Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[forgethell]

1. I totally agree with you.

The strategies that the Dem/left/progressive side is using will lead us into defeat if we don't do somethng different. I wish that I knew what. In the mean time, we should all do what we can think to do.

[NewGuy]

3. We are in that uncomfortable time

It is too late to reason with them but too early to shoot the bastards.

[forgethell]

8. could you explicate a little.

I have no idea what you just said.

[NewGuy]

11. Its a quote but I can't remember the source right now

Essentially, the right wingers are too far gone to reeason with but it is not yet politically feasible to actually do away with them. I don't think actual shooting will be required. They will probably dier out on their own like the previous dinosaurs did.


:D

[JailBush]

2. Liberals are out to lunch.

Most of the media attacks I've witnessed are partisan and unimaginative, mostly targeting well known conservative media whores while ignoring their liberal (or operative counterparts). My favorite example is Geov Parrish, a Seattle-based corporate operative who now has a fairly substantial national following. I've gone to great lengths to expose him, but virtually no one cares.

Furthermore, how can we hope to defeat the media if candidates for public office won't take a stand? I've run for office three times. During my second and third campaigns, I made corrupt media an issue. I refused to attend their poison endorsement interviews, and I blasted them on my website and in the Voters Pamphlet. I also mentioned names - the Seattle Times (which endorsed George W. Bush), Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Weekly and The Stranger, as well as the names of individuals.

If liberal candidates can't do something as simple and obvious as this, then they're really a big joke.

Is anyone aware of the degree to which propaganda and manipulation shapes our society today? People who derisively accuse me of suspecting a conspiracy under ever rock aren't far from the truth; the words "conspiracy" and "operative" may have loaded connotations for some people, but there ARE people working for the other side installed in local chambers of commerce, community centers and PTAs here in Seattle. Virtually every individual described as an "activist" in the Seattle media is something entirely different.

Look at it this way: Given the power that corporations wield and their obvious corruption, would any reasonable person suggest that they COULD NOT or WOULD NOT use sinister tactics to defeat the opposition? Isn't it obvious that labor unions and other organzations we used to trust have been corrupted from the inside? How about the AARP? I learned long ago that the Seattle branches of the ACLU and NAACP are corrupt.

That's one of the reasons the Left is getting its butt kicked; it's fighting a modern, sophisticated enemy with primitive weapons.

[info being]

5. I agree, but what's wrong with Geov Parrish?

How in the world is he a Corporate operative?

[info being]

4. I totally agree

Every time I propose alternatives, for example, most liberals are distracted by what's on CNN...shocked and outraged.

Does anybody here disagree with 1 - 6? If so, go get educated.

[fallow]

6. What does MJ have to do with it

I dont see the media's fascination with Hollywood and entertainment news as a premise to your argument. Or is that what you meant by dumbing down the voting public?

[newyawker99]

12. Hi fallow!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TreasonousBastard]

7. That's only part of the story

Ignoring the politically interested on all sides, who often share the opinion that the other sides are completely, totally wrong, the whole mess is largely (and I gag as I say this) market driven.

The media is a business, after all, and they give us what sells. Support the troops sells, support the President sells, celebrity indictments sell. Many TV stations around the country have tried to get more in depth about issues, and found their ratings tanked to below PBS. They have to show politics as they do sports-- it's all about the numbers. Who's winning, who's losing? Where's the juicy scandal? Fishwraps are a little better, at least around here, but they still have to lead with bleed.

Before radio, print was all we had, and every town had a bunch of papers, each with its own slant and its own market. "Your" paper spent whole editions on why your guy was good and the other bad. It wasn't easy to get at the truth back then, either, but at least you didn't have the pack journalism and concentration of ownership we have now.

Rants about corporation running things are fun, but they really don't. It's a symbiosis with TPTB. Note how Viacom, allegedly evil media empire calling the shots, was forced to dump the Reagan movie. They folded at the first shot.

I found myself at a Whitman fundraiser back when she was Governor here. Everyone I talked to hated being there. (Me, too, of course.) They were told to show up because their companies had issues before the legislature and various regulatory bodies. Pity the poor drug company or builder's association who didn't make it there with open checkbook. It's a chicken and egg thing-- are the companies bribing the politicins or are the politicans demanding payoffs? Both seem equally guily, and the system goes on. Some on both sides absolutely hate the part money plays in all this, but they can't or won't stop it. Everyone wins but the rest of us.

Ultimately, everyone is simply working in their own best interests, and those who have the means get to play. There is no single villain here.

I'm convinced that the conservative end has the upper hand now because most of the largely unpolitical population is reasonably content with things. Not happy, but reasonably content, and prefers not to lose what it has. It takes a severe shock to get them to move, or at least the idea that they won't lose anything if there are changes.

Most people don't want to be asked to gamble with their lives.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. I'm not in Deanial

I'm supporting Kerry. :)

[Frangible]

10. It's not black and white

1. The media is there to make profit. Period.

2. Republicans as a whole aren't that evil, and hating anyone is silly. Yes, it's nice we all vote democrat, but it doesn't mean people who don't share our every opinion are demons.

3. See 2.

4. Yes, you're exactly right. Most are damn clueless and don't care, by choice.

5. Yes, but democrats are stripping our freedoms along with republicans. It's not black and white, good and evil. Democrats have voted along with republicans on many of the issues you are against, and have done the same sorts of things... party lines blur more often than most people would care to admit.

6. Shades of gray, and opinion. Just because someone does not agree with our every political opinion does not make them dumb or unenlightened. For example, look at the Dean vs. Kerry debates on this board-- same thing is being played out there. Macs vs. PCs. etc. Humans are defining the issues to be something more than they are.

Here are "THE FACTS":

1. The media is a corporation and its first responsibility is to profit, hence the Jacko circle jerk
2. Most americans do not care about politics and will look at you weird if you're passionate about them, and hate both democrats and republicans. Hence the "lesser evil" joke.
3. In reality being "democrat" or "republican" does not make you a better human being, just one with a different set of values and opinions.

And even then, you are not pigeonholed into a narrow definition. It's more of a spectrum than a narrowly defined point.

Not all republicans are evil spawn of satan, and not all democrats are angels sent from heaven to bring happiness to the people of earth.

That is reality.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frangible]

16. well

The notion that it's all about money with the media is a complete canard. What it's all about is manipulation.

Manipulation to what end? I'm just kind of skeptical here.

As a gun owner, I read and post on a lot of gun boards, which have a lot of conservatives on them. (not many liberal gun owners, it seems)

One of the overwhelming things that is said over and over there is that the media is liberal, and always paints guns in a negative light, and is conspiring with liberal politicians to take away our gun rights. They even call CNN "Commie News Network."

Yet on this board, CNN isn't a liberal anti-gun "commie" news network, but an evil right wing media empire distracting people with Jacko instead of calling Bush on the situation in Iraq.

Who's right? Both? Neither? I elect the latter option, and think news networks are news networks, and looking out for their bottom line before anything else.

Where did I use the word 'evil'? Or 'hate'?

You didn't, but it's the overall thought of right vs. wrong on either side of political debate. Whereas most people's political views are more gray than black or white.

I didn't place blame on one party or the other, just said that the Court is corrupt.

Is the SCOTUS sucking at what they're supposed to do? Sure, they are. But going back to the "liberal" thing, a lot of it is based upon things that are not possible if you stringently follow the constitution and bill of rights. (as are a good number of "conservative" things, for that matter)

I stand by the following statement, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise: Liberal/Progressive policies and ideas are superior to, more humane, more enlightened, and more 'American', than rightwing policies.

Morality is relative. To you and I, we believe in these policies in general because we personally think they are superior, etc. However, that does not mean that all people do. The definitions of "humane", "superior", "enlightened" and "American" are not consistent to all people.

[karabekian]

13. dont agree with all your points

1. The media's overreaching purpose is to get viewers and in turns make as much money as possible. The fact that Americans are most interested in their news covering the Lacy Petterson, Kobe Bryant, and now Jacko stories is telling.

3. Discredit yes. Liquidate (kill) on a mass scale, I dont buy it.

"4. That most Americans are positively CLUELESS about politics and government.

6. That Liberal/Progressive policies and ideas are superior to, more humane, more enlightened, and more 'American', than rightwing policies."

While I agree I don't think that this is the right way to get people to accept our ideas. By merely dismissing opposing ideas instead of explaining why progressive ideas are better, you alienate a lot of people. I don't think that we will be able to sell progressive ideas to the majority of americans if we look down upon them as clueless and arrogantly consider our ideas superior. Were going to sell these ideas by explaining the benefits and why they are better for them than the current alternatives.

[NewGuy]

15. I would agree that most people are clueless about politics

However, I think that is fine. We really do not need to be focused on politics unless we are having problems in our lives that politicians need to fix. I don't think most Americans are having problems in their lives that they see as the politicians to fix.

Americans have a desire for more of a lot of things but few are in actual need. If you want political activism go to Iraq, Iran, Africa (various countries) or Afghanistan. In these places there are people in need of food, water, power, security, etc. Most people there are both politically aware and active.


Edited for typo's, though thats no gaurantee that I got them all.

}(

[maggrwaggr]

18. "Americans are most interested in their news covering the Lacy Petterson"

is simply wrong.

It's an assumption based on what you see on TV.

It's not pay per view. People don't choose what's on TV. It's shoved down our fucking throats by the media.

If the Peterson case wasn't on TV, people would quickly lose interest, and if they really wanted it, they'd seek it out in newspapers or on the web.

The cable television news media is a classic oligopoly. Like other big-money oligopolies, it needs to be heavily regulated.

And it's not.

[el_gato]

20. media mission is manipulation

profit is secondary otherwise the vast untapped market of people who want to hear the truth of matters would not be ignored.

[Westegg]

17. Denial...

Yeah, a lot of Liberals and Progressives are in denial. But not all of them.

PeteNYC, you make SO many good points. More than I'm used to reading here, or anywhere else, for that matter. And I thank you for them.

Look, I guess I feel that CHANGE is inevitable. It's the history of the world since before mammals existed, let alone humans. So the question is, do you MAKE the change, or have it thrust upon you? Because change always comes. Personally, I'll opt for the former. I have often wondered about, and studied, "revolution" throughout world history---and tried to imagine the state of mind of the people in the days just before those notable revolutions have happened (revolutions both good and bad, I might add). Are we here and now in those same days, at the moment? Or in the days leading UP to those days? I don't know. Because it is human nature not to be able to see the forest for the trees. History is full of sucessful revolutionaries who WERE able to view destiny despite the detritus----but history also contains far more failed revolutions than successful ones. We know less about the former, because "History is written by the winners," as the saying goes.

I don't know what to do, and I wish I did know, but in the meantime, I'm trying to find that path that is right for me.

Otherwise, I'll just say that I firmly believe that the media have not created their own audience. Rather, the audience has created the media. With that in mind, I have faith in our future, because, when it comes right down to it, I do ultimately have faith in human nature, and our ability to change for the better.

[maggrwaggr]

19. I 100% disagree with you "the audience has created the media"

You really think all Americans don't want a choice? You really think they want every single network covering the same story all day long?

No, like other oligopolies (the car business is a big visible one), they copy each other. You can only buy a car from one of seven or eight companies, you can only get your news on television from three to six depending on how you look at it.

You think people really want to watch stupid fucking shows on MTV like "singled out"? No, this crap exists simply because there is no other MTV. There's only one. They can show whatever the hell they want and somebody, somewhere, will watch it because, well, there's always some brain dead adolescent who wants to see what's on MTV at any given moment.

The media is DEFINING our culture. 100%. That is the biggest turning point in our current history, and something we're all gonna look back on and wonder how it happened.

We are living through it right now. The media defining the culture.

It's fucked up. And we know it, but nobody else seems to.

Frankly, I'm surprised that there's anybody at DU who doesn't see it this way.

Unless you just don't have cable tv or are living under a rock.