Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Blackwater CEO holy war vs Muslims

PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 5:58:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A U.S. Marine and an ex employee allege Blackwater founder and CEO Erik Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."

http://www.thenation.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 6:09:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm actually inclined to believe this, because Blackwater is a notoriously religiously-biased company. But, coming from a new source such as The Nation, a notoriously-biased source, I'm inclined to believe there is exaggeration.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 6:10:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Religious thinking + Statist funding = War

A lesson that you'd've thought we would've learned by now, but nooo~
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 6:12:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 6:09:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm actually inclined to believe this, because Blackwater is a notoriously religiously-biased company. But, coming from a new source such as The Nation, a notoriously-biased source, I'm inclined to believe there is exaggeration.

They're quoting a United States Marine and a whistleblowing ex-Blackwater employee.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 6:14:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 6:09:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
I'm actually inclined to believe this, because Blackwater is a notoriously religiously-biased company. But, coming from a new source such as The Nation, a notoriously-biased source, I'm inclined to believe there is exaggeration.

Darn. You got to this first. You and I seem to have very similar patterns of thought, Volkov. I have agreed completely or partially with many of the things you have said, and sometimes you say things right along the lines of what I would say. Weird.

Anyway, I say ditto.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 6:19:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 6:12:24 PM, PervRat wrote:
They're quoting a United States Marine and a whistleblowing ex-Blackwater employee.

As I said, Blackwater isn't a company I would support. In fact, I don't support any private military operations outside of training and security.

But The Nation literally states they have liberal bias. They don't deny anything, which is why using it as a source is almost as useful as using Wikipedia. If this article is on CNN, MSNBC or even FOX, then it would be slightly more acceptable.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 6:19:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 6:14:50 PM, Lifeisgood wrote:
Darn. You got to this first. You and I seem to have very similar patterns of thought, Volkov. I have agreed completely or partially with many of the things you have said, and sometimes you say things right along the lines of what I would say. Weird.

Anyway, I say ditto.

This is why I would be an excellent leader. Everyone can agree with me, outside of the extremists.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 6:28:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 6:19:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/4/2009 6:12:24 PM, PervRat wrote:
They're quoting a United States Marine and a whistleblowing ex-Blackwater employee.

As I said, Blackwater isn't a company I would support. In fact, I don't support any private military operations outside of training and security.

But The Nation literally states they have liberal bias. They don't deny anything, which is why using it as a source is almost as useful as using Wikipedia. If this article is on CNN, MSNBC or even FOX, then it would be slightly more acceptable.

It doesn't matter where someone's bias is unless you are alleging that The Nation completely made this up, that the Marine and ex-Blackwater employee are in league with the Nation, etc., etc. The charges and facts on the case could hardly be spun.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 6:33:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 6:28:03 PM, PervRat wrote:
It doesn't matter where someone's bias is unless you are alleging that The Nation completely made this up, that the Marine and ex-Blackwater employee are in league with the Nation, etc., etc. The charges and facts on the case could hardly be spun.

They could be, because I wouldn't put it past them.

If this is something verified by any other sources, and I did note some ABC sourcing in that article, then its credibility shoots up. But you can't take anything seriously when you know there is so much spin that the washing machine couldn't keep up.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 7:49:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 6:33:25 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/4/2009 6:28:03 PM, PervRat wrote:
It doesn't matter where someone's bias is unless you are alleging that The Nation completely made this up, that the Marine and ex-Blackwater employee are in league with the Nation, etc., etc. The charges and facts on the case could hardly be spun.

They could be, because I wouldn't put it past them.

Why? Because they're openly biased, as opposed to claiming objectivity like every successful propaganda system ever, dating back to the Nazis and before? What makes you, for example, trust the Fox of admitted right-wing activist Rupert Murdoch over the Nation? "Fair and Balanced"? Its easily digestible televised form?

If this is something verified by any other sources, and I did note some ABC sourcing in that article, then its credibility shoots up.

Why? Because the major media, which define the political landscape, (surprise) inhabit the center of it? Because ABC relies entirely on the approval of government for license and corporations for advertising?

But you can't take anything seriously when you know there is so much spin that the washing machine couldn't keep up.

The implication being that the Nation may well have falsely cited ABC as a source?
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 7:52:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The implication being that the Nation may well have falsely cited ABC as a source?

