Remember Winston from 1984? His job was to rewrite history to fit what the current administration wanted the public to believe. Apparently, despite the tragic ending in the novel, he has been hired by the Bush administration.
From this Washington Post article:
The first deletion might arguably be justified -- why allow someone's erroneous statements on official Web sites where people might get confused? The second item, if true, is straight out of 1984, but given this administration's playing curious shell game with the facts, I'm not surprised. The last two items, though, truly disturb me. Are government agencies not allowed to give us accurate and timely information if it conflicts with the political agenda of the current administration? Already there have been complaints that references to homosexuality or studies of diseases associated with human sexuality are being frowned upon.
Anyone remember Lysenko?
Re:Major
Ovid on 2003-12-19T01:47:50
I stand corrected about the White House site changing the headline. I did some research on the speech and you are correct, though it makes me wonder why they had an erroneous headline in the first place. Since so many people merely scan headlines, it's easy to paint a false picture and then later claim "that's not what was said". I've often had fun reading articles and seeing how closely they match the headline. Frequently they don't and I think that is also a form of dishonesty.
I also agree that politicians have been manipulating agencies like this, but I don't recall it being so blatant (though maybe I'm only noticing it now since I've truly been disgusted with this administration). Regardless of who does it, it's a deplorable action.
And on a side note, I realize that much of my journal might seem anti-conservative, but I don't think that's the case. I would love to see true conservatives running the Republican party. Despite appearances, I have no issues with conservative political philosophy. It's the neo-cons and their neanderthal diplomacy and political tactics that I object to. Of course, I'd also like to see some liberals in the Democratic party. They've been pulled so far to the right that we have no effective opposition in this country. Political ideologies are great. Political parties suck.
Re:Major
mary.poppins on 2003-12-19T12:27:38
Political parties suck.
That's the truth. So why wring your hands over their perpetual failure to
deliver democratic control of society? Just admit that capitalist republics
don't deliver democracy, and look for something that does.
Re:Major
Ovid on 2003-12-19T15:15:19
Just admit that capitalist republics don't deliver democracy, and look for something that does.
I can't admit that because I don't believe it. From my perspective, there are three major things wrong with the US system: money, media, and machines (political ones, that is). The media is an obvious problem. The yellow journalism of Fox News is just the most obvious example. Make the media truly competitive or, better yet, permanently publicly fund the media as a public resource (rather than forcing them to kowtow to the dollar -- I'm still astonished at those who believe that huge mega-corporations are spewing liberal propaganda).
Money is insidious only in that it corrupts politicians, even those with good intent. When your entire political future is dependant on getting corporations and PACs to give enough money, you have no choice but to dance to their tune. Hopefully the recently upheld soft money ban will alleviate this, but I doubt it.
Also, having only two political parties -- one being Republican and the other being Republican Lite -- is a joke. Unfortunately, without a proportional representation system, I don't know how we can fix this. No matter how hard third parties push, they'll be trapped under the weight of the media and the money.
So I guess I can't throw in the towel yet. There are many good things about this country. We have wonderful internal freedoms, we are usually one of the first there when another country suffers a natural disaster and for those who live here, we have a relatively high standard of living. Given this and many other positive things, I don't want to chuck out the baby with the bathwater.
Re:Major
jordan on 2003-12-19T21:05:52
- I'm still astonished at those who believe that huge mega-corporations are spewing liberal propaganda.
I'm still astonished that people don't see the liberal propaganda being spewed by the mainstream media. The media writers, reporters and producers are overwhelmingly liberal, just ask them. Polls always indicate a far left bias in the opionion of media workers.
There may be some examples of corporations influencing the media content, but the mega-corporations run the risk of this becoming widely known and trashing their credibility.
The only times I remember the media being pressured, and the media folding under the pressure, recently was when CNN's Eason Jordan admitted to slanting coverage in Iraq to please Hussein.
CNN has been guilty of stilted coverage elsewhere. From Mona Charen's 2003 book Useful Idiots pgs. 184-185:
In 1997, CNN became the first Western news organization to open a bureau in Havana. Those who hoped for an accurate glimpse of what life is like for ordinary Cubans were disappointed. As the Media Research Center reported after studying five years' worth of dispatches from Havana, CNN reported on political prisoners and dissidents only seven times. As Brent Bozell, MRC's president, told the National Press Club, "that's fewer than half as many stories as CNN produced in just the first three months of 2002 about phony claims of human righst abuses [committed] by the United States against those held at is base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." CNN also gave spokesmen for the Cuban regime six times as much airtime as noncommmunist spokesmen like church leaders or dissidents. Similarly, wehn CNN presented the views of ordinary Cubans, they broadcast six interviews with those who supported the regime for every one with those who did not.
Dissidents inside Cuba have attempted to use CNN's cameras to publicize their plight and their cause-often with disappointing results. Though members of the press expend great efforts on behalf of their fellow journalists who face persecution in other parts of the world, Castro's repression of speech is permitted to go on in darkness. Several hundred protestoers gathered in November 2000 at the home of Jose Orlando Gonzalez Bridon, a leader of the illegal Cuban Democratic Workers' Confederation, a would-be trade union. A CNN reporter and camera crew were present, yet CNN never aired the footage. CNN denied that their reporter had ever promised to televise the protest, but hte protesters who had risked a great deal to be there and who took that risk only for the chance to see their cause elevated by CNN, were bitter. Later, many of those who attended the protest were beaten and jailed.
Yeah, those sound like the actions of conservative mega-corporation controlled media to me...
You should read Mona Charen's book, or Bernard Goldberg's book Bias, which you criticized in another discussion without saying exactly why, for more examples of obvious liberal slant of the media.
- ... better yet, permanently publicly fund the media as a public resource (rather than forcing them to kowtow to the dollar
...
Sure, if we just gave control of all media over to the public, well, things would be sooooo much better. Instead of media kow-towing to the dollar they'd be kow-towing to powerful politicians. To hell with opposing viewpoints, the Government would decide what was true and blast that all day long.
- Money is insidious only in that it corrupts politicians, even those with good intent.
Yeah, money corrupts, right. Look, when I give my money to a PAC or an interest group or even a political party, it's because I want to exercise my rights to free speech, I want my opinions to be known. Sorry, more opinions and free speech are not the problems, corrupt politicians are the problem.
As it stands, there is nothing that can protect us from politicians who will be bribed. Sorry, nothing, well, short of throwing them out. Why don't we do that? Well, oftentimes it's because they are being bribed by us, that's right, through our Unions, advocacy groups and contributions, we donate money to aid their campaigns. All money isn't corrupting and only corrupt politicians accept money that is.
Give up your hope that laws can keep politicians honest, because politicians control the laws. The only thing that has a CHANCE of protecting us is a media that's as independent as possible from Government (read: public) control and you want to throw that away.
I would be in favor of full disclosure laws that revealed where all the money to publicize opinions came from. Heavy funding by unpopular groups could actually be used against certain politicians. That's what we need, more information rather than less.
Re:Major
Ovid on 2003-12-19T22:14:37
It's been a long time since I picked up Bias and leafed through it, so I honestly can't tell you what my objections were at that time. However, the media watchdog group "FAIR" has an interesting piece about Golberg's book. I routinely check what FAIR has to say about a topic because they have impressed me with the thoroughness with which they research material. In this particular case, they did not go through on a point-by-point basis, but I felt that there points were relevant.
For opposing views, look up works by Ben Bagdikian and Norman Solomon. They are both great authors who produce very well-researched material.
As for my comments about publically funded media, consider that PBS used to produce more well-rounded content. It was Richard Nixon who first felt that they were too biased and worked to cut the funding of any programming that was critical of the current politics or values. Were this funding to automatically exist and be made separate from government content regulation, it would have a better chance of being an independant news source. Of course, I doubt this well ever happen.
I would be in favor of full disclosure laws that revealed where all the money to publicize opinions came from. Heavy funding by unpopular groups could actually be used against certain politicians. That's what we need, more information rather than less.Amen to that.
Re:Major
jordan on 2003-12-20T00:02:17
- I routinely check what FAIR has to say about a topic because they have impressed me with the thoroughness with which they research material.
FAIR thorough and well researched? FAIR is hardly a "media watchdog", but rather a reaction to AIM (Accuracy In Media), Reed Irvin's group that started criticizing liberal media back in the 70s.
I challenge you to find even a single example of any FAIR issue that is critical of the media for having a liberal bias. You would think that a balanced watchdog group could find SOME liberal bias, wouldn't you? FAIR only attacks conservatives and conservative bias. Perhaps you believe that's all there is out there? If that's what you believe, I think you are not paying attention.
That particular attack on Goldberg's book is actually pretty lightweight, I think. The 1998 FAIR survey isn't really a scientific poll and isn't even sourced, for example.
