Hi David B:
You wrote:
> When we talk about the media, we're talking about corporate news
> organizations with an increasing emphasis on "corporate" and a decreasing
> emphasis on "news". And the so-called journalists who work for these
> mainstream organizations are celebrities rather than genuine investigators
> for the simple reason that star-power translates into high ratings, which
> means more money and investigation costs money. (The weekly news magazine I
> subscribe to, THE NATION, is non-corporate and authentically liberal, but
> less than .005% of the population reads it.)Further, corporate news
> organizations can hardly afford to anger or upset the advertisers. Also,
> the time constraints inherent in commercial radio and TV don't allow for
> the expression of complex ideas and consequently there is only room to say
> what is immediately recognizable. They can only say what you already know.
> In short, mainstream news is about celebrity and money. Its about fame and
> fortune, not information.
If what you say is true it would seem the news ought to have a
conservative, corporate-oriented bias instead of the liberal bias
generally acknowledged to be the case.
> Roger wrote....
> I read somewhere (if memory serves) that over 90% of journalists in the US
> describe themselves as liberal.
>
> DMB responds...
> I'm very skeptical about these kinds of claims and would be interested to
> know the source of such information. It's worth pointing out, especially
> for the benefit of the MOQers who live outside of the USA, that there has
> been a concerted effort by reactionary forces to paint the media as a
> bastion of liberalism.
I would be interested to know your source for the alleged "reactionary
forces" and also the following assertions:
> But the more honest among them have also admitted
> that this depiction isn't really very accurate and is perpetrated for
> political reasons. Bill Kristol and others have come clean on this point
> several times.
Like when and where?
>The issue is whether or not they are protected under the
> rules of the Geneva Convention, not to mention the iother international
> standards of justice and human rights. In any case, they are entitled to
> due process and have not yet been convicted of any crime.
The Geneva convention demands due process? News to me. Please
cite the laws the U.S. is violating.
>But its interesting because he so clearly demonstrates what Pirsig
> says about the relationship between social level values and right-wing
> political views. They're more or less identical.
Please cite where Pirsig said this and give the actual quote, avoiding if
you can his qualifying adjective "ultra." Also in the interests of "fair and
balanced" you might quote what Pirsig says about the relationship
between intellectual level values and left-wing political views.
> Roger wrote...
> The Constitution is full of rights to protect citizens from government. It
> is not intended to protect the rights of terrorists to destroy the society.
> They are two very, very different things. I am certainly no apologist for
> O'Reilly, but I must concede that his point seems both valid and
> non-threatening to tourists.
> Really? It seems like you are his apologist, at least in this case. It sure
> sounds like you presume the guilt of the detainees as well. I hope that's
> not really what you mean to say. You don't think we ought to suspend human
> rights based on our fear or their nationality, do you? To give up on these
> rights in the name of security is to put social values over intellectual
> values, is it not? Fundamentalist wackos have rights too, you know? Like it
> or not, for these rights to have any meaning they must be extended to those
> we like the least.
That paragraph sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, yes. Now I remember.
>From Chap. 24:
"What passed for morality within this crowd was a kind of vague,
amorphous soup of sentiments known as "human rights." You were
also supposed to be "reasonable." What these terms really meant was
never spelled out in any way that Phaedrus had ever heard. You were
just supposed to cheer for them."
I admire you David for admitting to be one of the crowd. Many liberals
are reluctant to say so.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST