a reporter should be…telling just what I see and hear.

I fully realized that my view is only that of one Marine stationed in Iraq, but I thought it might contribute a bit to the question.

thegodfather's avatar

Are the mainstream media doing their job? Yes.

Are they doing it well? No.

Because news outlets have become much more blatant about their biases—and while studies show that overall there seems to be a balance between liberal/conservative biases, still individually you can tell when the photo of one presidential candidate looks, well, presidential and the other candidate gets his shot taken in the middle of sneezing or something that that particular paper sides with the one—what has resulted is that consumers are selective about how they read the news. I suspect that so-called liberals read from liberal-leaning sources, and so-called conservatives read from conservative-leaning sources. I know for me that I’ve stopped reading Digg because it has become so heavily inundated with pro-Democrat headlines that it’s no longer of much use because of the obvious bias.

The value of news information is in facts, not opinions.

And too many opinions get put into the news, at least in my experience. The best thing I can think of is Google’s high-tech algorithm for piecing together news headlines; at least this is based more in mathematics and not subject to an editor who decides what goes on the front page and what doesn’t, or how big the typeface is, etc. Until mainstream media can stick to facts, and serve the public interest rather than try to attract advertising revenue, I can’t believe they’re doing their job well.

Maybe the blogosphere can redeem mainstream news media… as of yet, from one blog to the next it still appears to be opinionated.

windex's avatar

WOW, answers…too long…can’t read..lazy…

but I’ll say this


lorrissey's avatar

it’s obviously not. who cares about celebrities? i wish every celebrity would refuse to talk about themselves and force “journalists” to actually write something worth reading. actually write news.

windex's avatar


” other news, celebs on strike. What could be behind this latest Hollywood trend. Find out next after these Sugar+water+brown commercials”

jvgr's avatar

“The media is supposed to act as almost a fourth branch of our government.”
The media isn’t “supposed” to do anything other than be the business it has always been. It’s not required to present a “balanced” or “fair” point of view, the most adhere to some semblance of “just the facts”.
You do have choices in which media you prefer. Some actually do present a well balanced description of events; others are more or less well balanced and then there are those that are clearly and unabashedly biased. Whether you think the bias is good or bad depends on your point of view.

“Unfortunately, what majority of Americans watch or read, are owned by a handful of corporations”
What is unfortunate is that competition in all areas is decreasing and corporations are growing huge. This isn’t special to the media industries.The financial industry is going to be next, and the US auto industry appears to be combining forces.

“Are we being fed a bunch of BS to raise corporate profits?” Perhaps, but, again bs comes from all industries and factions who all want you to believe something in order to gain your support or your money. The reason we have brains is to check things out; in the end we are responsible for what we believe. No one can make you believe anything.

“since corporations are granted all the legal rights of a person”
This is incorrect. The corporation act was enabled to completely remove corporations from the liabilities an individiual is responsible for assuming.

“they have the right to lie” Politicians lie and they aren’t corporations, so do advertisements, and people. The laws agains lying are very specific and primarily related to the selling of products. There aren’t any laws against lying by presidential candidates.

“I believe we are becoming a facsist country.”
This could be. If so, it would be our choice – we let it happen.

“We are paying to kill people in other countries
bankrupting the country, while
giving few people all the money and power”
These are facts at the moment.

I’m not sure what your point is, exactly, but you still have the right to express it.
If you don’t like the way things are then you have some options:
1 move to another country
2 stay here and keep complaining, or
3 be more active in your local and state politics; make sure your votes are for those who support your ideas

Siren's avatar

For what it’s worth – and I’ll keep it brief – I don’t think the media is doing its job, by today’s standards. Hossman, no offence but that was a lot of verbal diarrhea you provided with that long email, which some of us had to sift through to determine your position on this issue. I don’t think I’m alone in saying that since 9/11 every journalist has been walking on eggshells, more wary of keeping his/her job than reporting FACTS. As a result of great administrative propaganda, you were either “with us” or “against us”, a point taken right across the media spectrum. Anyone opposed to the two wars was literally crucified or labelled “unpatriotic”. By accident (ie no real journalism involved) it became obvious the war was entered into illegally (ie no intel for weapons of mass destruction).

After sitting on their pants for several years, some networks have ventured to have an opinion. Sadly, it seems we’re still in “infomercial” stage as far as serious journalism goes. Maybe the next generation will have a backbone. Who’s to say, there’s always hope knowledge will prevail over ignorance. God Bless!

shunshifu's avatar

Doing it’s job creating fear and panic

Garebo's avatar

I think the alphabet channels are clearly leftist bias and for the most part a tool of the American government and politic. I heard over 90 percent of media journalists vote democratic. Why is is that any leftwing radio or tv media cannot compete with the minority fight wing media in ratings. Its because it is the only place conservative free society Americans can remotely find their viewpoints being publicly expressed.

resmc's avatar

In a word, no!

@gailcalled Those are all awesome shows, not that i reguarly watch tv or listen to the radio (but when i do, it’s almost always NPR or something interesting-looking on PBS). However, politically and economically, those – which are part of that org the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (i believe it is; regardless, its name is oddly stuck permanenetly in my memory, for seeing it said so many times before every episode of Sesame St. &tc. growing up XD).

During the Bush years, for instance, he placed people on there which steered its news reporting/analysis – notably during the media-cheerleading of our recent Middle East wars/pillages – in support of his invasions… which led to the more grassroots alternative media flourishing in a way i don’t believe it has before.

@Garebo Either mainstream, whether establishment liberal television or nativist radio or anything else, does its job, if you mean being purely for the interests of all/most citizens especially when those conflict with those of the very rich &/or the very powerful, among them i count both majority parties and the vested interests which support them.

DREW_R's avatar

Nope, and also look at who are the major stock holder of the media and banking interests.

mushisquishi's avatar

I’m an NPR person for this reason…

pikipupiba's avatar

Ummmm, unless the media’s job is to be a whore for Obama and orgasm every time he speaks, then no, they are not doing there job.

CMaz's avatar

“mainstream media” in quotes is just how it should be stated.
Bottom line, I want to you watch or read what I have. I will do what ever it takes.
It might be apparent or covert. But I will get you to see and hear my point.
It is all subjective.

Darbio16's avatar

I totally agree with you Chris3167. Wake up and smell the fascism people.

gailcalled's avatar

@Darbio16: How do you smell “fascism people”?

Poser's avatar

Maybe facism people don’t bathe?

breedmitch's avatar

Where you been hiding, Poser?

Poser's avatar

I finally got a job that challenges me and doesn’t allow me to sit around Fluthering all day. Except, of course, when I’ve got duty all night, such as tonight.

breedmitch's avatar

I saw that there was activity in this thread and thought to myself, “well, sooner or later all the crackpots find this thread.”
(and we have had some real crackpots join lately)

But hooray! It’s just you. Welcome back.

Poser's avatar

Sometimes, the old crackpots find their way back to this thread.

Thanks for the welcome!

druebeall's avatar

No I do not. There is far too much witheld and a liberal spin on everything.

Nullo's avatar

The mainstream media is not supposed to be part of the government. In the United States, at least, we even have a law that says that the Feds don’t get to control the press. In theory, the media is supposed to report interesting or otherwise worthwhile news to its consumers, NOT whatever the government thinks that it ought to show.

PacificRimjob's avatar

Shamelessly pandering to the Left?


germanmannn's avatar

No way no how ! by law they can lie as they see fit . if you don’t think so…................

SecondHandStoke's avatar

Generating capital for their networks?

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

This post has aged well.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther