T Nation

Chavez Mutes His Opposition

[quote]lixy wrote:

They are a heck of a lot more objective than corporate media. I’m thinking of Democracy Now!, The Guardian, Arte, and such. [/quote]

Wow - I am almost not believing what O am reading. I now who I am dealing with - someone completely detached from reality.

No, it’s not more objective - it takes a stance you prefer. That is not the definition of “objective”. You keep making this mistake.

You think mainstream media isn’t objective because it doesn’t present the opinion you want to hear. That is not a valid definition of “objective”.

Here is the problem - indie media answers to people who want something other than objective news, so of course they keep feeding you what you want to hear. So yes, they are doing their job, answering to their people. I never said otherwise.

Moron radicals like yourself are not interested in straight news - you want ideology and analysis wrapped up in the presentation. No problem - just don’t try and convince anyone with a brain such stuff is “objective”.

And your clumsy picture of the guy in the room chomping on the cigar is completely wrong - the cigar chomping exec is not the audience, so he is not the end consumer. Mainstream media answers to the mainstream audience - the execs just run the show.

I know simple-minded cartoons like the cigare chomping exec make for nice boogeymen for your ideological scapegoats, but you need to get educated on how it really works.

And so, rather than convict individuals, he shuts down RCTV entirely. And now, threatens Globovision. The two largest media outlets airing opposition to Chavez and his policies…

“Enemies of the homeland, particularly those behind the scenes, I will give you a name: Globovision. Greetings gentlemen of Globovision, you should watch where you are going,” Chavez said in a broadcast all channels had to show.

“I recommend you take a tranquilizer and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary.”

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

They are a heck of a lot more objective than corporate media. I’m thinking of Democracy Now!, The Guardian, Arte, and such.

Wow - I am almost not believing what O am reading. I now who I am dealing with - someone completely detached from reality.

[/quote]

He’s in Sweden for his treatments. Cut him some slack though — he’s typing with his toes as the keepers won’t undo his straightjacket.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, it’s not more objective - it takes a stance you prefer. That is not the definition of “objective”. You keep making this mistake.

You think mainstream media isn’t objective because it doesn’t present the opinion you want to hear. That is not a valid definition of “objective”.
[/quote]

I didn’t realize independent media all took one stance.

Perhaps you should be a little bit careful of describing yourself in the above? You sound pretty dogmatic.

Isn’t it possible that ALL media present their news from some viewpoint, which should be questioned?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Cut him some slack though — he’s typing with his toes as the keepers won’t undo his straightjacket.
[/quote]

You CERTAINLY need to be careful about describing yourself…

[quote]vroom wrote:

I didn’t realize independent media all took one stance.[/quote]

They don’t - who said they did?

I am not describing myself, so I don’t get your point.

Absolutely - but for my complaints about mainstream media, and I have plenty, like most anyone, the claim that - broadly speaking - mainstream media is less objective than “independent media” is false.

I am not suggesting be shouldn’t keep a wary eye on the source - trust me, every time I read something from Reuters or the AP, I am careful - but it can’t be seriously sustained that radical “independent media” are more objective than mainstream.

Blogs, of course, are part of “independent media” - but blogs are happy to refer to themselves as rolling editorials.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am not suggesting be shouldn’t keep a wary eye on the source - trust me, every time I read something from Reuters or the AP, I am careful - but it can’t be seriously sustained that radical “independent media” are more objective than mainstream.

Blogs, of course, are part of “independent media” - but blogs are happy to refer to themselves as rolling editorials. [/quote]

Radical? cough Cop out. :wink:

I hope you are as careful of FOX as you are AP and Reuters.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Radical? cough Cop out. ;)[/quote]

The media we were discussing are radical - after all, there whole point in existing is based on a paranoia that (1) mainstream media won’t tell you about all manner of bizarre conspiracies and (2) corporate ownership is inherently evil.

Few “indepedent media” outlets that aren’t glorified editorials aren’t radical.

