Media Bias of Conservatives

[dre]

Strauss was a conservative. His acoytes are conservatives. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Every time a conservative says or does something you don't like, you brand him a "liberal." Nice trick, but I'm not buying.

How about those lefty Islamist extremists, eh?

Branding Strauss as a liberal is one of the funniest things Iv ever seen.

I've read quite a bit of this guys stuff. He believes that the weimer republic lead to the rise of the Nazis and he wanted to stop western liberalism in its tracks. He thought Liberal societies would destroy themselves.

The reason some people brand neo-conservatives as "liberal" is because its a top down ideology where only the "philosophers/architects" were ever supposed to know the true goal(which again was combatting western liberalism). Its his own version of platos "myth of the cave". Neo-cons were origionally branded as "liberals" because they believed in projecting a lot of power abroad, and spreading democracy through the use of force, which is traditionally something conservatives didnt care for. So they were branded liberals. But what people didnt understand is that purpose of these policies was entirely domestic. They believed they could fight liberalism at home by galvanizing the population against a great and powerfull enemy... they didnt care who that enemy was or even if it actually existed or not.

[Shwa]

What struck me reading the thread was that when you answer "it just is!" when asked for proof youre in a lot of trouble. Pages and pages of people challenging Pliny for just a little bit of evidence to support his assertions and ZIP/ZILCH/NADDA.

And I find this all too often with folks that howl about media bias.

The North American English-language MSM represents the viewpoint of the so-called intellectual elite, which understandably wants to maintain its position.

I disagree with this characterization. Most of the MSM is just selling infotainment for profit. They represent the interests of their shareholders and sponsors and nothing else.

I dont think they are instrinsically left wing, or right wing. Theyre happy wherever the money is. They sell advertising products to corporate customers - that is the very core of their business model, and the single biggest influence on how they put programming together and who they hire.

I dunno, I am inclined to agree with August here, and it could be extended to include most postitions of power and influence within our society regardless of ideological stripe. The maintenance of power seems to be an ethic with our elites, by and large. In that sense, I mean the maintenance of power for it's own sake, not anything forward looking or altruistic.

[Pliny]

I dunno, I am inclined to agree with August here, and it could be extended to include most postitions of power and influence within our society regardless of ideological stripe. The maintenance of power seems to be an ethic with our elites, by and large. In that sense, I mean the maintenance of power for it's own sake, not anything forward looking or altruistic.

Precisely, there could be nothing else but maintaining power as the primary reason for vested interests to act. For the last century, with all the naunces and struggles, especially after the failure and abhorrence of the Nazi/fascist movement and it's subsequent and persistent derision, power has rode on the crest of the left with the promise of social justice and equality.

I think the MSM, particularly, the NY Times, and MSNBC, the Washington Post have stuck to that ideological concept and are resisting what they have always resisted because it has maintained them all this time and they still warn of the right wing threat without realizing their promise of "social justice" and overbearing government has become the bigger threat and is no longer a guarantee of their position of power.

[Pliny]

I dont think they are instrinsically left wing, or right wing. Theyre happy wherever the money is. They sell advertising products to corporate customers - that is the very core of their business model, and the single biggest influence on how they put programming together and who they hire.

What about their commitment to the truth and forwarding the social conscience? Non-existent?

[Pliny]

Branding Strauss as a liberal is one of the funniest things Iv ever seen.

I've read quite a bit of this guys stuff. He believes that the weimer republic lead to the rise of the Nazis and he wanted to stop western liberalism in its tracks. He thought Liberal societies would destroy themselves.

The reason some people brand neo-conservatives as "liberal" is because its a top down ideology where only the "philosophers/architects" were ever supposed to know the true goal(which again was combatting western liberalism). Its his own version of platos "myth of the cave". Neo-cons were origionally branded as "liberals" because they believed in projecting a lot of power abroad, and spreading democracy through the use of force, which is traditionally something conservatives didnt care for. So they were branded liberals. But what people didnt understand is that purpose of these policies was entirely domestic. They believed they could fight liberalism at home by galvanizing the population against a great and powerfull enemy... they didnt care who that enemy was or even if it actually existed or not.

The maintenance of the might of the State perhaps?

Whatever works. If it fails it can't be liberal because liberalism has never failed.

As for those lefty Islamist extremists that bm mentioned they are for social justice, aren't they?

[dre]

What about their commitment to the truth and forwarding the social conscience? Non-existent?

Theres no such commitment at all. The ONLY purpose of MSM networks is to sell advertising. Any ideas that are not conducive to this would be laughed out of the boardroom. You think shareholders by stocks in media corporations because of a sense of truth or social conscience?

[bloodyminded]

Reading quickly through this thread, I have the impression that Pliny and BM are looking at two different aspects of the same target: one sees the elephant's trunk, and the other touches its tail.

For BM, the MSM represents established power and it presents a worldview that is essentially conservative, to maintain the status quo. For Pliny, the MSM is mostly populated by left wing/liberal arts/atheistic journalists who are often, to use another stereotype, "limousine liberals".

In a sense, both Pliny and BM are right.

In a sense, maybe, but Pliny's view is irrelevant.

It's like wondering what the political affiliation or voting preference of soldiers is, and then declaring that proof of the military's "ideological leanings."

The North American English-language MSM represents the viewpoint of the so-called intellectual elite, which understandably wants to maintain its position.

It represents the viewpoint of the Business and political elite (which is virtually their entire sourcing network, for one thing) intellectual or otherwise.

i don't agree wiht those who say it's 100% about the bottom line, either; it's pretty close in some ways, sure...but reporting on what they could easily discover about Western powers' resort to worse terrorism than our Islamic extremist enemies would increase reader and viewer-ship, not decrease it; so there's more than short-term profit motivating the institutions.

[Pliny]

Theres no such commitment at all. The ONLY purpose of MSM networks is to sell advertising.

Even if you think that to be true, which it hardly is, they are failing for some reason.

Am I old fashioned to think that there has to be a demand for the product before advertisers will throw money at the business? Advertisers jump on board where they can get their word out. Certainly, the MSM sells advertising space and it is their prime source of revenue but they have to have a product in demand by the public before advertisers throw their hat in the ring. The product has to attract the attention of the public and advertisers just capitalize on that.

You will find that a lack of commitment to provide the product people want or are attracted to will kill subscription levels and consequently the willingess of advertisers to pay attention either. Fox news seems to be doing well. The left wing media is losing it's ability to attract the public to it's product demand drops and thus advertising revenues. Ideology may play a part in maintaining an editorial view but if the public shifts and they don't - they lose and advertisers leave.

Any ideas that are not conducive to this would be laughed out of the boardroom. You think shareholders by stocks in media corporations because of a sense of truth or social conscience?

If truth and social conscience are what gets the public's attention then - yes, I do think that. It is the purpose of the medium that sells it - not the advertising. I don't buy papers or magazines or watch TV because I want to see the ads. Advertising, pays the bills for the media but is just a rider to the public, and it is their public that the medium must primarily cater to not the advertiser. Perhaps there are a few shareholders who think like yourself and wish to just sell advertising space without consideration of the fact that the purpose of the medium is what is prime. If you find a group of shareholders like that warn me not to invest.

[Pliny]

It's like wondering what the political affiliation or voting preference of soldiers is, and then declaring that proof of the military's "ideological leanings."

Hardly, like that at all.

Soldier's despite their voting preference follow a chain of command and are there in defense of the nation. The "ideological leanings" of the military, if there is one, is based in the leadership. The actions of soldiers, their product is not expected to express an "ideological leaning". It is to follow the chain of command.

The media, hires according to it's purpose. If there are "ideological leanings" from the board of directors it is reflected in the product and in the hiring of staff, who must understand what is expected of them or they wouldn't get hired. If they didn't have any commitment to the "cause" they would not in the eyes of the editorial board be effective in reflecting the views of said editorial board in the performance of their duties.

