112 replies to this topic

[Tom]

I don't. Freedom is press sounds nice, but if that's the case, how come we know so little of, for example, Area51? If the government doesn't want anything out, there won't be much things out.
If people can't control you (via the media), you have enormous freedom. Freedom is power. Power corrupts.

Area 51 actually has quite a bit on it. It's just for experimental aircraft. If we had anything interesting to hide, we wouldn't put it there. It's like Guantanimo, nobodies tortured there, it's watched to closely. So while you're watching somewhere with media rushing the gates, poor Apu has jumper cables hooked to his nipples

That is just what they tell you <__<

But most media in the US is controlled by corporations, FUX (uh FOX), CNN, PBS etc etc. Who gives a crap, they all spew bullshit. I think you'd be amazed to how many people actually believe everything a certain media station says and its basically because TV gets into our subconscious minds without any barrier.

Who else would control it other than corporations? The government? There's a reason why there's more than one channel, it's very difficult to corrupt the entire media. They will, of course, have their own interests, but no system is perfect.

Corrupting in the US is all too easy, a nation filled with patriotic... people. Have your news channels reported of the 800 Afghan deaths this year? Do they say anything else than "Shoot the terrorists!".
And most importantly - when was the last time your media disagreed with the US government on something big?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Vietnam i believe

[Comrade Kal]

Exactly - public funded tv is perfectly OK as long as it remains unbiased, as the BBC has done for ages. It also means you get to skip the bloody adverts.

Oh, and don't moan to me that the BBC is left-wing. They don't put out ANY opinions and always have both sides of the story. On another forum I frequent, someone pointed out that the BBC said that the greatest philosopher of all time was Karl Marx, but upon further inspection it was actually a public vote.

[Blodo]

I can stack up pretty well, since I'll have most of the United States behind me.  You forget soldiers are people too, they're not blind worker bees that follow every order they're given, it's not that easy to get a US soldier to fire on his fellow country men.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So would you fire on a US soldier first then?

[Silent_Killa]

That is just what they tell you <__<

I watched an interview with some ex CIA operative. They asked him if he thought there were violations of the geneva convention happening in Guantanimo. He laughed. "Do you think we're that stupid? They use remote locations."

Corrupting in the US is all too easy, a nation filled with patriotic... people. Have your news channels reported of the 800 Afghan deaths this year? Do they say anything else than "Shoot the terrorists!".
And most importantly - when was the last time your media disagreed with the US government on something big?

Not too long ago I heard the estimated death toll of Iraqi civilians. It was actually higher than most estimates as well. Do you guys get anything other than FOX over there? Most of our media is pretty left wing, but FOX is just way over to the right.

Exactly - public funded tv is perfectly OK as long as it remains unbiased, as the BBC has done for ages. It also means you get to skip the bloody adverts.

Oh, and don't moan to me that the BBC is left-wing. They don't put out ANY opinions and always have both sides of the story. On another forum I frequent, someone pointed out that the BBC said that the greatest philosopher of all time was Karl Marx, but upon further inspection it was actually a public vote.

Yes, publicly funded media works great. History proves that.

It's difficult for a left winger to see a media outlet as left wing. Same with the right.

So would you fire on a US soldier first then? shiftee.gif

If he was shooting my family and friends, then yes, I'd shoot him. Look at the Russian Revolution. Soldiers refused to fire, and even turned on their officers.

[Blodo]

So would you fire on a US soldier first then? Before he started shooting? I mean the soldiers could control all of you without firing a shot. Pretty straight forward innit. If one of you fired first everyone would shoot at the one who fired in self-defence.

If youre gonna be waiting for them to start the fight and vice versa, there will be no fight (logical), but the govt will come out on top anyways. Unless you all start fighting and turn it into a bloody massacre.

[ComradeJ]

Do you guys get anything other than FOX over there?  Most of our media is pretty left wing, but FOX is just way over to the right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I only get CNN... And I watch that only when something important happens, such as 9/11.

[Tom]

I get CNN and FOX, CNN is no way left wing, its right, FOX is extreme right. FOX is commonly the target because they air absolute twats spewing absolute bullshit and expect the american public to digest and believe it.

Yes, publicly funded media works great. History proves that. 

BBC works well, think that proves it can be successful.

[Silent_Killa]

So would you fire on a US soldier first then? Before he started shooting? I mean the soldiers could control all of you without firing a shot. Pretty straight forward innit. If one of you fired first everyone would shoot at the one who fired in self-defence.

