Why Facts No Longer Matter
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Sunday, June 16, 2024 02:43
VIEWED: 4546
PAGE 4 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You appear to have jumped to a conclusion based not on facts, but a worldview that government input in anything is to be deemed malign and towards the goal of controlling people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatically malignant? No. Intended to control people and what information they receive? Um, that's what propaganda IS.
Right, here is your jump to a conclusion. When did we establish that the BBC is a propaganda outlet of the British government?
You've made some arguments why you think it likely to be the case, and I've made some arguments why I think it's unlikely to be the case (and I have more). But crucially you have given ZERO evidence of this alleged day-to-day governmental control... (I'd guess you'd have to go back to the 1950s and the Suez crisis to find anything at all)Quote:
There is absolutely government influence in news media, and you can trace it through money paid and stories broken. It doesn't matter if they "come into conflict with the sitting government" or "represent opposing viewpoints SOMETIMES," if they weren't useful to people with money and power, they wouldn't get near the investment they do, and they wouldn't stay in business.
If you have some evidence or analysis of pervasive government influence over the news media I'd be interested to read it. I imagine there would be some receptiveness on this site. And then we could have a discussion. But until then to me these are just wild conspiratorial claims.
It's not personal. It's just war.
As to that, I'd strongly suggest looking up Bill Moyers's "Selling the War" documentary.
There definitely has been government influence, at least here in the U.S.; the troubling thing is, the media were largely complicit in it. Byte may seem a bit conspiracy-minded, but if so, it's only by a matter of degrees. She may be exaggerating the threat and influence, but it IS there, at least in this country.
Do I think it's *IMPOSSIBLE* to get balanced new coverage? Not exactly. But I do think it's becoming harder and harder, and it's becoming IMPROBABLE to get such coverage, especially on any of the main network newscasts.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kwicko: yes. And I think this is true in all other nations, whether capitalist or communist, both will exert some degree of influence over the media.
America has one of the more untrustworthy newsmedia for a capitalist nations, it's possible others aren't quite as bad (yet). But this probably DOES exist in other nations, as they DO have the same causative factors.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Kwicko: yes. And I think this is true in all other nations, whether capitalist or communist, both will exert some degree of influence over the media.
America has one of the more untrustworthy newsmedia for a capitalist nations, it's possible others aren't quite as bad (yet). But this probably DOES exist in other nations, as they DO have the same causative factors.
It really would be nice if the journalists were running the news biz, wouldn't it? Somewhere along the line, the networks decided that the news divisions should be profit centers instead of loss leaders, and the newspapers decided that if they could put everything into getting one Pulitzer prize, they could sell the paper for a fat profit and let someone else worry about the fallout in the offing.
Certainly every government will TRY to exert influence on its media, to varying degrees of success. The old Soviet Union did it with brute force, threats, and bullets. The U.S. does it with money and access, but the goals are the same.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You appear to have jumped to a conclusion based not on facts, but a worldview that government input in anything is to be deemed malign and towards the goal of controlling people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatically malignant? No. Intended to control people and what information they receive? Um, that's what propaganda IS.
Right, here is your jump to a conclusion. When did we establish that the BBC is a propaganda outlet of the British government?
You've made some arguments why you think it likely to be the case, and I've made some arguments why I think it's unlikely to be the case (and I have more). But crucially you have given ZERO evidence of this alleged day-to-day governmental control... (I'd guess you'd have to go back to the 1950s and the Suez crisis to find anything at all)Quote:
There is absolutely government influence in news media, and you can trace it through money paid and stories broken. It doesn't matter if they "come into conflict with the sitting government" or "represent opposing viewpoints SOMETIMES," if they weren't useful to people with money and power, they wouldn't get near the investment they do, and they wouldn't stay in business.
If you have some evidence or analysis of pervasive government influence over the news media I'd be interested to read it. I imagine there would be some receptiveness on this site. And then we could have a discussion. But until then to me these are just wild conspiratorial claims.
It's not personal. It's just war.
It seems hard to persuade some in the States that government funding does not automatically equal some sort of insidious mind control over the population. You hear the same sort of misconcieved and often paranoid arguments regarding public funded health care - that obviously government will have a nasty hidden agenda to provision of services - hence the 'death panels' that Palin has been bleating about.
I guess I don't have the same paranoia, which is not to say that I don't think governments don't try to push their agenda - which generally is to be re-elected and nothing more insidious than that. I think governments deserved to be scrutinised more by the media, i think they are liable to wastefulness and experience corruption like otger organisations, but my experience is that the ABC is the station that provides better analysis and scrutiny of our political system than the commercial ones which show reality tv crap and cooking shows as far as I can see. I agree that no bias is impossible and I never claimed that it was, I think the ABC is more balanced, but it probably does have more of a left winged slant, mostly because of the type of people that are attracted to working there, and that is also why I prefer to watch it.
I'm sure if you were a bible bashing neo con you would hate it, another good reason for watching.
One of the best programs for investigative reporting used ve BBC"s Panorama http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/default.stm. I'm not sure if it is still as good as it was, but it was an edgy, risky kind of program.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It seems hard to persuade some in the States that government funding does not automatically equal some sort of insidious mind control over the population. You hear the same sort of misconcieved and often paranoid arguments regarding public funded health care - that obviously government will have a nasty hidden agenda to provision of services - hence the 'death panels' that Palin has been bleating about.
This has no bearing on the conversation at hand. I am not one of these people concerned about death panels. I am also not a bible bashing neo con.
Government funding in the media is government influence. Government influence wants one thing: it wants public support. This might be innocuous, like trying to get reelected, but it might also be abused by extremist agendas, say, warmongers (which paradoxically often improves reelection chances), or by elements wanting to cover-up information that would change public support.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It might be, but it also doesn't have to be. You can put in mechanisms into such agencies to ensure that the government does not use it as a mouth piece for re-election. I never said you were a bible bashing neo con, but I think you do seem to suggest that public funding = public brainwashing into a government agenda, which I dispute.
Are there mechanisms in place to monitor the above - yes, the media here has a number of regulatory bodies that they answer to that you lodge complaints, including the commonwealth ombudsmen.
But I guess you'll say that I;m too thick to see when the wool has been pulled over my eyes. Well back I go to my propaganda station where all is rosy and nice.
The long and the short of it is -
does it allow critism of government, including that which may bring down a government? (yes)
Does it present more than one political viewpoint? (Yes)
Does it give roughly equal airspace to major parties? (yes, almost neurotically so.)
Does it present a variety of viewpoints, including social and religious ones (yes).
Might there be a possibility that the government stacks the board to represent its own views - yes, but it would be met with howls of protest from those that value the service as it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Suggest that public funding = public brainwashing into a government agenda
Suggest? I'm doing a bit more than suggesting. I'm outright accusing all governments of doing this.
Quote:
You can put in mechanisms into such agencies to ensure that the government does not use it as a mouth piece for re-election.
In America, such regulatory mechanisms are often corrupt. No regulatory body is immune to bribery, and I find it counter-intuitive to propose government should monitor government. It's probably better than contracting out to private business to do this monitoring, but there's still the basic problem that you're hiring jewelry thieves as security for your jewelry store. Probably the best possible monitoring system would be an elected, independent board... Which also isn't immune, but makes more sense than letting crooks regulate themselves.
However, I find it interesting that you at least have organization in place for public input. I'm not sure about over there, maybe it makes some difference, but over here it wouldn't because over here people tend to just accept whatever they're told.
If you are willing to concede that news agencies may perpetuate a status quo, then this implies the news source in question supports the re-election of incumbents.
As such:
does it allow critism of government, including that which may bring down a government? (Clearly it hasn't, because you still have the same government structure and arguably the same government after a shake up. You might shift power via news reports, but IMO that makes little difference long term)
Does it present more than one political viewpoint? (You said it was slanted left wing. Unfavourable coverage of one side doesn't particularly suggest representing more than one political viewpoint. And I would even argue that this whole dichotomy of choosing one side or another, right wing or left, is a false dilemma, which, again, ties into preserving the status quo)
Does it give roughly equal airspace to major parties? (Talking heads arguing about short term problems, never looking outside the box or offering long term solutions, only what pleases the constituency and keeps one or the other in power).
Does it present a variety of viewpoints, including social and religious ones (= Special Interests paying money to influence the public as well).
Might there be a possibility that the government stacks the board to represent its own views - yes, but it would be met with howls of protest from those that value the service as it. (Doesn't happen here. Has it happened there?)
Now, I'm willing to concede your ABC news may be less biased and slanted than other news sources over there. Doesn't mean there aren't serious problems in how the world of journalism is run.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
It's an independently funded corporation...
It's primarily funded by government - the government decides the level of the license fee that each household pays.
Quote:
Yet it's board of governors is appointed by ministers of the government and the queen.
Yes - understand the BBC does more than just news reporting, it does all sorts of television/radio programming. Since the purpose of all this is public service, government appoints the board of governors. But each new government does not appoint its own news editors, or anything like that. I made a mistake before by linking the BBC Wiki page - I should've posted the BBC News one, since that's more relevant to this debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News#Political_and_commercial_indepen
dence
"The BBC is required by its charter to be free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners."
That section of the Wiki page is worth reading.
Quote:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/
article6814178.ece
That's a Times report of a speech by James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch... Yes Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation will often criticise the role of the BBC - it's a rival broadcaster to them. And in some instances I'm sure they have a point. But again, this is dealing with all other aspects of BBC's operation, not specifically BBC News. But this bit is interesting:
Quote:
Mr Murdoch, who is also the chief executive of BSkyB, 39.1 per cent owned by News Corp, made clear that he believed that broadcasters such as Sky should be freed from the long-standing requirement to produce impartial news.
He argued that “the mere selection of stories and their place in the running order is itself a process full of unacknowledged partiality”. The impartiality rule was “an impingement on the freedom of speech”.
UK regulation of the major news broadcasters ensures impartiality of news services... Huh. I didn't know that... (though I'm not surprised to hear Rupert Murdoch's against it). Here's info about the regulatory laws:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1067401.stm
" All (major) broadcasters will be subject to a basic rule on quality, the impartiality of news services, the protection of minors and a commitment to access to programmes for people with disabilities. This will be regulated by Ofcom (regulatory body)."
Hmm. What do people think of that?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These are good points.
I don't really trust that a legal requirement for impartiality is particularly enforceable, however. Impartial relative to what? How do they prove when a station is not being impartial? Clearly there are some statements under British Law which would not be impartial (and would also be offensive), like statements about the Holocaust. But what else?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
Suggest that public funding = public brainwashing into a government agenda
Suggest? I'm doing a bit more than suggesting. I'm outright accusing all governments of doing this.
That's where you and I differ. I don't see governments as necessarily so corrupt/so evil that everything they do has a undercurrent of mind control. For one, I don't think they are that cohesive or organised to do as such. I've worked in government here, and just don't think they have the will or capacity to do this on any national level. I also think that most people in government actually want the best for their country, it's just that often them and I disagree on what's best.
Sorry Byte gotta run. I 'll reply to the rest later.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME