US presidential candidate John Kerry has received the official backing of the influential Washington Post. The paper said the choice was difficult, but that Mr Kerry had the "better approach" on many policies. The Post backed Kerry, but questioned his decisiveness.
The New York Times has already backed the Democrat while papers in Texas and Chicago have endorsed George W Bush.
US Newspapers choose which candidates they want to support in election time.
Isn't one of the main tasks of newspapers and other media to take an unbiased and open stance towards candidates that run for office ?
Aren't they giving up their independance in choosing for a certain candidate ?
Isn't it time for a separation between Media and State ?
What are your thoughts ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThere is a distinction between the news content and the editorial content of newspapers. It is only in the editorial content that you find endorsements and opinion pieces. The editorial content is clearly labelled as such, and normally there is space devoted to opposing viewpoints (or, in this case, endorsements). Additionally, readers can write in and take issue with the proffered justification for the endorsement. I'm not sure what you mean when you ask whether a paper 'gives up their independence' when they endorse a candidate. They do not become beholden to the candidate they endorse, so why would their independence by affected? You're right that there should be a seperation between media and state, but I don't think endorsements are much of a problem. The real problem is that the corporations that own these papers are able to influence policy by contributing money to the politicians and political parties. Instead of focusing narrowly on the separation of media and state, we should focus broadly on the separation of corporate power from the state.
US presidential candidate John Kerry has received the official backing of the influential Washington Post. The paper said the choice was difficult, but that Mr Kerry had the "better approach" on many policies. The Post backed Kerry, but ...[text shortened]... a separation between Media and State ?
What are your thoughts ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeAll people choose sides in any power struggle.
US presidential candidate John Kerry has received the official backing of the influential Washington Post. The paper said the choice was difficult, but that Mr Kerry had the "better approach" on many policies. The Post backed Kerry, but ...[text shortened]... a separation between Media and State ?
What are your thoughts ?
It is the underpinning truth of us being Chimp Like.
The "intellectual" ability to Not Choose sides can best be seen by Sartre hating Leninism and Stalinism. Yet still remaining true to Communism. That took guts. One of the bravest acts I have ever studied.
The "social" ability to Not Choose sides is not real. We all do mental calculations without even a single conscious thought and join the "winning" side and then spend the rest of our lives explaining and rationalizing ourselves to "the enemy". And that is how we view "the others". There can be several others, and we join aliances and fall from them easily. But I have never known a person WITH A NORMALLY INTEGRATED childhood who changed points-of-view/tribes in later life.
If you ever get a chance to go back and visit friends you knew when you were ten... after 50 or more years, they will all still be the same. It is easier to change the sun rising each moment than to change tribes. Unless you are forced out of the tribe through banishment or self banishment. A self banishing person is the cliche of the kid who just has "the guts and determination to go to the city", which we all have been conditioned to see as super brave and wonderful. When in truth, there might be a reason to escape your tribe. Say one is gay? The tribe in the city embraces you. So that is a no brainer.
Anyway. Back to the notion of the US -- or any nations -- "so called" news companies/propaganda agencies, "choosing" sides. Of course they do. Even the so called Hard News is slanted. Constantly.
An exact example was published this morning in the New York Times. The subject was "Massive Cache's Of Weapons are Missing" and it's all Bush's fault, conveniently not mentioning that our troops were just leaving Basra toward the terrible cache and were not due to be there for another day or so?
Do you know when the massive stores of explosives were "moved"? Nineteen months ago when this story was FIRST WRITTEN as news.
So let's see. Nineteen months later... Same Story. Same exact event. We even had a discussion of it here on RHP, if you choose to remember it. What gives? Politics? Let's examine it? Less than an hour into the Day, John Kerry delivers a well written Slam of this story, stating how it is all Bush's fault.
Is there a person alive who doubt collusion with the Times on the deliberate RE-PRINTING of this old story as "FRONT PAGE News"? Any more than we can doubt the "Texans For Truth" publishing the same day as Dan Rather goes on the air with forged documents?
No. It's just politics. There is no news. Just a world full of well conditioned news junkies... chimps all.
The "social" ability to Not Choose sides is not real. We all do mental calculations without even a single conscious thought and join the "winning" side and then spend the rest of our lives explaining and rationalizing ourselves to "the enemy". And that is how we view "the others". There can be several others, and we join aliances and fall from them easily. But I have never known a person WITH A NORMALLY INTEGRATED childhood who changed points-of-view/tribes in later life.
You are so far off my side of the planet I'm starting to doubt your existence. I have friends come up to me and say: "So...what's real? Crop circles, the Loch Ness monster or SVW?"
Seriously!
Most people I know never explain their choices. They choose as what is best at that moment in time. End of story.
Changing points of view is not something that is done within the confinement of an argument or a discussion. The constant repeating of a message, preferably with a constant showing of proof, is what changes minds.
Lose an argument once, you come back to fight another day. Lose that same argument 20 times on a row, you'll start to doubt your evidence.
Lose that very same argument 25 times and someone you knows shows you some evidence to back 'the enemies' view point...you change your mind.
Every debate where one party wins adds to the sum of wins you need to reach the 25. Just one asteemed person (like a celebrity) will add that extra evidence you need.
And yes, my grammar and spelling have gone to pot. Literally.
Originally posted by shavixmirSorry 'bout that potsky thingy. <grin>
You are so far off my side of the planet I'm starting to doubt your existence. I have friends come up to me and say: "So...what's real? Crop circles, the Loch Ness monster or SVW?"
Seriously!
Most people I know never explain the ...[text shortened]...
And yes, my grammar and spelling have gone to pot. Literally. [/b]
You seemed must coherent to me. Just the fact that you are beginning to notice me in the context of my ART and my favorite PET is very heartening to me.
You seem extremely lucid tonight as a matter of fact.
I think the only stuggle I can offer your argument is the use of the word "evidence". Alas. It (the word evidence) is another word that is probably lost forever. The term "evidence" is and should be applied to a "bit of knowledge" either in favor or opposed to a statement, theory or premis. In this context it is a building body of truth that will overcome "counter evidence" and eventually become accepted, thus imparting some weight of "truth" to said theory.
When we use it in "societal terms" it is not science. Sociology is not science. Not even close. Yet we still "borrow without shame" the coinage of science to express it. If you want to make me chuckle just tell me you are a "Social Science" major.
"Evidence" in a social setting? Don't we call that "Political" point of view? And isn't "ours" always better than "yours"? I will submit that what you call evidence being shoved at us twenty times is a demonstration of strength, and a notification that if you want to join this pack... you better by damned learn the party line.
But what do I know? I'm a cynical kind of chimp who sees it all as wonderful comedy. If you understand pathos.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Isn't one of the main tasks of newspapers and other media to take an unbiased and open stance towards candidates that run for office ?
Aren't they giving up their independance in choosing for a certain candidate ?
What are your thoughts ?
Who except the press itself is to decide what the tasks of a free press are? Certainly not the government or partisan groups.
The press has only one responsibility and thats to inform the people of things the press itself thinks the people should know.Hopefully truthful, but then isnt that why we have a diversified press,, so the people can sort out what the truth is?
Follow-up thoughts on the deliberate effort of so called "news organizations" trying to affect elections.
The worse part of this is the part that the UN plays in this.
Review. In the debate of October 8 Kerry is primed on this issue. He states that when we went into Iraq, "President Bush failed to secure THE AMMO DUMP."
Notice the use of "The" ammo dump. Gee. I wonder which ammo dump that was? Maybe one that is being planned for the last week of the election in collusion with .... with Who Else?
I wonder. Who at the UN wants Bush to lose? Mohamed ElBaradei? Bush has been on a personal crusade against him for two years.
Do you suppose that ElBaradei, Tad Maybe A Bit Too Devine and the New York Times had already began preparations for the "bomb" throwing?
I think so. It is quite transparant. The problem with Kerry is he is really stupid. Had he not referred to "The Ammo Dump" on Oct. 8 and had a complete stump organized to match the release, including the use of Bill Clinton, he might have pulled it off. His real problem is that the average citizen here is twice as smart as he is. We get it real quick because of the hundred year bias of the news media promoting like missionaries the great "socialist cause".
It will be interesting to see the consequences of this interference by the UN in the US election. We see it for what it is and MIGHT let you in Europe see why we are going to kick the UN out of New York in the next decade. Too many corrupt and evil dictators. Too much power. Not enough prevention of genocide. Quite the opposite.
And then there is WHY OUR TROOPS HATE KERRY.
When the 101st went into "the ammo dump" they found tons and tons of stuff. Just not the "stuff" that is being discussed. 385 Tons of high explosives. The consistency of Corn Starch. Which would require 40 large trucks to move. But not just any trucks. They must be able to contain fine powder. Special Tanker trucks. Nothing that a bunch of dummys could just "walk off with". Try to steal 350 tons of corn starch if you doubt it. It can't be done in three days. No way. Even by a government. They only had four trucks that could move it. That makes TEN TRIPS EACH TO GET IT MOVED. And each trip has to be hidden from the UN. Think about it.
