Media Bias - Is the media becoming more conservative?

[russ_watters]

that is just another example of the BIG LIE a nazi IDEA that is also favored by BuSh...

Again, so what? Stop beating around the bush (pun intended) and make your point. If you mean to say that conservatives are Nazis, say it, otherwise this line of discussion is irrelevant.

 

[Informal Logic]

Fascists, Nazis, etc. are forms of "right-wing" conservatism, so why isn't it relevant?

 

[russ_watters]

Fascists, Nazis, etc. are forms of "right-wing" conservatism, so why isn't it relevant?

Why is it relevant?

 

[SOS2008]

The debate referenced is that Hitler's claim of a liberal media was part of his propaganda. The observation that far-right conservative ideologies such as Nazism, or fascism, might have similarities with those of current conservatives (referred to as neocons) is quite relevant to many people. I agree that the propaganda cry of current conservatives of "oh the media is so liberal" is indeed similar (among many other things), and that's the relevance.

 

[russ_watters]

The observation that far-right conservative ideologies such as Nazism, or fascism, might have similarities with those of current conservatives (referred to as neocons) is quite relevant to many people.

Why? C'mon. Say it.

I don't go bringing up Stalin in a conversation about modern liberalism. Would you consider that relevant? Why or why not?

 

[GENIERE]

Find out if you’re a Neo-con; take this quiz.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html


I scored “realist” even though I thought I was a Neo-con.


...

 

[SOS2008]

Find out if you’re a Neo-con; take this quiz.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html


I scored “realist” even though I thought I was a Neo-con.


...

That was great--thanks for posting it.

 

[kyleb]

Where on that site can I find the term "neocon"?

No where, at least not by searching though google anyway. On the other hand I did find the formal term "neoconservative" in a few spots, most notably In a write up on one of their founders William Kristol. So it turns out the man wrote a book called "The Neoconservative Imagination" in tribute to his father, who, after a bit more digging I have come to find was a self professed neoconservative. Given these facts, I don't any weight to your protest of referring to William Kristol and his ilk as neocons.

Also, dispite the fact these two questions were directed at SOS, I feel compelled to respond:

Why? C'mon. Say it.

George Santayana said it better than I ever could; "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I don't go bringing up Stalin in a conversation about modern liberalism. Would you consider that relevant? Why or why not?

Consider bringing up Stalin in a conversation about modern liberalism as relevant? If you can present meaninful correlations between the two, then of course it would be relevant.

 

[russ_watters]

No where, at least not by searching though google anyway. On the other hand I did find the formal term "neoconservative" in a few spots, most notably In a write up on one of their founders William Kristol. So it turns out the man wrote a book called "The Neoconservative Imagination" in tribute to his father, who, after a bit more digging I have come to find was a self professed neoconservative. Given these facts, I don't any weight to your protest of referring to William Kristol and his ilk as neocons.

Well, I'll have to give you that one - that's the first time I've ever seen a person refer to himself by that term.

In any case, HERE is an in depth treatment of the word, including the reason why few conservatives subscribe to it (it was coined by a socialist as an insult).

George Santayana said it better than I ever could; "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

So then you are calling Bush a fascist? Good to know, thanks.

Consider bringing up Stalin in a conversation about modern liberalism as relevant? If you can present meaninful correlations between the two, then of course it would be relevant.

Certainly:

-Bush is to the right.
-Hitler is to the extreme right (sorta).

-Clinton is to the left.
-Stalin is to the extreme left (sorta).

So if Hitler is relevant to a discussion of Bush, then Stalin is relevant to a discussion of Clinton. I figured that would be self-evident.

Some irony: Bush is considered a fascist for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan: how many countries did Clinton attack? The basic difference is that Bush attacked fewer countries, but the countries he attacked, he overthrew (Clinton only did that once). Bush passed the Patriot act, but Clinton expanded the powers of FEMA.

I scored “realist” even though I thought I was a Neo-con.

So did I (though I already knew I'm a realist).

 

[ray b]

Again, so what? Stop beating around the bush (pun intended) and make your point. If you mean to say that conservatives are Nazis, say it, otherwise this line of discussion is irrelevant.

no BUT
they do share a LOT OF IDEAS
and the rightwing does not like to admit that fact

like support of big biz over peoples rights
want more censorship
hate trade unions and workers rights
support favored religions [christians]
start wars
hate protests and protestors
support law inforcement over freedoms and human rights
hate the free press
use their power to silence perseived foes
limit axcess to courts
long prison terms favored over rehab
dead penility fans

 

[russ_watters]

no BUT
they do share a LOT OF IDEAS
and the rightwing does not like to admit that fact

Clinton started wars and invented "free speech zones" (making him against free speech and pro censorship). Should we compare him to Hitler as well? Clinton also favored forced wealth redistribution (aka taxes for the rich) and the largest socialist program since social security (national healthcare). Seems to me that Clinton has some things in common with both Hitler and Stalin.

Don't you see the problem inherrent to this line of reasoning?

 

[kyleb]

Well, I'll have to give you that one - that's the first time I've ever seen a person refer to himself by that term.

In any case, HERE is an in depth treatment of the word, including the reason why few conservatives subscribe to it (it was coined by a socialist as an insult).

An insult towards liberals who adopted conservative ideas, hardly relevant to conservatives who who developed new and different polices than that of traditional conservatives and correctly used the prefix "neo-" to help identify their own modification of traditional conservative policy.

So then you are calling Bush a fascist? Good to know, thanks.

No, I am not. But I don't expect you to understand that with your no shades of grey stance of the subject.

Certainly:

-Bush is to the right.
-Hitler is to the extreme right (sorta).

-Clinton is to the left.
-Stalin is to the extreme left (sorta).


So if Hitler is relevant to a discussion of Bush, then Stalin is relevant to a discussion of Clinton. I figured that would be self-evident.

You don't honestly expect anyone to consider that a meaningful correlation, do you?

Some irony: Bush is considered a fascist for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan: how many countries did Clinton attack? The basic difference is that Bush attacked fewer countries, but the countries he attacked, he overthrew (Clinton only did that once). Bush passed the Patriot act, but Clinton expanded the powers of FEMA.

Reducing peoples opinions down to vague generalizations is bound to create the impresion of iirony all over the place, I doubt this will help you be any more open minded; but I suppose I should point out that, not unlike Bush, I do consider some of Clintons actions to be fascist in nature.

Also, this struck me as curious:

Clinton started wars

Which wars you are reffering to?

 

[SOS2008]

Some irony: Bush is considered a fascist for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan: how many countries did Clinton attack? The basic difference is that Bush attacked fewer countries, but the countries he attacked, he overthrew (Clinton only did that once). Bush passed the Patriot act, but Clinton expanded the powers of FEMA. So did I (though I already knew I'm a realist).

I've posted this before to show how on so many levels Bush is fascist, and though this isn't directly related to the original post of this thread, here it is again in reply to your comment – that he, et al, have been going so far to the right as to be defined as fascist as follows (my remarks in brackets):

Politex, 03.03.05 - 20 Characteristics Of A Fascist Political Party
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections
15. Ur-Fascism based upon a selective populism – individuals as individuals have no rights, rather the People are a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will
16. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak – invented by Orwell in “1984” as the official language of what he called Ingsoc – all schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary and elementary syntax in order to limit complex and critical reasoning
17. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.
18. One of the most typical features of historical fascism was to appeal to a frustrated middle class [in the present case including the Christian community who feel they are oppressed and even perhaps have a false persecution complex].
19. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy – This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. [A melding of the neocon dream and the fundamentalist belief in the “rapture.”]
20. The Ur-Fascist leader presents himself as the heroic representative…As such, his image is ubiquitous in the media, and is often photographed in costume [military uniform]… Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters [religious “values”] – from chastity to homosexuality.

This is an extensive list, and I’d like to see a similar list comparing a president to Stalin.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't honestly expect anyone to consider that a meaningful correlation, do you?

No, I don't - that's exactly the point!

Reducing peoples opinions down to vague generalizations is bound to create the impresion of iirony all over the place...

Again, you get me - I'm finally getting through!

 

[kyleb]

The only thing you are getting though is how impossible it is for you to put aside your partisan leanings and understand the prespectives of those who do no share the same system of beliefs as you.

