2
   

Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

 
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 12:10 pm
Seeking refuge in a quote by one of this countries greatest founders does not in itself make a point. What is your point?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 12:14 pm
It is Jefferson's point. If you wish to discover who poses a risk to democracy, look to see who it is that seeks to limit the power and operation of an INDEPENDENT press.

Independent means what?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 12:40 pm
"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

our friend Joey Goebbels again
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 01:18 pm
blatham wrote:
"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

our friend Joey Goebbels again


Goebbels is absolutely correct but it's your slanderous, paranoid,conspiracy theory that Goebbels strategem is on the verge of being implemented in this country, that I have a problem with.

If Bush is as bad as your theory infers......he would have had Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd assassinated(with ample justification IMO), revoked the FCC license of the three major networks, and immediately ordered the FBI to lock the doors of the LATimes and the NYTimes. This of course would have been forewarned by a request to congress to declare war on Iraq, Syria and Iran....which of course he did not do for this very reason, followed by implementation of Marshall Law and revocation of Habeas corpus

It would have been fairly easy but IMO. this president actually hampered himself by not declaring war to avoid the appearance that your conspiracy theory suggests
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 06:51 pm
rayban1 wrote:
blatham wrote:
"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

our friend Joey Goebbels again


Goebbels is absolutely correct but it's your slanderous, paranoid,conspiracy theory that Goebbels strategem is on the verge of being implemented in this country, that I have a problem with.

If Bush is as bad as your theory infers......he would have had Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd assassinated(with ample justification IMO), revoked the FCC license of the three major networks, and immediately ordered the FBI to lock the doors of the LATimes and the NYTimes. This of course would have been forewarned by a request to congress to declare war on Iraq, Syria and Iran....which of course he did not do for this very reason, followed by implementation of Marshall Law and revocation of Habeas corpus

It would have been fairly easy but IMO. this president actually hampered himself by not declaring war to avoid the appearance that your conspiracy theory suggests


rayban

There is no valid comparison between Bush and Goebbels or Bush and Naziism, or at least I don't think there is.

I'm still speaking about media. As Jefferson said, where a press loses its independence, liberty is at risk. Every administration wishes to control the press, whether by bullying or by making friends with reporters. They wish to control or influence the press simply so as to have an easier time of implementing their desired policies. But the press must avoid becoming a handmaid to the administration - any administration. If it does not, it then functions merely as a propaganda arm, such as Pravda.

You'll recall the O'Reilly quote I gave earlier, where he suggested that the Pope ought to get behind the Bush administration's policies (the Pope spoke against the war, for example). That's an error in thinking on O'Reilly's part. Bush certainly doesn't have to support the Pope's ideas and policies, we understand that clearly. And the Pope, being quite independent of government, has no obligation to support a government (otherwise there really wouldn't be freedom of religious belief and practice).

But that is the same independence which Jefferson is suggesting must be maintained by the press for the mainenance of liberty.

That does NOT mean a pure unthinking kneejerk opposition, but rather a thoughtful and fiesty voice that will not hesitate to speak in opposition to an administration. O'Reilly thinks that not only the Pope but the media also should 'get behind the president'. He's wrong. It must remain independent.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 08:11 pm
Is the only valuable function of the press to be a voice of opposition to the President?

Atre they equally valuable if they support him/her?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 08:13 pm
dup booboo
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 08:14 pm
dyslexia wrote:
The only and sole value of the press is to provide the most accurate information possible to the public. Is is an intrinsic value, not an extrinsic one. It is truely unfortunate that we have a public that prefers to be entertained rather than informed.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 08:25 pm
I knew there was a reason I liked you.


Besides the sex angle.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 10:16 pm
Blatham

Did you ever stop to think before you jump immediately into one of your incessant conspiracy theories. You know the one that you cherish the most........the one that says.....Bush believes Christianity must rule the world.

Now take a deep breath and open that closed mind just a crack.......now think this.....the Pope promotes world peace ..... correct....would you just for a moment concede that point. OK....take another deep breath and think about what type of gov't promotes freedom and Peace around the world. Wait...Wait....don't close your mind again. Dare you think that OReilly thought it reasonable that since both the Pope and Bush want the same thing that perhaps the Pope should endorse Bush's often stated vision of spreading Democracy/self determination around the world?

Now you can close your mind again......we'll try it again tomorrow. Yeah I know it's very painful for you but just try. Now since we don't want to overwork your brain, go to sleep and check in tomorrow and we'll take up that thing you have about the press. Same time and place on the dial. Nighty --- Night.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:10 am
Lash wrote:
Is the only valuable function of the press to be a voice of opposition to the President?

Atre they equally valuable if they support him/her?


If you read what was said just earlier, your question was answered in the negative.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:27 am
Lash

I received your nifty PM but it seems I'm not allowed to reply so here's my email address.......rayban1@gmail.com


Blatham

Do you have any influence with the A2K probation board? Will I ever be allowed to PM?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:28 am
Quote:
Did you ever stop to think before you jump immediately into one of your incessant conspiracy theories. You know the one that you cherish the most........the one that says.....Bush believes Christianity must rule the world.

But I haven't said anything like that. Nor do I think it so. There are folks who do believe this (the Reconstruction Movement, most openly) but I have no reason to think Bush has that idea and many reasons to think he does not. Which is not to say, of course, that he won't court the vote of these people.

Quote:
Now take a deep breath and open that closed mind just a crack.......now think this.....the Pope promotes world peace ..... correct....would you just for a moment concede that point. OK....take another deep breath and think about what type of gov't promotes freedom and Peace around the world. Wait...Wait....don't close your mind again. Dare you think that OReilly thought it reasonable that since both the Pope and Bush want the same thing that perhaps the Pope should endorse Bush's often stated vision of spreading Democracy/self determination around the world?