The "ideological leanings" of the editorial board are expected to be reflected in the product by the people who are contributors to the final product. If the ideological leanings of their public shift and they don't then they lose some of their public to other competitors who will appeal to that shift.

The NY Times has a primarily left wing editorial policy and a primarily left wing staff. It's product is left wing. Pick a subject be it, gay marriage, social justice, equality, the poor, terrorism, any subject you want and they support the liberal view. Is that a bias? Well, a fish doesn't know it is wet so a liberal may not see one. There must be a frame of reference and if there is a right wing bias in some media that you have recently become aware of it means the fact you are a liberal is now apparent.

The appearance of the right wing media to me meant relief. At last a voice to represent something other than the politically correct, left wing, liberal view. We still don't have much representation in Canada and it is squelched whenever it raises it's head.

...but reporting on what they could easily discover about Western powers' resort to worse terrorism than our Islamic extremist enemies would increase reader and viewer-ship, not decrease it; so there's more than short-term profit motivating the institutions.

Above is a typically liberal view of terrorism. ..."we can easily discover Western powers resort to worse terrorism than our Islamic extremist enemies..." We can certainly find fault with western "powers", which I have no trouble with since they are primarily liberal social democracies, but liberals view western "powers" as capitalist/corporate entities, not the liberal social democracies they are and feel the fault lies with our capitalist proclivities not our governmental ideological leanings toward social justice and equality - We just don't have enough social justice and equality and that's the problem. ....and the State marches on - only too happy to provide more social justice and equality, as much as we will tolerate.

[Shwa]

Precisely, there could be nothing else but maintaining power as the primary reason for vested interests to act. For the last century, with all the naunces and struggles, especially after the failure and abhorrence of the Nazi/fascist movement and it's subsequent and persistent derision, power has rode on the crest of the left with the promise of social justice and equality.

What is imprecise is the assumption that the 'crest of the left' is anymore important that the 'crest of the right' who also have plenty of promises of "social justice and equality."

I think the MSM, particularly, the NY Times, and MSNBC, the Washington Post have stuck to that ideological concept and are resisting what they have always resisted because it has maintained them all this time and they still warn of the right wing threat without realizing their promise of "social justice" and overbearing government has become the bigger threat and is no longer a guarantee of their position of power.

But the point about MSM was about money/profit as the maintenance of power. What sells is key, not some overriding ideological curve that goes against their best interests - especially if it affects the bottom line. If they are simply following the general trends of society itself, well, they are no worse than shoemakers and tailors following the trends of what is fashionable. You are not going to start on about how shoemakers and tailors have a left-leaning bias too are you?

[Pliny]

What is imprecise is the assumption that the 'crest of the left' is anymore important that the 'crest of the right' who also have plenty of promises of "social justice and equality."

Once again, all you do here is obfuscate what is left and what is right. Apparently, they are both the same. Both promising "social justice and equality". That is imprecision. And who has assumed that one is more important than the other? I am only arguing there is a left wing bias in the media. I am not for a right wing bias, I would prefer getting the whole picture and not just that part of which someone else decides or thinks I should be informed.

If you want more precision I will outline what I feel that the left considers is "social justice and equality". The meaning of that from the liberal perspective is that it is a "means" to actively pursue a redistribution of wealth and grant favour to special interests, considered to be disadvantaged, and burden other special interests considered to have advantage. It is the justification for it's existence.

Social justice and equality to the right are not about a means to enable the state in it's redistributive proclivities. Justice is the proper administration of the law and equality is equal treatment under the law. It is not about making or actively pursuing social and economic equality.

It's fault lies in the fact that it pursues the protection of who are advantaged and burdens those who are disadvantaged.

The only common ground between left and right is that the division of the haves and have-nots never be bridged - As much as the left and the right promise to do so in their own way.

The relegating of nazism and fascism to the extreme right wing was simply a manouver that has given the left an edge in western democracies to pursue social justice and equality in the name of the common good, and point to the right as being uncaring and dictatorial. It makes for good public debate.

Really, my view is that government needs to step out of it's pursuit of any social engineering and limit it's mandate.

But the point about MSM was about money/profit as the maintenance of power. What sells is key, not some overriding ideological curve that goes against their best interests - especially if it affects the bottom line. If they are simply following the general trends of society itself, well, they are no worse than shoemakers and tailors following the trends of what is fashionable. You are not going to start on about how shoemakers and tailors have a left-leaning bias too are you?

Is the media just following the general trends of society?

GE has a CEO who has brought the stock from $40 down to $18 and he is still the CEO - and a close advisor to the current President. GE owned MSNBC until about six months ago and they were, in my opinion, one of the worst offenders in left wing bias. What is the loss of their viewing audience attributable to? They certainly didn't seem to be too worried about the bottom line? Where did their veiwing audience go? MSNBC didn't want to follow the trends of society but preferred to attempt to set the trend. We'll see what Comcast does with MSNBC.

If I said shoemakers and tailors had a left-leaning bias that would kill my credibility pretty fast, wouldn't it?

If they were small businesses I would be inclined to think they would have a right wing bias but their motivations are not political and only become concerned politically if they are burdened or favoured by the State - having a contract to supply shoes for the military might provide a reason to be biased towards a a political party that believes in a large standing army and having a government that beleives in social justice and provides shoes for the poor or subsidizes shoes for the poor may lead to bias towards a political party that has that in it's platform.

Since I am not in favour of a large standing army or government economic redistribution of goods both in my view are unnecessary entitlements.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Pliny

[Shwa]

Once again, all you do here is obfuscate what is left and what is right. Apparently, they are both the same. Both promising "social justice and equality". That is imprecision...

Social justice and equality to the right are not about a means to enable the state in it's redistributive proclivities. Justice is the proper administration of the law and equality is equal treatment under the law. It is not about making or actively pursuing social and economic equality.

So you do admit that the right wing also makes claims to "social justice and equality." Good. So now you see how both the left and a right have their own claims upon the concept. Thus attributing it to one and not the other is an imprecise observation.

The only common ground between left and right is that the division of the haves and have-nots never be bridged - As much as the left and the right promise to do so in their own way.

Here is a further example of you admitting it. This is a good thing.

The relegating of nazism and fascism to the extreme right wing was simply a manouver that has given the left an edge in western democracies to pursue social justice and equality in the name of the common good, and point to the right as being uncaring and dictatorial. It makes for good public debate.

The relegating of communism and socialism to the extreme left wing was simply a manouver that has given the right an edge in western democracies to pursue social justice and equality in the name of the common good, and point to the left as being uncaring and dictatorial. It makes for good public debate.

It seems the right and left have a little more in common than the continuance of the relegation of the have-nots.

Really, my view is that government needs to step out of it's pursuit of any social engineering and limit it's mandate.

Tell you what Pliny - show me one single government - from the most simple of tribal organizations to the highest orders of the highest civilizations that has NOT pursued and sort of "social engineering." Anywhere at any time. Let's put this "social engineering" baby to the test.

Is the media just following the general trends of society?

I didn't say "media" I said "MSM" which means mainstream media. And yes, they do.

GE has a CEO who has brought the stock from $40 down to $18 and he is still the CEO - and a close advisor to the current President. GE owned MSNBC until about six months ago and they were, in my opinion, one of the worst offenders in left wing bias. What is the loss of their viewing audience attributable to? They certainly didn't seem to be too worried about the bottom line? Where did their veiwing audience go? MSNBC didn't want to follow the trends of society but preferred to attempt to set the trend. We'll see what Comcast does with MSNBC.

I would have used the Otis Chandler example at the Los Angeles Times, but whatever. However, one of the worse offenders in right wing bias is Fox News and they seem to be doing just fine with their brand of bullshit. The best you can do is nitpick, but you have no evidence of any widespread left-wing bias in the MSM. When you do provide something coherent in that regard, I will gladly review it.

If I said shoemakers and tailors had a left-leaning bias that would kill my credibility pretty fast, wouldn't it?

If they were small businesses I would be inclined to think they would have a right wing bias but their motivations are not political and only become concerned politically if they are burdened or favoured by the State - having a contract to supply shoes for the military might provide a reason to be biased towards a a political party that believes in a large standing army and having a government that beleives in social justice and provides shoes for the poor or subsidizes shoes for the poor may lead to bias towards a political party that has that in it's platform.

Since I am not in favour of a large standing army or government economic redistribution of goods both in my view are unnecessary entitlements.

No, the point is that money talks. It doesn't really matter where it is coming from. Shoemakers and tailors still - regardless of any ideological bias - follow the trends of society to sell their goods and earn their living. Just like the MSM.

[Pliny]

So you do admit that the right wing also makes claims to "social justice and equality." Good. So now you see how both the left and a right have their own claims upon the concept. Thus attributing it to one and not the other is an imprecise observation.

No. "Social justice" and "equality" have different connotations to the left which I delineated. The right doesn't use it as a justification to, and means of, redistribution of wealth or for economic equality - a leveling of the playing field. However, that doesn't mean the right is always fair or just. The fault of both is they engage in their own brands of "social engineering". The right should know better because they can always be faulted for it.

Basically, if injustice and inequality exist in society the right will use law to reinforce it - to conservatively preserve the status quo. A sad mistake. The left finds favour by using law to level the playing field - an equally sad mistake. The left has more inclination to progressive socialism and big government. The right to favouring majorities thus oppressing minorities. Those are their faults.

It is why politically I am neither a liberal nor a conservative.

Here is a further example of you admitting it. This is a good thing.

They both engage in "social engineering" is all I admit. The right-wing to it's detriment and the left wing to it's advantage.

Caring and sharing has somehow permeated society and compassion and giving back to the community is popular.

The relegating of communism and socialism to the extreme left wing was simply a manouver that has given the right an edge in western democracies to pursue social justice and equality in the name of the common good, and point to the left as being uncaring and dictatorial. It makes for good public debate.

Social justice and equality have special left wing connotations. The right does not use the terms to describe themselves.

Tell you what Pliny - show me one single government - from the most simple of tribal organizations to the highest orders of the highest civilizations that has NOT pursued and sort of "social engineering." Anywhere at any time. Let's put this "social engineering" baby to the test.

I have never suggested they haven't - my argument is that they have.

I didn't say "media" I said "MSM" which means mainstream media. And yes, they do.

Of course they do or they cease to exist. Say good bye to MSNBC, the NY Times and the Washington Post as they are known. They insist upon maintaining their iedological stance and they will have to either change or die. Say hello to Fox news.

I would have used the Otis Chandler example at the Los Angeles Times, but whatever. However, one of the worse offenders in right wing bias is Fox News and they seem to be doing just fine with their brand of bullshit. The best you can do is nitpick, but you have no evidence of any widespread left-wing bias in the MSM. When you do provide something coherent in that regard, I will gladly review it.

A fish doesn't know he is wet. There is no method of comparison.

Fox news is not considered a part of the MSM by the way. It's brand of what you call "bullshit" seems to be the "trend of society". The MSM better follow or at least shed it's left wing bias if it wishes to sustain itself.

No, the point is that money talks. It doesn't really matter where it is coming from. Shoemakers and tailors still - regardless of any ideological bias - follow the trends of society to sell their goods and earn their living. Just like the MSM.

The MSM, without any challenging voice, has determined itself to be above "social trends" - to it's detriment of course. Arrogantly considering their political views as correct they have taken to the idea they can shape the political landscape. Of course, they will eventually fail, and the popular emergence of "bullshit" from other media gives society a means of comparison to the usual pablum they have been fed from the MSM and are expected to nod their head in agreement.

They, as you do, ignore the fact of their bias at their peril.

[Shwa]

No. "Social justice" and "equality" have different connotations to the left which I delineated. The right doesn't use it as a justification to, and means of, redistribution of wealth or for economic equality - a leveling of the playing field. However, that doesn't mean the right is always fair or just. The fault of both is they engage in their own brands of "social engineering". The right should know better because they can always be faulted for it.

The thing is Pliny is that "social justice" and "equality" both have their connotations with any given ideology. They are not terms that belong to any particular political bend. The meanings might differ, of course, but the terms don't and can be used by anyone.

And let's be clear here, the "right" have used "social justice" and "equality" as justications for imperial or economic expansion as long as they have existed. The one we hear often enough is the spread of "democracy."

Basically, if injustice and inequality exist in society the right will use law to reinforce it - to conservatively preserve the status quo. A sad mistake. The left finds favour by using law to level the playing field - an equally sad mistake. The left has more inclination to progressive socialism and big government. The right to favouring majorities thus oppressing minorities. Those are their faults. It is why politically I am neither a liberal nor a conservative.

They both engage in "social engineering" is all I admit. The right-wing to it's detriment and the left wing to it's advantage.

I think most ideologies - those that can stand - use social engineering to their advantage. Always. Conservatively, monarchies have lasted a long, long time.

Caring and sharing has somehow permeated society and compassion and giving back to the community is popular.

hasn't it always been that way though? When has caring and sharing NOT permeated society? Even in it's basic forms - and for reasons we might find distasteful now - there was always some form of what we would call noblesse oblige. We are a social animal after all.

Social justice and equality have special left wing connotations. The right does not use the terms to describe themselves.

But that doesn't mean the terms cannot - or have not - been used by the right. They have their own 'brand' of social justice and equality.

I have never suggested they haven't - my argument is that they have.

And my argument is how can they not? We are a social animal, we exist in groups and group dynamics - or social engineering if you will - has been present from the get-go. No man is an island.

A fish doesn't know he is wet. There is no method of comparison.

Fox news is not considered a part of the MSM by the way. It's brand of what you call "bullshit" seems to be the "trend of society". The MSM better follow or at least shed it's left wing bias if it wishes to sustain itself.

No, I consider FOX part of the MSM: What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream They operate like any other biggie.

The MSM, without any challenging voice, has determined itself to be above "social trends" - to it's detriment of course. Arrogantly considering their political views as correct they have taken to the idea they can shape the political landscape. Of course, they will eventually fail, and the popular emergence of "bullshit" from other media gives society a means of comparison to the usual pablum they have been fed from the MSM and are expected to nod their head in agreement.

The MSM provides their own challenging voices through competition. And they most certainly are not above social trends or they wouldn't have web pages, Facebook accounts of follow-me-on-Twitter.

They, as you do, ignore the fact of their bias at their peril.

Again, fact without evidence isn't much of a fact. I suppose I could believe, in a kid of faithful way, but even that - over time - loses it's appeal. And I am still faced with the choice as to what makes sense to me and why.

[Pliny]

The thing is Pliny is that "social justice" and "equality" both have their connotations with any given ideology. They are not terms that belong to any particular political bend. The meanings might differ, of course, but the terms don't and can be used by anyone.

And let's be clear here, the "right" have used "social justice" and "equality" as justications for imperial or economic expansion as long as they have existed. The one we hear often enough is the spread of "democracy."

The terms are [/u]used[/u], definitely. You don't see those terms as propaganda tools do you?

"Social justice" and "equality" sound like excellent ideas and surely the ignorant masses will not even consider those to be a property of the left or the right. It isn't until they are practiced that we can make the differentiation. And we see today they have become the slogans of the left as a justification for continuing and solidifying redistrirbutive platform.

I think most ideologies - those that can stand - use social engineering to their advantage. Always. Conservatively, monarchies have lasted a long, long time.

