American Leftist Propaganda strikes again

[Mary_Hart_s_Legs]

If anyone actually believes that corporate and commercial interests control the media, read this non-sensical heap!

http://www.thenation.com.mhtml?i=20011105&s=navasky

[Mary_Hart_s_Legs]

Sorry…
this leads to the heap…
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011105&s=navasky

[tomndebb]

Oh, gee! Look, it’s another drive-by posting to tell us that the U.S. is generically “bad” in some way.

Lot’s of opinions in the U.S. The Nation is neither representative of nor diametrically opposed to all the opinions of “Americans” (who have more opinons on heaven and earth, MLF than are dreamt of in your philosophy).

[tomndebb]

MHL, of course, not MLF

[mswas]

You’re right there is no possible way that coporate interests could possibly control the media!

CNN doesn’t bow to corporate interests! They have no bottom line to bring back to AOL Time Warner, nooooo…

Those little blurbs about how AOL Time Warner own CNN couldn’t possibly mean ANYTHING. It couldn’t mean anything that CNN constantly pushes AOL keywords, NOOO…

Anytime I hear “The left this…” “The right this…” the only information I am going to be SURE to get is that person is a moron. Not always, I mean I’ve heard Rush Limbaugh say some interesting things, but they usually regard non-partisan issues. Partisan politics are the refuge of a weak mind that wants to be part of the control.

Erek

[Mary_Hart_s_Legs]

Nice to hear from you again T&D…

I wasn’t giving a head count to individual American opinions nor, am I painting all Americans with the same brush…silly for you to posit that!!

The reason this was posted, was to illustrate, in my opinion , a good example of left wing swing.

[Mary_Hart_s_Legs]

mswas,

I would suggest is naive for you to think that there are not major camps of ideology in the US which do polarize the social and political landscape.
There are as many points of view regarding the mechanics of order in the US as there are sets of eyes (adjusting for the pirate population), but come on mswas, dont tell me US internal affairs and external interests are motivated by non-partisan acts!

[mswas]

I meant to say bi-partisan politics, sorry. However the major media outlets are all corporate owned and corporate controlled. In otherwords people who seperate things into right vs left are generally pretty blinded to the fact that there are third fourth and fifth points of views.

Generally the democrats I know accuse me of being extremely libertarian and the republicans I know accuse me of being very socialist.

Erek

[waterj2]

Mswas, I don’t think you’re going to get any argument from MHL about corporate controlled media. I think he/she was being sarcastic in the OP.

For examples of MHL’s range of opinions:

From http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22369:

All misinformed Americans should read Noam Chomsky if you want to see how well democracy is working for you.
It does make me laugh when Americans are so interested in a political process that doesn’t give a cold wet fart for your individual concerns.

From http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22372:

Allow my heart to pump purple puppy piss in pride for the the Sickest nation on earth -America.

It does make me sooo sick to listen to how great American Foreign Policy is when the last century provide ample proof America is the Number one Terrorist state in the world.

American interests have funded the destruction of every Central American country that has ever made the attempt to for an independant and democratic nationalistic government that didn’t suit the American interest.

America heavily sponsored and trained the people responsible for Suharto’s reign of genocide and murder in East Timor. Laid waste to Laos because of is nationalistic and democratic processes, fought a war in South Vietnam AGAINST the popular support of the political support, and insured the Phillipines is managed with American interests.
Sponsored Nazis and Fascists after WWII to do Americas dirty work, busted the French Labour Movement after the war with Mafia support and then rewarded the Mob with the French Connection drug trade.
Not to mention Americas internal policy which blindfolds the “bewildered masses” with non-issues. America makes the drug trade the Number One political issue during the Bush election when, a year earlier it garnered only three percent of the public’s greatest concern. The American public are sheep to the Mass media.
Any Canadian who thinks America is a under-respected nation is a goddam fool.

Using it’s capitalist model of intervention, America has economically raped Brazil and Mexico and this is the plan for Eastern Europe now that the Soviet pressure is gone.
Boy, America, how many ways can you be thanked! If only America would truly become isolationists (which has always been bullshit), the world would be a better place.

Rainbow and Zambezi, politely stated, you folk are FUCKING moronic!!
Check you facts- I’m not British!! But still less to worry about if I was- nothing worse than ignorant Americans!!

I only have a distaste for America’s ignorant and policy/media controlling elite.

From http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22642:

“The USSR used brute force and fear to establish dominance and ‘free’ the workers of the world. Their empire is responsible for the worst homicides/genocide in the history of mankind. Their philosophy that a small cadre of men can dominate the planet through controlling the economy, religion, culture and the military was ill-conceived and deeply flawed.”

…sounds similar to america’s corporate driven foreign policy of the 1900’s too.

No silly here Spiny, You name me a western hemisphere conflict(not to mention many conflicts beyond)in the 1900’s, and I’ll tell you about the tragedy that the Americans covertly or openly created.