 

[russ_watters]

The only thing you are getting though is how impossible it is for you to put aside your partisan leanings and understand the prespectives of those who do no share the same system of beliefs as you.

See how amicable I am in a thread where the posters don't compare modern politicians to old dictators for the purpose of flamebait.

 

[kyleb]

"the purpose of flamebait" eh? Sense you don't believe any comparesions between modern politicians and old dictators could honestly be considered valid by those who present them? Assumeing you believe you are always right and anyone who dissagrees is just trying to be a jackass, I suppose I can see how you would get that impression.

 

[kyleb]

So I finally got an responce to my previously unanswered question In regards to Russ's comment "Clinton started wars", over here:

Clinton attacked Yugoslavia.

Not really an answer though, or I suppose the answer is that Russ doesn't differentiate between starting a war and geting invovled in one that had already started.

 

[1123581321]

are you on crack? the media moving to the right is a good thing, because right now, the media is very left. you are just a crazy liberal, but that's ok, hopefully when you pay your taxes you will wisen up.

Fibonacci

 

[Evo]

Let's keep this about the topic and not attack people on a personal level.

 

[russ_watters]

So I finally got an responce to my previously unanswered question In regards to Russ's comment "Clinton started wars", over here:

Not really an answer though, or I suppose the answer is that Russ doesn't differentiate between starting a war and geting invovled in one that had already started.

No, kyleb, you continue to miss the point. Ironically, though, in missing the point, you prove mine!

I won't discuss this further. If you can't figure out what I mean, pm me and I'll explain it to you there. I'm finished with this thread.

 

[ray b]

well as this board slips into control of people with a clear neo-con agenda

this gent who claims to be a old school Conservative said

'''''''' The label "neoconservative" has always been unsatisfactory, in part because the neocon ideology of rampant militarism, super-centralism, and unrestrained statism is necessarily at war with the libertarian aspects of authentic conservatism (the sort of conservatism that, say, Frank S. Meyer or Russell Kirk would find recognizable). Let's start calling things by their right names: these aren't neoconservatives. What we are witnessing is the rebirth of fascism in 21st century America, a movement motivated by the three principles of classical fascist ideology:

1) The idealization of the State as the embodiment of an all-powerful national will or spirit;

2) The leader principle, which personifies the national will in the holder of a political office (whether democratically elected or otherwise is largely a matter of style), and

3) The doctrine of militarism, which bases an entire legal and economic system on war and preparations for war.

Of these three, militarism really is the fountainhead, the first principle and necessary precondition that gives rise to the others. The militarist openly declares that life is conflict, and that the doctrine of economic and political liberalism – which holds that there is no necessary conflict of interests among men – is wrong. Peace is cowardice, and the values of prosperity, pleasure, and living life for its own sake are evidence of mindless hedonism and even decadence. Life is not to be lived for its own sake: it must be risked to have meaning, and, if necessary, sacrificed in the name of a "higher" (i.e., abstract) value. That "higher" value is not only defined by the State, it is the State: in war, the soldier's life is risked on behalf of government interests, by government personnel, on behalf of expanding government power.

These beliefs are at the core of the fascist mentality, but there are other aspects of this question – too many to go into here. Since fascism is a form of extreme nationalism, every country has its own unique variety, with idiosyncrasies that could only have arisen in a particular locality. In one country, religion will play a prominent role, in others a more secular strategy is pursued: but the question of imminent danger, and the seizure of power as an "emergency" measure to prevent some larger catastrophe, is a common theme of fascist coups everywhere, and in America it is playing out no differently.

While Pinochet pointed to the imminent danger of a Communist revolution – as did Hitler – the neo-fascists of our time and place cite the omnipresent threat of a terrorist attack in the U.S. This is a permanent rationale for an ever escalating series of draconian measures fated to go far beyond the "PATRIOT Act" or anything yet imagined.

Already the intellectual and political ground is being prepared for censorship. The conservative campaign to discredit the "mainstream" media, and challenge its status as a watchdog over government actions, could easily go in an unfortunate direction if Bin Laden succeeds in his vow to take the fight to American shores. Well, since they're lying, anyway, why not shut them down? After all, this is a "national emergency," and "they're not antiwar, they're on the other side."

