[quote]vroom wrote:
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.
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]
But Vroomie, he does it so beautifully! I must admit I’m a fan of Thunder; he’s way better at shredding you guys than I ever would be. We math-folk are long on math but short on writing/debating skills.
I know I’m leaving my self open for one of your classic Conch-like jabs, but, what the hey…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
But Vroomie, he does it so beautifully! I must admit I’m a fan of Thunder; he’s way better at shredding you guys than I ever would be. We math-folk are long on math but short on writing/debating skills.
I know I’m leaving my self open for one of your classic Conch-like jabs, but, what the hey…
[/quote]
Headhunter, I know you are a fan, but have some pride man.
He isn’t really that good at shredding anything, but he is certainly willing to put a lot of time and effort into arguing.
The point is, that even Lixy, who usually is saying things that I don’t agree with, has the ability to raise issues that are worthy of thinking about.
His wild tangents, though wrong, seem to connect to points of contention that are in fact worthy of debate. Why don’t people seem to have the courage to figure out where those wild tangents draw from and to actually consider them?
Where is the ability to realize that opposing viewpoints have merit… as was suggested a moment ago, while every viewpoint ever proposed by Lixy is useless due to it’s source?
Our discussions suck. It’s about ego, about beating someone down, about cheering on those that think like you. Where is the curiosity, the willingness to increase understanding or consider other viewpoints?
Where are the statements that recognize that both sides have merit, somewhere, at some level?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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. [/quote]
Don’t you ever tire of ad hominems?
[quote]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. [/quote]
The hierarchy that says “I’ll sack you if you don’t present the story to better serve my interests”.
Good. We’re getting somewhere…
[quote]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. [/quote]
Err…scratch that. Just more ad hominems. TB’s trademark.
All the time. They present him as the president of the USA, nothing more, nothing less.
Bad faith? When did I ever call bad faith? Last I checked, I was the victim of such things not the perpetrator. I can quote you a hundred posts where I was accused of cyber-Jihadism (did I spell that right?).
Nothing for you to see here. Just more ad hominem rant, courtesy of TB.
Move along.
[quote]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. [/quote]
So, not only do you evade the topic, but you clumsily engage in even more ad hominems.
You sir, must learn what the meaning of a debate is.
[quote]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. [/quote]
Finally, some arguments that aren’t blatant ad hominems. Good…
Here’s my reasoning, and please follow closely: When you answer to the audience, you are more likely to be more objective because an audience is composed of thousands and thousands of people. Not to offend any single faction, you tend to check your personal ideology in the closet, and present facts with objectivity. That’s just common sense. The rule of the many, is better than the rule of the few.
When you answer to a handful of execs, the story is totally tailored to suit their needs.
Sure. Want me to register you in Logic 101?
[quote]I have numerous cases of execs directly intervening in censoring stories that don’t fit well with their interests.
So do I. [/quote]
On the mainstream, I’m sure you do. But finding an indie editor that fired his/her crew because of a disagreement over a piece is unheard of.
Ever heard of monopolies? Well, I don’t think they want you to know these kind of things out there.
Not when ALL the channels play a dozen songs in loop all day long.
TB’s regular ad hominem to make him feel better.
Again, more ad hominems…
Oh, the conclusion is an ad hominem as well? Meh, was expected.
My challenge stands. Bring me a single mainstream piece that reported on both sides equally as DN! did. Till then, don’t forget to breath…
I’m hoping Z-mag isn’t being pushed as objective. The bias is extremely obvious. Come on, I hope no one truly believes they’re objective…And, how independent can you really be when you target a leftist audience with leftist articles? Anyways, some interesting article topics and titles from Zmag. Just a few samples from many with the same theme. Leftist ideology.
ELECTORAL POLITICS: Bob “Ballots for Bush” Bennett
Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman
JUSTICE: Alberto Gonzales & the Lawyers of the Third Reich
Roberto J. Gonzalez
TWENTY YEARS: Imagine A Country
Holly Sklar
I magine a country where one out of five children is born into poverty and wealth is being redistributed upward. Since the 1970s, the top 1 percent of households has doubled their share of the nation?s wealth. The top 1 percent has close to 40 percent of the wealth?nearly the same amount as the bottom 95 percent of households.
INTERVIEW: Jihad: Theirs & Ours, Part 1
David Barsamian
Tariq Ali, an internationally renowned writer, was born in Lahore in 1943. It was then a part of British-ruled India, now in Pakistan. For many years he has been based in London where he is an editor of the New Left Review. He?s written more than a dozen books on world history and politics. In his spare time he is a filmmaker, playwright and novelist. He is the author of The Clash of Funda-mentalisms, Bush in Babylon, and Speaking of Empire & Resistance, with David Barsamian. His latest book is Pirates of the Caribbean: The Axis of Hope
EYES RIGHT: The Distorted Populism of the Christian Right
Chip Berlet
I’m hoping Z-mag isn’t being pushed as objective. The bias is extremely obvious. Come on, I hope no one truly believes they’re objective…[/quote]
Heck, the headlines and lead-ins you’ve presented give conclusions without even reading whatever the piece may contain.
Something trying to be objective might at least give us the opportunity to draw our own conclusions after giving opinions from both sides.
I think part of the problem with mainstream media bias discussions is that in order to be objective a media source will have to air opinions you dislike, fairly.
Who around here watches news that routinely (and fairly) presents ideas and supporting arguments they strongly disagree with?
I’m hoping Z-mag isn’t being pushed as objective. The bias is extremely obvious. Come on, I hope no one truly believes they’re objective…
Heck, the headlines and lead-ins you’ve presented give conclusions without even reading whatever the piece may contain.
Something trying to be objective might at least give us the opportunity to draw our own conclusions after giving opinions from both sides.
I think part of the problem with mainstream media bias discussions is that in order to be objective a media source will have to air opinions you dislike, fairly.
Who around here watches news that routinely (and fairly) presents ideas and supporting arguments they strongly disagree with?[/quote]
True, true! I have no problem with these type of partisan rags. Left or right, their existence doesn’t really bother me. It’s when people try to claim that such articles above are objective. And, the ‘independent’ cop-out bothers me. Who cares if it’s independent? White Supremacists have been running independent sites for a long while. Their status as “Independent” means nothing as far as objectivity is concerned.
[i]"Within seconds of RCTV’s closure, the insignia of a new state-sponsored broadcaster, TVES, appeared. Fireworks exploded across Caracas, as Chavez supporters celebrated the end of RCTV.
The president says the new channel will better reflect his socialist revolution…"[/i]
[i]"Within seconds of RCTV’s closure, the insignia of a new state-sponsored broadcaster, TVES, appeared. Fireworks exploded across Caracas, as Chavez supporters celebrated the end of RCTV.
The president says the new channel will better reflect his socialist revolution…"[/i]
Meanwhile, 80% of the channels on the airwaves are private and the overwhelming majority of them clearly side with the opposition.
I know it’s a little far reached, but that’s pretty good compared to Morocco for example where 100% are state-controlled. Sweden has about ten channels, a quarter of which are state-controlled. Don’t flame me, I’m just putting things into perspective, that’s all.
“This didn’t make sense at all. Why would you call independent media, who answer to nobody, propaganda? Is it because you don’t like what they report on? Is it because they lack a sports section? Examples of “unobjectivity” would be nice.”
“…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.”
“You shamelessly imply that the independent readers/viewers are not interested in objectivity without a shred of evidence.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Objectivity…
I’m hoping Z-mag isn’t being pushed as objective.
Lixy wrote:
Oh my, no! Never. Where would you get such an idea?
They’re pretty far off on the spectrum and never hid it.[/quote]
I’m not sure how the above statements square with this one. Not only did you concede their practice of subjective journalism, but they’re also “far off on the spectrum and never hid it.”
Not really an important issue to me. I really don’t care if someone views left or right “independent” media. However, I’d advise maintaining a healthy skepticism. There are some kooky theories throughout much of it, and a lot of suspect research. And, a hell of a lot of venom towards the other political spectrum.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wonder if all those Hollywood superstars want to hug him now, like that shitbag Danny Glover?
All liberalism ends with this, a thug pointing a gun at those who are expected to produce the bonanza, for the benefit of those who don’t want to be bothered. The thug, of course, brooks no opposition from anyone.
Shame, libs…[/quote]
Socialism, not “liberalism”.
Classical liberalism is not socialism, and neither is modern, mainstream liberalism.
Our discussions suck. It’s about ego, about beating someone down, about cheering on those that think like you. Where is the curiosity, the willingness to increase understanding or consider other viewpoints?
Where are the statements that recognize that both sides have merit, somewhere, at some level?
Nowhere to be found.[/quote]
We all know that politics is not mathematics — the ‘correct answer’ is a matter of opinion. If we had some universal standard by which to measure the rightness or wrongness of a particular issue, then discussion would be limited to how to best match an individual action to the standard.
Nietzsche talked about this when referring to the ‘death of God’. What happens when we lose faith as a standard of measure? Is science the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong? What are the implications of that?
Classical Greek philosophy believed in Eudaimonia, the happiness of man as a rational being, as the standard of measure. Existentialists question this, as do the nihilists.
So, until we can, if ever, acquire a standard to which all can agree, we are reduced to individual opinion. Schopenhauer would be proud!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We all know that politics is not mathematics — the ‘correct answer’ is a matter of opinion. If we had some universal standard by which to measure the rightness or wrongness of a particular issue, then discussion would be limited to how to best match an individual action to the standard.[/quote]
I think you know I’m not suggesting there is one “correct answer”, but I do think some people are not able to determine the crucial underlying issues, that they are not willing to consider and understand the merits of other viewpoints, and in the final analysis that our discussions suffer for it.
This I don’t doubt. You aren’t interested in objectivity - you want to hear “news” that comports with all your opinions. This alternative media, with no pretenses of objectivity, feeds you exactly what you want to hear ideologically.
Of course you like it better. “Independent” media takes sides.
All over the world, many prominent papers aren’t corporate whores. I have yet to see a single independent media in the US make it to the mainstream.
Yes, and there is a good reason for that. It should be obvious - the “independent” media are far from the mainstream: radical, ideological, uninterested in objectivity.
So-called “corporate” media isn’t perfect, and I criticize them often - but between “independent” media, which is really nothing more than propaganda, and corporate media, the choice is easy.[/quote]
OMG. It is corporate media who live in a world of propaganda. They are the voice of the rich and powerful. Why shouldn’t they be, they are owned by the same group of people and serve their interests. Isn’t this modern day capitalism at work?
Truly independent media takes money only from donations of it’s readers/listeners and not the corporate interests. Therefore it reflects the views of those people who almost always are “the masses”.
OMG. It is corporate media who live in a world of propaganda. They are the voice of the rich and powerful. Why shouldn’t they be, they are owned by the same group of people and serve their interests. Isn’t this modern day capitalism at work?
[/quote]
No it is your fantasy version of it at work.
[quote]
Truly independent media takes money only from donations of it’s readers/listeners and not the corporate interests. Therefore it reflects the views of those people who almost always are “the masses”.[/quote]
So you are saying propaganda “for the masses” is good and “corporate propaganda” is bad?
If these donations are called a “price”, has the media been allready been corrupted?
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]
That, of course, is nonsense - because I disagree with people doesn’t mean I don’t welcome them. If I wanted an echo chamber, why would I bother getting into debates with people?
As for my “debate” with Lixy, I often indulge a conversation with him, but I am always led to the same conclusion - he has no interest in debating the merits of anything. If debate is like an interstate, just when we start speeding up, Lixy quickly exits an off-ramp and disengages from the merits.
Its says more about him than any of us.
But that said, don’t be silly, Vroom - I welcome differing viewpoints. That is what makes it fun - else, I wouldn’t come here.
They are factual answers to question “can Lixy be objective and rational in a debate?” - questions I am raising myself.
I realize shouting “ad hominem” is your way of getting out of the argument, but look closely - I am giving you exactly why I think your “independent media” is bad journalism and using you as the prime example.
That isn’t ad hominem - it isn’t an insult for the sake of an insult. Your ideological viewpoint and actions are the very best of evidence of my argument - that indie media serves a class of people not interested in objective reporting.
Ad hominem? Try again.
A complete lie.
You view all non-Leftist viewpoints in bad faith. Iraq war? Done in the name of conspiracy. Capitalism? Done in the name of exploitation. Mainstream media? Done in the name of manipulation.
The ideas you disagree with aren’t “hey, I know you mean well, I just think they are bad choices” - they are all underpinned by evil and menace. It is the nature of all radical Leftism. And that is your argument every single time.
So yes - “bad faith” every time.
Keep trying.
[quote]Here’s my reasoning, and please follow closely: When you answer to the audience, you are more likely to be more objective because an audience is composed of thousands and thousands of people. Not to offend any single faction, you tend to check your personal ideology in the closet, and present facts with objectivity. That’s just common sense. The rule of the many, is better than the rule of the few.
When you answer to a handful of execs, the story is totally tailored to suit their needs.[/quote]
Why do you keep peddlng this myth?
Mainstream media caters to the mainstream - it is the largest audience available, and far the one most representative of the “people”. Execs play a role - but the mainstream media answers to the mainstrea. Hint: that is why they call it mainstream media.
Indie media caters to a small segment of the people with a narrow ideological agenda.
This remains hilarious - where does this happen? Where does this mythical radio set up exist?
Not in the US. Thanks for playing.
On a given day, I listen to over six radio stations - each with completely different content in both music and information.
You desparately wanted to see how “mainstream media” would cover the Chavez-Globovision story?
Well, did you read the original post? It was written by Reuters, a straight news wire service, controlled by evil exec boards.
What do you make of such unbalanced statements as:
Chavez has had a long-running feud with opposition television channels, which openly supported a coup against him in April 2002 and refused to show the massive mobilization of his supporters that turned the tide back in the president’s favor.
