From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 05:19:39 GMT
Platt, All..
> Nice try, Arlo, but I have specifically said that all sources are biased,
> left, right and in between. It's just that the left won't admit to theirs,
> and therefore it has to be pointed out.
No, Platt. What you've been doing repeatedly is "dismiss" anything challenge to
the conservative orthodoxy by smearing it as "liberal (or leftist) bias". At
the same time, you do not point any lens of critical evaluation on
"conservative channels" (at least not as far as my humble powers of observation
have been able to gleen, if I'm in err, please point me to where in any post
you have criticised "conservative" media reports for propagandizing or skewing
facts to favor their positions, the same ubiquitous charges you make agains
"liberal" media reports). In short, dont' start "talking the talk if you ain't
walking the walk".
You may admit that both sides have a "bias", but you portray in your words as
only "leftist bias" being "deceitful". Indeed, I think anyone would be
hard-pressed to see that you consider "right-wing bias" any sort of problem
whatsoever. If you truly believe there to be a right-wing bias, why do you not
critically examine the MRC, and instead take everything they say as accurate?
Point, if you believe Limbaugh to be as badly biased as Rather, why do you
believe what he says? Or consider him a credible source?
Mark, however, has pointed out a very good charge, that is very much relevant
here. The so-called "liberals" you refer to in the media may be "left" of the
"far right wing", but they are hardly true leftists. Maybe this is why they
"deny the charge". To be left of the far right wing, does not one a "leftist"
make. Spend some time around some real "leftists" and you'll see your "liberal
media poster boy" Dan Rather is centrist at best.
Here, again, I point out the manipulative discourse. By painting what is in
reality centrist media outlets as "liberal", smearing the liberal label as
"deceitful, ad-hominem, propaganda, killing the messenger, traitorous,.. (name
your MRC charge)", you are attempting to funnel all media discourse through
conservative filters (at best). The idea is to slowly get people to associate
"the liberal media" with "lies" and the conservative bastions (such as O'Reily,
Limbaugh, etc.) as "truth". It is precisely this tactic that made Goebbels
propaganda machine work so well. His years-long propaganda campaign discredited
"academic" sources as unpatriotic, left-wing propaganda, the main-stream media
as "liberal, jewish bias", and as such set up his ideological platform as the
sole outlet for truth and honesty. After years of being told that the academics
and the media were deceitful leftist, jewish sympathisizers, it was not
difficult for people to uncritically accept the nazi propaganda as
unquestionable, objective, unbiased truth. Is it any surprise that so much
effort is spent by conservatives discrediting academics and main-stream news
sources?
> Let's see. Businesses are power structures, but governments are not? Last
> time I looked, businesses can't legally use the point of gun to force
> someone to do something, but if I don't pay my taxes, guess who shows up
> at my door wearing a gun belt.
You act as if taxation is theft, a common conservative cry. And let's be honest,
no one shows up at your door wearing a gun belt, this is a silly emotive
tactic. I've known people who've been audited and fined for tax evasion, and
certainly prison is a last resort. But, the reason you have to pay that money,
Platt, is to support the police, and road constructions, and infrastructure
building, libraries, medical response teams, FBI, CIA, armed services, traffic
studies, emergency relief to disaster victims here in the US, coast guard,
forest rangers and fire units, sidewalks for you to stroll on... oh I could go
on for a while for all the things around you, and this is not even mentioning
your dreaded "safety" nets for unemployment, worker's compensation, infant care
for the uninsured, food programs, work training, etc. You take all these
things, Platt. Don't like your taxes, think about that next time you hop on the
road, visit the public library or museum, need an EMT or police repsonse team,
want to hike in safety in your local forests.
If you "took" something from a business and did not pay, you can damn well bet
someone WILL show up at your door wearing a gun belt, and a helluva lot quicker
than the IRS. You want proof, stop paying one of your credit cards.
> Once again that word "truth" shows up which everyone here, including me,
> hasn't really examined in depth. But recently Nick wrote, "There has to be
> an absolute truth here," and Paul replied to him saying, "The Absolute
> truth is that DQ runs the world." Given the past heated arguments about
> absolutes on this site, I guess it's little wonder that the subject of
> truth along with criteria for identifying credible sources has been
> avoided.
As those interested in the MOQ, we should agree (I hope) that it should be a
chosen desire for a society to maximize its citizenry's exposure to, and
participation in, DQ. Ideological labels are meaningless, and often detract
from progress towards this end, as it implies (wrongly) that DQ is a function
of an ideology. It is not. Once we are here, we can rightly criticize attempts
by ideology to subvert the dialogue to favor itself over DQ. When the MRC, or
Rather, uses their media power to subvert the dialogue to favor its chosen
ideology over exposing itself to the possibility of disenfranchisement by
allowing DQ to "flow where it may", this is what is at point here. When the
MRC, or Rather, fabricate results or stories to further their own
power-entrencment, and in doing so prevent from entering into the discourse DQ
led inquires that threaten this power, the should-be chosen goal of maximizing
exposure for its citizens to DQ is broken. And we end up arguing over static
social patterns.
> I call 'em as I see 'em. If you catch me or any other rightist engaging in
> gratuitous personal insults to those we disagree with here, please point
> it out. (May I presume ad hominems have no place in "critical thinking"?)
As do I, and I've seen (and heard) just as many rightists engage these
techniques. Indeed, your near omnipresent associative combinations of "liberal"
or "leftist" with "dirty tricks" (my word, I just use to sum all those bad
discourse techniques) could be easily construed as a form of ad-hominem attack.
Indeed, you use the word "liberal" as a hoped for ad-hominem attack in and of
itself, don't you? Ironically, this use of an ideological label as a
perjorative is precisely what the MRC complain about, although their concern is
over people using "conservative" as such. Do we condemn most in others...?
> Also, how do you propose to correct the faults of the "commercial" media
> other than by calling on the government gun power structure?
That's the point of the thread, is it not? Mark's already given some good
possibilities. More on this tomorrow...
Arlo
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 : Fri Jan 28 2005 - 05:25:05 GMT