We should shut up and hear what Lou "Mexicans are rapists, Obama is a Kenyan" Dobbs says I guess. He's fair, reasonable and unbiased, right? *megasnirk*
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 7:59:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 7:49:31 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Why? Because they're openly biased, as opposed to claiming objectivity like every successful propaganda system ever, dating back to the Nazis and before? What makes you, for example, trust the Fox of admitted right-wing activist Rupert Murdoch over the Nation? "Fair and Balanced"? Its easily digestible televised form?

"Fair and balanced," FOX may not entirely be, but journalists that use good sources and verify every bit without a tremendous about of bias, they hire.

Why? Because the major media, which define the political landscape, (surprise) inhabit the center of it? Because ABC relies entirely on the approval of government for license and corporations for advertising?

So you're either calling for non-government, non-biased news sources, or you, well, don't understand the media landscape.

ABC may rely on government licensing or corporate advertising, but that is their revenue and their ability to even broadcast; it doesn't automatically make them puppets of either.

Media corporations will reflect the biases of their journalists more than their sponsors. Journalists and editors are the ones that provide, revise and present the information; the sponsors do not.

The implication being that the Nation may well have falsely cited ABC as a source?

The implication being that The Nation may well have, maybe not falsely, but presented ABC's source in such a way that it is not as relatively unbiased as ABC, CNN or other various corporations may provide.

Why are you so against the media? Is it because they get private financing? Is it because they don't praise communist agendas? What is it that irks you so?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 8:21:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Fair and balanced," FOX may not entirely be, but journalists that use good sources and verify every bit without a tremendous about of bias, they hire.

If you consider federal district court filings to be biased and unverified, I can't really help you.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 8:26:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 8:21:02 PM, PervRat wrote:
If you consider federal district court filings to be biased and unverified, I can't really help you.

What? Federal district court filings are biased and unverified until the breaking point; they only become legitimate facts or ideas when a judge has ruled on them based on whether or not the plaintiff or defendant has proven their case.

You don't see Judge Judy taking all cases brought to her as fact. Why would federal district judges do any different?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 8:54:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Nation has roughly as much motive to make this up as Prince would have to do all of the charges combined-- which is lot of motive on both sides, for a highly irrational party anyway, highly being roughly the amount of irrationality I expect from either. But hey, innocent until proven guilty :).

Note that the ABC sourcing was on an essentially unrelated matter.

Note that people have gotten military members to sign on to the Birther suits going on. Getting them to file court actions on the opposite end of the spectrum can only be so much harder. Though the stakes are less abstract here, I give testimony as such VERY little consideration.

Oh, and by the way...

"The former employee, identified in the court documents as "John Doe #2," is a former member of Blackwater's management team, according to a source close to the case. Doe #2 alleges in a sworn declaration that, based on information provided to him by former colleagues, "it appears that Mr. Prince and his employees murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information, to the federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct.""
'information provided to him by former colleagues' means it is hearsay :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 9:05:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 8:54:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"The former employee, identified in the court documents as "John Doe #2," is a former member of Blackwater's management team, according to a source close to the case. Doe #2 alleges in a sworn declaration that, based on information provided to him by former colleagues, "it appears that Mr. Prince and his employees murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information, to the federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct.""
'information provided to him by former colleagues' means it is hearsay :).

I never even noticed that, good call.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 8:27:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 7:59:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/4/2009 7:49:31 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Why? Because they're openly biased, as opposed to claiming objectivity like every successful propaganda system ever, dating back to the Nazis and before? What makes you, for example, trust the Fox of admitted right-wing activist Rupert Murdoch over the Nation? "Fair and Balanced"? Its easily digestible televised form?

"Fair and balanced," FOX may not entirely be, but journalists that use good sources and verify every bit without a tremendous about of bias, they hire.

Do you have anything to back up this bit of faith or the implication that the Nation doesn't hire equal or better journalists?

Why? Because the major media, which define the political landscape, (surprise) inhabit the center of it? Because ABC relies entirely on the approval of government for license and corporations for advertising?

So you're either calling for non-government, non-biased news sources, or you, well, don't understand the media landscape.

I associate assertions of non-bias with naivite on the innocuous exteme and deliberate deception on the other. As for non-government news sources, of course I call for those, as they're an essential check on government.