The UN last inspected the facility on Jan 24,2003. The inspectors note that they were "blocked at the gate for several hours" before being allowed into the facility. Not too unusual. Happened all the time, if you all remember. (CNN Report Dated That Date, Bahgdad)
Also note that this is a sight marked as "Definitely A Producer/Contributor To Production Of WMD" BY THE UN! <GIGGLE> This is just a little jab. After all... "There Are No WMD" seems to work well for people after the fact. snicker...
Anyway, the 101st arrives and goes over the facility. The "good stuff" is not there. The embedded reporter for NBC filed a report that tons and tons of arms were found and secured. Now pay attention. It was all catalogued by the 101st. Tons of arms. BUT THE GOOD STUFF WAS NOT THERE.
Except here we have the potential commander calling the 101st either liars or incompetent.
But... I wonder where it went? Now pay attention. You are about to learn why the troops hate Kerry.
He is calling the troops of the 101st liars and/or incompetent. They notice that sort of thing. Believe it or not. Kerry going around the country telling that their incompetence is the cause of all the evil in iraq is pretty much enough to make them bristle. Does Kerry get it? That he is taking a pre-planned side with the UN over the troops of the 101st? No. He didn't get it in Viet Nam, and I guarantee you he still doesn't get it. All he wanted then, and now -- is POWER. Raw and corrupted by his brutallity and cowardice. Not a good leader.
So. The stuff is missing. The UN was in charge of it. The 101st got there in three days. It was gone. Who's fault is that? Why were they (the UN) delayed for several hours on the 24th of Jan? Hiding trucks full of the stuff on it's way to Siria? We will never know, will we?
What we do know is that Kerry, The UN and The New York Times have designed a bomb that they hope will swing the election. Will it work? I doubt it. I trust the people. They are smarter by a mile than socialists give them credit for being.
<edit> By the way... If they (the UN bribing Facist Government Of Saddam) were able to move 385 tons of stuff and never left a single pound behind... What else were they able to move? And where did they move it?
I almost forgot to mention the collusion of CBS.
I don't know if they have announced it yet, but they will have been found to been working on this story for a month or two to air this sunday... two days before the election, on 60 Minutes.
Any bets? Or are we to supposed to believe that they were not in on the planning of this latest in an endless line of "October Surprises"? Believe me, we who watched 60 Minutes do in Bush One with the breaking News of "Weinberger To Be Indicted" by larry Welch (Two Day Before Election Surprise!) .... or CBS having a "Drunk Driving" piece (Two Days Before November Election Surprise)... truly miss the meaning of CBS creating forged documents to aid socialism. And to date getting away with it. Have you noticed that what is a felony has not even been mentioned lately?
<edit> To nobodys' surprise... Welch never brought any charges. There were none. Surprise! Just like this latest "October Surprise". Big brother is alive and well. The good news is that we all have brains and can't be locked up for using them. Yet.
GIBSON: Senator?
KERRY: You rely on good military people to execute the military component of the strategy, but winning the peace is larger than just the military component.
General Shinseki had the wisdom to say, You're going to need several hundred thousand troops to win the peace. The military's job is to win the war.
A president's job is to win the peace.
The president did not do what was necessary. Didn't bring in enough nation. Didn't deliver the help. Didn't close off the borders. Didn't even guard the ammo dumps. And now our kids are being killed with ammos right out of that dump.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/08/politics/main648309.shtml
I wonder which specific dump he means? You can't think that he was meeting with the UN,CBS,The New York Crimes as early as October 8!!!
Do you? Wouldn't that be collusion?
Again Kerry just shows that he will side with ANY ENEMY OF THE US BEFORE HE WILL TRUST AND SIDE WITH THE TROOPS.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThat is outrageous, and based on the premises of your argument, simply unfounded. All it shows is that Kerry is questioning the planning that Bush put into (or didn't put into) the war.
Again Kerry just shows that he will side with ANY ENEMY OF THE US BEFORE HE WILL TRUST AND SIDE WITH THE TROOPS.[/b]
It isn't patriotic to say that we can't question the decisions of the government. Quite the contrary, the fear tactics of that point of view compel people not to think for themselves, and are detrimental to a republic.
It's sad to see people brainwashed by such baseless propoganda.