- As for my comments about publically funded media, consider that PBS used to produce more well-rounded content. It was Richard Nixon who first felt that they were too biased and worked to cut the funding of any programming that was critical of the current politics or values. Were this funding to automatically exist and be made separate from government content regulation, it would have a better chance of being an independant news source. Of course, I doubt this well ever happen.
Of course, today, you can hardly find media that's more left slanted than PBS and NPR. But, your story actually points out exactly why a "public" (read Government) monopoly on media would be a very bad thing. It could not be independent.
I do think big media glosses over some big stories for their corporate masters. Like how the merger mania under Clinton made Reagan look like a trust buster by comparison. The really scary media mergers were particularly ignored by the major outlets.
Re:Major
Ovid on 2003-12-20T01:03:30
OK, I thought about responding to your points, but you and I will not see eye to eye on many issues and I'd be wasting my time. I did, however, note that, while you didn't assert that AIM was reasonable, I suspect that this might actually be your point of view (though I certainly hope not).
From AIM's FAQ: We encourage members of the media to report the news fairly and objectively--without resorting to bias or partisanship.
Hoo boy. That's a real howler. From their article with the completely non-alarmist title "Howard Dean's Experiments on Children", we find this charming quote:
But the truth about Dean’s embrace of the radical homosexual agenda could put the former Vermont governor on the far, far left side of the political spectrum, even beyond the liberalism of Dukakis."Radical homosexual agenda"? Yeah, that's fair and objective.
And in another article entitled "The FBI Gone Wild", they refer to Hillary Clinton as "Senator Clinton, a ruthless First Lady whose political philosophy borders on Marxism".
"Ruthless"? "Borders on Marxism"? They must have a curious definition of fair and objective commentary.
In "King's "Dream" Becomes a Nightmare", they write:
The major media deliberately concealed the facts about how the “civil rights movement” has degenerated into a collection of political extremists, homosexual militants, Muslim activists, and anti-American Marxists.That quote is typical of the blatant bigotry espoused by AIM. Further, regarding all three of the quotes: I didn't have to keep digging through the site to find them. Just casual browsing picks up these and many other quotes which make it clear that the authors have an agenda that is not even remotely related to encouraging "fair and objective" reporting.
Reading through AIM makes it clear that they have a racist, homophobic, and thoroughly far-right view of the world and anyone who disagrees with them is not "fair and objective".
Re:Major
jordan on 2003-12-20T15:14:33
OK, I thought about responding to your points, but you and I will not see eye to eye on many issues and I'd be wasting my time.
I guess you are either saying that I'm a narrow minded idealogue or that you are, I'm not sure which. In any case, while we may have hardened positions, and I recognize that, I often join these "debates" for the benefit of those reading here. If I was interested in only persuading you, I'd take it to email
I did, however, note that, while you didn't assert that AIM was reasonable, I suspect that this might actually be your point of view (though I certainly hope not).
Now, what could possibly lead you to believe that? I stated, quite clearly to anyone who actually read my post (rather than just read into it what they want to believe) that:
...AIM (Accuracy In Media), Reed Irvin's group that started criticizing liberal media back in the 70s.
It's clear from the above that I'm labelling AIM as a partisan group.
So, rather than addressing any of my points, you launch into attacking this strawman. Talk about "fair and objective"...
Face it, when you post these diatribes against the Bush administration, you are just as guilty of partisanship as a group like AIM. You act as if the Bush Administration was the first ever to try and put a different spin on past events or to influence the Executive Branch scientific organizations for political reasons.
Because the media paints the debate this way, it seems that anyone left of center believes that Bush is a far-right monster who must be stopped at all costs, even if it means using distortion or gross exaggeration. Ignored in all of this is his bipartan history in Texas and his adoption of many center-left positions like the greatest expansion of Medicare ever and Campaign Finance reform.
All this overheated hyperbole does the country no favors. I wonder if you even noticed that Ted Kennedy called the Bush judicial nominees Neanderthals the other day, Neanderthals... right. Can you imagine Bush calling the black Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court and other highly regarded jurists like Estrada such a name? A name that's evocative of being sub-human? I know you hate Fox News as "yellow journalism" (without actually ever citing any examples) but I agree with Tony Snow from FoxNews Sunday where he was paraphrased as saying:
Noting that Bush nominees Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada are African-American and Hispanic, respectively, Republicans have seized on Kennedy's "Neanderthal" remark, complaining that he was getting a pass for using words that would have been career-ending for a member of their party.
