Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Protests in Turkey

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 10:22:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love how Turkey can do no wrong in our eyes. Most people know nothing about the atrocities inflicted on the Kurds and Armenians. "Manufactured Consent" by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky is an excellent treatment of our media's biased treatment of preferred regimes.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2013 11:38:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The BBC has been doing a good job keeping up with it. I didn't even know it wasn't being covered by the American press cause I don't watch/read it. There are just better options for world news.

The Turkish protests seem similar to the Syrian protests from 2 years back in terms of scope and outrage. It's interesting because the Turkish government has been very critical of the Syrian government and has assisted the rebellion. And yet the Turkish police state seems as brutal and authoritarian as the Syrian one appeared.

It's encouraging to see that the protests are pro-secular and anti-Islamic. The Turks seem very much ahead of other countries in the Islamic world.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 2:25:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really can't stress to all you other guys how pathetic the American media is.

We. Don't. Know. Anything.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 2:40:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 2:25:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I really can't stress to all you other guys how pathetic the American media is.

We. Don't. Know. Anything.

Uninformed people in the US only have themselves to blame. This information is easily accessible all over the internet. It was the Headline story on HuffingtonPost all day.

The US media reports "to the ratings", relying on it for anything else is a failure of the consumer.

That said, I don't necessarily disagree that the US media is pathetic, just that asking anything specific from it (other than reporting honestly), or blaming it for people being uninformed/misinformed, is more a product of the individuals desire for specific/regional/view reinforcement, than media itself, of which there are infinite options to choose from.
Debate.org Moderator
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 2:45:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 2:40:19 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
That said, I don't necessarily disagree that the US media is pathetic, just that asking anything specific from it (other than reporting honestly), or blaming it for people being uninformed/misinformed, is more a product of the individuals desire for specific/regional/view reinforcement, than media itself, of which there are infinite options to choose from.

I think it may actually be a little more "sinister" than that.

The lack of media quality in the United States (aside from the internet) is largely due to it's increasing monopolization. It's basically run by a handful of people.

But it's circular. It probably won't be that way if Americans informed themselves in the first place.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 2:59:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 2:45:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/3/2013 2:40:19 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
That said, I don't necessarily disagree that the US media is pathetic, just that asking anything specific from it (other than reporting honestly), or blaming it for people being uninformed/misinformed, is more a product of the individuals desire for specific/regional/view reinforcement, than media itself, of which there are infinite options to choose from.

I think it may actually be a little more "sinister" than that.

The lack of media quality in the United States (aside from the internet) is largely due to it's increasing monopolization. It's basically run by a handful of people.

But it's circular. It probably won't be that way if Americans informed themselves in the first place.

US media is indeed owned by only a handful of corporations (which are made up of a large number of people). But the assertion that these corporations are colluding in a "sinister" way is less believable. Do you think that General Electric/Comcast (NBC) are meeting with Newscorp (Fox) to decide together that the Turkish protests shouldn't be reported on? Or do you think it's more realistic that Americans just couldn't care any less about Turkey (Therefore leading it to be less reported on)? (Thus concluding that it's more about ratings (and therefore money) than it is about manipulating the entire American public into some monolithic media point of view?)

I happen to follow stories in the mid-east very closely, but I find the situations fascinating and have a vested interest in reading and watching everything that I can. But I also recognize that most Americans probably couldn't care less, thus I wouldn't expect the US media to spend nearly as much time on it as say something local, or something about a Kardashian.

But that the media is specifically colluding together to avoid talking about certain stories just seems a bit farfetched to me, when the alternative explanation seems far more likely... That explanation is also a lot simpler. A Kardashian gets better ratings than a potential Turkish civil war, as sad as that may be.
Debate.org Moderator
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:06:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I didn't mean to use "sinister" as a way of saying that they are intentionally censoring the Turkey story. The quotations were a sort of extra-lower-case. Although I think it's likely that they have done something to that degree at some point. But mostly it's the result of selectively choosing the stories they want to air without explicitly deciding to censor anything. And the more hegemonized the industry is, the more constrained that selection will be.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:09:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 3:06:07 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I didn't mean to use "sinister" as a way of saying that they are intentionally censoring the Turkey story. The quotations were a sort of extra-lower-case. Although I think it's likely that they have done something to that degree at some point. But mostly it's the result of selectively choosing the stories they want to air without explicitly deciding to censor anything. And the more hegemonized the industry is, the more constrained that selection will be.

I think we're basically just disagreeing on the motive for "Selective choosing". I maintain that it's all about what stories will gain the most viewers. I'm not sure what you are asserting is the motive.
Debate.org Moderator
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:09:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/2/2013 11:38:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
The BBC has been doing a good job keeping up with it. I didn't even know it wasn't being covered by the American press cause I don't watch/read it. There are just better options for world news.