I can't argue that. If they can they do.

hasn't it always been that way though? When has caring and sharing NOT permeated society? Even in it's basic forms - and for reasons we might find distasteful now - there was always some form of what we would call noblesse oblige. We are a social animal after all.

Yes. It has always been that way. Why does government feel the necessity to enforce it with their brand of social justice and equality?

But that doesn't mean the terms cannot - or have not - been used by the right. They have their own 'brand' of social justice and equality.

Obviously, these are terms invented for the common good. People, who are participants know this and people who are observers are discovering them to mean government is going to further centralize their power and increase their redistributive policies.

And my argument is how can they not? We are a social animal, we exist in groups and group dynamics - or social engineering if you will - has been present from the get-go. No man is an island.

Of course, we are social beings. The problem of social engineering is that those doing the engineering destroy the foundation of their existence by making laws that prevent others from achieving what they have achieved.

No, I consider FOX part of the MSM: What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream They operate like any other biggie.

Interesting article. How did you arrive at the fact that Fox news is part of the MSM from that?

Are you a participant or observer of the news? There is a Leninist slant, it seems in that the particpants are doing everything for the common good. Can it shift to the right? As quickly as power shifts.

I expect Barack Obama will tone down his social justice and equality rehtoric for the upcoming election if he manages to hold onto the Democratic leadership and run for a second term.

The MSM provides their own challenging voices through competition. And they most certainly are not above social trends or they wouldn't have web pages, Facebook accounts of follow-me-on-Twitter.

Those are techonogical trends. Sorry to confuse you withthe general term "social trends". when I'm referring to them in this discussion I am referring to political and ideological trends.

Again, fact without evidence isn't much of a fact. I suppose I could believe, in a kid of faithful way, but even that - over time - loses it's appeal. And I am still faced with the choice as to what makes sense to me and why.

The emergence of Fox news is evidence enough, to me. Obviously, as Chomsky says, I am not thinking all the right thoughts that are expected of me from the participants in the heirarchy. You seem to be saying all the right things.

[Oleg Bach]

One duping per tenure should be the rule. Bush double duped and got elected twice. Obama's handlers will not attempt to push him through to a second term. They fooled the American people with this black president approach - it will not work twice. It will depend on the intelligence of the American voters...it will not be about the candidate but about the level of awareness that the average American has achieved in the last four years. I suspect that they might have gotten smarter...I hope.

[Shwa]

The terms are [/u]used[/u], definitely. You don't see those terms as propaganda tools do you?

Depends on context of course. But they could be used in propaganda for sure.

"Social justice" and "equality" sound like excellent ideas and surely the ignorant masses will not even consider those to be a property of the left or the right. It isn't until they are practiced that we can make the differentiation. And we see today they have become the slogans of the left as a justification for continuing and solidifying redistrirbutive platform.

More or less. But even as mere slogans they can be usurped for the needs of the other side. Actually, I don't see to many terms than can't be applied to one or the other.

Yes. It has always been that way. Why does government feel the necessity to enforce it with their brand of social justice and equality?

Because they obtained power and can enforce their view. Why bother with democracy?

Obviously, these are terms invented for the common good. People, who are participants know this and people who are observers are discovering them to mean government is going to further centralize their power and increase their redistributive policies.

All terms are invented for the 'common good' in the context of who has the power at any particular time. The right is as fond of language as the left.

Of course, we are social beings. The problem of social engineering is that those doing the engineering destroy the foundation of their existence by making laws that prevent others from achieving what they have achieved.

For example...?

Interesting article. How did you arrive at the fact that Fox news is part of the MSM from that?

"Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations."

Fox is News Corp. Look it up. Totally mainstream.

Are you a participant or observer of the news? There is a Leninist slant, it seems in that the particpants are doing everything for the common good. Can it shift to the right? As quickly as power shifts.

It seems most nowadays are consumers of the news, which is both participating and observing.

I expect Barack Obama will tone down his social justice and equality rehtoric for the upcoming election if he manages to hold onto the Democratic leadership and run for a second term.

If Stephen Harper can tone it down, anyone can.

Those are techonogical trends. Sorry to confuse you withthe general term "social trends". when I'm referring to them in this discussion I am referring to political and ideological trends.

Yes, the underlying infrastructure are technological trends. But the usage of them - the prevalence in the social sphere, is a sociological trend. It is not so much about what they are using, but what they are saying, which fall under the political and ideological. MSM is perfectly aware of these media and how they can be used to advanced corporate goals.

The emergence of Fox news is evidence enough, to me. Obviously, as Chomsky says, I am not thinking all the right thoughts that are expected of me from the participants in the heirarchy. You seem to be saying all the right things.

Perhaps, but there is a sensibility that is required I think, to separate the fact from the fiction. Whether than means "all the right things" I am not sure since even some destructive acts can result in new perspectives.

[Pliny]

Depends on context of course. But they could be used in propaganda for sure.

More or less. But even as mere slogans they can be usurped for the needs of the other side. Actually, I don't see to many terms than can't be applied to one or the other.

It isn't a question of whether a term can be applied to one side or the other. It is how it is used, what significances and nuances are attached to it and what perceptions it creates.

When I first came across the terms I would basically agree with what I read then, upon visiting the author's website or reading further articles from them I would find a liberal progressive if not outright socialist view. The terms sounded good but upon finding out how they are used and understood by the left - I conclude they are terms of propaganda in order to further the progressive mindset.

Because they obtained power and can enforce their view. Why bother with democracy?

Democracy obviouosly gives them what they want - maintaining their power and enforcing their view.

All terms are invented for the 'common good' in the context of who has the power at any particular time. The right is as fond of language as the left.

No argument there. One just has to filter through the political propaganda - Right or left.

The more power either has the more propaganda necessary to maintain the power. Perhaps another reason to limit government. The "special interests" of both become more divided while each side will become more similar in their use of force and propaganda.

We have to differentiate left form right of course. The right, in the US is the establishment Republican party and the TEA party is not part of that. It is recognized as a separate entity from the establishment right. It is an attempt to limit government.

Of course, they are painted as the lunatic fringe. Well - it will attract all manner of oddball viewpoints because there is no place for them anywhere else. But the main principles of it's raison d'etre have to be maintained or they will be nulllified and swallowed up by the establishment.

The problem of social engineering is that those doing the engineering destroy the foundation of their existence by making laws that prevent others from achieving what they have achieved.

For example...?

Economically, they have debased money to being nothing but paper or an electronic entry on a bank balance. As long as the Fiat currency is accepted they can maintain the power they have centralized by doing that. All that is necessary to it's collpase is a simple abuse of it, the subsequent lessening of it's value and a refusal of the public to co-operate.

"Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations."

Fox is News Corp. Look it up. Totally mainstream.

I assume you posted that Chomsky article as an illustration of Fox being a part of the mainstream media.

I think it illustrates Fox isn't a part of the mainstream media. The MSM would be a part of the establishment and promote the maintaining of establishment powers. Fox news hardly does that.

It seems most nowadays are consumers of the news, which is both participating and observing.

Did you read that Chomsky article you posted?

If Stephen Harper can tone it down, anyone can.

The all powerful Stephen???

Yes, the underlying infrastructure are technological trends. But the usage of them - the prevalence in the social sphere, is a sociological trend. It is not so much about what they are using, but what they are saying, which fall under the political and ideological. MSM is perfectly aware of these media and how they can be used to advanced corporate goals.

Further evidence Fox is not yet mainstream. It doesn't advance the same corporate goals of the MSM media. I am not going to argue they don't have their own corporate goals just that they are different than the mainstream.

Perhaps, but there is a sensibility that is required I think, to separate the fact from the fiction. Whether than means "all the right things" I am not sure since even some destructive acts can result in new perspectives.

After having read that Chomsky piece I recognize your "Harvard" education - you must have passed magna cum laude.

[bloodyminded]

The media, hires according to it's purpose. If there are "ideological leanings" from the board of directors it is reflected in the product and in the hiring of staff, who must understand what is expected of them or they wouldn't get hired.

You're partially correct, but not in the way you think; if journalists did not adhere to the proper strains of pro-business, pro-government (Establishment "conservative" or "liberal" or "centrist" parties being roughly meaningless distractions) then they wouldn't be professional journalists. If they aren't broadly supportive of the foreign policy paradigm, as well as the pro-business paradigm, they don't become prominent journalists. No doubt there are a handful of exceptions to this general rule.

If they didn't have any commitment to the "cause" they would not in the eyes of the editorial board be effective in reflecting the views of said editorial board in the performance of their duties.

Just as I said. however, the view that the boards' worldview is a socialist, anti-business view, whilst running corporations or subsidiaries thereof, is such an anti-intuitive, massive conspiracy theory, that you're going to have to concentrate on this peculiar aspect and expansively flesh it out for me. So far, it seems totally untenable.

"If you aren't some sort of Marxist socialist, you're not going to get a cushy corporate job here at GM!"

Sure.

The NY Times has a primarily left wing editorial policy and a primarily left wing staff. It's product is left wing.

These are declarative sentences, so you should be able to back them up. For example, with their dogged, determined support for the Iraq War, a mostly right-wing venture despised by the global majority.

Pick a subject be it, gay marriage, social justice, equality, the poor, terrorism, any subject you want and they support the liberal view.

The Times probably is liberal on issues like same sex marriage--I don't know for sure, as i haven't looked into it; and neither have you, as you're making assumptions. But ok, let's say in this instance your assumption is possibly correct.

So what?

Like I keep saying (and which you keep crowing is my "admitting" something I've never disputed) the news media in general will be in certain ways supportive of "liberal" causes, and in others much closer to the political right.

As for "terrorism," you've got to be kidding. Show me where the NYTimes does not take the general, Political-Establishment, official view on terrorism. Consider it a challenge.

The appearance of the right wing media to me meant relief. At last a voice to represent something other than the politically correct, left wing, liberal view. We still don't have much representation in Canada and it is squelched whenever it raises it's head.

You should heed your own remarks about a fish surrounded by water. For some reason, you cannot self-apply this formulation.

Above is a typically liberal view of terrorism. ..."we can easily discover Western powers resort to worse terrorism than our Islamic extremist enemies..."

It's not a "typical liberal view" at all. The "typical liberal view" is exactly in accordance with your own view; and it is exactly in accordance with the right-wing view, since both are establishment perspectives.

If you don't think that some of the powerful Western democracies (including the most powerful) were materially and intentionally abetting state terrorism in Indonesia/East Timor from 1975 until 1999--and that this terrorism was objectively worse than anything that, say, Hamas has managed to conjure--then the onus is on you to explain why not.

And the fact is it was both "liberal" and "conservative" governments enacting the horror.

The "liberals" don't point out this situation at all. They hate to discuss it, with the same allergy to reposibility that conservatives enact with terrific discipline. Only the far left, a few Christian conservative activists (mostly Catholics) and of course the courageous East Timorese themselves aligned with a few gutsy, dissenting Indonesian citizens, had anything to say about it for decades. Decades. The media was sedulously silent, too busy crowing about the glories of the West "liberating" this or that group of people from Soviet tyranny...even as the West tyrannized on an epic scale.

It's a fact that the "leftist media" was almost entirely ignoring the atrocities, except when they'd report on it counterfactually, by omitting Western culpability.

Edited June 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shwa]

It isn't a question of whether a term can be applied to one side or the other. It is how it is used, what significances and nuances are attached to it and what perceptions it creates.

If it were only mere terms; but you are ignoring the forest for the trees. What sort of perceptions are attached when the extreme right wing uses terms like "equality" or even "socialist?" As you have no doubt discovered, there is the potential for doublespeak to be used by anyone, of any ideology.

When I first came across the terms I would basically agree with what I read then, upon visiting the author's website or reading further articles from them I would find a liberal progressive if not outright socialist view. The terms sounded good but upon finding out how they are used and understood by the left - I conclude they are terms of propaganda in order to further the progressive mindset.

I find it somewhat dubious that you can make pronouncements about how the left understands all the while standing outside the castle walls. Heck, even Mussolini had more direct insight than that.

Democracy obviouosly gives them what they want - maintaining their power and enforcing their view.

Don't disparage democracy like that or the status quo might fall on your head.

No argument there. One just has to filter through the political propaganda - Right or left.

The more power either has the more propaganda necessary to maintain the power. Perhaps another reason to limit government. The "special interests" of both become more divided while each side will become more similar in their use of force and propaganda.

Politics is a social phenomenon as is propaganda. I doubt limiting the government is going to limit the use of propaganda one bit. From any particular ideology. There will always be a movement that is not in power, trying to obtain it somehow.

We have to differentiate left form right of course. The right, in the US is the establishment Republican party and the TEA party is not part of that. It is recognized as a separate entity from the establishment right. It is an attempt to limit government.

The Tea party is right wing. No doubt about that.

Of course, they are painted as the lunatic fringe. Well - it will attract all manner of oddball viewpoints because there is no place for them anywhere else. But the main principles of it's raison d'etre have to be maintained or they will be nulllified and swallowed up by the establishment.

Every movement gets swallowed up by the establishment sooner or later, in one way or another. The Tea Party is no exempt through some fluke of history.

Economically, they have debased money to being nothing but paper or an electronic entry on a bank balance. As long as the Fiat currency is accepted they can maintain the power they have centralized by doing that. All that is necessary to it's collpase is a simple abuse of it, the subsequent lessening of it's value and a refusal of the public to co-operate.

Currency as an example social engineering away the achievements of the previous social engineers? I don't know about that.

I assume you posted that Chomsky article as an illustration of Fox being a part of the mainstream media.

I think it illustrates Fox isn't a part of the mainstream media. The MSM would be a part of the establishment and promote the maintaining of establishment powers. Fox news hardly does that.

Did you read that Chomsky article you posted?

The all powerful Stephen???

Further evidence Fox is not yet mainstream. It doesn't advance the same corporate goals of the MSM media. I am not going to argue they don't have their own corporate goals just that they are different than the mainstream.

After having read that Chomsky piece I recognize your "Harvard" education - you must have passed magna cum laude.

I think the Chomsky article shows that Fox is indeed a part of the MSM, no way of really escaping that, especially since they belong to News Corp and that is as mainstream as you can get. You are familiar with News Corp are you not? Ruper Murdoch and all that rot?

"Creating and distributing top-quality news, sports and entertainment around the world."

Sounds like all the rest in the competitive world of big mainstream media.

[Pliny]

You're partially correct, but not in the way you think; if journalists did not adhere to the proper strains of pro-business, pro-government (Establishment "conservative" or "liberal" or "centrist" parties being roughly meaningless distractions) then they wouldn't be professional journalists. If they aren't broadly supportive of the foreign policy paradigm, as well as the pro-business paradigm, they don't become prominent journalists. No doubt there are a handful of exceptions to this general rule.

Fox news perhaps?

Just as I said. however, the view that the boards' worldview is a socialist, anti-business view, whilst running corporations or subsidiaries thereof, is such an anti-intuitive, massive conspiracy theory, that you're going to have to concentrate on this peculiar aspect and expansively flesh it out for me. So far, it seems totally untenable.

"If you aren't some sort of Marxist socialist, you're not going to get a cushy corporate job here at GM!"

Sure.

Marxist socialist??? No! You won't get that cushy corporate job nor, most probably, will you be even looking for it, subversion would be your sole purpose in applying. Progressive socialists need only apply. Marxist socialists will either be attacking the establishment or preparing for the revolution. Your "positioning" is what's untenable and I feel it is a little beneath you.

Do you really feel your interpretations of what I said, such as above, essentially captures my point of view?

These are declarative sentences, so you should be able to back them up. For example, with their dogged, determined support for the Iraq War, a mostly right-wing venture despised by the global majority.

Apparently, you have noticed that the Iraq war is mostly a right wing venture and despised by the global majority. Would you say that the media would be correct in forwarding that view? Do they indeed forward it at all? It is obviously the truth and facts, figures and polls appear in the MSM quite often confirming that view. Don't you think?

Looking at it from an establishment point of view the middle east holds most of the world's easily accessible oil resources. It is necessary to have a presence there. Islamic fundamentalists do pose a threat to the US's accessibility to their resources. Lack of accessiblity to energy resources threatens the very economy of the US. The middle east's alignment with China and/or Russia could pose a problem.

What purpose would it serve the establishment to have the Democrats decry and vilify the Republicans for their doggedly determined war, which puzzlingly could never have happened without congressional Democrat approval? Did they just simply change their minds and say they were tricked into supporting this war?

Well, the Democrats make it look like there is still hope for America. Hope and change. Only the Republicans are despised. But I don't know how that conclusion that the right wing is despised could be reached unless the truth were actually printed in the MSM and parroted around the world on blogs in the internet, the forwarding of what news is from the Associated Press and Reuters, until eventually everyone knows it - but the perception must be that there is still hope for America in the Democrats. Too bad that the establishment interests in the middle east haven't changed a wit despite all the hope and change promised by the current administration. The Republicans need to be voted back into power in order for the global community to have someone to despise but we can't have those wacko far right Tea partiers getting a hold on any power. I think they can be absorbed by the establishment right now but if the situatuion becomes untenable then Barack Obama will have to force his hand somehow.

Maybe a sharp swing to the far right will be a necessary move - for the common good of course.

The Times probably is liberal on issues like same sex marriage--I don't know for sure, as i haven't looked into it; and neither have you, as you're making assumptions. But ok, let's say in this instance your assumption is possibly correct.

So what?

So what? It's the whole point of the debate. The MSM has a liberal bias. And I don't know how you cuold assume I have not looked into it. You admittedly haven't.

Like I keep saying (and which you keep crowing is my "admitting" something I've never disputed) the news media in general will be in certain ways supportive of "liberal" causes, and in others much closer to the political right.

Fair and balanced, right?

As for "terrorism," you've got to be kidding. Show me where the NYTimes does not take the general, Political-Establishment, official view on terrorism. Consider it a challenge.

The general political-establishment view on terrorism is that it must be contained. Democrats appear to dislike the Republican tactics but to the disappointment of the far-left continue them by engaging in new confrontations and continuing old ones. If Obama could have had his way all conflicts in the middle east would be ended, the public option would have remained in the "Affordable" Health care act and we would be in the middle of QE3, and a ditch across America would be being built and filled up by the unemployed. He is a far left ideologue hit with the reality of the establishment powers. America isn't going to be a "socialist" State if it can be helped and fascism isn't off the table if it can preserve the heirarchical structure. It will be a surprise where fascism comes from. Not the wacko Tea party they will just offer the opportunity - if they do pose a viable threat and can't be absorbed.

The media is not about totalitarian marxist socialism. It is about Progressive, creeping socialism.

It doesn't want a socialist state in the sense of a "communist" state like Cuba. There would be no ownership of property and thus no sharing of power. They will prefer a fascist state where they can hope to keep some power but they fear that too because then the government has too much power.

The people will just find whatever the establishment tells them is necessary is necessary.

The tea party is an internal threat to the establishment. It is categorized as far right but it's principle of small government is not conducive to that description.

I listened to Michelle Bachman the other day and her thoughts about the New York approval of the recognition of gay marriages. Although she thinks it is a State's rights issue now she believes it is important enough to bring a Constitutional amendment to the table making it illegal. I couldn't disagree with that position more. The Federal government should not concern itself with such social issues.

You should heed your own remarks about a fish surrounded by water. For some reason, you cannot self-apply this formulation.

I am neither right nor left politically. I can observe the faults of both and see them as merely attempts to maintain and concentrate the establishment powers. You on the other hand see the right wing as opposing establishment powers for the most part and against reason. There is a reason and it has little to do with right and left. Barack Obama believes it has something to do with far left ideology.

While the apparency must be there that corporations pay taxes - I don't think GE paid any last year.

Jeffrey Immelt is however helping to push his dream of eqaulity even though he demonstrates the same disdain as far left socialists in totalitarian regimes for thinking equality applies to them.

It's not a "typical liberal view" at all. The "typical liberal view" is exactly in accordance with your own view; and it is exactly in accordance with the right-wing view, since both are establishment perspectives.

Clear as a bell. The typical liberal view is in accordance with the right wing view. That may be true from the perspective of the establshment but the people think in terms of left and right and what each offers them, not the "establishment". You think in terms of the left because you villify the right.

You don't think in terms of the establishment although it makes for an interesting discussion. If you thought form the establishment point of view then you would be a little more sly about your criticisms of the right.

The establishment has no business engineering your life or my life but you seem to think the left should have that right. It isn't the left it is the establishment.

It just happens that I can't be left wing because I am not a progressive socialist and classical liberalism moved right when the progressive socialists took it over. It is not because I am politically conservative that I appear on the right wing. I can't support progressive liberalism and I don't support big government conservatism.

If you don't think that some of the powerful Western democracies (including the most powerful) were materially and intentionally abetting state terrorism in Indonesia/East Timor from 1975 until 1999--and that this terrorism was objectively worse than anything that, say, Hamas has managed to conjure--then the onus is on you to explain why not.

And the fact is it was both "liberal" and "conservative" governments enacting the horror.

Ok. So the "establishment" is at fault. Is that your true perception or are you more likely to blame the right wing?

The "liberals" don't point out this situation at all. They hate to discuss it, with the same allergy to reposibility that conservatives enact with terrific discipline. Only the far left, a few Christian conservative activists (mostly Catholics) and of course the courageous East Timorese themselves aligned with a few gutsy, dissenting Indonesian citizens, had anything to say about it for decades. Decades. The media was sedulously silent, too busy crowing about the glories of the West "liberating" this or that group of people from Soviet tyranny...even as the West tyrannized on an epic scale.

It's a fact that the "leftist media" was almost entirely ignoring the atrocities, except when they'd report on it counterfactually, by omitting Western culpability.

Were they not acting from a left/right perspective? Is that what is confusing to you? It doesn't make sense because there is obviously some confusion about there not being a predominately left or right influence? Or maybe they ignored it because there was a predominately left influence? The "leftist media" doesn't like to talk about it for some reason? Wonder what it could be?

[bloodyminded]

Fox news perhaps?

You're not asserting that FOX News does not support the pro-business, pro-militarized foreign policy paradigm?

Are you?

Marxist socialist??? No! You won't get that cushy corporate job nor, most probably, will you be even looking for it, subversion would be your sole purpose in applying. Progressive socialists need only apply. Marxist socialists will either be attacking the establishment or preparing for the revolution. Your "positioning" is what's untenable and I feel it is a little beneath you.

Do you really feel your interpretations of what I said, such as above, essentially captures my point of view?

It's an argument ad absurdum. You insist that "progressive socialists" are preferred. (Well, no; actually you claim that they are the only ones allowed into the corporate media jobs to begin with.) This is a large claim, and it doesn't wash.

Apparently, you have noticed that the Iraq war is mostly a right wing venture and despised by the global majority. Would you say that the media would be correct in forwarding that view? Do they indeed forward it at all? It is obviously the truth and facts, figures and polls appear in the MSM quite often confirming that view. Don't you think?

No. I haven't seen the media confirming anything of the sort. Most of them supported the Iraq War, certainly including the NYTimes and MSNBC, both of which acted as virtual government mouthpieces for the war. Doesn't matter that it's Republican; in 1999, the Clinton/Blair-led war in Kosovo was criticized mostly from the political Right--for partisan reasons mostly, just as the tepid Democrat critiques of the Iraq War appearte to lack real principle beyond partisan enthusiasm. As you say, their opposition to the Iraq War was actually support for it.

Looking at it from an establishment point of view the middle east holds most of the world's easily accessible oil resources. It is necessary to have a presence there. Islamic fundamentalists do pose a threat to the US's accessibility to their resources. Lack of accessiblity to energy resources threatens the very economy of the US. The middle east's alignment with China and/or Russia could pose a problem.

I agree completely, but it's not just Islamic fundamentalists; secular nationalists also pose a threat to control over resources (actually getting the resources is not a major issue; it's control.) Democratic groups pose a terrific threat too, and neither Democrats nor Republicans will tolerate disobedience from Middle Eastern regimes. that's why, on the whole, they prefer dictators, who aren't accountable to their people and so are more easily malleable.

That's not a "left-wing" premise to foreign policy; it's an ancient paradigm of power relations. Totally mainstream.

What purpose would it serve the establishment to have the Democrats decry and vilify the Republicans for their doggedly determined war

They didn't. They uttered empty, meaningless platitudes such as "this is the wrong time," being cognizant as they were that regime change was Democratic policy, predating Bush. Any mild scrapping was for partisan political purposes. What this has to do with "left" vs "right," I don't know.

which puzzlingly could never have happened without congressional Democrat approval? Did they just simply change their minds and say they were tricked into supporting this war?

Congress can generally be counted on to support any war.

Well, the Democrats make it look like there is still hope for America. Hope and change.

As vapid as the slogan is, are you honestly unaware that the McCain/Palin campaign slogans were nearly identical?

Only the Republicans are despised. But I don't know how that conclusion that the right wing is despised could be reached unless the truth were actually printed in the MSM and parroted around the world on blogs in the internet, the forwarding of what news is from the Associated Press and Reuters, until eventually everyone knows it - but the perception must be that there is still hope for America in the Democrats.

You're misreading the whole scenario. A similar phenomenon occurred in 1980 with Ronald Reagan...remarkably similar in spirit. It's not a left/right issue. In fact, Obama did not run on far-left promises, but rather vague phraseology about Turning the Corner, A New Future, Re-Establishing America's Reputation, and all the usual, bipartisan boilerplate that temporarily makes people giddy.

Too bad that the establishment interests in the middle east haven't changed a wit despite all the hope and change promised by the current administration.

Of course it hasn't. You know who predicted exactly this? the far left: Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Glenn Greenwald. They weren't saying "yay Obama!", not for a second. Not during his campiagn, not the moment of his electoral victory.

So what? It's the whole point of the debate. The MSM has a liberal bias. And I don't know how you cuold assume I have not looked into it. You admittedly haven't.[/.quote]

???

I haven't looked into the singular, specific issue of whether or not the msm is "biased" towards not hating the idea of same sex marriage...and that's the "whole point of the debate," and proves their "leftist" bias? (Since you use "liberal" and "leftist" interchangeably...we're back to this again. So one more time: the actual "far left", which you claim comprises the media and the Democrats, are in fact less like the Democrats in worldview than are Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, and most Republicans.

and in fact, these right-wingers get more airtime than do their leftist counterparts...all part of the "leftist media", I suppose.

Ok. So the "establishment" is at fault. Is that your true perception or are you more likely to blame the right wing?

Not a bit. I just told you that supporting mass murder was a thorouhgly bipartisan affair, by virtue of it covering several different adminsitraitons in the US, and several different governemnts elsewhere (Canada, the UK). you're the one whose got the left/right bee in his bonnet, not me.

Were they not acting from a left/right perspective? Is that what is confusing to you?

I'm not confused. Clearly, you are.

It doesn't make sense because there is obviously some confusion about there not being a predominately left or right influence?

It's not that there's confusion; it's that media is beset by influences from both left and right; this has been my contention all along, repeated liberally (if I may use that word)...and you insist on seeing this as some sort of concession to your point...which remains woefully unclear at any rate.

Or maybe they ignored it because there was a predominately left influence? The "leftist media" doesn't like to talk about it for some reason? Wonder what it could be?

The leftist media didn't like to talk about Indonesia/East Timor because....why again? what has leftism to do with it? Come on, I'm sure you can torture some sort of strange assertion out of this.

I am neither right nor left politically. I can observe the faults of both and see them as merely attempts to maintain and concentrate the establishment powers.

Ah! You are free from Plato's cave, and watching us blind fools with superior disdain.

You on the other hand see the right wing as opposing establishment powers for the most part

Ok, finally, we get to it; you haven't been reading my posts...only responding to them. You believe my view is about the opposite of the one I've continually stated.

This is 100% wrong, and I've never suggested, much less asserted, any such thing.

Edited June 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

You're not asserting that FOX News does not support the pro-business, pro-militarized foreign policy paradigm?

Are you?

No. I am saying that form the bottom up, the public world of left and right politics, Fox news is right wing. From the top down it is a thorn in the side of the MSM. You aren't asserting that the "establishment" is anti-business and anti-military, are you?

It's an argument ad absurdum. You insist that "progressive socialists" are preferred. (Well, no; actually you claim that they are the only ones allowed into the corporate media jobs to begin with.) This is a large claim, and it doesn't wash.

You read Chomsky but don't seem to assimilate what he says except when convenient, I suppose.

What makes the Mainstream Media Mainstream

Chomsky: Unless you have been adequately socialized and trained so that there are some thoughts you just don’t have, because if you did have them, you wouldn’t be there.

No. I haven't seen the media confirming anything of the sort. Most of them supported the Iraq War, certainly including the NYTimes and MSNBC, both of which acted as virtual government mouthpieces for the war. Doesn't matter that it's Republican; in 1999, the Clinton/Blair-led war in Kosovo was criticized mostly from the political Right--for partisan reasons mostly, just as the tepid Democrat critiques of the Iraq War appearte to lack real principle beyond partisan enthusiasm. As you say, their opposition to the Iraq War was actually support for it.

Of course today it is Bush's war (doggedly determined) and was entirely unnecessary.

I agree completely, but it's not just Islamic fundamentalists; secular nationalists also pose a threat to control over resources (actually getting the resources is not a major issue; it's control.) Democratic groups pose a terrific threat too, and neither Democrats nor Republicans will tolerate disobedience from Middle Eastern regimes. that's why, on the whole, they prefer dictators, who aren't accountable to their people and so are more easily malleable.

Very funny.

That's not a "left-wing" premise to foreign policy; it's an ancient paradigm of power relations. Totally mainstream.

Looking from the top down, yes. From the bottom up no.

What purpose would it serve the establishment to have the Democrats decry and vilify the Republicans for their "doggedly determined war"

They didn't.

Wait a second...I quoted you. It is "their doggedly determined war" - according to you. At the time it wasn't I guess. But what proofs are there today that show the Democrats didn't support it?

They uttered empty, meaningless platitudes such as "this is the wrong time," being cognizant as they were that regime change was Democratic policy, predating Bush. Any mild scrapping was for partisan political purposes. What this has to do with "left" vs "right," I don't know.

you have to look form the bottom up.

Congress can generally be counted on to support any war.

I won't argue that.

As vapid as the slogan is, are you honestly unaware that the McCain/Palin campaign slogans were nearly identical?

Uhh...

"Drill! Baby, drill!" is the same thing?

or

"Country First" - 2008 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of John McCain

or

"Reform. Prosperity. Peace" - 2008 U.S. Presidential slogan of John McCain.

While "change" (Hope and Change) and "reform" may be similar and of course a big part of both parties distancing themselves from the Bush Presidency they are hardly identical. "Reform" would have more to do with "Drill! Baby, drill!" and "change" as suggested by Obama was more of a redistributing the wealth but only for those making $250,000 or more. As though someone might think that redistributing wealth would be wrong if lower incomes were redistributed. Is that possible? The dollar could be inflated to the point where everyone is making $250,000/yr. and then we could really redistribute the wealth. Think of all those revenues that wouldn't have to be handed out because no one would be poor.

You're misreading the whole scenario. A similar phenomenon occurred in 1980 with Ronald Reagan...remarkably similar in spirit. It's not a left/right issue. In fact, Obama did not run on far-left promises, but rather vague phraseology about Turning the Corner, A New Future, Re-Establishing America's Reputation, and all the usual, bipartisan boilerplate that temporarily makes people giddy.

Right Obama did not run on far left promises - he kept it vague and tried to distance any expressed concerns about his "Wealth redistribution" and "Health care plan" as having any thing to do with "socialism"(I think socialism is left-leaning isn' it?) Most leftists try to appease people by denying they are leftist. They are centrists. Wealth redistribution, requiring the most wealthy to pay their fair share isn't socialism, and government run healthcare isn't socialism. It's "mainstream" and centrist. It's democratic. Democracy! Democracy!

Of course it hasn't. You know who predicted exactly this? the far left: Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Glenn Greenwald. They weren't saying "yay Obama!", not for a second. Not during his campiagn, not the moment of his electoral victory.

It doesn't matter. Chomsky, Zinn and Greenwald didn't elect him the people did on those promises.

The far left know their chances of success. America is not a "far left" country. It is a progressive social democracy like most western nations but a little less progressive and a little less socilaist than, say, Europe or Canada.

I'm not confused. Clearly, you are.

You are doing an excellent job of trying to spread it around. No such thing as a left wing bias in the mainstream media - nyuk, nyuk. Fox news isn't right wing either.

It's not that there's confusion; it's that media is beset by influences from both left and right; this has been my contention all along, repeated liberally (if I may use that word)...and you insist on seeing this as some sort of concession to your point...which remains woefully unclear at any rate.

I don't doubt that things appear woefully unclear to you.

The leftist media didn't like to talk about Indonesia/East Timor because....why again? what has leftism to do with it? Come on, I'm sure you can torture some sort of strange assertion out of this.

Looking at it from the top down it is just an establishment tactical operation. Looking form the bottom up - The Ford administration took most of the heat on this. Not much was said about Carter.

How's that?

Ah! You are free from Plato's cave, and watching us blind fools with superior disdain.

You don't allow yourself to realize your full capability. You are tied to the left...er...centre.

Ok, finally, we get to it; you haven't been reading my posts...only responding to them. You believe my view is about the opposite of the one I've continually stated.

That there is "a liberal bias in the media from my perspective"? Is that your view?

You on the other hand see the right wing as opposing establishment powers for the most part

This is 100% wrong, and I've never suggested, much less asserted, any such thing.

In my opinion, you tend to look at things from whatever perspective is convenient for the moment.

Fox news of course is all about establishment powers but it is a totally wacko right wing organization.

Would that be a correct assessment of your view?

Edited June 28, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

No. I am saying that form the bottom up, the public world of left and right politics, Fox news is right wing. From the top down it is a thorn in the side of the MSM. You aren't asserting that the "establishment" is anti-business and anti-military, are you?

??? No. Never suggested, never hinted. You're pitching more and more wildly. I don't know why.

You read Chomsky but don't seem to assimilate what he says.

What makes the Mainstream Media Mainstream

Uh, he wasn't exactly talking about "progressive socialists," now, was he?

Uhh...

"Drill! Baby, drill!" is the same thing?

or

"Country First" - 2008 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of John McCain

or

"Reform. Prosperity. Peace" - 2008 U.S. Presidential slogan of John McCain.

While "change" (Hope and Change) and "reform" may be similar and of course a big part of both parties distancing themselves from the Bush Presidency they are hardly identical.

Their entire campaign was predicated on the (disingenuous) notion that they were maverick outsiders. "Change" was everything to the campaign; "reform" is exactly as empty and meaningless. Exactly.

Right Obama did not run on far left promises - he kept it vague and tried to distance any expressed concerns about his "Wealth redistribution" and "Health care plan" as having any thing to do with "socialism"(I think socialism is left-leaning isn' it?)

It wasn't about keeping it vague for sly socialist purposes; it was about a brilliant marketing campaign, in which everyone sick of the Republicans (most of the nation at that historic juncture) could use the blank words "hope" and "change" as fill in the blanks for their own desires and aspirations. Just as his campaign opponents talked of themselves as rogue "outsiders" who would...Change Washington!

It's an old technique, and Obama (or rather, his handlers and PR specialists) just happened to do this very well.

I guess you take it on faith that McCain and Palin, unlike everyone else, Meant Every Word, paragons of sincerity. Your faith is touching, if unidirectional.

Most leftists try to appease people by denying they are leftist. They are centrists. Wealth redistribution, requiring the most wealthy to pay their fair share isn't socialism, and government run healthcare isn't socialism. It's "mainstream" and centrist. It's democratic. Democracy! Democracy!

Univeral healthcare is mainstream, whether it's socialist or not. Notice Obama wasn't even Leftwing enough to go mainstream on that issue.

It doesn't matter. Chomsky, Zinn and Greenwald didn't elect him the people did on those promises.

My point is that you conflate every liberal, leftist and centrist as being "far left." That's because of your strict, right-wing ideology (which you don't recognize, or are being disingenuous about.)

The far left know their chances of success. America is not a "far left" country. It is a progressive social democracy like most western nations but a little less progressive and a little less socilaist than, say, Europe or Canada.

Yes, you see the United States as the standard by which all countries should be measured; the ideological standard-bearer.

Why? You don't say.

You are doing an excellent job of trying to spread it around. No such thing as a left wing bias in the mainstream media - nyuk, nyuk.

The mainstream media is not left-wing biased. You continue to be unable to provide any evidence for it...you even say that evidence is unneccessary, since you, Pliny, have "observation" at your disposal.

And I'm supposed to be swayed by this?

All you do is theorize confusedly about top-down, not left/right but yes left/right paradigms. You think "the left" is comprised of...well, almost everybody (which doesn't help your argument). Further, you have no idea where I stand (despite my telling you over and over) and so insist upon inventing positions for me, like I said "the right wing opposes Establishment powers"...a truly bizarre formulation, made up out of your fantasies.

Looking at it from the top down it is just an establishment tactical operation. Looking form the bottom up - The Ford administration took most of the heat on this. Not much was said about Carter.

the Ford adminsitraiton took most of the heta?

So...you know nothing whatsoever of the situaiton, but feel confident to proclaim on it anyway? you don't know what you're talking about. Ford greenlighted the invasion, so he's responsible for that; Carter continued to support it, so he's responsible for that.

Again, i'm not interested in the Republican versus Democrat battle in which you are fiercely defensive about Republicans, and consider the centrist Democrats to be a bunch of crazed socialists. No wonder you're confused.

That there is "a liberal bias in the media from my perspective"? Is that your view?

If you can't answer a question or respond honestly, why bother at all? You change the subject everytime you're caught out blathering nonsense...which is becoming increasingly frequent.

In my opinion, you tend to look at things from whatever perspective is convenient for the moment.

You're not debating with honesty and integrity.

Why not?

Is it because you long ago lost this debate?

Fox news of course is all about establishment powers but it is a totally wacko right wing organization.

Would that be a correct assessment of your view?

No. And siccne I never said anything of the kind, I'd be curious as to where you got that idea? Not from me.

Edited June 28, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

I'm reveiwing the thread here and will get back to you. It's been interesting so far. Thanks.