We’ve been through this before Samurai Sushi, but, with respect to American role in the Post WWII era, the CIA didn’t mind utilizing former Nazi authorities to create training programs for brutality and terror in South America, Central America and smaller missions in Europe. In all, Americans officials ensured there were no popular and democratically supported movements in countries that American interests could take advantage of.
<snip>
And the list goes on…I could most likely educate you all day Sushi. All told American foreign intervention cost millions of lives in the Cold War and hasn’t this Empire has let up none since.

The assumption that I’m Canadian is an assumption without basis. However, speaking on Canadians’ behalf, the NAFTA agreement has solidified the economic and cultural invasion of Canada by American interests. While far from having communist ideals, that’s evil enough for me.

From http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22736:

How can one blame the igonorant american masses for their blindness when the most likely candidate for presidency doesn’t even know the slightest in foreign issues.

God forbid America’s greater rise in world power for, what an ignorant world it would be!

But, then again, how could you expect to know the source of the video in question when america’s media ensures that some of you stay ignorant.

From http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=8412&pagenumber=2:

It’s shameful to think that I’ve been occupying the critically small amount of mind that Zambezi has with my continued attempts to expose, for the generally ignorant American population, the atrocities afforded by elite and corporate driven American foreign policy.

The goal of my statements are to educate the American public, in hopes of freeing them from the bigotry and ignorance that they blindly offer to their own and, more disturbingly the rest of the world’s citizens.

SD members such as Zambezi serve as examples of the profound lack of understanding of America’s true role in the growing impoverishment of the third world, funding and support of policy dedicated at cleansing the world of true democracy, erosion of the world’s middle class and degradation of earth’s fragile enviroment.

From http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=9836&pagenumber=2

My hope is that aha is american, in that, it would be a shame to confuse this thread with anything more that why americans are blindly ignorant.

aha- your impression of the Cuban missle crisis is embarassingly narrow-minded and I assume, gleaned from american propaganda.

From http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=44905:

It’s Laughable that the majority of Americans will vote for candidates that represent corporate and elite interests.

Is it to be understood that the average American does not understand the inner workings of their political and governmental mechanisms and the interests that fuel them?

Thankfully, many intelligent Americans do post their concerns at this site as can be observed by the support that Ralph Nader has recieved. Nader supporters can be congratulated for their ability independently think beyond what the two major parties spit out in platform rhetoric offered to the unknowing masses.

Most Americans(who brag about their model of democracy) are supporting individuals who don’t hold their concerns at heart either because the popular Candidate is powerless to offer change, ei. governmental change is not a power they hold, or that the candidate works for the corporate elite’s interests.

Are Americans unintelligent about their political system? Well if “intelligence” translates onto their abilty to truely rationalize what their political affiliations they choose will gives them in actual social outcome then, yes, they are unintelligent.
<snip>
Yes the corporate interest have a controlling hand in all aspects of our economic,enviromental,social and ethical lives…and without being a pessimist, one can say that has had some devastating effects for all of us. Especially devastating when North Americans have had little ability to change the course of these huge decisions with their limited democratic choices.

And then, after almost a year off, he/she returns to flog the same points, this time without even the previous concern for attempting to actually argue the points.

[El_Kabong]

OK, I know I’m pretty dense, but perhaps someone could explain, in little words, what is so inherently “leftist” in the article linked by the OP?

According to the article, Bill Maher (who I never pay any attention to anyway) apparently bowed to advertiser pressure and “apologized” for making a statement that anyone is permitted to make in this country.

Ann Coulter is a horse’s ass. Perhaps she shouldn’t have been fired, but frankly, I can’t see how her brand of bile ever gained a public forum in the first place.

The government has exerted not-so-subtle pressure on the nets not to run news items which may displease the government, contrary to constitutional free press guarantees.

All worthy of comment. What’s the problem?

[ruadh]

This is my favourite part:

The goal of my statements are to educate the American public, in hopes of freeing them from the bigotry and ignorance that they blindly offer to their own and, more disturbingly the rest of the world’s citizens.

Here’s a little tip for ya, MHL (or whoever you are). If you want the “American public” to listen to anything you have to say, try not to couch it in words that make you sound like a fanatic with an axe to grind.

BTW while we’re on the subject of ignorance, you do know about subject-verb agreement, don’t you?

[squeegee]

I have to agree with El Kabong: what’s the problem?

The article, an opinion piece, seemed to be saying the media was behaving nonsensically in a variety of ways, both towards a leftist commentator (if that’s what Maher is), a rightist commentator (which Coulter certainly is), and towards the “don’t broadcast Bin Ladin” request from the Bush administration (they caved, and the writer thought that was ill-advised or something).

Ok, so what?

[Guinastasia]

Besides, the article stated that Coulter was fired for her articles. No. Coulter’s follow up article was rejected, because her bosses felt, rightly or wrongly, that it was bigoted, nasty and not a good piece of journalism. Coulter then proceeded to badmouth her bosses very publically, calling them “girly boys” and the like. Thus, she was fired for publically badmouthing her bosses, in a very immature and unprofessional way.

[HairyPotter]

Mary Hart’s Legs,
The article you referenced only demonstrates that media organizations are well populated with spineless mornons and talking heads are idiots. Media slots are bloody expensive. Government/commercial interests are not likely to spend buckets of bread if it doesn’t buy them some advantage. Much of what they broadcast has to do with “getting fools to buy fuel-inefficient vehicles in order to gain status” types of things, but $150 milling + presidential campaigns are not just about promoting spiffy spokes-models for president.

[mswas]

Maher may have bowed and apologized but he makes fun of the people who got on his case on every single show now.

Erek

[samclem]

Coulter’s column, distributed by Universal Press Syndicate, is carried by several Web sites and 50 newspapers, including the Washington Times (which did not run the columns on terrorism).

From Washington Post I thought it was interesting that even the Washington Times didn’t run her terrorism columns.

[Beagle]

I am assuming MHL is arguing against corporate ownership of media outlets.

Is the Nation owned by a corporation? If so, shouldn’t we look for them to be shut down soon if MHL is correct? Or, is it possible that competition in the news business causes some entities to run stories out of the so-called mainstream, thereby representing a whole spectrum of opinion in an attempt to gain market share? What system would be better than private ownership by corporations, state-run media?

[Mandelstam]

** Beagle **:
*“Is the Nation owned by a corporation? If so, shouldn’t we look for them to be shut down soon if MHL is correct?” *

Beagle, The Nation is owned by itself, that is by The Nation Company, L.P. Technically speaking I guess that makes them a corporation (or a limited partnership to be more precise). But, in any case, The Nation is unlikely to shut down itself. Anyone who reads The Nation also knows that the The Nation depends on private donations in order to continue publishing the expensive investigative and analytical journalism for which they’re known.

“Or, is it possible that competition in the news business causes some entities to run stories out of the so-called mainstream, thereby representing a whole spectrum of opinion in an attempt to gain market share?”

Only by the skin of their teeth. You should probably check out the Pump up the Volume thread that erislover started a few weeks ago as well as the free market thread had preceded that. The heart of the debate is that the so-called free market isn’t free and the system that we have now favors oligopolies with less than 10 companies owning close to 100% of everything that we read, view, and hear. That makes it very hard for competition of any kind to survive, much less to flourish.

“What system would be better than private ownership by corporations, state-run media?”

Another very large debate (though not one that I personally recall us having here in recent months in quite this direct a fashion). I don’t know anyone who advocates state-run media, though most people involved in media watchdog groups want to reverse most of the effects of deregulation (since the 1980s), and to beef up what publicly supported media we do have. The BBC was not and is not a “state-run media,” yet it accounts for British television and radio, including its private competititors (usually) being far superior to US counterparts. Certainly there is no reason to allow endless mergers to concentrate ownership in fewer and fewer hands–which is going on pretty much as we speak.

For more info than I have time to supply, I suggest checking out this website: http://www.robertmchesney.com

McChesney’s book, Rich Media, Poor Democracy, is tremendously informative; worth spending time with whether you’re a libertarian, conservative, liberal, what have you.
MHL, I sympathize with a lot of your view on the media, but I don’t see how you expect to convince anyone by yelling at them. If you’re a committed Chomskyean, then you believe that the people you’re addressing haven’t had the benefit of a citizen-building media. If that’s the case, is it appropriate for you–much less effective for you–to berate and insult them because they haven’t (yet) read some of the things you’ve read? What’s great about the Straight Dope is that there’s no Rupert Murdoch here. Sure, there’s plenty of posters whose consciousnesses have been shaped within the mainstream, but most people are here either because a) they really want to know more about others’ perspectives or b) they really want to argue their own perspective. Those in group “a” surely deserve a milder and more respectful form of address than you’ve so far offered them. Those in group “b,” I’ve found, are usually worth debating with, (and doing so in a way that doesn’t turn off everyone reading in group “a”). This message board is about as close to that wonderful free public sphere so many of us want as we’re likely to get. Enjoy it: try building some genuinely democratic consent in contrast to the manufactured variety But I doubt very much that you’ll get too far by being contemptuous of your fellows in the virtual agora.

[Mary_Hart_s_Legs]

Great reply mandelstam!..and you are right,there was a time when i wasn’t much of a true debater… ranting was at one time an unfortunate pastime of mine.

[someone_else]

If this isn’t one of the wierdest debates I’ve seen recently…

http://www.zmag.org/replyhitch.htm

-Someone Else