Free press as the "fourth estate": It fails the reality test
ltlee1
"In his new memoir, “What Happened,” Scott McClellan, the former White
House press secretary, said the national news media neglected their
watchdog role in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, calling reporters
“complicit enablers” of the Bush administration’s push for war.
Surprisingly, some prominent journalists have agreed."
The so called American free press, rather than functioning as the
fourth estate, it functions as the war enabler snaring America into a
brutal and unnecessary war.
Of course, members of the press can tell you all kinds of reasons why
the so called free press does not work as one has imagined. But
basically, the concept of the press as the fourth estate is a fantasy.
It was not, is not, and never will be the four estate.
Democracy begins with the people. Only the people can pressure the
government to do things or not to do things. Not the journalists or
the presses. And the presses are not representing the people.
Journalists and their employers represent themselves, i.e. their
bottomline.
bmo...@nyx.net
More recycled garbage from LT. You have posted this sort of tripe
every few months for years now. It was soundly refuted and you backed
off from the argument. Now you try to get away with it again. You're
still not fooling anyone, LT. You obviously have lots of free time to
try to mislead us, but all you succeed at is making a fool of
yourself. You want us to believe that China is democratic on one hand,
but then you blast democracy as ineffectual on the other. Simply put,
you're a BSer who only cares about a wretched agenda. You piss on the
truth almost every time you post.
chatnoir
But the truth is out there!:
http://www.publiceye.org/glossary/seldes.html
excerpt:
GREAT PRESS CRITIC LEAVES A LEGACY OF COURAGE
By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
(This syndicated column appeared in July, and was adapted for the Sept/
Oct '95 EXTRA!, the magazine of FAIR.)
America's greatest press critic died this month.
He lived to a ripe old age, 104, before his last breath on July 2. Yet
we're still in mourning for George Seldes.
"The most sacred cow of the press is the press itself,"
Seldes said. And he knew just how harmful media self-worship could be.
Born in 1890, George Seldes was a young reporter in Europe at the
close of World War I. When Armistice Day came, he broke ranks with the
obedient press corps and drove behind the lines of retreating German
troops. For the rest of his life, he remained haunted by what took
place next.
Seldes and three colleagues secured an interview with Paul von
Hindenburg, the German field marshal. Seldes asked what had ended the
war. "The American infantry in the Argonne won the war," Hindenburg
responded, and elaborated before breaking into sobs.
It was an enormous scoop. But allied military censors blocked
Hindenburg's admission, which he never repeated in public.
The story could have seriously undermined later Nazi claims that
Germany had lost the war due to a "stab in the back" by Jews and
leftists. Seldes came to believe that the interview, if published,
"would have destroyed the main planks of the platform on which Hitler
rose to power." But the reporters involved "did not think it
worthwhile to give up our number-one positions in journalism" by
disobeying military censors "in order to be free to publish."
Seldes went on to cover many historic figures firsthand, from Lenin
and Trotsky to Mussolini. When Seldes wrote about them, he pulled no
punches.
As a result, in 1923, Bolshevik leaders banished him from the
fledgling Soviet Union. Two years later, he barely made it out of
Italy alive; Mussolini sent Black Shirt thugs to murder the diminutive
Seldes, small in stature but towering with clarity.
Decade after decade, Seldes offended tyrants and demagogues, press
moguls and industrialists and politicians.
His career began in the mainstream press. During the 1920s, he served
as the "Chicago Tribune's" bureau chief in Berlin, and spent years in
Russia and Italy.
But after 10 years, Seldes quit the "Tribune" in 1928. The last straw
came with the newspaper's selective publication of his dispatches from
Mexico: Articles presenting the outlooks of U.S. oil companies ran in
full, but reports about the contrary views of the Mexican government
did not appear.
Seldes went independent, and became a trailblazing press critic.
Starting in 1929, he wrote a torrent of books -- including "You Can't
Print That," "Lords of the Press" and "Freedom of the Press" --
warning of threats to the free flow of information in the United
States and around the world. The press lords, he showed, were slanting
and censoring the news to suit those with economic power and political
clout.
Like few other journalists in the 1930s, Seldes shined a fierce light
on fascism in Europe -- and its allies in the United States. Seldes
repeatedly attacked press barons such as William Randolph Hearst and
groups like the National Association of Manufacturers for assisting
Hitler, Mussolini and Spain's Gen. Francisco Franco.
George Seldes and his wife, Helen, covered the war between Franco's
fascists and the coalition of loyalists supporting the elected Spanish
government. A chain of East Coast daily newspapers carried the pair's
front-line news dispatches -- until pressure from U.S. supporters of
Franco caused the chain to drop their reports.
After three years in war-torn Spain, with fascism spreading across
much of Europe, Seldes returned to the United States nearly blind due
to malnutrition. (His eyesight gradually returned.)
From 1940 to 1950, he edited the nation's first periodical of media
criticism -- called "In Fact" -- a weekly which reached a circulation
of 176,000 copies.
Many of his stands, lonely at the time, were prophetic.
Beginning in the late 1930s, for example, Seldes excoriated the
American press for covering up the known dangers of smoking while
making millions from cigarette ads. He was several decades ahead of
his time.
What happened to "In Fact?" "The New York Times" obituary about Seldes
simply reported that it "ceased publication in 1950, when his warnings
about Fascism seemed out of tune with rising public concern about
Communism." "In fact," however, "In Fact" fell victim to an official
vendetta.
One FBI tactic was to intimidate readers by having agents in numerous
post offices compile the names of "In Fact" subscribers. Such tactics
were pivotal to the newsletter's demise. Also crucial was the
sustained barrage of smears against "In Fact" in the country's most
powerful newspapers.
Somehow it's appropriate that "The New York Times" would get it wrong
in the obituary about "In Fact's" extraordinary editor. For a long
time, as Seldes recalled in his autobiography "Witness to a Century,"
it was Times policy -- ordered by managing editor Edwin L. James --
"never to mention my newsletter or my books or my name." In 1934,
Seldes had testified for the Newspaper Guild in a labor-relations suit
against the Times, "and James frankly told me on leaving the hearing
that he would revenge himself in this way."
Five decades later -- during a delightful spring afternoon with George
Seldes at his modest house in a small Vermont town in 1988 -- we
discussed that Times embargo on publishing his name.
When we quipped, "Hell hath no fury like a paper-of-record scorned,"
he laughed heartily, his eyes twinkling as they did often during a six-
hour discussion.
We asked how he'd found the emotional strength to persevere. Seldes
replied, matter-of-factly, that uphill battles come with the territory
of trying to do good journalistic work.
This month, the death of George Seldes underscored major- media
disinterest in legacies of journalistic courage. Time magazine devoted
40 words to his passing; Newsweek didn't mention it at all. "The
Chicago Tribune," Seldes' former employer, used his obituary to
redbait him: "Mr. Seldes never publicly declared Communist Party
membership," the "Tribune" wrote in a baseless innuendo.
As a press critic, George Seldes picked up where Upton Sinclair left
off. From the 1930s onward, Seldes was the Diogenes whose light led
the way for new generations of journalists eager to search for truth
wherever it might lead. The muckraker I.F. Stone aptly called Seldes
"the dean and `granddaddy' of us investigative reporters."
We will always be indebted to George Seldes. The best way to repay him
is to live up to the standards he set for himself.
ltlee1
> On May 30, 3:16 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > From today's NYT,
>
> > "In his new memoir, “What Happened,” Scott McClellan, the former White
> > House press secretary, said the national news media neglected their
> > watchdog role in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, calling reporters
> > “complicit enablers” of the Bush administration’s push for war.
> > Surprisingly, some prominent journalists have agreed."
>
> > The so called American free press, rather than functioning as the
> > fourth estate, it functions as the war enabler snaring America into a
> > brutal and unnecessary war.
>
> > Of course, members of the press can tell you all kinds of reasons why
> > the so called free press does not work as one has imagined. But
> > basically, the concept of the press as the fourth estate is a fantasy.
> > It was not, is not, and never will be the four estate.
>
> > Democracy begins with the people. Only the people can pressure the
> > government to do things or not to do things. Not the journalists or
> > the presses. And the presses are not representing the people.
> > Journalists and their employers represent themselves, i.e. their
> > bottomline.
>
> But the truth is out there!:
The truth is always out there. Of course, we all should look out for
the truth. But the issue is not about the absence or the presence of
truth. But whether the truth is employed by the people in policy
formulation and implementation.
Example from the NYT article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/washington/30press.html
"Katie Couric, the anchor of “CBS Evening News,” said on Wednesday
that she had felt pressure from government officials and corporate
executives to cast the war in a positive light."
I bet Katie Couric had an inkling of the truth too. But she as a
member of the "free press" could not tell the truth. A certain
military officials also spoke out on size of the military force and
the size of the military budget needed to carry out the invasion. He
was right and he was sacked for telling the truth.
>
> http://www.publiceye.org/glossary/seldes.html
>
> excerpt:
>
> GREAT PRESS CRITIC LEAVES A LEGACY OF COURAGE
>
> By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
> (This syndicated column appeared in July, and was adapted for the Sept/
> Oct '95 EXTRA!, the magazine of FAIR.)
>
> America's greatest press critic died this month.
>
> He lived to a ripe old age, 104, before his last breath on July 2. Yet
> we're still in mourning for George Seldes.
I have no problem saluting him for his personal devotion. But no
matter how great he was, he and the press could not and cannot
represent the people. The best he could do is to educate the people.
>
> "The most sacred cow of the press is the press itself,"
This is exactly the problem. It should not be treated like that. The
press, no matter how it is called, is nothing but the views of a small
number of people from a small number of organizations. There is, in
reality, no free press. All presses are tethered.
> is to live up to the standards he set for himself.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill Moore
LT Lie wants us to believe that all presses are unfree. But he omits the
significant fact that some presses are more free than others. That there
is a huge difference between the NYT and the People's Daily, for example.
Why does LT Lie so much?
mimus
Be mean to the White House and they won't let you in their
press-conferences any more.
So the "White House Press Corps" proclaims its failure by its very
existence.
For example, have any of them ever asked whether Bush & Co. intended to
attack Iraq before the 2000 Presidential campaign even began, and if so
why they didn't mention that during the campaign? and did they consult
with their Saudi "good friends" on the matter before that campaign, and if
so why they didn't mention _that_ during the campaign?
--
Conservatism = plutocracy + theocracy + hypocrisy
Liberalism = plutocracy + psychosociocracy + hypocrisy
ltlee1
You are thinking like Greg Mitchell, "the author of “So Wrong for So
Long,” a book about press and presidential failures on the war, argues
that some media organizations have yet to come to terms with their
role. Even at the fifth anniversary of the war last March, he said,
“in the orgy of coverage of what had happened, there was almost no
media self-assessment.”"
Rather than keep asking the media to criticize itself, may be one
should simply accept the idea that "free press" does not exist.
Presses are not "free" or "not free." Rather they are either
explicitedly guided or implicitedly guided to facilitate government
policy and/or to maximize shareholders' investment returns. Readers
just have to learn to read between lines.
>
> --
>
> Conservatism = plutocracy + theocracy + hypocrisy
> Liberalism = plutocracy + psychosociocracy + hypocrisy- Hide quoted text -
chatnoir
> In article <fe956f19-99cc-4f00-85d3-2a3fd52ad...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Wll, I try and point out the diversity in the American Press! An
option not available in China! Look how Nixon was brought down by the
Press!
Eat the rich
Refuted? By whom, Foxnews zombies? The press has done poorly these
last twenty years, starting with the Iran Contra affair. If the press
had been doing their job, Bush would have never been elected and the
Iraq war would have never happened.
chatnoir
China has nothing like this!:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/30/veteran_journalist_robert_scheer_on_the
headline:
May 30, 2008
Veteran Journalist Robert Scheer on “The Pornography of Power: How
Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America”
Over the past four decades, veteran reporter Robert Scheer has built a
reputation as one of the leading journalists in this country, from his
time as a war correspondent during Vietnam to his widely read columns
today. Over the years, he has interviewed Presidents Nixon, Carter,
Reagan and Clinton. He is the author of seven books. His latest is The
Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened
America. [includes rush transcript]
Robert Scheer, Veteran journalist and columnist. He is the author of
several books and the editor of truthdig.com. His latest is “The
Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened
America.”
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help
us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our
TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
AMY GOODMAN: Over the past four decades, veteran reporter Robert
Scheer has built a reputation as one of the leading journalists in
this country, from his time as a war correspondent during Vietnam to
his widely read columns today. Over the years, he has interviewed
Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan and Clinton. He has written seven
books. His latest is hitting bookstores next week. It’s called The
Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened
America. Robert Scheer is also the editor of truthdig.com.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
ROBERT SCHEER: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. The Pornography of Power—
why pornography?
ROBERT SCHEER: Because it’s not the real thing. It’s a trick. It’s like
—I liken it to a lap dance. You know, you’re promising something that
doesn’t exist. They’re promising security. These defense contractors,
lobbyists, politicians, they pretend they’re dealing with real issues
in the world, and they’re not. They’re just getting your money, and
they’re deceiving you. And at the end of the day, you wonder, how did
I end up in this grimy, dangerous place, and forking over ever more
money, and it has nothing to do with making me happy. So I use the
pornography symbol as example of what they’re doing.
And that’s really what this hijacking of 9/11 is all about. These guys
who did the hijacking, what we do know about it is they used $3
implements that you could buy at Home Depot. They didn’t use F-22s,
F-35s. They didn’t use subs or anything else. So there’s no enemy in
sight. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about
was in big trouble. George Bush’s father had cut the defense budget by
30 percent. It was going way down. We were finally going to get a
peace dividend. And then they jumped over 9/11. They said, “Wow! This
is our new opportunity. Let’s dust off all the ships and planes that
are no longer needed, and we’ll build them now.” And we are going
deeply into debt to building these things that have absolutely no use.
We have this enormous arsenal that, according to the Reaganites,
humbled the old Soviet Union. The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore.
And we’re building, you know, two-and-a-half-billion-dollar-a-piece
submarines to fight who?
And every once in awhile they bring up China, and they’re even in
trouble on that one now, because it turns out that China and Taiwan
are getting along quite famously this week, and they’re talking about
a new chapter of peace. And so, we don’t even have the China bogeyman
anymore. And the idea that you need submarines to go get guys who are
in caves in Afghanistan is absurd.
AMY GOODMAN: You write it costs between $400,000 and $500,000 for
Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda to pull off the 9/11 attacks,
according to the authoritative estimate of the bipartisan 9/11
Commission appointed by President Bush. But within days of the
hijacking, Bush demanded 50,000 times that amount: $20 billion in
emergency appropriations from Congress.
ROBERT SCHEER: Right. I think we—I think people have trouble. We all
know that from school. What’s $1,000, what’s $1 million, what’s $1
billion, and what’s $1 trillion, you know? And people have trouble
keeping track of the money. But the $20 billion that he got right
away, that’s nothing. I say, we had a situation where Bush vetoed an
extension of child healthcare that would have involved $7 billion, OK?
That’s two subs that we don’t need that are built every year. Alright?
We have the F-35, an airplane that’s a $300 billion program. Why do we
need new planes? The F-22, a $65 billion program. So we are wasting
trillions of dollars on this old-fashioned defense budget that
benefits Boeing, benefits Lockheed. Everyone knows it’s a scam.
Everyone knows there is no military function for this, there’s no
national security. And what happened is they got a license to steal.
9/11 was their license to steal.
AMY GOODMAN: You wrote that you almost dedicated the book to Richard
Nixon.
ROBERT SCHEER: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: But you didn’t.
ROBERT SCHEER: Yeah. Well, no, he was a horrible man, and he killed a
lot of people and should have been tried for war crimes. I don’t want
to exonerate Richard Nixon. But the fact is that Richard Nixon was the
enemy of the neoconservatives. Richard Nixon recognized that communism
was nationalist, that there was not an international communism—that
was the old bogeyman justifying the whole military budget—that we
could business with communist China and with the Soviets. We did. And
this is what spawned the neoconservative movement of the Richard
Perles and the Wolfstetters and so forth.
And so, Nixon recognized that imperialism doesn’t pay, that, you know,
it’s better to buy the oil on the open market than to try to control—
look what’s happened. We control the second biggest pool of oil in the
world right now in Iraq, and the price of oil is an all-time high, OK?
So what are we getting from it? Meanwhile, there’s China that doesn’t
have oil, and they’re going around buying this stuff up. They’re
acting like modern-day capitalists, these communist Chinese. And we
have forgotten. We’ve returned to a very old-fashioned imperial model.
You know, let’s have a big army, let’s have a big military, let’s
conquer people, let’s occupy them. It’s not efficient. And the proof
of it really is in the price of gas at the pump. You know, this gas
and oil in Iraq was supposed to pay for our occupation. Instead,
American consumers are now paying for the oil.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about how Richard Nixon compared to what’s happening
today.
ROBERT SCHEER: Well, Richard Nixon, on both domestic and foreign
policy, was a moderate in comparison to George W. Bush. On domestic
policy, Richard Nixon, as the old moderate Republican Party of
Eisenhower, he entertained the notion of a guaranteed annual income.
He favored environmental protection. Again, I don’t want to celebrate
Richard Nixon, but on domestic policy the country has moved far right
under the current Republican administration. And on foreign policy,
Richard Nixon was in favor of detente, which is, as I say, the
neoconservatives, that’s a movement developed in opposition to
detente. And what detente means is we have to get along in a complex
world, a multi-polar world, and we have to learn to live with people,
and we have to learn to, you know, negotiate and not be heavy-handed.
And so, Richard Nixon really brought about the beginning of the end of
the Cold War with his opening to China, Red China, communist China.
The irony now is that when these defense hawks—when they challenge my
book and they say, “Well, of course, we don’t need these submarines to
fight al-Qaeda. They don’t even have a rowboat. And of course we don’t
need, you, now, new stealth bombers to fight al-Qaeda. But there’s the
China menace.” The irony is, here, China is financing our arms
development. They are charging us interest to lend us money to build
weapons ostensibly to attack them, and they’re laughing up their
sleeve. They know this is a joke.
And meanwhile, as I say, this incredibly important thing happened. The
Kuomintang, that was kicked out of China, the old—Chiang Kai-shek’s
old group, they’re party visited China today. They embraced. The whole
argument with Taiwan seems to be over. They’re going—you know, trade,
tourism—they’re going to have direct flights now. All of that happened
this week, you know. And yet, we’re building up a military ostensibly,
when they say, “Well, we can’t really justify going after al-Qaeda
with all this fancy equipment. China is coming.” And as I point out in
the book, last year the Defense Department concluded China is not even
a significant regional power. Not even a significant regional power.
They are not a challenge to America.
We spend—this is a statistic that still, I don’t know, I find mind-
boggling. I have to keep checking to make sure it’s true. We spend
more than the rest of the world combined on military. The whole world
combined, friend and foe. We spend more. OK? We are spending more now
than ever in peacetime America. We are spending more now than we did
during the Vietnam War and during the Korean War. To what? To get guys
who use $3 box cutters and penknives? You know, it’s absurd.
It’s an absurd waste of resources. We say we don’t have money for the
schools. We don’t have money for infrastructure. We don’t have money
to help people with their housing loans. All these things. We don’t
have money. You look at any social program, and now people say, “Wait
a minute. You can’t spend that money there. It’s not cost-effective,”
and so forth and so on. But yet, you know, $300 billion for an F-35
multi-service airplane? $300 billion? And it’s not questioned.
And I’ll tell you, one of the ironies in this election campaign is
Hillary Clinton voted for every military expenditure. She loves the
military. Democrats have a big problem a lot of times, because they
want to show they’re tough and patriotic and so forth. But John McCain
actually distinguished himself in the Senate as being the one guy who
went after some of these big-ticket weapons systems. Because of John
McCain, the top procurement officer at the Pentagon went to jail. The
COO of Boeing went to jail. This was, you know, over scams that were
conducted. So John McCain as a senator actually was quite vigilant in
attacking these big defense boondoggles. Now, as a candidate, he’s
collapsed. You know, he’s reversed himself.
AMY GOODMAN: $75 billion under the sea? ... (cont)
BretC...@peoplepc.com
elitists discover "populism."
Someone do a key word search of the _Times_ to see if the phrase
"sovereignty of the people" or "dominion of the majority" has
reappeared.
Bret Cahill
ltlee1
So?
China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war. The Chinese
people did not mistakenly think Iraq and Iraqis were involved in the
9-11 bombing. As a whole, the so called "free press" does not perform
as many have imagined.
> the Cold ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> had been doing their job, Bush would have never been elected and the
> Iraq war would have never happened.
The corp. media are doing their job. Their job is to disable
democracy.
That's what their corp. boss sponsors pay them to do.
They don't care how many they kill either when they lie by hype or lie
by omission.
Bret Cahill
"America needs a war."
-- William Randolph Hearst
fyf...@gmail.com
snipped...>
> Democracy begins with the people. Only the people can pressure the
> government to do things or not to do things. Not the journalists or
> the presses. And the presses are not representing the people.
> Journalists and their employers represent themselves, i.e. their
> bottomline.
But people are influenced by the press and the press is in turn
influenced by people. It is an interactive process. At this moment,
corruption is rampant amongst the Chinese communist officials,
especially the local ones or the ones that are remote from big
cities. The only effective way by which this form of corruption can
be checked is a free press. There are times, without a doubt, a free
press tries to sell sensation and has the truth distorted. But in the
long run, a free press can do what it is meant to do, that is, to
check corruption and the abuse of power by the government.
ltlee1
> On 5月31日, 上午5时16分, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> snipped...>
>
> > Democracy begins with the people. Only the people can pressure the
> > government to do things or not to do things. Not the journalists or
> > the presses. And the presses are not representing the people.
> > Journalists and their employers represent themselves, i.e. their
> > bottomline.
>
> But people are influenced by the press and the press is in turn
> influenced by people. It is an interactive process.
The presses are supposed to inform the people and at the same time
elevate their readers and audiences such that they can be more
discriminative about news and information in general. Their readers
and audiences, now more informed and more
discriminative, then in turn improve the quality of the press through
the market. The press and their readers hopefully will form an
ascending spiral. More informed and more discrimiantive are now
capable to force the government institutes and government officials to
improve their performance.
The above is the theory. What about the reality? Rather than forming
an ascendaing spiral, they form a descending spiral.
> At this moment,
> corruption is rampant amongst the Chinese communist officials,
> especially the local ones or the ones that are remote from big
> cities.
Corruptiions are never one sided affairs. All ocrruptions have two
sides: One side is government officials, the other sdie is the people.
If one wants to solve the problem of corruption, the people and their
think have to be changed.
> The only effective way by which this form of corruption can
> be checked is a free press. There are times, without a doubt, a free
> press tries to sell sensation and has the truth distorted. But in the
> long run, a free press can do what it is meant to do, that is, to
> check corruption and the abuse of power by the government.
The problem is that the free press is not a single entity with one
mind. Rather, they are made up of various people with different
agenda. In the long run, the people's capability will improve. Capable
citizens are the foundation of good government. There is no substitute
and there is no short cut.
ltlee1
Reality is more complicated. Yes Nixon was brought down. But he had
bad relations with the press as well as other politicians. They did
not called him "tricky dick" for nothing. However, the mood of the
country was far more important. Reagan's transgression in the Iran-
contra affairs was more extensive. But the public and the elites were
not in the mood to nail him.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
the thousands of small papers that were increasing in number up until
1913 when the robber barons started consolidation. The number of
outlets _decreased_ ever since.
Today Madison would say that "freedom of the press" applied more to
the internet than the corp. boss controlled media.
Government will improve when the corp. media are finally gone but in
the meantime they aren't going to leave gracefully.
Since they have no fig leaf exit they are going to leave future
generations with as much debt bad laws and amputees as possible.
Bret Cahill
ltlee1
> When Madison used the term "freedom of the press" he was talking about
> the thousands of small papers that were increasing in number up until
> 1913 when the robber barons started consolidation. The number of
> outlets _decreased_ ever since.
>
> Today Madison would say that "freedom of the press" applied more to
> the internet than the corp. boss controlled media.
Probably you are right. In addition, the current state of free speeh
law in the U.S. could be happenstance rather than anything 'natural.'
According to Cass R. Sunstein (DEMOCRACY AND THE PROBLEM OF FREE
SPEECH:
"The current state of free speech law in America cannot really be
attributed to the Constitution's words, or even to the aspirations of
the people who wrote them and made them a part of America's founding
document."
"...If we turn to history, we will find some evidence that in the
founding period, the phrase "the freedom of speech" was a term of art,
one with a highly specialized meaning. The term may have referred
primarily or even exclusively to protection against what are described
as "prior restraints." Priior restraints consists mainly of two
things: (1) licensing systems before speech can reach the public (for
example,
a requirement that you submit your sexually explicit book to a
licensor before you can publish); and (2) court-ordered injunctions
against expression, banning speech in advance (for example, a court
order stopping you from printing a dissident political tract). "
Implication: "...subsequent punishment for speech raises no
constitutional issue at all."
Jim Walsh
(in article
<18e71201-4731-4d6d...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
> Probably you are right. In addition, the current state of free speeh law in
> the U.S. could be happenstance rather than anything 'natural.' According to
> Cass R. Sunstein (DEMOCRACY AND THE PROBLEM OF FREE SPEECH:
>
> "The current state of free speech law in America cannot really be attributed
> to the Constitution's words, or even to the aspirations of the people who
> wrote them and made them a part of America's founding document."
>
> "...If we turn to history, we will find some evidence that in the founding
> period, the phrase "the freedom of speech" was a term of art, one with a
> highly specialized meaning. The term may have referred primarily or even
> exclusively to protection against what are described as "prior restraints."
> Priior restraints consists mainly of two things: (1) licensing systems before
> speech can reach the public (for example, a requirement that you submit your
> sexually explicit book to a licensor before you can publish); and (2)
> court-ordered injunctions against expression, banning speech in advance (for
> example, a court order stopping you from printing a dissident political
> tract). "
>
> Implication: "...subsequent punishment for speech raises no constitutional
> issue at all."
The problem here is that you don't understand what you are posting.
It is definitely true that the concept of "freedom of speech" has evolved
over time, and the meaning of those words in Jefferson's day was quite
different from what they mean today.
And that is of course a good thing.
And yet a rule against prior restraint remains at the heart of the modern
legal principles regarding freedom of speech and the press.
And applying that principle does not mean that subsequent punishment is
likely, only that it is possible.
So, the Supreme Court allowed the NY Times to print the "Pentagon Papers"
(for example), without deciding whether the N Y Times would be subsequently
punished for doing so. (There was, as it turns out, no subsequent
punishment.)
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim Walsh
(in article
<fe956f19-99cc-4f00...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>):
>
> The truth is always out there. Of course, we all should look out for the
> truth. But the issue is not about the absence or the presence of truth. But
> whether the truth is employed by the people in policy formulation and
> implementation.
No. The is no TRUTH. There are versions which are more or less accurate.
And no, it is not enough that the decision makers have good information.
The population in general must have access to good sources, too, so that they
can understand and support the decisions.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<ec185f2f-e9e0-497d...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
> The problem is that the free press is not a single entity with one mind.
> Rather, they are made up of various people with different agenda. In the long
> run, the people's capability will improve. Capable citizens are the
> foundation of good government. There is no substitute and there is no short
> cut.
Not being a single entity with one mind is a virtue, not a fault.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<f838df8e-b883-4971...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>):
>
> So? China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war. The Chinese
> people did not mistakenly think Iraq and Iraqis were involved in the 9-11
> bombing. As a whole, the so called "free press" does not perform as many have
> imagined.
It is naive to think that the "free press" will cure all ills. But it is
nonsense to claim that an unfree press will do better.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<ec185f2f-e9e0-497d...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Corruptiions are never one sided affairs. All ocrruptions have two sides: One
> side is government officials, the other sdie is the people. If one wants to
> solve the problem of corruption, the people and their think have to be
> changed.
Democracy is the key to corruption reduction.
ltlee1
> Now that they see that they'll be leveled by the internet, media
> elitists discover "populism."
It is not about populism. But what kind of populism. Since the 1970s,
the trend is toward "market populism." Markets were mistakenly
believed to be a popular system,a far more democratic form of
organization than governments. The problem is the comingling of
'MARKET' the concept and 'markets' the reality.
> > bottomline.- Hide quoted text -
bmo...@nyx.net
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:44:39 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
> > So? China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war. The Chinese
> > people did not mistakenly think Iraq and Iraqis were involved in the 9-11
> > bombing. As a whole, the so called "free press" does not perform as many have
> > imagined.
>
> It is naive to think that the "free press" will cure all ills. But it is
LT is just venting due to his massive guilt at leaving China for the
good life in the USA. It makes him feel better if he bashes the US for
everything and lavishes unconditional praise on China while he sips a
glass of Chardonnay looking out at the Atlantic from a cottage on
Myrtle Beach.
mimus
> On May 31, 9:20 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
>> Now that they see that they'll be leveled by the internet, media
>> elitists discover "populism."
>
> It is not about populism. But what kind of populism. Since the 1970s,
> the trend is toward "market populism." Markets were mistakenly
> believed to be a popular system,a far more democratic form of
> organization than governments. The problem is the comingling of
> 'MARKET' the concept and 'markets' the reality.
Well, a pseudo-scientific pseudo-"market-oriented" gloss over gross
plutocracy, based on the very popular lie, repeated in a thousand forms by
a thousand plutocratic flacks, that markets are self-regulating (no
ignorance or more likely studied ignoring of history _there_) . . . :
For some telling examples of "self-policing" in America, I give you the US
Federal Congressional "ethics committees" and the ABA and the AMA . . . .
Although I'd be the last to deny that the American Democratic and
Republican parties are "market-oriented" in one sense, that of peddling
votes and laws and contracts and in general America's ass to the highest
bidders.
mimus
That sounds pretty dam' good to me, too.
--
Socialism for everyone, not just the corporations!
tankfixer
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
> China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war.
Korea 1950-1953
Vietnam 1979
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
Bret Cahill
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:46:15 -0700, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On May 31, 9:20�am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
> >> Now that they see that they'll be leveled by the internet, media
> >> elitists discover "populism."
>
> > It is not about populism. But what kind of populism. Since the 1970s,
> > the trend is toward "market populism." �Markets were mistakenly
> > believed to be a popular system,a far more democratic form of
> > organization than governments. The problem is the comingling of
> > 'MARKET' the concept and 'markets' the reality.
>
> Well, a pseudo-scientific pseudo-"market-oriented" gloss over gross
> plutocracy, based on the very popular lie, repeated in a thousand forms by
> a thousand plutocratic flacks, that markets are self-regulating (no
> ignorance or more likely studied ignoring of history _there_) . . . :
Thing is, and Soros made the same omission or error you you are in
good company, they don't even support markets.
> For some telling examples of "self-policing" in America, I give you the US
> Federal Congressional "ethics committees" and the ABA and the AMA . . . .
>
> Although I'd be the last to deny that the American Democratic and
> Republican parties are "market-oriented" in one sense, that of peddling
> votes and laws and contracts and in general America's ass to the highest
> bidders.
That's only possible if people cannot think critically.
Bret Cahill
mimus
> In article <f838df8e-b883-4971-be36-0b0ebc1df7b8
> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war.
>
> Korea 1950-1953
> Vietnam 1979
I was wondering when someone would be tacky enough to bring those up.
--
The central question of my book:
IF THE RED ARMY COULD NOT TURN BACK,
AND COULD NOT REMAIN LONG ON THE FRONTIER,
WHAT REMAINED FOR IT TO DO?
< _Icebreaker_
chatnoir
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:41:10 -0700, tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <f838df8e-b883-4971-be36-0b0ebc1df7b8
> > @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >> China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war.
>
> > Korea 1950-1953
> > Vietnam 1979
>
> I was wondering when someone would be tacky enough to bring those up.
And we can't rule out China's Invasion of Vietnam is support of Pol
Pot!
BretC...@peoplepc.com
parades.
The word Madison used way back in 1822 for "information" was -- get
this -- "information."
Today, if you organize a key word search of all Art III court
decisions on Lexus-Nexus you'll find that information on economic
issues has been entirely precluded from the federal docket for the
past 30 years..
Public nudity? Over a hundred hits. The ACLU and federal judges just
love to weigh in on public nudity.
KKK? Dozens of hits. The ACLU and federal judges just love to give
hate filled bigots air time.
Gay? Dozens of hits and increasing exponentially. The ACLU and
federal judges just love to hype gay this gay that.
Economic or employment issues?
Just six hits and in all six opinions the only reason the words
"economic" and "first amendment" even appear together is sheer
coincidence.
No one has sued for freedom of speech on economic matters for over 30
years.
From the above research one can conclude:
a. Americans aren't interested in money.
b. WestGroup has a better data base.
c. Rights don't atrophy from lack of use so there's no reason for
anyone to invoke free speech for economic issues in the first place.
d. The same monied interests that have the corp. media hyping culture
wars every election also hold sway over the judiciary.
Bret Cahill
"A popular government without popular information . .."
-- Madison 1822
tankfixer
@hotmail.com says...
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:41:10 -0700, tankfixer wrote:
>
> > In article <f838df8e-b883-4971-be36-0b0ebc1df7b8
> > @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >> China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war.
> >
> > Korea 1950-1953
> > Vietnam 1979
>
> I was wondering when someone would be tacky enough to bring those up.
>
Inconvenient truth's for our Maoist friend huh ?
ltlee1
> On Jun 1, 1:16�pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:46:15 -0700, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > On May 31, 9:20�am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
> > >> Now that they see that they'll be leveled by the internet, media
> > >> elitists discover "populism."
>
> > > It is not about populism. But what kind of populism. Since the 1970s,
> > > the trend is toward "market populism." �Markets were mistakenly
> > > believed to be a popular system,a far more democratic form of
> > > organization than governments. The problem is the comingling of
> > > 'MARKET' the concept and 'markets' the reality.
>
> > Well, a pseudo-scientific pseudo-"market-oriented" gloss over gross
> > plutocracy, based on the very popular lie, repeated in a thousand forms by
> > a thousand plutocratic flacks, that markets are self-regulating (no
> > ignorance or more likely studied ignoring of history _there_) . . . :
>
> Thing is, and Soros made the same omission or error you you are in
> good company, they don't even support markets.
What following "ONE MARKET UNDER GOD" (by Thomas Frank) is "The
PREDATOR STATE. The followin is an excerpt for a pre-publishing review
of James Galbraith's book.
http://www.globalstrategywatch.com/independent-insight/35e2a8a200550d6c27f84c5ceabcb391/
"...“Market” means nothing more than “nonstate”, a negation of use of
policy in the public interest. Jamie provides a careful analysis of
the frontline battles on many of the most important issues--Social
Security, health care, inequality, immigration, security after 9-11,
trade and outsourcing, and global warming—showing how “market
solutions” are designed to enrich a favored oligarchy through a spoils
system administered through the state’s structure. The policy
“mistakes” in Iraq or New Orleans or at Bear-Stearns do not result
from incompetence—indeed they only appear to be failures because we
apply inappropriate measures of success. There is no common good, no
public purpose, no shareholder’s interest; we are the prey and
governments as well as corporations are run by and for predators. The
“failures” enrich the proper beneficiaries even as they “prove”
government is no solution.
There is a way out, but it is not easy. Historically, regulation and
standards have required acceptance by progressive business—those firms
that recognized they would lose in races to the bottom. Today,
corporate and public policy alike are run by the most reactionary
elements, well-paid rogues that suck capacity. Wherever one finds a
sector that still operates reasonably well, one finds remnants of New
Deal institutions that support, guarantee, regulate, and leverage
private activities, in spheres as diverse as higher education,
housing, pensions, healthcare, the military-industrial complex (and
the prison-industrial complex). Naturally, even these sectors are
endangered as they represent potential riches (witness subprimes, a
privatization mess that Wall Street would love to repeat with Social
Security). Still, Jamie is hopeful. The ideology of free markets is
bankrupt, but the US is not. The path is clear: re-regulation,
planning, standards (including wage controls), and coming to grips
with the nation’s global responsibilities."
>
> > For some telling examples of "self-policing" in America, I give you the US
> > Federal Congressional "ethics committees" and the ABA and the AMA . . . .
>
> > Although I'd be the last to deny that the American Democratic and
> > Republican parties are "market-oriented" in one sense, that of peddling
> > votes and laws and contracts and in general America's ass to the highest
> > bidders.
>
> That's only possible if people cannot think critically.
You are right. But why people cannot think critically. They believe
the "free press" fairy tale which dumbs them.
>
> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
mimus
> In article <LoidnYl8vNWXpN7V...@giganews.com>, tinmimus99
> @hotmail.com says...
>
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:41:10 -0700, tankfixer wrote:
>>
>>> In article <f838df8e-b883-4971-be36-0b0ebc1df7b8
>>> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>>> China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war.
>>>
>>> Korea 1950-1953
>>> Vietnam 1979
>>
>> I was wondering when someone would be tacky enough to bring those up.
>
> Inconvenient truth's for our Maoist friend huh ?
Eh, it's old news, and, besides, remember when the US supported a Catholic
dictatorship over a Buddhist population in South Vietnam in the names of
liberty and democracy, from '55 to, what, '63, when like several other
inconvenient world-leaders during Kennedy's Presidency Diem got
"unintentionally" murdered? (He was always sad over 'em.)
I'll give us the white hat in both Korean Wars, the Korean Korean War and
the (immediately following) Chinese Korean War . . . .
(That first six weeks in the Korean Korean War for the Americans was a
rush, being bounced repeatedly from Osan on down to the Pusan "Perimeter" . . . .)
--
I AM JUST WEST OF THE MANURE PILE
< First known US military "wireless" communication
ltlee1
The above quote is revealing. If we sum up all the exprssions among
the populace. These interests are interests of the country. If we
summed up all the exprssions of the corp media, they do not
necessarily represent the interest of the country. They for certain
advance the interests of the journalists and the shareholders.
>
> -- Madison 1822
tankfixer
@hotmail.com says...
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:22:18 -0700, tankfixer wrote:
>
> > In article <LoidnYl8vNWXpN7V...@giganews.com>, tinmimus99
> > @hotmail.com says...
> >
> >> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:41:10 -0700, tankfixer wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <f838df8e-b883-4971-be36-0b0ebc1df7b8
> >>> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
> >>>
> >>>> China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war.
> >>>
> >>> Korea 1950-1953
> >>> Vietnam 1979
> >>
> >> I was wondering when someone would be tacky enough to bring those up.
> >
> > Inconvenient truth's for our Maoist friend huh ?
>
> Eh, it's old news, and, besides, remember when the US supported a Catholic
> dictatorship over a Buddhist population in South Vietnam in the names of
> liberty and democracy, from '55 to, what, '63, when like several other
> inconvenient world-leaders during Kennedy's Presidency Diem got
> "unintentionally" murdered? (He was always sad over 'em.)
He asked and I answered.
Inconvenient for him, and you it appears
>
> I'll give us the white hat in both Korean Wars, the Korean Korean War and
> the (immediately following) Chinese Korean War . . . .
>
> (That first six weeks in the Korean Korean War for the Americans was a
> rush, being bounced repeatedly from Osan on down to the Pusan "Perimeter" . . . .)
You have a point ?
ltlee1
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:41:10 -0700, tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <f838df8e-b883-4971-be36-0b0ebc1df7b8
> > @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >> China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war.
>
> > Korea 1950-1953
> > Vietnam 1979
>
> I was wondering when someone would be tacky enough to bring those up.
I don't understand why people brought that up either. No one is
suggesting that those decisions were democratic decisions. But the
free press is supposed to be able to preclude mistakes like invading
Iraq.
As I had post previously, I examine issues like western democracy and
free press closely because they are supposed to do wonders and should
be adopted universally according to western politicians and wester
media. But the more I look, the more freedom and democracy do not fit
the bill.
Bret Cahill
He'll tell you that the corp. media doesn't decide the issues in a
democracy.
The _people_ decide.
If you let the corp. boss whore media decide the issues then the only
issues that will ever get debated are naked nazi flagburner parades.
In other words, they've managed to run and end run around democratic
freedom.
Bret Cahill
62% of Americans want national health care. So why don't we have it?
Because most Americans don't trust national health care.
-- Big Pharma sponsored CBS anchor Bob Schieffer having difficulty
figuring out why he gets paid so much to never figger anything out.
tankfixer
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
> On Jun 1, 8:05 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:41:10 -0700, tankfixer wrote:
> > > In article <f838df8e-b883-4971-be36-0b0ebc1df7b8
> > > @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > >> China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war.
> >
> > > Korea 1950-1953
> > > Vietnam 1979
> >
> > I was wondering when someone would be tacky enough to bring those up.
>
> I don't understand why people brought that up either. No one is
> suggesting that those decisions were democratic decisions. But the
> free press is supposed to be able to preclude mistakes like invading
> Iraq.
You mistakenly assume that all decisions are reached in a democratic
manner.
>
> As I had post previously, I examine issues like western democracy and
> free press closely because they are supposed to do wonders and should
> be adopted universally according to western politicians and wester
> media. But the more I look, the more freedom and democracy do not fit
> the bill.
You pretend to understand when in fact you don't want to.
You are much more comforable in your dictaorship.
mimus
> the free press is supposed to be able to preclude mistakes like invading
> Iraq.
Where in the world do you get that idea? a free press is just as likely to
get caught up in a war-hysteria as anyone else, even more so, it being
generally sensationalism-oriented:
Think, for example, of the Hearst press drumming up the Spanish-American
War.
Wars sell newspapers, you know.
--
We feel America went off the track politically
sometime in August of 1776.
< _After Things Fell Apart_
Eat the rich
> > If the press
> > had been doing their job, Bush would have never been elected and the
> > Iraq war would have never happened.
>
> The corp. media are doing their job. Their job is to disable
> democracy.
>
> That's what their corp. boss sponsors pay them to do.
>
> They don't care how many they kill either when they lie by hype or lie
> by omission.
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "America needs a war."
>
> -- William Randolph Hearst
Good point. Fox News and the other news outlets make bigger profits
during war. Plus many of their advertisers are part of the military
industrial complex.
OD
> On Jun 1, 8:05 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:41:10 -0700, tankfixer wrote:
>>> In article <f838df8e-b883-4971-be36-0b0ebc1df7b8
>>> @a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ltl...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>>> China was not misled into an unnecessary and wasteful war.
>>
>>> Korea 1950-1953
>>> Vietnam 1979
>>
>> I was wondering when someone would be tacky enough to bring those up.
>
> I don't understand why people brought that up either. No one is
> suggesting that those decisions were democratic decisions. But the
> free press is supposed to be able to preclude mistakes like invading
> Iraq.
Of course if Iraq had permitted press freedom it's likely that no war would
have taken place, since reporters scouring the country would have discovered
the truth of WMD.
> As I had post previously, I examine issues like western democracy and
> free press closely because they are supposed to do wonders and should
> be adopted universally according to western politicians and wester
> media. But the more I look, the more freedom and democracy do not fit
> the bill.
Of course, since you set up your own parameters on what fits the bill. What
are those parameters? How many wars need to be prevented before it does fit
your bill? All wars? 10? 5? 1? If the free press has kept the US from
going to war with Iran and North Korea during the Bush presidency, does that
still not fit your bill? Two less wars not good enough for you?
ltlee1
But here the so called "free press" is worse than expected. Not only
does it not able to prevent unnecessary war. The press is an complicit
war enabler. Before you ask me for the parameters, may be you should
decide whether enabling wars like the invasion of Iraq is part of the
featured function of the free press. If not, the conclusion is this:
A) The so called free press is not really free. Or, B) People's
general conception about the free press is wrong, free pess is
supposed to enable unnecessary war. I choose A above. How about you?
> If the free press has kept the US from
> going to war with Iran and North Korea during the Bush presidency, does that
> still not fit your bill? Two less wars not good enough for you?- Hide quoted text -
Jim Walsh
(in article
<4c847da6-5b55-45e3...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
>
> He'll tell you that the corp. media doesn't decide the issues in a democracy.
>
> The _people_ decide.
>
> If you let the corp. boss whore media decide the issues then the only issues
> that will ever get debated are naked nazi flagburner parades.
>
> In other words, they've managed to run and end run around democratic freedom.
Well, this is not a reason to abandon democratic freedoms, is it?
Democracy is a bad system, except when it is contrasted to the alternatives.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<6d471c62-8b33-46dc...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> But the free press is supposed to be able to preclude mistakes like invading
> Iraq.
No. No one has claimed that. If they had, they would have been obviously
wrong.
The claim is that a free press reports information that results in a
moderation of mistakes.
That is precisely what the free press has done in regard to the Iraq War.
The Bush Administration continues to claim that the Iraq War is doing fine,
but the news generated by a press independent of the government has, over a
period of years, resulted in a public in which 60 to 70 per cent oppose the
war.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Were the press in America controlled by the government (as it is in China),
it is very unlikely that the public would know enough to oppose the Bush
Administration.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<fbcd0530-3740-418b...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> The above quote is revealing. If we sum up all the exprssions among the
> populace. These interests are interests of the country. If we summed up all
> the exprssions of the corp media, they do not necessarily represent the
> interest of the country. They for certain advance the interests of the
> journalists and the shareholders.
The free press, voting and freedom of expression results in an expression of
the interests of the country.
The soldiers who rushed, at much risk and personal suffering, to the rescue
of the victims of the quake are adequate proof that self-interest is not the
sole motivation of people.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<6d471c62-8b33-46dc...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> As I had post previously, I examine issues like western democracy and free
> press closely because they are supposed to do wonders and should be adopted
> universally according to western politicians and wester media. But the more I
> look, the more freedom and democracy do not fit the bill.
You hold the free press to an impossibly high standard without paying any
attention to the faults of an unfree press.
For example, where (in China) were the investigative journalists who might
have discovered the shoddy construction of the schools that might have
resulted in the saving of lives?
Jim Walsh
(in article
<04ebfdea-3516-42dc...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
>
> But here the so called "free press" is worse than expected. Not only does it
> not able to prevent unnecessary war. The press is an complicit war enabler.
Worse than you expected maybe. But who cares what you expect.
And the question is which is better, a free press and an unfree press.
Because even if you prove a free press is worse that you expected, you have
proved nothing until you prove it is worse (or no better) than an unfree one.
And you have not even put this issue on your list of things to discuss in the
future.
OD
Are you going to answer the questions or not? Establish your parameters on
what fits the bill.
ltlee1
As I had explained, the so called "free press" is found to enable wars
like the invasion of Iraq. Hence I cannot no longer establish
parameter on how many wars it can prevent. Rather, it has to be
decided whether one of the function of the so called "free press" is
to enable wars like the invasion of Iraq. As is, I chose A above. That
is, there is no free press. All presses are tethered. Free press is a
fantasy.
dkat
> On May 30, 2:16 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From today's NYT,
>
> > "In his new memoir, “What Happened,” Scott McClellan, the former White
> > House press secretary, said the national news media neglected their
> > watchdog role in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, calling reporters
> > “complicit enablers” of the Bush administration’s push for war.
> > Surprisingly, some prominent journalists have agreed."
>
> > The so called American free press, rather than functioning as the
> > fourth estate, it functions as the war enabler snaring America into a
> > brutal and unnecessary war.
>
> > Of course, members of the press can tell you all kinds of reasons why
> > the so called free press does not work as one has imagined. But
> > basically, the concept of the press as the fourth estate is a fantasy.
> > It was not, is not, and never will be the four estate.
>
> > Democracy begins with the people. Only the people can pressure the
> > government to do things or not to do things. Not the journalists or
> > the presses. And the presses are not representing the people.
> > Journalists and their employers represent themselves, i.e. their
> > bottomline.
>
> More recycled garbage from LT. You have posted this sort of tripe
> every few months for years now. It was soundly refuted and you backed
> off from the argument. Now you try to get away with it again. You're
> still not fooling anyone, LT. You obviously have lots of free time to
> try to mislead us, but all you succeed at is making a fool of
> yourself. You want us to believe that China is democratic on one hand,
> but then you blast democracy as ineffectual on the other. Simply put,
> you're a BSer who only cares about a wretched agenda. You piss on the
> truth almost every time you post.
You have thrown out a lot of meaningless insults but not addressed one
of the issues brought up. Where's the beef?
OD
So once again when presented with a chance to look on something with even a
small degree of honesty you choose not to. I have no doubt that if the Bush
presidency controlled the media then war would have also been fought in
Syria, Iran, and North Korea. If the free press could have been used to
"enable" those wars to further the Neocon agenda, then why wasn't it? Could
it be that the free press is not as big a fantasy as you would like to
portray it to be?
ltlee1
I don't know about that. If the press is understood to be guided by
the government, then Bush et al could not mislead the public over the
invasion of Irq wihtout shouldering the majority, if not all, of the
responsibility. The illusion of a "free press" gives the Bush
administration a free pass.
> If the free press could have been used to
> "enable" those wars to further the Neocon agenda, then why wasn't it? Could
> it be that the free press is not as big a fantasy as you would like to
> portray it to be?- Hide quoted text -
OD
Why the irrelevant comment?
>> If the free press could have been used to
>> "enable" those wars to further the Neocon agenda, then why wasn't
>> it? Could it be that the free press is not as big a fantasy as you
>> would like to portray it to be?- Hide quoted text -
Why no comment?
ltlee1
Short answer: Some people post to stop discussion through ad hominem
attack.
bmo...@nyx.net
Yes. LT is dishonest even in situations where just a small amount of
honesty would give him a teeny bit of crediblity. LT establishes his
conclusions first and then comes up with the argument to support them.
So if you make an argument that refutes his conclusion he will reject
your argument, no matter how dishonest he must be. This is not idle
chatter on my part. This is his MO. Every fucking time. And *my*
conclusion is that he is utterly, shamelessly and hopelessly full of
shit.
But you know that.
> I have no doubt that if the Bush
> presidency controlled the media then war would have also been fought in
> Syria, Iran, and North Korea. If the free press could have been used to
> "enable" those wars to further the Neocon agenda, then why wasn't it? Could
> it be that the free press is not as big a fantasy as you would like to
> portray it to be?- Hide quoted text -
bmo...@nyx.net
Because he doesn't want to address your comments directly. LT wants to
have conversations on his terms, with his parameters. He is
intentionally vague about those terms because there *are* no set
parameters. He is interested only in coming up with conclusions that
support his agenda. Being dishonest with logic and such is of no
concern to LT and it's quite possible that he is so screwed up in the
head from doing this for so many years that he doesn't really realize
he is being dishonest, odd as that may seem.
bmo...@nyx.net
Yeah, in this particular case I merely threw out insults. I've been
through it all before with LT Lie. If you follow the threads on
soc.culture.china some of us have spent much time trying to have
honest conversations with him and he is unflinchingly dishonest and a
weasel when confronted with basic discussion.
bmo...@nyx.net
Short answer but wrong answer. LT is a hypocrite. Many of us have
tried to have discussion with him many times. He is wildly
intellectually dishonest and it is he, not I who tries to mislead and
interfere with honest discussion. He gets all holier-than-thou and
pretends to be having a discussion but from much experience I know
he's full of shit far more than he has something meaningful to say.
People who just drop in to this NG (soc.culture.china) sometimes don't
see that, and it's understandable because they are looking at a small
sample. Hell, I used to think that LT was honest, but anyone who
spends much time here knows that he is not.
I have tried to have real discussion and he has pissed me off with his
dishonesty and shameless attempts to avoid getting at the truth
because the truth conflicts with his agenda. He deserves to be blasted
because he is a first rate bullshitter.
.
bmo...@nyx.net
More deception from LT. He presents only 2 choices.
How about stopping trying to stifle discussion by presenting false
dichotomies? I think presenting false dichotomies is intellectually
dishonest. How about you?
Man, you would get torn apart in a class on basic debate. And when the
professor flunked you you would probably claim that it's because
you're Chinese. Pfffft. You're not fooling anyone.
ltlee1
This is how I see it. At first the debate is between market and state.
In another word, what should be regulated and what should be left to
the market? And where should be the point of balance? And then the
free market as well as all kind of "free this" and "free that"
ideology took over. Market was then understood as the lack of
government policy. At the same time, the government also changed from
democratic, i.e. to satisfy most citizens' needs most of the time to
some kind of plutocratic. At this stage, the government would be
viewed as untrustworthy by the non-special interest general public.
bmo...@nyx.net
The definition of democracy is not about satisfying most citizens'
needs most of the time.
There are plenty of problems with the US government but when you start
with that premise the rest of your argument falls apart.
And of course your underlying agenda, as always, is that the Chinese
government and institutions are somehow "right" and the US government
and institutions are somehow "wrong."
And you don't care what kind of fallacious arguments you use to reach
that conclusion.
bmo...@nyx.net
> last twenty years, starting with the Iran Contra affair. If the press
> had been doing their job, Bush would have never been elected and the
> Iraq war would have never happened.
But would you so far as to argue that there is no such thing as a free
press in the US? That the role of the press is better served by
organizations like the People's Daily who are literally an arm of the
Chinese government? That's what LT Lee says.
ltlee1
Funny. How come you "what if" comment is relevant and mine is not?
>
> >> If the free press could have been used to
> >> "enable" those wars to further the Neocon agenda, then why wasn't
> >> it? Could it be that the free press is not as big a fantasy as you
> >> would like to portray it to be?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Why no comment?
Your view which I try to debunk is commonly held. I don't agree with
that. I assume you know our position. What else do you want me to say?
bmo...@nyx.net
A shred of honesty or non-weasel words would be refreshing.
Ain't gonna happen.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<8e0f11b8-fea8-4d49...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> If the press is understood to be guided by the government,
It is not so understood.
> then Bush et al
> could not mislead the public over the invasion of Irq wihtout shouldering the
> majority, if not all, of the responsibility.
The Bush administration rightfully shoulders all of the blame.
> The illusion of a "free press" gives the Bush administration a free pass.
The actuality of a free press is not relevant to the issue of whether Bush
gets a free pass.
Bush doesn't have nor did he get a free pass.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<1b236779-5173-4372...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> As I had explained, the so called "free press" is found to enable wars like
> the invasion of Iraq. Hence I cannot no longer establish parameter on how
> many wars it can prevent. Rather, it has to be decided whether one of the
> function of the so called "free press" is to enable wars like the invasion of
> Iraq. As is, I chose A above. That is, there is no free press. All presses
> are tethered. Free press is a fantasy.
Tried to parse the logic and found, surprise, there is none.
The "free press" is not a single entity, with one voice. It is many voices.
Some of them oppose war, some do not.
It is not the FUNCTION of the free press to support or oppose any particular
policy. The FUNCTION of the free press is to support many views, to report
many facts, to argue, disagree and dispute.
And none of this a matter to be decided.
And the claim that none of the press is free is both patently false, and not
logical.
scottsoperson
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:10:14 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
> (in article
>
> > If the press is understood to be guided by the government,
>
> It is not so understood.
>
> > then Bush et al
> > could not mislead the public over the invasion of Irq wihtout shouldering the
> > majority, if not all, of the responsibility.