If youre gonna be waiting for them to start the fight and vice versa, there will be no fight (logical), but the govt will come out on top anyways. Unless you all start fighting and turn it into a bloody massacre.

First off, you're avoiding the second part of my argument. Soldiers wouldn't go along with it.

Second off, the second soldiers attempted to occupy my home town, I'd fire on them.

I only get CNN... And I watch that only when something important happens, such as 9/11.

So, you're basically commenting on something that you know absolutely nothing about. This is what I love. People commenting on everything that's wrong with the US without knowing anything beyond hear say.

I get CNN and FOX, CNN is no way left wing, its right, FOX is extreme right. FOX is commonly the target because they air absolute twats spewing absolute bullshit and expect the american public to digest and believe it.

I agree fully that FOX is bullshit. I have no idea why people would ever want to watch that crap. CNN I haven't really watched much to be honest, from what I've seen it really doesn't seem right wing. Although, to someone as far to the left as you, it would probably seem so.

BBC works well, think that proves it can be successful.

BBC is also only one network, and shows left wing influence. Of course, it wouldn't be good if it were right wing influence instead, right?

Edited by Silent_Killa, 02 August 2005 - 01:26 AM.

[Tom]

Trust me BBC keeps its opinions out of it, its more of a libertarian network than anything economical (Left/Right wing).

[Comrade Kal]

And I suppose you watch other news networks and travel to other countries all the time, don't you, Silent Killa? Or have you in fact never left the USA?

Edited by Lord Kal, 02 August 2005 - 08:45 PM.

[duke_Qa]

i wonder how elections in USA would go if it was illegal to use political oriented commercials in any medium?

the only place that you could talk politics would be through organized shows which are restricted to follow one topic at the time, like those "duels" that the president canditates go through 3 times before election.


it might be semi-off topic, but the reason im putting it here is because i've noticed that money is the one x-factor in your elections which are stronger than politicians words. how many millions/billions was used last election on commercials and dirt-flinging? how much of that came from organizations and rich bastards who have a certain point of view.

basically its a modern aristocracy; the rich pays to get themselves more votes through commercials and calling people and asking them if they want to vote for this party or that party. its just aggravating. in the end people will start swaying in the direction of the ones who has the brightest fireworks, and not the ones which are closest to their opinions.

[Silent_Killa]

Trust me BBC keeps its opinions out of it, its more of a libertarian network than anything economical (Left/Right wing).

If opinions were kept out of news, it would take around 10 minutes.

Publicly funded media isn't a bad thing until it becomes the only media really since others keep them in line. That's more what I'm talking about, but personally, I don't believe that any media should recieve public funding, because it can lead to that.

And I suppose you watch other news networks and travel to other countries all the time, don't you, Silent Killa? Or have you in fact never left the USA?

I've been around Europe a bit. Cought the news over there, mostly Spanish and British. The bottom line is I'm not criticizing your media.

i wonder how elections in USA would go if it was illegal to use political oriented commercials in any medium?

the only place that you could talk politics would be through organized shows which are restricted to follow one topic at the time, like those "duels" that the president canditates go through 3 times before election.

A law should be passed as such. Let the media dig up the dirt, they're plenty good at it.

[ComradeJ]

So, you're basically commenting on something that you know absolutely nothing about.  This is what I love.  People commenting on everything that's wrong with the US without knowing anything beyond hear say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like you say Saddam Hussein is an asshole without ever meeting him? If my opinion was only based on what Hybrid said, it's still just as well orientated as your opinion on people like Osama and Saddam.
However, I don't base my opinion on what Hyb, or anyone else, said. I don't watch CNN much because I can't stand it. Put as many US flags in it as possible, never say anything bad about the government... If FOX is worse, I feel very sorry for you.

i wonder how elections in USA would go if it was illegal to use political oriented commercials in any medium?

the only place that you could talk politics would be through organized shows which are restricted to follow one topic at the time, like those "duels" that the president canditates go through 3 times before election.

Ah, yes. As some dude once said: "Democracy in the US is the people choosing the elite that rules them". When the majority is low/middle class, is that fair?

[Tom]

i wonder how elections in USA would go if it was illegal to use political oriented commercials in any medium?

the only place that you could talk politics would be through organized shows which are restricted to follow one topic at the time, like those "duels" that the president canditates go through 3 times before election.


it might be semi-off topic, but the reason im putting it here is because i've noticed that money is the one x-factor in your elections which are stronger than politicians words. how many millions/billions was used last election on commercials and dirt-flinging? how much of that came from organizations and rich bastards who have a certain point of view.

basically its a modern aristocracy; the rich pays to get themselves more votes through commercials and calling people and asking them if they want to vote for this party or that party. its just aggravating. in the end people will start swaying in the direction of the ones who has the brightest fireworks, and not the ones which are closest to their opinions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The rich always win in the US and in Britain, its always the same. Democracy needs to be evolved. It needs to give every party equal time to show the options, that would probably end any elitist system for good.

If opinions were kept out of news, it would take around 10 minutes. 

Publicly funded media isn't a bad thing until it becomes the only media really since others keep them in line. That's more what I'm talking about, but personally, I don't believe that any media should recieve public funding, because it can lead to that.

I understand that, but the BBC is purely libertarian, its not like FOX news that states, THIS IS RIGHT, THIS IS WRONG. BBC commonly uses phrases as "yet to be confirmed." It reports what it knows not what it believes. BBC is only 15mins long, then it goes to Southern (or whatever area you live in), localised news. Explains local events/stories for about 15 minutes. Then it goes back, does the Sport, does the weather and then goes back over the headlines. It works effectively and i tell you not, it does not use opinions. Its a pretty free unbiased news channel. If they do interviews they seem to get both sies of the story in and let them debate on TV, like the guy that said global warming doesn't exist and the scientist who literally raped him by giving written evidence on how it does. The guy who said it doesn't exist used sources that go back to no where official, so it was absolutely useless. Like i said Libertarian news pwns because it allows people to make their own mind up based on whatever evidence there is. Take it or leave it

Like you say Saddam Hussein is an asshole without ever meeting him? If my opinion was only based on what Hybrid said, it's still just as well orientated as your opinion on people like Osama and Saddam.
However, I don't base my opinion on what Hyb, or anyone else, said. I don't watch CNN much because I can't stand it. Put as many US flags in it as possible, never say anything bad about the government... If FOX is worse, I feel very sorry for you.

Fox shows the extremist news. Ann Coulter makes my blood boil with the shit she comes out with. I remember the "I'm not saying all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims." May fathers a conservative and he almost cried over that because he couldn't believe what the stupid bitch just said.

Ah, yes. As some dude once said: "Democracy in the US is the people choosing the elite that rules them". When the majority is low/middle class, is that fair?

Its the same in most countries, its just the elite are well disguised. In the UK we have a corporate elite and blair loves helping them by privatising everything he can, but also keeps the people on side by giving benefits and when the public begin to turn against him be makes sure they are in full fear of further "terrorist attacks." Like the "failed" ones on the 21st. Few fireworks go off on a bus and it was a failed bomb attempt. I guess i better look up what actually happened because i couldn't be bothered to listen to the bullshit coming out. Oh yeah, then they killed an innocent brazillian man because "he was running." Well this is london, if someone comes up to you with an MP5 in normal civilian clothes, your a muslim and crimes against muslims are souring because of the terror attacks, wouldn't you run? I mean come on this is london. Someone pulls out a machine gun on you your not going to hang about. The guy paniced because he didn't know what was going on, then he lost his life for it. They didn't shoot 1 bullet into his skull, they shot 7, in front of hundreds of other railway passengers. Great job, well done again.

[Silent_Killa]

The rich always win in the US and in Britain, its always the same. Democracy needs to be evolved. It needs to give every party equal time to show the options, that would probably end any elitist system for good.

The rich always win period. Whether the system is capitalist, socialist, or communist. Hell, 45% of China's wealth is controlled by 10% of the population... and that's only what their government reports.

I understand that, but the BBC is purely libertarian, its not like FOX news that states, THIS IS RIGHT, THIS IS WRONG. BBC commonly uses phrases as "yet to be confirmed." It reports what it knows not what it believes. BBC is only 15mins long, then it goes to Southern (or whatever area you live in), localised news. Explains local events/stories for about 15 minutes. Then it goes back, does the Sport, does the weather and then goes back over the headlines. It works effectively and i tell you not, it does not use opinions. Its a pretty free unbiased news channel. If they do interviews they seem to get both sies of the story in and let them debate on TV, like the guy that said global warming doesn't exist and the scientist who literally raped him by giving written evidence on how it does. The guy who said it doesn't exist used sources that go back to no where official, so it was absolutely useless. Like i said Libertarian news pwns because it allows people to make their own mind up based on whatever evidence there is. Take it or leave it shiftee.gif

The problem is this is just how it starts. Call me paranoid, but the start is to have an unbiased publicly funded media. Then you remove the other media because it's corrupt etc etc. Then, you refuse to give funding to that single media outlet if they don't report how you want them to.