ABC may rely on government licensing or corporate advertising, but that is their revenue and their ability to even broadcast; it doesn't automatically make them puppets of either.

Are modern humans "puppets" of evolution? Of course, modern humans don't even have to think about evolution, much less take orders from it, in order to be defined by it. Well, the same goes for media. It's not necessarily that ABC is taking orders from the corporate-government alliance, though it often does, nor even that it self-censors, though it even more often does, but certainly they would not survive if they reported in a way that seriously interfered with the interests of the elite. If you look, you'll find numerous examples of this and few counterexamples. Neither government license nor corporate funding, after all, is charity.

Media corporations will reflect the biases of their journalists more than their sponsors. Journalists and editors are the ones that provide, revise and present the information; the sponsors do not.

...for the most part, but the biases of the journalists and editors are still biases. And journalists and editors are also concerned with getting and keeping their jobs and being promoted.

Why are you so against the media? Is it because they get private financing? Is it because they don't praise communist agendas? What is it that irks you so?

Obviously, it's not the private financing that bothers me: the Nation is privately financed! What bothers me, in addition to much of the major media's dependence on government, is the type of private financing. The Nation is funded by readers and small advertisers who constitute little if any conflict of interest.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 9:22:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 8:27:32 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Are modern humans "puppets" of evolution? Of course, modern humans don't even have to think about evolution, much less take orders from it, in order to be defined by it. Well, the same goes for media. It's not necessarily that ABC is taking orders from the corporate-government alliance, though it often does, nor even that it self-censors, though it even more often does, but certainly they would not survive if they reported in a way that seriously interfered with the interests of the elite. If you look, you'll find numerous examples of this and few counterexamples. Neither government license nor corporate funding, after all, is charity.

So you're asking for charity towards news sources...

Whether or not they report stories against "the elite," a term so vague that I couldn't pin it down with a GPS, is ignoring the point. Journalists will report on whatever the hell they want, to whoever they want; it is up to the editors and the final checks on stories to filter out the nonsense, the opinions, and the slightly-sensible articles. And trust me, there is a lot of nonsense out there.

I don't see why media should report on things they know will either drop viewership or drop their credibility. I wouldn't allow someone to yell about 9/11 conspiracy theories on my network either.

...for the most part, but the biases of the journalists and editors are still biases. And journalists and editors are also concerned with getting and keeping their jobs and being promoted.

Journalists are promoted based on their capacity to write; editors are promoted based on their capacity to filter out nonsense; sponsors do not have a say in internal affairs.

Obviously, it's not the private financing that bothers me: the Nation is privately financed! What bothers me, in addition to much of the major media's dependence on government, is the type of private financing. The Nation is funded by readers and small advertisers who constitute little if any conflict of interest.

So? Corporations have just as much a right to spend their money towards media sources as do individuals. Who said there was any "conflict of interest" too? I don't see a giant Coca-Cola bottle fly across the screen every time Keith Olbermann comes on. Just because a corporation is big, doesn't mean it is evil.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 10:30:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 9:22:03 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/5/2009 8:27:32 AM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Are modern humans "puppets" of evolution? Of course, modern humans don't even have to think about evolution, much less take orders from it, in order to be defined by it. Well, the same goes for media. It's not necessarily that ABC is taking orders from the corporate-government alliance, though it often does, nor even that it self-censors, though it even more often does, but certainly they would not survive if they reported in a way that seriously interfered with the interests of the elite. If you look, you'll find numerous examples of this and few counterexamples. Neither government license nor corporate funding, after all, is charity.

So you're asking for charity towards news sources...

Obviously not, but it shouldn't be too hard to see that such would cut down on the funding bias.

Whether or not they report stories against "the elite," a term so vague that I couldn't pin it down with a GPS, is ignoring the point. Journalists will report on whatever the hell they want, to whoever they want; it is up to the editors and the final checks on stories to filter out the nonsense, the opinions, and the slightly-sensible articles. And trust me, there is a lot of nonsense out there.

I already defined "the elite": "the corporate-government alliance". If we're talking about the major media, journalists no more report on what they want than a farmhand farms what he wants. Asserting their freedom is not identical to demononstrating it. It does not follow from a thing's being "up to the editors" that they will actually do it. And I see you totally ignored the argument from natural selection.

I don't see why media should report on things they know will either drop viewership or drop their credibility. I wouldn't allow someone to yell about 9/11 conspiracy theories on my network either.

The Nation is more opposed to 9/11 conspiracy theorists than the major media, and Left media in general typically gives them voice only so that they can demonstrate their own vacuity. As to your argument from "viewership" and association of it with "credibility", it makes it unclear who's side your on. The Nation, being reader (the analogy to viewer) funded, is logically more concerned with fulfilling readers' expectations of credibility. Major media's backers, of course, constitutes not "viewership" but those concerned that the actual viewership consumes the right (do not read: credible) news.

...for the most part, but the biases of the journalists and editors are still biases. And journalists and editors are also concerned with getting and keeping their jobs and being promoted.

Journalists are promoted based on their capacity to write; editors are promoted based on their capacity to filter out nonsense; sponsors do not have a say in internal affairs.

There's a missing link: the media corporation itself, which is naturally quite concerned with sponsors' approval. Journalists are promoted based on their capacity to write about the right things, as well or better than their ability to write per se, the latter of which happens to be lacking in the major media. Again, if your assertions were based on evidence, you would provide it instead of reciting what might as well be a commercial. Editors, of course, are promoted based on their ability to deal with journalists in the aforementioned way.

Obviously, it's not the private financing that bothers me: the Nation is privately financed! What bothers me, in addition to much of the major media's dependence on government, is the type of private financing. The Nation is funded by readers and small advertisers who constitute little if any conflict of interest.

So? Corporations have just as much a right to spend their money towards media sources as do individuals. Who said there was any "conflict of interest" too? I don't see a giant Coca-Cola bottle fly across the screen every time Keith Olbermann comes on. Just because a corporation is big, doesn't mean it is evil.

Of course not, but there is a natural tendency. A corporation doesn't get big by being nice. It's basic game theory: though internally altruistic populations will tend to outperform internally selfish populations, the selfish within a given population will tend to outperform their altruistic counterparts. You may not see "a giant Coca-Cola bottle" next to Olbermann, but you see it during the break. Furthermore, you see Olbermann behaving in a way that's in the interest of "Coca-Cola", particularly given that Olbermann and MSNBC much define the extreme left-wing of acceptable opinion, as evidenced by your baseless criticism of the Nation. As for corporations having a "right" to fund media, that may be, but you also have a right to, on that and other bases, not pollute your mind with such media. I suggest you take advantage of it.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 2:06:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Nation, being reader (the analogy to viewer)
The Nation is subsidized by a small number of it's readers, the subscriptions alone aren't enough to keep it in good financial steading. Advertisers, ultimately, have very few interests aside from getting their own advertising to the "right" preexisting people and large numbers of them-- they don't even tend to know what's good for them when it comes to politics, let alone withdraw advertising based on political issues often. Usually when I hear of advertisers withdrawing it's because there is some kind of controversy they don't want to be associated with, offensive content and whatnot which has little if anything to do with politics (Like, for example, sponsors ditching Michael Phelps when he smoked some weed). Donators to news sources, on the other hand, have very little interest OTHER than ensuring that the "right" news reaches undefined people, which means your critique of "mainstream media" applies much more to The Nation than to any mainstream media.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 7:35:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 2:06:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The Nation, being reader (the analogy to viewer)
The Nation is subsidized by a small number of it's readers, the subscriptions alone aren't enough to keep it in good financial steading. Advertisers, ultimately, have very few interests aside from getting their own advertising to the "right" preexisting people and large numbers of them-- they don't even tend to know what's good for them when it comes to politics, let alone withdraw advertising based on political issues often. Usually when I hear of advertisers withdrawing it's because there is some kind of controversy they don't want to be associated with, offensive content and whatnot which has little if anything to do with politics (Like, for example, sponsors ditching Michael Phelps when he smoked some weed). Donators to news sources, on the other hand, have very little interest OTHER than ensuring that the "right" news reaches undefined people, which means your critique of "mainstream media" applies much more to The Nation than to any mainstream media.

Firstly, unless you're part of the war on drugs, the Phelps example seems a rather counterproductive one. Secondly, crucial to your argument is "when I hear". Why would the media advertise their own incredibility? It so happens FCC and corporate interference is quite common, but, outside of sexy, star-powered adaptations such as The Insider, the public isn't privy to it. Consequently, the typical may be assumed exceptional.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 11:20:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 7:35:25 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/5/2009 2:06:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The Nation, being reader (the analogy to viewer)
The Nation is subsidized by a small number of it's readers, the subscriptions alone aren't enough to keep it in good financial steading. Advertisers, ultimately, have very few interests aside from getting their own advertising to the "right" preexisting people and large numbers of them-- they don't even tend to know what's good for them when it comes to politics, let alone withdraw advertising based on political issues often. Usually when I hear of advertisers withdrawing it's because there is some kind of controversy they don't want to be associated with, offensive content and whatnot which has little if anything to do with politics (Like, for example, sponsors ditching Michael Phelps when he smoked some weed). Donators to news sources, on the other hand, have very little interest OTHER than ensuring that the "right" news reaches undefined people, which means your critique of "mainstream media" applies much more to The Nation than to any mainstream media.

Firstly, unless you're part of the war on drugs, the Phelps example seems a rather counterproductive one.
What do you mean? They ditched it because the brand didn't want to be associated with "stoner." (Which is a legit concern, wasn't Kraft one of their sponsors? They are already highly associated therewith, they don't need to do it any more :). It's not like Phelps got arrested. And no, I'm against the war on drugs.

Secondly, crucial to your argument is "when I hear". Why would the media advertise their own incredibility?
"The media" is not a single entity. When an advertiser withdraws in outrage from one program, competitors are gleeful.

It so happens FCC and corporate interference is quite common, but, outside of sexy, star-powered adaptations such as The Insider, the public isn't privy to it. Consequently, the typical may be assumed exceptional.
Claiming priviness to a thing kept secret involves taking on a burden of evidence.

FCC interference is common, sure, but that's the fault of prudish proles, not some corporation. If corporations ruled it, even assuming the shortest-run, narrowest-minded sort of corporations that exist in your wildest dreams the high stakes in the porno industry would outweigh other corporate interests in the matter of content censorship and the FCC would be a captured regulator for the purpose of not having any content regulations.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 11:56:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 11:20:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/5/2009 7:35:25 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 8/5/2009 2:06:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The Nation, being reader (the analogy to viewer)
The Nation is subsidized by a small number of it's readers, the subscriptions alone aren't enough to keep it in good financial steading. Advertisers, ultimately, have very few interests aside from getting their own advertising to the "right" preexisting people and large numbers of them-- they don't even tend to know what's good for them when it comes to politics, let alone withdraw advertising based on political issues often. Usually when I hear of advertisers withdrawing it's because there is some kind of controversy they don't want to be associated with, offensive content and whatnot which has little if anything to do with politics (Like, for example, sponsors ditching Michael Phelps when he smoked some weed). Donators to news sources, on the other hand, have very little interest OTHER than ensuring that the "right" news reaches undefined people, which means your critique of "mainstream media" applies much more to The Nation than to any mainstream media.

Firstly, unless you're part of the war on drugs, the Phelps example seems a rather counterproductive one.
What do you mean? They ditched it because the brand didn't want to be associated with "stoner." (Which is a legit concern, wasn't Kraft one of their sponsors? They are already highly associated therewith, they don't need to do it any more :). It's not like Phelps got arrested. And no, I'm against the war on drugs.

What's "legit" from a self-interested perspective is irrelevant. The subject is credibility, from which sponsor influence. Clearly, sponsors are cognizant of more than just audience share, and clearly that can have an effect on the media. Phelps would have been a rare role model for experimentation, also serving the goal of tolerance, and that was disturbed. Though you casually oppose the war on drugs, you must admit that marijuana's criminal status would be impossible without a subculture status.

Secondly, crucial to your argument is "when I hear". Why would the media advertise their own incredibility?
"The media" is not a single entity. When an advertiser withdraws in outrage from one program, competitors are gleeful.

And when they express that glee, it can backfire, as when Fox brought Norman Solomon on to help discredit a competitor, only to be put on the defensive when Solomon pointed out that Fox was guilty of something very similar. Glenn Beck is a freak, such hubris is uncommon, and typically the pot doesn't call the kettle black.

It so happens FCC and corporate interference is quite common, but, outside of sexy, star-powered adaptations such as The Insider, the public isn't privy to it. Consequently, the typical may be assumed exceptional.
Claiming priviness to a thing kept secret involves taking on a burden of evidence.

I've already given examples. You've given no example of media acting opposite the interests of sponsors.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.