Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[SOS2008]

My bad -- I misread what Bystander wrote -- for some reason I thought it was the other way around. Some of the people in the media today should be “institutionalized.” As for the term "freedom fighter" -- that's how they refer to themselves. It's not a word game that I'm trying to play.

 

[Burnsys]

You're misunderstanding the way capitalism works - the way it has to work. If they lowered the price for every country that imported no oil, they'd have to raise prices elsewhere. In doing so, they'd lose business and eventually be forced to raise the prices in countries with their own oil as well. If they did this, which is what you want them to do, you'd actually end up paying more. There is no way around this and there is no malicious behavior here on the part of any oil company. The only body that behaves maliciously in causing high prices is OPEC.

if they lower the prices in the countrys that doesn't import oil they still will be making profits in those same countrys, at least that extracting the oil from those countrys cost the same that importing it. and also they don;t pay salaries at "International Price" here in argentina we have our currency at 1/3 of a dolar, and salaries cost them 1/3 that in usa...

 

[russ_watters]

if they lower the prices in the countrys that doesn't import oil they still will be making profits in those same countrys, at least that extracting the oil from those countrys cost the same that importing it. and also they don;t pay salaries at "International Price" here in argentina we have our currency at 1/3 of a dolar, and salaries cost them 1/3 that in usa...

What's your point? None of that changes the economics of what was already explained to you.

 

[Burnsys]

What's your point? None of that changes the economics of what was already explained to you.

The point is we can't exploit our natural resources to benefit our 50% poor people becouse of the curren economic model that the imf and usa has imposed on us... and becouse all our resources are in the hands of multinational corporations, who's only objectives are more profits..
We have a country who can feed 4 times its population, but we have 25% of it starving... we have plenty of natural resources but we can't use them, one of them is oil controlled in 90% by 3 foreing corporations from USA, Spain and england

 

[russ_watters]

The point is we can't exploit our natural resources to benefit our 50% poor people becouse of the curren economic model that the imf and usa has imposed on us...

Argentina is a sovereign nation, Burnsys. While its true that they didn't make all the rules, they can make the rules for doing business inside their country and they can even leave the game if they want to. Trouble is, there is more to be lost by messing with the game in country and even more by not playing (see: China before and after they started playing and North Korea who is currently not playing).

Being a capitalist, I'd say the problem is simply that Argentina wants to manipulate the rules and is finding they can't beat the game. If they'd work within the rules, they'd fare better.

 

[misskitty]

I agree with Russ's statement, because there is noway of geting around the basoc economics. A country can't suceed when the rules are changing all the time because then business owners are so busy attempting to meet all the regualtions that they never have the time to make any money. If they would stop changing the rules all the time trying to get a ahead of everyone the government would figure out they can get much further in the world by playing nicely with everyone else.

 

[Bystander]

In my earlier comment on complaints to the FCC about FOX New's tag-line, it was about false advertisement, not any amendment...

From "suppression of dissent" to "false advertising" --- what's Fox's line? "Fair and balanced news?" Something like that --- NOT fair and balanced commentary, editorials, analyses, panel discussions. Didn't really look too closely at your links --- they DO of course include the complaints to FCC regarding CBS's advertisements of Dan Rather as a newscaster rather than as an opinion caster?

In regard to cause and effect, I'm not sure what that indicates. Maybe these individuals have become disgusted with FOX. Or maybe their migration to other agencies is creating another cause and effect of a media leaning more and more to the right?

You have figured out that you managed to read this inside out and backwards --- my point was that CNN's lost two or three to Fox, and I haven't noticed Foxers jumping ship the other direction (there may be an equal number of Fox to CNN transitions). By "institutional" is meant that newsies in general are pointed to the left in school, and not too inclined to stray from that "institutional lean" once employed in the field, no matter what their personal inclinations are --- bad career move to fight the traditions of 70 years or so since Roosevelt, and Fox does present an opportunity to do news in a less "institutionalized atmosphere."