Fox shows the extremist news. Ann Coulter makes my blood boil with the shit she comes out with. I remember the "I'm not saying all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims." May fathers a conservative and he almost cried over that because he couldn't believe what the stupid bitch just said.

My teeth were grinding as well.

Oh yeah, then they killed an innocent brazillian man because "he was running." Well this is london, if someone comes up to you with an MP5 in normal civilian clothes, your a muslim and crimes against muslims are souring because of the terror attacks, wouldn't you run? I mean come on this is london. Someone pulls out a machine gun on you your not going to hang about. The guy paniced because he didn't know what was going on, then he lost his life for it. They didn't shoot 1 bullet into his skull, they shot 7, in front of hundreds of other railway passengers. Great job, well done again.

From what I heard he was being persued by uniformed officers as well. However, by the time they cought up to him the uniformed officers had fell behind. He picked a bad time to be running around in a heavy coat.

Like you say Saddam Hussein is an asshole without ever meeting him? If my opinion was only based on what Hybrid said, it's still just as well orientated as your opinion on people like Osama and Saddam.
However, I don't base my opinion on what Hyb, or anyone else, said. I don't watch CNN much because I can't stand it. Put as many US flags in it as possible, never say anything bad about the government... If FOX is worse, I feel very sorry for you.

FOX is the worst news in the US. Period.

Actually I believe Saddam is an asshole because I've seen video footage of peoples tounges being amputated because they spoke out against him. Also the photographic evidence of him gassing his own people. There's a difference between just believing what you're told, and being given proof of what happened.

[MSpencer]

CNN denies anything that is clearly evident, and only reports stories that could either spread dissent, make the population hate the armed forces, make people believe that the Republicans are Nazis, or cause ratings to go up. This includes their Abu Ghraib coverage where the SECOND word out of their mouth was conspiracy. CNN is good for everything but war, because they covered one in 1991, and now they think they have a right to be opinionated. Save the opinions for page A20 of the paper, and get it off my TV. I watch CNN for news, not the daily crock of shit they have to serve up which includes anything that may make the US look bad, not the other way around.
Fox is just as bad though, and MSNBC is a joke.

[Drewry]

I hate all news channels. They only go with the obvious opinions, ignoring anything that does not fit in the 'political spectrum' - which I think is a major pile of shit. Every news channel is biased, I would rather use the internet for my news, get the information from the organizations that are giving them. And then make my own deciscions.

[Blodo]

Thing is, even the internet is biased in a way. I have yet to find a site that would completely neutrally report things that happen across the globe, and i seriously doubt such a site exists.

Every faction will screw the details a bit, just so it looks as if they came up on top, it never was otherwise. They just use what the media has been created for: propaganda.

[Samael]

Wow you guys really changed the topic talking about world news but thats alright but I would like to stay with the main point.

When I was gone for a week at my counsins I ask him if he knew anything about the Illuminati. He told me that he knew this retired CIA agent that was really old and he told my counsin that there is an org. that does deal with the control of the worlds money that is run by very powerful people not the president through and president is a pone to protect these powerful people by making the enemy think that he is the most powerful and thats all he told my counsin and my counsin only believes this that there is a org. that does run the serects of the US but the name could have been changed just to hide from the public because everyone knows who the Illuminati are and if you understand it all you would understand that since the US has many rights there are ways to make alot of money out of it and once rich people become greedy, corrupted, and foolish they become evil.

Which I ways believed, because you can tell by these org. like the FDA(food Drug Administration) and the FTC (Fredral Trade Commission) which so call they protect the food and our health but the only thing they are protecting is their money because just think of it would you want to make people healthy and lose money or make people sick for every and die but make lots of money. The FTC protects eveything that is sold in the US which I don't know that much about but people know that this is a evil corrpation like this guy: Naturals cures Kevin Trudeau and thats all I know.

[theliberator]

About the Illuminati:
Why should anyone use a secret organisation, when they can do anything they want.
Of course our "elite" doesn't walk around tellin' everyone what they are doing and planning.
That would be stupid, they only admit what can't be lied about, any other unpopular actions are basically taken as silently as possible.
That's why I think that Illuminati thing is just shit, just a little story to distract a part of the public from the real story.

About the NewsBusiness:
There won't be a complete neutral news-channel ever.
Simply for one reason, they are run by humans.
Everyone has his subjective view on the world, facing different problems, liking different things...
Of course good journalists try to be as neutral as possibly, but nevertheless, their are influenced by the society they live in and by the current and past circumstances of their lifes!