>
> The Bush administration rightfully shoulders all of the blame.
>
> > The illusion of a "free press" gives the Bush administration a free pass.
>
> The actuality of a free press is not relevant to the issue of whether Bush
> gets a free pass.
>
> Bush doesn't have nor did he get a free pass.
>
> --
> Love, Jim
> (I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
> crossposts.)
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Jim Walsh
(in article
<c1ff119a-f3aa-4ac6...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jun 3, 1:12 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:10:14 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
>> (in article
>> <8e0f11b8-fea8-4d49-a50b-0992efd61...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> If the press is understood to be guided by the government,
>>
>> It is not so understood.
>>
>>> then Bush et al
>>> could not mislead the public over the invasion of Irq wihtout shouldering
>>> the
>>> majority, if not all, of the responsibility.
>>
>> The Bush administration rightfully shoulders all of the blame.
>>
>>> The illusion of a "free press" gives the Bush administration a free pass.
>>
>> The actuality of a free press is not relevant to the issue of whether Bush
>> gets a free pass.
>>
>> Bush doesn't have nor did he get a free pass.
>>
> the corporate media says the surge is working.
I watch CNN all the time and you can't get more "corporate media" than that
and NO they don't say that the surge is working.
CNN analysis (opinions) from both sides of the issue and facts (many of which
are inconsistent with "the surge is working".
--
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive
crossposts.)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
fyf...@gmail.com
> On May 31, 10:43 am, "fyfp...@gmail.com" <fyfp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5月31日, 上午5时16分, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snipped...>
>
> > > Democracy begins with the people. Only the people can pressure the
> > > government to do things or not to do things. Not the journalists or
> > > the presses. And the presses are not representing the people.
> > > Journalists and their employers represent themselves, i.e. their
> > > bottomline.
>
> > influenced by people. It is an interactive process.
>
> The presses are supposed to inform the people and at the same time
> elevate their readers and audiences such that they can be more
> discriminative about news and information in general. Their readers
> and audiences, now more informed and more
> discriminative, then in turn improve the quality of the press through
> the market. The press and their readers hopefully will form an
> ascending spiral. More informed and more discrimiantive are now
> capable to force the government institutes and government officials to
> improve their performance.
>
> The above is the theory. What about the reality? Rather than forming
> an ascendaing spiral, they form a descending spiral.
>
> > At this moment,
> > corruption is rampant amongst the Chinese communist officials,
> > especially the local ones or the ones that are remote from big
> > cities.
>
> Corruptiions are never one sided affairs. All ocrruptions have two
> sides: One side is government officials, the other sdie is the people.
Yes, people but what kind of people or at what capacity are these
people working?
The people who are dirt poor and have no money to bribe or no use for
bribing OR the
people who are filthy rich and have the money and the purpose for
bribing?
> If one wants to solve the problem of corruption, the people and their
> think have to be changed.
That is home economics theory at work. Please do better than that....
While corruption has its evil aspects, I don't rule out corruption
works as a lubricant
to the economic machinery at time. However, whose economic machinery
is benefitting here,
the ones of the rich or the absence of economic machinery of the
poor...?
The neo=classical economic theory has not taken care of the aspect of
social equity
well. This is why a free press, be vulgar it may from time to time---
as in the case of Jack Cafferty of CNN---does do its job in exposing
the issue of social dispartiy to the masses and the people who are the
players in the formation of this frightening inequality.
>
> > The only effective way by which this form of corruption can
> > be checked is a free press. There are times, without a doubt, a free
> > press tries to sell sensation and has the truth distorted. But in the
> > long run, a free press can do what it is meant to do, that is, to
> > check corruption and the abuse of power by the government.
>
> The problem is that the free press is not a single entity with one
> mind. Rather, they are made up of various people with different
> agenda. In the long run, the people's capability will improve. Capable
> citizens are the foundation of good government. There is no substitute
> and there is no short cut.
ltlee1
Is ocuurption a form of social lubrication? If this attitude or view
is widespread, then corruption is inevitable. Not a matter of class,
but a matter of opportunity.
>
> > If one wants to solve the problem of corruption, the people and their
> > think have to be changed.
>
> That is home economics theory at work. Please do better than that....
>
> While corruption has its evil aspects, I don't rule out corruption
> works as a lubricant
> to the economic machinery at time. However, whose economic machinery
> is benefitting here,
> the ones of the rich or the absence of economic machinery of the
> poor...?
>
> The neo=classical economic theory has not taken care of the aspect of
> social equity
> well. This is why a free press, be vulgar it may from time to time---
> as in the case of Jack Cafferty of CNN---does do its job in exposing
> the issue of social dispartiy to the masses and the people who are the
> players in the formation of this frightening inequality.
Can you not tell the social disparity without someone telling you? Is
China such a paradise? May be you should visit the U.S. from time to
time. It is obvious that some people are doing well and others are
not. For instance, while driving on the raod, I cannot help but
noticed that a guy was driving a BMW 7XX and another guy begged the
driver for money when he stopped before the light.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The only effective way by which this form of corruption can
> > > be checked is a free press. There are times, without a doubt, a free
> > > press tries to sell sensation and has the truth distorted. But in the
> > > long run, a free press can do what it is meant to do, that is, to
> > > check corruption and the abuse of power by the government.
>
> > The problem is that the free press is not a single entity with one
> > mind. Rather, they are made up of various people with different
> > agenda. In the long run, the people's capability will improve. Capable
> > citizens are the foundation of good government. There is no substitute
> > and there is no short cut.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bmo...@nyx.net
> Can you not tell the social disparity without someone telling you? Is
> China such a paradise? May be you should visit the U.S. from time to
> time. It is obvious that some people are doing well and others are
> not. For instance, while driving on the raod, I cannot help but
> noticed that a guy was driving a BMW 7XX and another guy begged the
> driver for money when he stopped before the light.
That's so meaningful, LT.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<9032eb28-0415-4e71...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> On 5ÔÂ31ÈÕ, ÏÂÎç11ʱ02·Ö, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Corruptiions are never one sided affairs. All ocrruptions have two
>> sides: One side is government officials, the other sdie is the people.
>
> Yes, people but what kind of people or at what capacity are these
> people working?
> The people who are dirt poor and have no money to bribe or no use for
> bribing OR the people who are filthy rich and have the money and the purpose
for
> bribing?
Well said. Government corruption of the sort common in China is really
extortion. The person paying the bribe has no choice.
>> If one wants to solve the problem of corruption, the people and their
>> think have to be changed.
>
> That is home economics theory at work. Please do better than that....
>
> While corruption has its evil aspects, I don't rule out corruption
> works as a lubricant
> to the economic machinery at time. However, whose economic machinery
> is benefitting here,
> the ones of the rich or the absence of economic machinery of the
> poor...?
Again, well said.
>
> The neo=classical economic theory has not taken care of the aspect of
> social equity
> well. This is why a free press, be vulgar it may from time to time---
> as in the case of Jack Cafferty of CNN---does do its job in exposing
> the issue of social dispartiy to the masses and the people who are the
> players in the formation of this frightening inequality.
Excellent. Agree totally.
Jim Walsh
(in article
<40c35c4e-7198-4c8d...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
(sarcasm alert)
tankfixer
@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, scotts...@aol.com says...
> On Jun 3, 1:12 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@gmNOail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:10:14 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
> > (in article
> > <8e0f11b8-fea8-4d49-a50b-0992efd61...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > > If the press is understood to be guided by the government,
> >
> > It is not so understood.
> >
> > > then Bush et al
> > > could not mislead the public over the invasion of Irq wihtout shouldering the
> > > majority, if not all, of the responsibility.
> >
> > The Bush administration rightfully shoulders all of the blame.
> >
> > > The illusion of a "free press" gives the Bush administration a free pass.
> >
> > The actuality of a free press is not relevant to the issue of whether Bush
> > gets a free pass.
> >
> > Bush doesn't have nor did he get a free pass.
> >
> the corporate media says the surge is working.
You have evidence to the contrary ?
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"