Who does not promote world peace? Does it follow then that, say, all rabbis and the head of the Greek Orthodox church and Pennsylvania Mennonite and pacifists and you or I must therefore agree with Bush's ideas and policies on how to arrive at peace? Would O'Reilly conclude therefore that everyone in the world who desires peace have only one route to achieving that goal - placing themselves under the dominion or direction of one man in one administration in one nation?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 06:31 am
rayban1 wrote:
Lash

I received your nifty PM but it seems I'm not allowed to reply so here's my email address.......rayban1@gmail.com


Blatham

Do you have any influence with the A2K probation board? Will I ever be allowed to PM?


rayban

I'm afraid I do not. I'm just a civilian. Perhaps communicate with a moderator, find out what sort of pledge or promise they require - or whatever, I'm not sure how any of that works - and then make good on what they request.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 07:32 am
Blatham wrote:

Who does not promote world peace? Does it follow then that, say, all rabbis and the head of the Greek Orthodox church and Pennsylvania Mennonite and pacifists and you or I must therefore agree with Bush's ideas and policies on how to arrive at peace? Would O'Reilly conclude therefore that everyone in the world who desires peace have only one route to achieving that goal - placing themselves under the dominion or direction of one man in one administration in one nation?

A masterful equivocation and in this case it is used to avoid acceptance of a logical assumption on the part of OReilly, that the two most influential men in the world, should unite in their efforts to promote world peace through the spread of self determination. Equivocation is not a good tactic to use on us simple minded Americans if you really want to influence us......it's use smacks of academic, intellectualism and the arrogant condescension that it breeds. Part of OReilly's success in communicating with us is his honesty and transparency in using good pragmatic common sense in his summations of news analysis. He never tries to be clever or deceitful which makes comprehension difficult for his critics who indulge in lies and dishonest tactics against him. The same applies to Bush, who is absolutely transparent but his critics have created such a maze of evil motives and conspiracy theories that they can't see the forest for the trees.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:08 am
rayban

About thirty years ago, I was watching William F. Buckley in his interview show. He was fielding questions from the audience and one fellow complained that Buckley always used 'big words'. Buckely replied that sometimes simple words cannot do the job when what is being talked about is complex. His answer didn't satisfy the audience member.

Again, I wasn't equivocating. I was trying to demonstrate that O'Reilly's claim is foolish because it is far too simplistic. Which was why Gingrich disagreed with O'Reilly's claim too.

We hold pretty opposite positions regarding O'Reilly, this administration, and a number of other issues. I understand you wish to go stand in the middle of the street and shoot all the old arguments at each other. I don't really want to do that as I just don't see any gain for either of us if that's what we did - certainty against certainty, anger against anger, right against left. That's O'Reilly's game, but it has nothing to do with learning. At best, all one gets is the self-validation of "I was right and I won!" (even while both arguers might believe that). It is a power contest, which is why O'Reilly shouts at people. Buckley doesn't shout, even while he is more conservative than O'Reilly.

I guess we really ought to end off here. You seem a fine fellow all around and I'm sincere in when I say I wish you the best. Of course, I'd be equally sincere in saying I wish this particular administration and media figures/trends such as O'Reilly the very worst.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 09:38 am
Blatham

Yeah ...... you're probably right about ending it here but I do enjoy attempting to burst that smug little bubble you live in......the safe world of the academic intellectual must be a satisfying place for you to reside if you never want to be mugged by reality......sorry about that worn out cliche but it fits.

You say OReilly shouts a lot and Buckley never does......that's because OReilly is not......I repeat , is NOT an arrogant, know it all intellectual. He quite often loses arguments but that just adds to his credibility as being honest and transparent IMO(what I DON'T admire about OReilly is that he will never admit that he's wrong......but then you would know quite a lot about that stance). Like you, I dislike and quite ofter turn off shouting matches, but then I fall asleep waiting for Buckley to find just the right word during a debate. I will suggest listening to one of the Neocons whom I'm certain you detest.......Richard Perle. He's very soft spoken but he usually obliterates the opposition in any debate and he never raises his voice.......a real pleasure to listen to.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 10:35 am
Richard Perle can often be quite interesting, on that I agree. the current situation kinda reminds of the days on PBS when we had both Joe Pine and William F (not many options those days) and today we have O'reily as Joe and Perle as Bill, No one remembers Joe (does O'Reily have the same fate?) and I am sure in years to come history will note Perle. Damn, now that I think of it why the hell as PBS been allowed to carry these right wing zealots for soo long? Perhaps it's time to shift the focus of PBS a bit to the left to get some balance. Oh and the Friday night talk show with Brooks/Shields, sheesh 2 guys so far apart it would be hard to get a laser beam between them. how boring can it get? (I always tune in though)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:33 am
Great, rayban.

I'm away from home, but I'll send my e-mail addy later today.

<smiles at rayban!>

The PM Situation is discussed on a thread somewhere. It is a newby handicap. Sorry for the inconvenience.

So glad you're here.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 11:36 am
rayban1 wrote:
I will suggest listening to one of the Neocons whom I'm certain you detest.......Richard Perle. He's very soft spoken but he usually obliterates the opposition in any debate and he never raises his voice.......a real pleasure to listen to.


Since others are chiming in, I will too. I think the above is kind of the point blatham was trying to make. At any rate, I also find him interesting to listen to. Most of us are not opposed to hearing ideas that don't agree with ours, but don't like having them shouted at us. In fact, I don't even like ideas that I agree with shouted at me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/14/2025 at 04:40:12