The neoconservative movement represents the quintessence of fascism, as expressed by some of its intellectual spokesmen, such as Christopher Hitchens, who infamously hailed the Afghan war as having succeeded in "bombing a country back out of the Stone Age." This belief in the purifying power of violence – its magical, transformative quality – is the real emotional axis of evil that motivates the War Party. This is especially true when it comes to those thuggish ex-leftists of Hitchens' ilk who found shelter in the neoconservatives' many mansions when the roof fell in on their old Marxist digs. Neocon ideologue Stephen Schwartz defends a regime notorious for torturing dissidents, shutting out all political opposition, and arresting thousands on account of their political and religious convictions – in Uzbekistan. How far are such people from rationalizing the same sort of regime in the U.S.?

At least one prominent neocon has made the case for censorship, in the name of maintaining "morality" – but now, it seems to me, the "national security" rationalization will do just as well, if not better.

McConnell is right that we are not yet in the grip of a fully developed fascist system, and the conservative movement is far from thoroughly neoconized. But we are a single terrorist incident away from all that: a bomb placed in a mall or on the Golden Gate Bridge, or a biological attack of some kind, could sweep away the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and two centuries of legal, political, and cultural traditions – all of it wiped out in a single instant, by means of a single act that would tip the balance and push us into the abyss of post-Constitutional history.

The trap is readied, baited, and waiting to be sprung. Whether the American people will fall into it when the time comes: that is the nightmare that haunts the dreams of patriots.''''''''

– Justin Raimondo

from http://antiwar.com/


and that sure make an interesting point

 

[Bystander]

"Libs & Cons:" (domestic abuses of federal powers)

Roosevelt interned 60,000 U. S. citizens for being of Japanese descent;
Truman didn't do a whole lot --- may have stretched Taft-Hartley a bit during Korea;
Joe McCarthy hounded a few hundred people for their politics and managed to invert "innocent until proven guilty;"
Ike --- not much;
the late great St. John-John the divine --- nothing all that significant;
"Landslide Lyndon" --- not much;
Nixon --- 4 dead at Kent State, Watergate (must have been doing drugs), and hounding Elsberg;
Ford pardoned Nixon;
"Born again Jimmy" pardoned a bunch of scumbags;
RR locked out (not up) the ATC;
Bush 41 --- not a whole lot that comes to mind;
Willy the Zipper sends the "Janet-booted" thugs to Waco, eighty-some dead;
Bush 43 "detains" several hundred (maybe a thousand) without counsel or charges while investigations of possible terrrorist connections proceed.

Bottom line? Liberals are bloodthirsty, totalitarian egomaniacs when compared to conservatives; now, can we get back to the question of bias as raised in the original post?

 

[Informal Logic]

Per ray b's post of the writings of Justin Raimondo:

Already the intellectual and political ground is being prepared for censorship. The conservative campaign to discredit the "mainstream" media, and challenge its status as a watchdog over government actions, could easily go in an unfortunate direction...

This is the topic of this thread...

 

[ray b]

"Libs & Cons:"
RR locked out (not up) the ATC;
Bush 41 --- not a whole lot that comes to mind

Bottom line? Liberals are bloodthirsty, totalitarian egomaniacs when compared to conservatives; now, can we get back to the question of bias as raised in the original post?

RR was braindead, an empty suit who could still read well, funny how some think he could don't wrong

in the 60's it was eazy to tell right from wrong
the rightwing was 100% WRONG, they supported JIM CROW LAWS and unequal treatment of people based on race
their code words like states rights , local control, were just smoke and mirrors
to cover the EVIL they support
THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE today are the neo-cons they didnot fall out of the sky without any history

I do like some of the real conservative ideas like less goverment
BUT less stupid laws and rules on peoples rights NOT BIG BIZ
less drug cops and other victomless crime BS esp stings to intrap people
not less schools and libearys
less wellfair for BIG BIZ who gets 90+% of all wellfare not for moms and kids

and please NOT ALL LIBS are nut REDS some like me just want less facist laws and rules not more government esp the pokeing their nose in my bedroom type BS, that the rightwing christian want to do