It's absolutely true. You claim that the press is so conservative, but can you imagine a Republican Senator being ex-KKK as Robert Byrd is? Can you imagine a Republican Senator using such emotionally heated language as Ted Kennedy did above and it not being front page news every day until he was hounded out of office. No...
While you seem to think that FoxNews is dangerous and a reason for seizing control over the media by the "public", they are the only ones pointing out this hypocrisy.
Al Gore's father voted against both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act, and yet I never recall once him being asked about this. Of course, Arnold Schwarzenneger had to answer repeatedly for the views of his father in the California recall election.
Wake up. The press is far left, or at the very least Anti-Conservative and anyone who even tries to be objective could see it.
Re:Major
mary.poppins on 2003-12-20T18:42:18
The mainstream press is mainstream corporate -- that's where the advertising
money comes from. They don't rock the boat, in general. Just as you won't find
the NY Times advocating land redistribution (giving land back to small-scale
farmers, for instance), or pointing out the human cost of drug patents, you also
won't find them working overtime to dig up corporate malfeasance or official
corruption.
Not rocking the boat goes both ways. So "anti-conservative" might apply, if by
"anti-conservative" you mean "opposing the further redistribution of wealth
upwards in a manner entirely likely to cause widespread social unrest."
As an example -- in my opinion, any "objective" newspaper would have been
running a headline every day for the last couple years saying "The Government is
obviously making all this shit up as they go along." Yet the articles run by
the NY Times are more in the line of "White House Announces Pi Equal To Three;
Some Experts Disagree."
Re:Major
jordan on 2003-12-20T19:31:27
- They don't rock the boat, in general. Just as you won't find
the NY Times advocating land redistribution (giving land back to small-scale
farmers, for instance)
If you are saying that the media in this country is not of a Marxist bent, I would agree. That's completely in line with the fact that Socialism is pretty much unpopular with the American people in general and the media is no exception.
- or pointing out the human cost of drug patents
If you are referring to the fact that there would be no miracle drugs without drug patents, I guess that would be a huge human cost. Seeing as Capitalist drug companies develop practically all new drugs, given their motivation for doing so that they will be granted a patent for the result.
Now, I will agree that the media is failing to point out that drug companies are spending 3x on marketing compared to developing new drugs, or the fact that Acid Reflux disease that's untreatable by lifestyle changes is extremely rare. The two are not disconnected. Major media is reaping a boon to their advertising budgets pushing, largely unnecessary Acid blocking drugs and major media is not rocking the boat by pointing out the medical facts.
- you also
won't find them working overtime to dig up corporate malfeasance or official
corruption.
I agree that the media could do better here. Corporate malfeasance is really a Government job given that investigative and subpoena powers help a lot and there are some bright spots here, like the NY Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer gets a LOT of favorable press, just check it out.
As an example -- in my opinion, any "objective" newspaper would have been
running a headline every day for the last couple years saying "The Government is
obviously making all this shit up as they go along." Yet the articles run by
the NY Times are more in the line of "White House Announces Pi Equal To Three;
Some Experts Disagree."
We disagree. It's not obvious to me that anything is being "made up". Sometimes, the Government has been wrong about specific charges, but that's not the same as lying.
If one of the things you are referring to the issue of WMD in Iraq, the whole world seemed to believe that they had them. UN Resolution 1441 was clearly drafted with that in mind.
Of course, you don't hear the media trumpeting the fact that Silkworm missles, missles acquired in only the last few years, were found with warheads designed to carry chemical and nerve agents.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Hussein would have been developing and stockpiling the worst weapons he could lay his hands on if the international pressure hadn't been so strong.
Unfortunately, Hussein had arranged it so that the sanctions were killing 10000 people every month, according to the UN, which was infuriating the Islamic street. Our options were to eventually accept a stockpile of horrible weapons, continuing to threaten his neighbors - he still layed claim to Kuwait, for example - or we had to remove him.
This theory of media corporatism just doesn't wash with me. The media is overwhelmingly against the War in Iraq, constantly referring to it as a quagmire, while by your theory, they would be behind it because of all the profits their corporate masters could expect to squeeze out of the Middle East now.
The media is beating a constant drumbeat for us to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, ignoring the history of this kind of thing. It took 5 years to de-Nazify Germany after WWII and 7 years before elections could be held in Japan. We've been in Korea for 50 years now and I think you'll find that the South Koreans are more or less happy that they are South Koreans and not conquered by those monsters to the North. What's the rush in Iraq if it's not the fact that the media writers just hate the Bush Administration?
To me, "objective" media would still be running headlines about how Clinton obviously "lied" about our involvement in Bosnia. He said we would be out in 1 year, but the media gave him a complete pass and I never once heard this referred to as a lie.
Face facts. The media has an irrational hatred of Bush and will spin everything to the disadvantage of the Republicans, while giving the Democrats a complete pass.
If you are as far left as I believe you to be, you might consider this irrelevant. To you, the Democrats are probably just a slightly less far right version of the Republicans. Recognize that the American people. as a whole. don't share your views and it would be really surprising if the media slanted the news to your taste.
Re:Major
educated_foo on 2004-01-05T22:10:12
I wish you had put this part at the beginning, so I didn't have to waste time reading the rest. Who is "the media"? Does every single member of the group have this "hatred"? Is it always (or necessarily) irrational? Does "everything" get spun, and do all Democrats get a "complete" pass? I suspect we disagree on the underlying politics, but hopefully most readers can recognize that these gross partisan generalizations are completely absurd, and almost necessarily false. They add nothing to your comment; if anything, they render the rest suspect.Face facts. The media has an irrational hatred of Bush and will spin everything to the disadvantage of the Republicans, while giving the Democrats a complete pass.Re:Major
pudge on 2003-12-31T20:20:27
As an example -- in my opinion, any "objective" newspaper would have been running a headline every day for the last couple years saying "The Government is obviously making all this shit up as they go along."
I'm sorry, I think you mean s/objective/opinionated/. Or maybe s/objective/crap I happen to believe is true/.Re:Major
doncarlos on 2004-11-01T03:02:58
I thought I had gone to perl.com, but apparently this is some political site.
Sorry, I'll go away.Re:Major
mary.poppins on 2003-12-20T18:56:11
If you don't believe it, then point to examples of capitalist republics that do
involve democratic control of society.
The failures of social democracy are systemic, and repeat everywhere. The
states with the most egalitarian policies are those facing the strongest left
threats to their existence. As unions have become weaker, the "welfare state"
has shrunk in many countries.
The trouble is not with particular politicians -- it is with the system that
makes them temporary dictators. The problem is not with particular Captains of
Industry -- it is with the organization of production is heriarchical,
authoritarain constructs that alienate and disempower the workers.
For an alternative exmaple of how to organize society, I suggest reading about
the Spanish Revolution in 1936. Millions of people lived cooperatively before
being conquered by Franco's army (aided by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Britain,
and American businessmen). One book that I thought was pretty good was Antony
Beevor's "The Spanish Civil War." It is written in a style that should be
friendly to the US Liberal Intellectual, which still being accurate (a
remarkable feat for writing about radical social transformation).
Of course, everyone who grew up in the US has heard all about how nasty State
Capitalism (AKA marxism) is, so I assume I don't need to go into that. If you
don't believe it, read some first-hand accounts of soviet repression during the
early days of the Revolution. Truly horrifying.
Re:Major
chromatic on 2003-12-22T17:06:23
Make the media truly competitiveWhat does competitive mean in this sentence? I see a lot of competition. Granted, it's on minutiae that bore me, but it's competition.
Re:Major
Ovid on 2003-12-23T06:22:21
I almost didn't answer this because I really wanted to withdraw from this thread (but if I can't take the heat I should stay out of hell). However, you asked a fair question and I think it deserves an answer.
A good primer on the topic is Unreliable Sources by Martin Lee and Normon Solomon. It was published back in 1991 one and explained very thoroughly the problems with media consolidation over a decade ago. The problem has become worse due to increased media mergers. We're all familiar with monopolies -- a market where there is only one supplier of a good -- but as Microsoft has amply demonstrated, you don't have to have a pure monopoly in order to profitably engage in monopolistic behavior.
As a general benchmark, economists frequently consider an industry in which five or fewer suppliers control in excess of the fifty percent of the market to be very monopolistic. According to the book The Case Against the Global Economy (weird choice of light reading for me, eh?), with the waves of mergers that really started to take off in the 80s, we are now in a position where five companies control forty percent of the global market in media. We are very close to a monopolistic media market and the results are highly predictable -- a lack of competitives, high barriers to entry and lack of innovation (in this case, good news reporting). Many people argue that the Internet automatically creates a low barrier to entry, but research tends to show that most surfers stick to a handful of sites and much of what is available is ignored in favor of the 'Net giants like Yahoo! AOL and MSN.
In The Silent Takeover, economist Noreena Hertz describes how Adbusters produced an ad for the 1997 "Buy Nothing" day. They wanted to show it in the US but ABC, CBS and NBC refused to sell them airtime. Richard Gitter, the vice president of advertising standards at NBS said "We don't want to take any advertising that's inimical to our legitimate business interests".
I could cite plenty of other examples, but run over to Greg Palast's site and read what he has to say about media monopolies and free speech. Too many people sit and home and watch the nightly news and don't notice how much of it is dedicated to covering the local mall, talking about a new store or covers mainly "sizzling" stories since many important ones don't sell well.
Re:Major
chromatic on 2003-12-23T07:16:57
One more question, I promise! You don't have to answer if you don't want. I'm not sure I like the answer.
If there were competition, how many people would notice and how many would change their media consumption habits?
Re:Major
Ovid on 2003-12-24T17:43:12
The short (and cheap) answer is I don't know if people would notice and if things would change. If competition led to better quality news but people still chose sizzle over steak, that would be a disappointment, but at least people would be freely choosing instead of having the choice made for them. There is good information out there now, but it's not always easy to find it.
A more accurate answer would be to discuss why I desire more competition -- or more precisely, a different sort of competition (nice of me to casually shift the debate via clarifications, eh?). But before I describe that, I should discuss my rationale.
Virtually all economists argue that free access to information is a prerequisite for a properly functioning market (there's a branch of economics called information economics that explores the cost of information). Adam Smith said this. David Ricardo said this. Milton Friedman said this. John Keynes said this. No one questions the importance of the availability of information. The worse the information, the worse the market. This is much of the reason why command economies fail. The farmer sees that he's getting too much rain and reacts accordingly -- unless he has quotas set for him months ago by a central government that couldn't foresee the weather. You wind up with stores with no bread but an abundance of socks.
Conversely, the better the information, the better the functioning of a given market. This is part of the reason why Extreme Programming can work so well when applied to an appropriate project. The roles of all of the actors are well defined as is the flow of information between them. Easy access to quality information is necessary for effective decisions whether we're dealing with the small scale or the large.
While the tie-in to the media is obvious, it's not obvious how increased competition will improve the situation. Even though there used to be more competition within the media, the yellow journalism of Hearst was easily on par with what Fox is pumping out today. In another example, Robin Anderson, reported in Consumer Culture and TV Programming:
A study of women's magazine in the period 1983 to 1987 revealed that not one magazine that carried cigarette advertising published any full-length feature, column, review, or editorial on any aspect of the dangers of smoking. During the same period lunch cancer was determined to be the number one killer of women, surpassing even breast cancer.Noreena Hertz reports an NBC story in which GE engineers in a nuclear power plant discovered that one out of every three bolts that a major supplier was sending them was defective. GE had been accepting those bolts for eight years before discovering this. GE killed the story. Similarly, an ABC story revealed that Disney had allegedly hired pedophiles at one of their theme parks. That's not just steak, that's sizzle to boot (as the Michael Jackson story demonstrates). However, ABC never ran that report. Disney owns ABC.
These are all significant news stories. This is information that might change how you shop. It might change how you vote. It might do plenty of things, but it won't if you don't have a change to hear about it. And those anecdotes are not alone. Many books have been written about the stories that corporate dominated media is suppressing. It makes you wonder how many stories we didn't hear.
The problem lies in the inherent conflict of interest with how the media currently exists in our country. Frequently, managers are prohibited from hiring family. Judges are to recuse themselves when they know the defendant. Politicians are supposed to divest themselves of holdings that might unduly influence their political decisions. While the media often jumps to point out these issues, you don't hear them taking themselves to task. This puts the public in the awful situation of being dependent on the media to tell us what's wrong with the media. It's like that silly interview question "what's your worst habit?" "I work too hard."
When Jesus said a man cannot serve two masters, one might be forgiven for thinking that he was prophesying about today's media. The media is there for the public -- a public which needs this information to make good decisions -- but it's either owned by huge conglomerates like Disney and GE, or it earns the bulk of its revenues from advertising. The effect of this conflict of interest in readily apparent when people dig for it, but instead, media giant Clear Channel warns of liberal media domination and the pretty blond on the nightly news stares at us through sea anenomes of mascara while commenting about the new store in the mall.
As for what a different sort of competition might entail, I'll leave that for others to sort out. I've written enough and, I'm sure, some will be upset with what I have to say. I've done enough for a Christmas Eve morning.
Happy holidays. (and I do mean that sincerely)
Re:Major
Ovid on 2003-12-24T20:11:55
During the same period lunch cancer was determined to be the number one killer of women...