[quote]I hope you are as careful of FOX as you are AP and Reuters.
[/quote]

I don’t read or watch FOX, but I still have a standing invitation for someone to show FOX’s bias in a straight news setting. I am not saying it doesn’t exist - I just want to see it. So far - nothing, certainly nothing that makes it any worse than another mainstream network.

This irrational singling out of FOX always amuses me, because FOX is nothing more than a mirror image of other left-leaning major outlets. FOX arose for the simple fact that a major news network decided to play the exact same game as other major networks, just with a different set of cards: conservative opinion instead of liberal. FOX was a reaction to existing media, not a wholesale creation, and merely duplicated what they were doing with a different editorial viewpoint.

To single out FOX without singling out CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. is wasting time. If you count Bill O’Reilly as part of the problem, you have to count Keith Olbermann.

If liberals hate FOX, they have only themselves to blame - eventually someone was going to stand up and present a counter to “the long march through the institutions” designed to “speak truth to power”.

I think FOX’s playbook to counter liberal media is absolutely the wrong approach - the counter to liberal media is the counter to biased media generally: form a network that works its tail off to remain as unbiased as possible and limit the editorial programming. FOX wanted to fight fire with fire - I’d rather fight fire with water.

why is this even worth posting?

anyone with power will begin working to reduce or to silence opposing views.

name any leader this planet has produced past and present and you will see a rich legacy of such antics.

floripa

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t read or watch FOX, but I still have a standing invitation for someone to show FOX’s bias in a straight news setting. I am not saying it doesn’t exist - I just want to see it. So far - nothing, certainly nothing that makes it any worse than another mainstream network.

This irrational singling out of FOX always amuses me, because FOX is nothing more than a mirror image of other left-leaning major outlets. FOX arose for the simple fact that a major news network decided to play the exact same game as other major networks, just with a different set of cards: conservative opinion instead of liberal. FOX was a reaction to existing media, not a wholesale creation, and merely duplicated what they were doing with a different editorial viewpoint.

To single out FOX without singling out CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. is wasting time. If you count Bill O’Reilly as part of the problem, you have to count Keith Olbermann.

If liberals hate FOX, they have only themselves to blame - eventually someone was going to stand up and present a counter to “the long march through the institutions” designed to “speak truth to power”.

I think FOX’s playbook to counter liberal media is absolutely the wrong approach - the counter to liberal media is the counter to biased media generally: form a network that works its tail off to remain as unbiased as possible and limit the editorial programming. FOX wanted to fight fire with fire - I’d rather fight fire with water.[/quote]

Maybe if you watched FOX you wouldn’t have to ask us to do an impossible mission, giving you proof of something you don’t already believe.

Perhaps, to illustrate, you should attempt to prove a liberal bias in mainstream media. It’s very easy to claim it, as many do, but it’s very difficult to prove.

Bogus studies aren’t proof…

[quote]vroom wrote:

Maybe if you watched FOX you wouldn’t have to ask us to do an impossible mission, giving you proof of something you don’t already believe.[/quote]

Why do you bother watching FOX if you hate it so much?

And why wouldn’t your own advice be applied to the following…

Perhaps, to illustrate, you should attempt to prove a liberal bias in mainstream media. It’s very easy to claim it, as many do, but it’s very difficult to prove.

As stated above, if watching the channel works well enough, why don’t you just watch the other networks if you want your proof of liberal media?

Personally, I don’t put a lot of stock in the whole “just go watch it and you will see what I mean” approach. Rarely will people who are invested politically be honest about it.

As for “bogus” studies - what makes them bogus? You haven’t said.

And, you will notice, I never said FOX was unbiased - I simply explained it was doing the same job as other major networks with a different viewpoint. People need to either be upset at all biased major media, or none of it. Either bias is bad, or it isn’t. Singling out one just because you don’t like their viewpoints is hardly sound.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wow - I am almost not believing what O am reading. I now who I am dealing with - someone completely detached from reality. [/quote]

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

No, you idiot! Independent media are the only bastion left of journalism. All the rest pretty much sunk into complacent obedience to the hierarchy.

When you answer to noone but your readers, it’s much easier to come up with a balanced perspective no matter what your personal beliefs are.

Again, you’re really making an ass of yourself by saying that. Show me a coverage of this case which wasn’t a diatribe against Chavez. All the coverage the story received in the independent media presented both sides of the story. That’s a prerequisite for OBJECTIVITY. How fucking hard is that to understand?

Let’s please take concrete cases and start comparing mainstream vs. independent. You shamelessly imply that the independent readers/viewers are not interested in objectivity without a shred of evidence.

Let’s see, who exactly named their coverage of the Iraq war after the Pentagon’s official line? Who presents stories by automatically assuming the good faith of Bush&co?

Seriously, give me a single piece of mainstream that did a more objective job than that of DN! on the RCTV case and I might reconsider my position.

The Swedish, French, or Spanish mainstream press, while not perfect, is very ahead of the junk you get in the US regarding journalistic quality. They have rigorous watchdogs that’ll blast anything with a bias at the first signs. You guys will just use the patriot card to silence any critic.

Again, give me a single piece of mainstream that presented both sides on the RCTV’s case and we can compare it to the indie guys’ coverage.

Who the hell do you think signs the checks? You? Me? No. It’s the boss.

I have numerous cases of execs directly intervening in censoring stories that don’t fit well with their interests.

“Politicians and the media have conspired to infantilize, to dumb down, the American public. At heart, politicians don’t believe that Americans can handle complex truths, and the news media, especially television news, basically agrees.”
Tom Fenton, former CBS foreign correspondent

"I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world – in the field of advertizing – and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency … Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious … I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours … and we tend to disbelieve ours. "
a Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.

By your logic, FM radios shouldn’t be playing the same ten songs all day long. After all, the consumer wants variety and quality none of which the mainstream radios deliver. Guess who controls their playlists. Is it me? You? No, it’s some RIAA bastard.

Same applies for the news.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Cut him some slack though — he’s typing with his toes as the keepers won’t undo his straightjacket.

You CERTAINLY need to be careful about describing yourself…[/quote]

Wow, Inspector Clouseau, did you think that one up all by yourself or did you come up out of your basement and have your mom help? I’m so overwhelmed!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
vroom wrote:

I didn’t realize independent media all took one stance.

They don’t - who said they did?

Perhaps you should be a little bit careful of describing yourself in the above? You sound pretty dogmatic.

I am not describing myself, so I don’t get your point.

[/quote]

Vroomie used ‘describing yourself’ in two posts. “All Hail the Magic Conch!!”

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Moron radicals like yourself are not interested in straight news - you want ideology and analysis wrapped up in the presentation. No problem - just don’t try and convince anyone with a brain such stuff is “objective”.[/quote]

It’s pretty easy;

[quote]lixy wrote:
I like the part where you that independent media answer to their readers/viewers only, and that’s exactly the point I was trying to make. If you think the media answering to some rich guys in a cigar filled room is better than them answering to their readers, I can’t help but chuckle at that. You made my argument stronger with that. Thanks.[/quote]

So, you’re admitting they pander to MONEY, being their readership. That means they write to sell the most, to the most. How is that in any way different from “corporate” news? You’ve made your own argument for the rest of us. They are no different. Dupe.

As for Chavez… quite typical. You can’t blame him; Putin is doing the same thing. It works. Hooray, socialism! Get rid of all opposing viewpoints under the guise of national security. Jail them. Threaten them into silence. Then we’ll just have the state-sponsored line. “Chavez defeats Imperialists!” “Chavez for The People!”

Who wants to bet Chavez will still be in power 20 years from now? Is that a surprise? Socialism = Dictatorship.

Oddly, lixy doesn’t have a problem with this, though he would if it was a conservative type government doing the very same thing.