The Turkish protests seem similar to the Syrian protests from 2 years back in terms of scope and outrage. It's interesting because the Turkish government has been very critical of the Syrian government and has assisted the rebellion. And yet the Turkish police state seems as brutal and authoritarian as the Syrian one appeared.

The Turks wanted Assad out. What does that have to do with brutality? I can't stand you little moralists who can't wring your brains enough to grasp that states have motives as well as rhetoric.

It's encouraging to see that the protests are pro-secular and anti-Islamic. The Turks seem very much ahead of other countries in the Islamic world.

You are a pathetic human being. I can list quite a few reasons why I inferred this from the above statement, but let's first understand that it was the most obnoxious, ethnocentric, and historical and politically ignorant comment I've heard in a long time. So please, do us the favor of saving your opinions for subjects that don't oversaturate your neural connections.

That felt good.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:12:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 2:59:07 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 2:45:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/3/2013 2:40:19 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
That said, I don't necessarily disagree that the US media is pathetic, just that asking anything specific from it (other than reporting honestly), or blaming it for people being uninformed/misinformed, is more a product of the individuals desire for specific/regional/view reinforcement, than media itself, of which there are infinite options to choose from.

I think it may actually be a little more "sinister" than that.

The lack of media quality in the United States (aside from the internet) is largely due to it's increasing monopolization. It's basically run by a handful of people.

But it's circular. It probably won't be that way if Americans informed themselves in the first place.

US media is indeed owned by only a handful of corporations (which are made up of a large number of people). But the assertion that these corporations are colluding in a "sinister" way is less believable. Do you think that General Electric/Comcast (NBC) are meeting with Newscorp (Fox) to decide together that the Turkish protests shouldn't be reported on? Or do you think it's more realistic that Americans just couldn't care any less about Turkey (Therefore leading it to be less reported on)? (Thus concluding that it's more about ratings (and therefore money) than it is about manipulating the entire American public into some monolithic media point of view?)

I happen to follow stories in the mid-east very closely, but I find the situations fascinating and have a vested interest in reading and watching everything that I can. But I also recognize that most Americans probably couldn't care less, thus I wouldn't expect the US media to spend nearly as much time on it as say something local, or something about a Kardashian.

But that the media is specifically colluding together to avoid talking about certain stories just seems a bit farfetched to me, when the alternative explanation seems far more likely... That explanation is also a lot simpler. A Kardashian gets better ratings than a potential Turkish civil war, as sad as that may be.

The theories expounded into the book I mentioned go into it in great depth; they don't outright collude, as they don't have to. The various factors that determine a mainstream media outlet's success, however, all exert pressure in certain ways which tailor results in certain directions. It's more than just prioritizing the Kardashians, it's things like reporting one election as more fair than another, even when all evidence points to the opposite being true, because one is more loyal to US interests than the other. It's treating things like a small massacre in the Balkans as big news (because we want to intervene) while ignoring a slaughter many magnitudes greater in a Timorese church around the same time, because Suharto's Indonesia was considered a geopolitical ally. The same corporations who advertise with the big new companies have a vested interest in protecting regimes which favor their business, and respond badly when these regimes are portrayed in a dire light. Meanwhile, the government itself is adept at whipping up a fervor against their latest geopolitical foe, whether it is warranted or not, and tends to exert what pressure it can to dampen criticism of its staunchest allies.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:12:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 3:09:04 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
I think we're basically just disagreeing on the motive for "Selective choosing". I maintain that it's all about what stories will gain the most viewers. I'm not sure what you are asserting is the motive.

I don't think I said what you think I'm saying.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:14:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 3:09:51 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
You are a pathetic human being.

Do me a favor and don't post this in any of my threads.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:23:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it was just about timing. Most media people have gone to sleep, but in the UK (where the sun has been up for a while and newspapers have had time to write stories) it's being covered in full.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Btw. this made the cover of Drudge.
Tsar of DDO
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:25:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 3:12:08 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/3/2013 2:59:07 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/3/2013 2:45:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/3/2013 2:40:19 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
That said, I don't necessarily disagree that the US media is pathetic, just that asking anything specific from it (other than reporting honestly), or blaming it for people being uninformed/misinformed, is more a product of the individuals desire for specific/regional/view reinforcement, than media itself, of which there are infinite options to choose from.

I think it may actually be a little more "sinister" than that.

The lack of media quality in the United States (aside from the internet) is largely due to it's increasing monopolization. It's basically run by a handful of people.

But it's circular. It probably won't be that way if Americans informed themselves in the first place.

US media is indeed owned by only a handful of corporations (which are made up of a large number of people). But the assertion that these corporations are colluding in a "sinister" way is less believable. Do you think that General Electric/Comcast (NBC) are meeting with Newscorp (Fox) to decide together that the Turkish protests shouldn't be reported on? Or do you think it's more realistic that Americans just couldn't care any less about Turkey (Therefore leading it to be less reported on)? (Thus concluding that it's more about ratings (and therefore money) than it is about manipulating the entire American public into some monolithic media point of view?)

I happen to follow stories in the mid-east very closely, but I find the situations fascinating and have a vested interest in reading and watching everything that I can. But I also recognize that most Americans probably couldn't care less, thus I wouldn't expect the US media to spend nearly as much time on it as say something local, or something about a Kardashian.

But that the media is specifically colluding together to avoid talking about certain stories just seems a bit farfetched to me, when the alternative explanation seems far more likely... That explanation is also a lot simpler. A Kardashian gets better ratings than a potential Turkish civil war, as sad as that may be.

The theories expounded into the book I mentioned go into it in great depth; they don't outright collude, as they don't have to. The various factors that determine a mainstream media outlet's success, however, all exert pressure in certain ways which tailor results in certain directions. It's more than just prioritizing the Kardashians, it's things like reporting one election as more fair than another, even when all evidence points to the opposite being true, because one is more loyal to US interests than the other. It's treating things like a small massacre in the Balkans as big news (because we want to intervene) while ignoring a slaughter many magnitudes greater in a Timorese church around the same time, because Suharto's Indonesia was considered a geopolitical ally. The same corporations who advertise with the big new companies have a vested interest in protecting regimes which favor their business, and respond badly when these regimes are portrayed in a dire light. Meanwhile, the government itself is adept at whipping up a fervor against their latest geopolitical foe, whether it is warranted or not, and tends to exert what pressure it can to dampen criticism of its staunchest allies.

I don't disagree with any of this. The initial point I was making is that relying on "mainstream" media (cable news networks especially, but any of the major market media outlets) is the mistake of the consumer. There is no excuse by the consumer to not get the entirety of a story, or exposed to any story, if they seek it out (relying on the media, is its own mistake). But much like part of the point your post makes, part of it is the economic realities of this system, and part of it is unfortunately ingrained within US culture.
Debate.org Moderator
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:29:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 3:23:30 AM, YYW wrote:
I think it was just about timing. Most media people have gone to sleep, but in the UK (where the sun has been up for a while and newspapers have had time to write stories) it's being covered in full.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Btw. this made the cover of Drudge.

Yeah... between Drudge and HuffPo I don't know how any significant story can be missed (I personally have them both fav'd... get the story the left and right is pushing that day). Both have had it as their headlines.
Debate.org Moderator
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:48:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 3:23:30 AM, YYW wrote:
I think it was just about timing. Most media people have gone to sleep, but in the UK (where the sun has been up for a while and newspapers have had time to write stories) it's being covered in full.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Btw. this made the cover of Drudge.

This didn't just spring up over night, you know.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 3:48:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 3:23:30 AM, YYW wrote:
I think it was just about timing. Most media people have gone to sleep, but in the UK (where the sun has been up for a while and newspapers have had time to write stories) it's being covered in full.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Btw. this made the cover of Drudge.

This didn't just spring up over night, you know.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 4:02:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 3:14:13 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/3/2013 3:09:51 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
You are a pathetic human being.

Do me a favor and don't post this in any of my threads.

Sorry, couldn't resist. And sometimes I genuinely don't want to.

Seriously, I should post something else in the same tone and manner to accentuate just how incredibly obnoxious it was. It's so incredibly narrow-minded and stubbornly idiotic I have no idea where to begin. This is the reason why the American perception of the world is based on 20-year old stereotypes.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 4:13:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 4:02:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

Sorry, couldn't resist. And sometimes I genuinely don't want to.

Hostility speaks a lot more about character than ignorance. And where ignorance can be mistaken, hostility cannot.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 4:35:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 4:13:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/3/2013 4:02:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:

Sorry, couldn't resist. And sometimes I genuinely don't want to.

Hostility speaks a lot more about character than ignorance. And where ignorance can be mistaken, hostility cannot.

What about arrogance? Or patronization?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2013 4:46:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/3/2013 3:48:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 6/3/2013 3:23:30 AM, YYW wrote:
I think it was just about timing. Most media people have gone to sleep, but in the UK (where the sun has been up for a while and newspapers have had time to write stories) it's being covered in full.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Btw. this made the cover of Drudge.

This didn't just spring up over night, you know.

No, but there is a threshold of intensity that a conflict has to reach before it get's the international media's attention. That applies just as much in Turkey as it would in Turkmenistan, Trinidad or Toronto.

What amazes me is how little people tend to care about things that matter, though. The protests in Turkey are big, but when was the last time human trafficking in Thailand or Malaysia made the evening news? How about the countless human rights abuses perpetuated by quasi-war lords in post-colonal Africa?

The point is that time and media space is a scarce resource with alternative uses. Important as protests in Turkey may be, they've got to be pretty damn huge before they're more important than how high the Dow closes or the latest development about the IRS scandal. Why? The latter two examples are more imminent, close and relevant to the media's target audience -it's not that the NYT -for example- doesn't care, it's just that there are other things that Western (and international) media care more about.
Tsar of DDO