From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 15 2005 - 16:32:22 GMT
Hi Ant,
Platt:
> >The story Ant relates about the The Sun's error in reporting about
> >Liverpool fans is easily matched by Jason Blair's fictional reporting
Ant:
> Such as what report?
Platt:
> >in the venerated "NY Times"
Jason Blair was a highly regarded black reporter for the NY Times who
submitted fictional reports about the D.C. sniper story which for weeks
were printed on the front page..
> >and the patently false story of Bush's national
> >guard service perpetrated by "CBS News" in a blatant attempt to prevent
> >the election of George Bush.
>
> And what exactly was inaccurate about this story?
CBS news claimed a forged document was authentic in an effort to show that
Bush lied about his national guard service. Bloggers immediately spotted
the forgery which to this day is denied by Dan Rather, the anchor for CBS
news.
> >That the mainstream media in the U.S. has a left-wing bias
>
> I think only an extreme right-winger (or someone brainwashed…) would
> seriously believe this. As noted in the quote of Ramsey Clarke by Mark H:
Repeated surveys show the majority of U.S. journalists describe
themselves liberal rather than conservative.
> >was confirmed
> >in a recent editorial in Newsweek where senior editor Howard Feinman, a
> >leftist leaning pundit, admitted that in the last election there were
> >three parties--Democrat, Republican, and the American Mainstream Media
> >Party, dubbed the AMMP. His final summation, after demonstrating how the
> >mainstream media went all out to slant the news in Kerry's favor, simply
> >was,"It's hard to know who, if anyone, in the 'media' has any
> >credibility."
That a left-wing pundit admits the mainstream media is biased in favor of
Democrats (as well as surveys of journalists themselves), shows that your
statement about extreme right-wingers (or someone brainwashed) is wildly
off the mark.
> I therefore never implied that profit “is somehow a low quality activity”
> (I’d privatise everything tomorrow if it made for higher quality living
> generally). I think what the MOQ implies is that generating profit is a
> social value pattern while education is an intellectual quality pattern.
> Therefore, as long as generating profit (for instance, in the media)
> doesn’t impede or undermine education (or any other intellectual value
> pattern such as truth and justice) it’s a perfectly acceptable activity.
>
> i.e. Quality first, intellectual ideas to work out how to best provide
> Quality second and social systems to provide it third.
Glad to know you favor profits. But, why shouldn't people be free to
decide how best to provide Quality for themselves? We certainly don't need
intellectuals to tell us how best to live our lives. That's Rigel-like
hubris.
What concerns me is the notion that intellectuals have a lock on what
should be considered "higher quality living generally," and should
therefore be allowed to use government power to redistribute wealth to
achieve their Utopian model.
Please spare us from do-gooders who attack the free market system and thus
inhibit responses to DQ.
Best regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 15 2005 - 16:34:05 GMT