Rather presents fiction as fact, he gets the axe. Simple as it can be --- should have happened 35 years ago. Gibson presents an opinion as opinion. So what? "Swifties vs. Kerry?" Kinda missed the initial fuss --- medals over the fence, lip-lock on Jane's butt, Winter Soldier crap, and running as a war hero pretty well put the boy in the trash with the used kitty litter long before the "Swift boat brouhaha." Russ gave you the box score --- JK hasn't (newswise) stirred the fire under the people involved --- suggests more substance to the matter than your version, but he ain't a particularly interesting personality disorder to try chasing down exactly what did or did not happen.

 

[Burnsys]

Argentina is a sovereign nation, Burnsys. While its true that they didn't make all the rules, they can make the rules for doing business inside their country and they can even leave the game if they want to. Trouble is, there is more to be lost by messing with the game in country and even more by not playing (see: China before and after they started playing and North Korea who is currently not playing).

Being a capitalist, I'd say the problem is simply that Argentina wants to manipulate the rules and is finding they can't beat the game. If they'd work within the rules, they'd fare better.

In the 90' we foloowed the rules exactly as they said.. we even where an example for the reggion acording to us and the imf.. we opened our markets, we privatized everything, we become a free market economy, now here we are, even the imf admits his responsability, but of course. it was another "Mistake" those who cost thousens of lives.. and i can tell you hundreds of countrys "Playing the game" who are now so so poor you can't even think about it...

i reccomend you a movie russ: Life and Debt : http://www.lifeanddebt.org/

"Utilizing excerpts from the award-winning non-fiction text "A Small Place" by Jamaica Kincaid, Life & Debt is a woven tapestry of sequences focusing on the stories of individual Jamaicans whose strategies for survival and parameters of day-to-day existence are determined by the U.S. and other foreign economic agendas. By combining traditional documentary telling with a stylized narrative framework, the complexity of international lending, structural adjustment policies and free trade will be understood in the context of the day-to-day realities of the people whose lives they impact. "

 

[Burnsys]

I agree with Russ's statement, because there is noway of geting around the basoc economics. A country can't suceed when the rules are changing all the time because then business owners are so busy attempting to meet all the regualtions that they never have the time to make any money. If they would stop changing the rules all the time trying to get a ahead of everyone the government would figure out they can get much further in the world by playing nicely with everyone else.

The one who changes the rules all the time are the imf, they are always and i mean ALWAYS suggesting some new policy to be a little more a "free market economy". and our government of course always do what they say... But all this rule only benefits the most rich businesman.. just for example we had an antimonopoly law, but the imf make us eliminate it in the 2001.
And remember this. all the "Aid" the imf and the wb gives goes ALWAYS to the hand of corrupt politicians...

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-07-99.html

"lack of money has not been Africa's problem. Rather, it's that foreign aid agencies have subsidized regimes whose policies have destroyed their national economies-a conclusion that even the World Bank itself admitted in a recent study "

"It is not a new insight to say that continued aid under such circumstances merely makes matters worse. The World Bank has recognized as much since at least the early 1980s when it began "structural adjustment lending" --aid conditioned on a recipient country's fixing its macroeconomic policies. The IMF has always conditioned its aid on policy change. But with few exceptions, it has produced no serious reform in the region"

 

[misskitty]

Why would you want to eliminate an anitmonopoly law? The economy functions better without monopoloies and its better for the people.

The econmy might also suffer from the occupation of the country. How does a long term occupation help the economy? I mean does the occuping country dictate the economic policies as wellas the government?

 

[Burnsys]

Why would you want to eliminate an anitmonopoly law? The economy functions better without monopoloies and its better for the people.

The econmy might also suffer from the occupation of the country. How does a long term occupation help the economy? I mean does the occuping country dictate the economic policies as wellas the government?

Of course the country works better without monopolys, but some corporations (especialy foreing) can get a LOT more of profits being an oligopopy... for example SHELL-EXXON-RESPOL , TELEFONICA-TELECOM, etc..
Do you remember when the fcc had that reform that alowed the media to merge even more? that's another oligopoly, the media in your country...


Acording to the WB: in 2003 of the 100 biggest economics in the world, 51 are corporations, 49 countrys...

POne of the ocupation´s primary goal is to shape the ocuped country economy so they can open it´s market to those corporations...

 

[misskitty]

Yes I do remember that...I was surprised.
Everybody is in it to make a quick buck. Even the occupiers. Its frightening what people will do for money.

 

[Anttech]

Fox is only an example, because it is ridiculously partisan, however to me the media in America is going to be Americas undoing. The Media should scrutinise the government not partner with them, and broadcast propaganda 24/7, and patriotic Red White and Blue bull****e because that is gets the ratings in?

 

[Smurf]

There should be regulations. News is not entertainment - make the companies know this.

 

[loseyourname]

However you may feel about Fox, as far as I know, they don't report anything that is untrue. I have to admit I almost never watch TV news, so I'm not well qualified to comment on this, but the problem with most news channels that I can see is that they don't have enough news programs and they have way too many commentary programs. These commentary programs are simply men expressing opinions, however, and regardless of how off-base you might feel they are, they are free to express it, and if there exists a market of people who agree with them and want to see them, they should be on TV.

I have to say, though, that I don't agree with your contention that the media should scrutinize the government. They should neither seek to scrutinize nor partner with the government or with any other entity. They should seek to report the news with no further ends in mind. They should report all stories of significance from every possible angle they can get. I should note, however, that I don't mean they should have those stupid roundtable of men arguing with each other. What I mean is that they should tell the stories of each party involved in a given story, without bias or ideological filtering. Nothing but the facts, to rip off Jack Webb.

 

[Townsend]

There should be regulations. News is not entertainment - make the companies know this.

You believe it is ok to regulate the freedom of speech now?

And how will you regulate the news? Do you plan on putting it in the hands of the government? Hummmm...And the neither the president or congress could influence how things are being regulated?

I think the problem with this idea is transparent...

What about Michael Moore's crap? That was suppose to be a documentary which would make it subject to the same regulation as news.

The more government you have the less freedoms you have...the fewer the freedoms the smaller your voice becomes until you cannot be heard at all...

 

[Anttech]

And how will you regulate the news? Do you plan on putting it in the hands of the government? Hummmm...And the neither the president or congress could influence how things are being regulated?

Actually I thought of a system like the BBC, For the People by the people ;-) The BBC is funded with a TV license and has a mandate (and thus is free from corporate presures). The BBC is regulated by an independent body and has to conform to its mandate. If it doesn't its upper management is dissmantled.

However I then thought about this notion, and thought that in your society it wouldn't work, becuase American people seem to actually want to watch Patriotic partisan bull****e.

I have to say, though, that I don't agree with your contention that the media should scrutinize the government.

By scrutinise I mean eerrrrmm scrutinise :-) They should alert the viewers when the government or the opposition is Lieing and make them accountable for there decsisions... Who else will?

 

[Townsend]

However I then thought about this notion, and thought that in your society it wouldn't work, becuase American people seem to actually want to watch Patriotic partisan bull****e.

I cannot stand TV because I feel like commercials are a complete waste of time. I do enjoy a movie but that's totally besides the point...

The point is, yes some people want watch Fox news because of its right leaning views. If you were to put American people in charge you would only risk seeing even more of this than there currently is.

 

[BobG]

Fox is only an example, because it is ridiculously partisan, however to me the media in America is going to be Americas undoing. The Media should scrutinise the government not partner with them, and broadcast propaganda 24/7, and patriotic Red White and Blue bull****e because that is gets the ratings in?

I don't have a problem with partisan news commentary shows, as long as there is a mix available between one or various channels.

An independent agency that rates the intelligence level of a show and assigns a 'news', 'news commentary', 'entertainment', 'mindless drivel' rating would be nice, though (similar to colleges obtaining accreditation from various professional organizations, for example). The two people Fox puts on around lunch time (Mountain time) would qualify as 'mindless drivel' for sure.

Considering Fox's ratings, the key to good news channel ratings seems to be the same as for network TV. Reduce the intelligence level of the shows to a level where people can relax and be entertained at the end of a hard day's work - not stress them out by forcing them to think about complex isssues.

 

[Burnsys]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705foxassures.htm

 

[Townsend]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705foxassures.htm

That is a perfect example of why Fox news is so great, especially for the liberals. If there were no Fox there would be one less thing for all of you to sit around and complain about...how unfortunate that would be..

 

[chup]

Of course not, Just move it to Comedy central where it belongs.

 

[Yonoz]

Is this another one of those threads where everyone is joking, like the one about that bathroom note?
Don't want to be accused of "stomping heads" again...

 

[2CentsWorth]

Freedom of Speech cannot and should not be regulated, and people have the right to consume what they choose. However, the suit that was lodged against Fox News for the tag line of "fair and balanced news" is right on, because it has to do with false advertisement--everyone knows Fox News is basically state sponsored. Fox News has made incorrect and false reports, and heads should roll as happened with Dan Rather. There needs to be accountability in this way.

 

[TRCSF]

However you may feel about Fox, as far as I know, they don't report anything that is untrue.

Nothing untrue? Well, there is that whole business about being "fair and balanced."

 

[faust9]

Fox NEWS is fairly accurate. Fox OPINION programming(aka low brow entertainment ) is a different story. In either case we should not censor these because they are cable programming AND they should be allowed to have an opinion if they wish. I hate Fox programming but I would never advocate censoring them because I don't like it.

 

[Burnsys]

they do lie.

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=FOX%20News%20Channel

 

[faust9]

they do lie.

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=FOX%20News%20Channel

You need to read your link. The discussion within it is about Fox's opinion programming not its news content.

 

[russ_watters]

You believe it is ok to regulate the freedom of speech now?

Great thread.

Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Shoe: foot.
Shoe: other foot.

 

[Informal Logic]

Great thread.

Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Shoe: foot.
Shoe: other foot.

Of course you would come away with this interpretation, though no one has advocated this or believes this.

An independent agency that rates the intelligence level of a show and assigns a 'news', 'news commentary', 'entertainment', 'mindless drivel' rating would be nice.

Good suggestion. My concern is the affect Fox has on Americans who cannot make these differentiations.

 

[Burnsys]

Russ do you remember when we was talking about the Memo in fox news?

well i found who write it, the memos are issued by FOX News Senior Vice President and News Editorial John Moody


Here you can see the memos scanned:

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/foxmemo_040404.pdf

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/foxmemo_042204.pdf

I like this one:
The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/foxmemo_032304.pdf

Other memos:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407140002

 

[ron damon]

Yeah, just ban points of view you disagree with.

 

[Art]

Great thread.

Yeah, freedom of speech only applies to Democrats.

Shoe: foot.
Shoe: other foot.

Russ you appear to be suffering from the same siege mentality that is now gripping the Bush administration. Every criticism is a direct attack on 'USA Freedoms' in general and the beloved patriotic GOP in particular.

Nobody is advocating a Democrat version of Fox news. I think you will find most people would simply like impartial news.

It would not be too difficult to establish an independent body to assess a program's news worthiness and then publish this in the form of ratings so at least when people are watching propaganda, right or left, they are aware of it.

I personally believe this would pull programs such as Fox News back to the centre ground as the majority of ordinary people are impartial and given the choice and information about these choices they would choose the unbiased media sources.

 

[ron damon]

you appear to be suffering from the same siege mentality that is now gripping the Leftists. Every measure to fight terrorism is a direct attack on 'USA Freedoms' in general and the beloved civil liberties in particular.

fixed ...

 

[Anttech]

foxed ...

fixed ...