Lunch cancer? What the hell is lunch cancer? It must be another story the media has covered up. Yeah, that's it!
Re:Major
pudge on 2003-12-31T20:17:33
The main problems with the media are far greater than simple bias or "yellowness." Ben Franklin's newspaper was horribly biased and sensationalistic, by our standards. The real problem is the media control of the information the citizens need to make choices. Why did Bush and Gore get so much more coverage than Nader, for example?
I find it funny you call the Democrats "Republicans Lite," as lately, I'd say you have it backwards.:-)
As to money, I like how you say it there. It's not that money itself is bad, it's that the only way to be in power is to have a lot of money. And your concerns about the soft-money bans are well-founded: they will have no impact. Now the PACs will spend the money themselves, with LESS accountability, instead of giving it to the candidates. And we try to lessen the negative impact of this by... infringing on free speech, by disallowing advertising a certain number of days before an election! It's a ridiculous bill.
What I really want to see is a complete lift on spending limits, with 100%, immediate, reporting. I think if individuals can give more, then that will allow more voices in the process. And if we try that and it doesn't work, then, we clamp down and say all money comes from the government, so everyone is on equal footing. No limits, or complete limits, one way or the other has GOT to work.:)
I finished reading "1984" two days ago having read "Down and out in Paris and London" just prior to that.
I think that the Internet will remain free from the systematic revision of history that 1984 envisages. Nevertheless, we should still be cautioned by the danger inherent in accepting lies as fact, either passively or deliberately. In particular lies that are told "for our own good".
"Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4. If that is granted, all else follows."
Condoms are also ineffective against Herpes transmission.
Now, tell me again why we should be promoting practices that only protect you 90% of the time from AIDS transmission and are completely ineffective against other dangerous STDs?
Re:Good condom information
mary.poppins on 2003-12-20T18:32:54
My observation is that that telling people not to sex each other up has rather
limited effectiveness. See, people want to. A lot.
Re:Good condom information
jordan on 2003-12-20T21:39:16
- My observation is that that telling people not to sex each other up has rather
limited effectiveness. See, people want to. A lot.
It's been my observation that people who drive like to speed a lot. Should we, as a society, eschew traffic laws and responsible driving education in favor of "Safe Cars" and tell people that no injury could come to them if they use one of these cars?
Clearly, the level of promiscuity has a huge effect on the level of transmission of STDs. Sorry, that's the facts. People should be made aware that the number one thing you can do to prevent STDs is abstinence or fidelity. Where promiscuity is high, STD transmission rates are high.
In the 80s, promiscuity rates in the Gay community dropped dramatically in response to the AIDS crisis, so it is possible to modify behavior when people are faced with clear choices.
If you prefer to lie to people and suggest that there's such a thing as "Safe Sex" outside of a commited relationship, go right ahead and keep deceiving people. I guess that's your right in a free society.
I don't think our scientific health organizations should be spreading lies and enabling dangerous behavior, but maybe you think differently.
I think you'll find that some studies are now showing abstinence education is working. I'm not sure how scientific your "observations" are, but I prefer to study this sort of thing.
Look, I'm not opposed to people having access to condoms. Really, I'm not. But, as a society, Governmental and privately, our first message should be that responsible behavior, that is undenably the safest course, is best.
Re:Good condom information
DAxelrod on 2003-12-22T06:58:54
It's been my observation that people who drive like to speed a lot. Should we, as a society, eschew traffic laws and responsible driving education in favor of "Safe Cars" and tell people that no injury could come to them if they use one of these cars?No, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make cars safer or educate people about car saftey features. Just because we teach people not to drive recklessly doesn't mean we don't also tell them to wear seatbelts, and doesn't mean we don't install airbags in their vehicles.
Look, I'm not opposed to people having access to condoms. Really, I'm not. But, as a society, Governmental and privately, our first message should be that responsible behavior, that is undenably the safest course, is best.I agree with you here. Indeed, that's the way sex education was done in my school. The resounding message was "Abstinence is the only 100% safe method. However, here are many other methods which have varying degrees of protection against pregnancy and STDs, and here's how they compare."
Education about this kind of thing should not be an either/or. People need information about abstinence, condoms, and other methods of protecting themselves against pregnancy and STDs. Promoting abstinence is wonderful, but that doesn't mean you should throw out all your information about condom effectiveness. If we want to stop unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs, we need all the tools available.
Re:Good condom information
chaoticset on 2003-12-22T19:50:17
HPV -- Human Papilloma Virus? Warts?You do understand that there are strains of HPV that can cause actual warts anywhere, right? And that something like 80% of sexually active humans are estimated to have had contact with it at some point, right? So the only 100% effective way for a human being to avoid contact with HPV is to avoid contact with other human beings, period.
Cervical cancer sucks, indeed. HPV's a ghost, though. There's really no way to truly avoid it, even if you're sexually inert.
Re:Good condom information
jordan on 2003-12-22T21:10:20
- You do understand that there are strains of HPV that can cause actual warts anywhere, right? And that something like 80% of sexually active humans are estimated to have had contact with it at some point, right? So the only 100% effective way for a human being to avoid contact with HPV is to avoid contact with other human beings, period.
Congratulations on a very simplistic understanding of the situation. While HPV, as a whole, is very common, there are strains that are extremely highly correlated with cervical cancers. They are transmitted sexually and your chances of getting them, if you are a woman, are greatly increased if you are promiscuous. Note that HPV is transmitted topically, infecting areas that come into contact with the virus. Mucous membranes are very receptive to infection here, so someone who happens to have the dangerous strains is only likely to spread it in a manner that is dangerous to women through sexual contact.Also, to reiterate, condoms are completely inffective to prevent their spread.
But don't take my word for it, go read read this where it says:
The types of HPVs that cause genital warts are not associated with increased cancer risks and are caused by HPV types 6 and 11. HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 35 are linked to cervical cancer. These high-risk HPVs may also be linked to increased risk of cancers of the vulva, anus, and bladder.
And,
Limiting the number of sexual partners you have in your lifetime may also be a significant component in the prevention of HPV and the associated increased risk of cervical cancer (evidence suggests that people with multiple sexual partners have a much higher incidence of HPV and cervical cancer).
- Cervical cancer sucks, indeed. HPV's a ghost, though. There's really no way to truly avoid it, even if you're sexually inert.
This statement is true, but I don't believe that it's been shown that typical exposure to HPV increases the high risk exposure as when transmitted sexually.Re:Good condom information
chaoticset on 2003-12-22T23:21:11
Congratulations on a very simplistic understanding of the situation.
Thank you. I pride myself on not having a degree in biology, virology, etc.I can't help but notice the word may laced through all the quotes noted here. Does this mean that there's really no chasing this thing down as of yet, and that much of the scientific jury has guesses but not answers?
I can't help but get the feeling that you think I may be wrong, but I never said I was right -- just pointed out that your statement was, well, 'very simplistic'.
Re:Good condom information
jordan on 2003-12-23T00:28:42
- I can't help but notice the word may laced through all the quotes noted here. Does this mean that there's really no chasing this thing down as of yet, and that much of the scientific jury has guesses but not answers?
Scientists often talk that way, especially in Medicine which is not an exact science.
Sure, it all may be wrong, but here's two facts that are well established:
- 93% of all cervical cancers are related to these strains of HPV.
- Promiscuity is strongly correlated with incidence of both HPV transmission and cervical cancer in women.
- I can't help but get the feeling that you think I may be wrong, but I never said I was right...
In the face of the best scientific evidence you are wrong, but then, you never said you were right. I'll remember to not take anything you say seriously in the future unless you also say that you are right.
Re:Good condom information
chaoticset on 2003-12-23T16:00:49
I'll remember to not take anything you say seriously in the future unless you also say that you are right.This will probably be beneficial for both of us; I almost never say I'm right, and I should never be taken seriously.
:) As for statistics...I used to have plenty of these sorts of discussions, and have found nothing productive comes from them, least of all the sensation that I've been in gladatorial contest. (A feeling of nausea combined with adrenaline rush, if you're curious.) I would ask for sources, I would question 'correlation' and 'related to', point out that statistics tend to mean a lot less than they appear to, etc., but it's really not worth it. You may have ready answers, ready sources, ready whatever, but might eventually admit again that there's not a conclusive link. (Even if there were, medicine, wonder that it is, tends to reverse its "conclusive" links eventually anyway.)
Were this a discussion between doctors or biologists, I might see worth in pursuing it. I'm neither of those things, and suspect that you aren't either -- and, frankly, I'm not even really interested in this from the angle of being educated about it because it impacts me so little, so even if you were, I probably wouldn't continue the discussion anyway, just from lack of actual interest.
I've got something I'd rather be doing. I'm going to go do it. You probably have something you'd rather be doing too, so I offer the suggestion that you do that.
(Seriously.)