[quote]lixy wrote:

You have no idea what you’re talking about. [/quote]

Actually, I do - ignorant wannabe radicals like you are a dime a dozen. Their heroes are hypocrites and they are embarrassments to human intelligence. “Detached from reality” is a perfect description - you don’t take the world as it is, you invent a world and take it the way you want.

Not my problem to fix. Presumably your education would, but so far either your education is failing you or you are failing your education.

Oh, it is a bastion all right, just not of journalism. I know you desparately want it to be - that doesn’t mean it is so.

And what hierarchy? The one of Leftist conspiracy? The one that makes you a “victim” every which way you turn?

Give us all a break.

Only if the readers themselves are balanced and want balance.

Take yourself - you are neither. You aren’t balanced - you fear differing opinions and have no ability to consider rational viewpoints outside your narrow, radical universe - and you have no interest in balance - that would require hearing and considering something that might challenge the way you think.

We’ve been over this - you hate that. You want the world to be your echo chamber and you don’t think people who differ from you philosophically do so in “good faith”. You are as “fundamentalist” as they come.

You are the least balanced person here - so I am not surprised you don’t want your media balanced.

One question - how often does your media start with a story about George Bush with a neutral position and then present both sides?

You aren’t fooling anyone. And that is fine - opinion pieces are ok. Just don’t call them objective.

Correct. You prove it with nearly every single post you type. You have no interest in viewpoints that differ from yours, because in your rotten mind, differing viewpoints are underpinned by bad faith. They aren’t just wrong - they are inherently evil.

That makes you an idiot and uninterested in objectivity. Objectivity would imply that a differing viewpoint have merit. You don’t believe that - never have.

See, this is why you won’t get your wish of research - you most certainly won’t reconsider your position.

You can’t do that. Your mind is made up. A different outcome based on facts - here, a journalistic comparison - miht lead to a result outside your pre-conceived ideological conclusion - and you have shown over and over and over you are immune to change via reason.

Who cares who signs the checks? Where does the money come from to pay the checks?

The audience? Advertising catered to the audience? The audience rules.

Seriously, do they have logic classes or business classes at your school?

So do I.

[quote]By your logic, FM radios shouldn’t be playing the same ten songs all day long. After all, the consumer wants variety and quality none of which the mainstream radios deliver. Guess who controls their playlists. Is it me? You? No, it’s some RIAA bastard.

Same applies for the news.[/quote]

If that were true, how do they stay in business? No one is forced to listen to the radio (except, perhaps, in your proto-socialist world where cosnservatives would get “re-educated” with government radiothink).

Moreover, consumers get even more choices by changing the channel to competing stations that provide either more variety or different music.

Geez, it is like arguing with a 10 year old. Seriously, Lixy - I know pre-teens who understand this better than you.

Let’s see, now we can add to the list of things Lixy hasn’t got a damn clue on - history, business, law, foreign policy, basic economics, logic, Western journalism…and the radio business!

Lixy, if you feel up to it, why don’t you demonstrate your lack of knowledge on some other subjects, just for kicks for the rest of us?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Correct. You prove it with nearly every single post you type. You have no interest in viewpoints that differ from yours, because in your rotten mind, differing viewpoints are underpinned by bad faith. They aren’t just wrong - they are inherently evil.

That makes you an idiot and uninterested in objectivity. Objectivity would imply that a differing viewpoint have merit. You don’t believe that - never have.[/quote]

I don’t see you welcoming viewpoints different than your own…

Now, let’s wait for HH to jump in and clap when you launch your reply!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Let’s see, now we can add to the list of things Lixy hasn’t got a damn clue on - history, business, law, foreign policy, basic economics, logic, Western journalism…and the radio business!

Lixy, if you feel up to it, why don’t you demonstrate your lack of knowledge on some other subjects, just for kicks for the rest of us?[/quote]

Now THIS is pure T-Nation GOLD!! My abs thank you, Sir!!