|
News Channels.. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
Newsflash! This is not a university auditorium, and I have my own style of writing.
some people on this board constantly just pick a part piece by pece of someone else's reply. This is not the style of writing that fits me best.
I usually prefer to write concisely and to the point, and tackle the issues at large. If I see a specific need to go deeper then that I will, but with this model I simply I don't. I shot it down for what it is - a propaganda model. |
I see... Opinions don't matter when you're attempting to debunk an economic model. Unless you have another economic model to challenge and SUPPORT your opinions to the propaganda model, then your "concise":rolleyes: reply is nothing more than speculation... I restated the argument, and allowed you to address each aspect of the model to which you now refuse. So much for gettin "shot down"... I'll give you one more chance..If you take it, I might actually have some respect for you and listen to what you have to say..
| quote: | Tell ya what. I'll list out the 5 filters of the propaganda model, you explain IN DETAIL why each of these filters is not true. Please review each filter, understand what each means, and provide your arguments preferably in line with an alternative model of reference (otherwise i have no use to debate you on this one). Here goes...
1. Ownership of the medium
The first filter, ownership, notes that most major media outlets are owned by large corporations.
2. Medium's funding sources
The second, funding, notes that the outlets derive the majority of their funding from advertising, not readers. Thus, since they are profit-oriented businesses selling a product — readers and audiences — to other businesses (advertisers), the model would expect them to publish news which would reflect the desires and values of those businesses.
3. Sourcing
In addition, the news media are dependent on government institutions and major businesses with strong biases as sources (the third filter) for much of their information.
4. Flak
Flak, the fourth filter, refers to the various pressure groups which go after the media for supposed bias and so on when they go out of line.
5. Anti-communist ideology
Norms, the fifth filter, refer to the common conceptions shared by those in the profession of journalism. (Note: in the original text, published in 1988, the fifth filter was "anticommunism". However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been broadened to allow for shifts in public opinion).
------------------------------------
Please answer in bullet form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. |
|
|
|
| CHRles |
Already gave you my answer, which tied in well with your 5 flawed points.
You on the other hand haven't replied to something from a couple of days ago so I might as well copy & paste my points here:
It's simple really. It's supposed to show you that rather then criticizing the US, maybe you should step back a minute and look at whats been happening.
You say the US enforces terror on the region. Look at how many of the Middle East's own leaders have done far worse, sometimes b/c they've been fighting a lot of their homegrown terrorist organizations.
It's not b/c of Israel or the US that many of these countries are ed up. It's b/c they've had leaders who were too hungry for power, who collaborated with the Soviets, and who ignored their own people. The thing is, these Middle East leaders started bigger thhen life cult of personalities for themselves to ensure that everyone but them would be responsible for problems.
Again, it's much easier to blame the super rich United States, or a small Jewish state, for your woes.
That is the message I'm trying to get across here.
I think George W Bush is a clown, and its sad we dont have Gore or Kerry as our presidents. Still, I'll take him anyday over someone like Assad, who has next to no political experience (Bush was "at least" governor of Texas), or the way Assad treats Lebanon.
The connection to Bin Laden is that Osama as that in bastard of all bastards will critize the US all day but not so much the rulers of the Middle East.
That's the connection and it's an obvious one.
As for Sadam, we never would have even supported him in the 80s if it wasnt for the fact that Iran took our embassy hostage. Carter, a pretty weak president, actually wanted to have formal relations with the Revolutionary Guards (like you do). However the Shah was sick with cancer and wanted to fly to America since we have some of the best hospitals in the world (not so terrible now, are we?). When his visa was granted, the barbaric Revolutionary Guards stormed the embassy, and took our people hostage. For over a year. Shame on you for saying they deserved it. Even if they were gathering information again the Revolutionaries they didnt deserve it
Sadam's profile in the Middle East was pretty favorable when he was fighting Iran - most Arabs weren't rooting for the Iranians.
When Sadam invaded Kuwait all that changed. We, the United States, moreso then any other country, stepped in to help Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. while the people of Kuwait know we had economical (read oil) interests to help them, they were grateful nontheless for our help.
When we invaded Iraq the second time part of the reason was to keep an eye on Iran, and to take Sadam down once and for all. The thing is, at the time Iran was making progress towards the west and had a relatively moderate leader in office, Khatami (I think that's how you spell it).
Well, the Iranian people voted for more hardline fundamental conservatives back in office. These people spewed nothing but hateful rhetorics towards the West, rather then trying to prove to the West that they're not part of the axis of evil.
The suckers in Iran alienated the US more then ever, as well as France, the UK, and there's stronger resentment towards Iran from officials in Germany (who understand the situation much moreso then most ordinary citizens in Europe).
The countries that don't have a problem with Iran obtaining nuclear power are usually third world countries that depend on Iranian oil.
Here's some proof for ya that some countries in the Middle East DO ask for western intervention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan
And you might want to read about incidents that arent b/c of the West:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre
Notice how Arafat was detested by both Assad, president of Syria, and by Nasser (president of Egypt). Notice how the king of Jordan repeatedly asked for American assistance, and even got Israel to do some of the dirty work for him.
There are loads of complicated problems in the Middle East that have little to do with the West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafez_al-Assad
Syria's was a very unstable country with lots coups until the early 70s. Notice how the Muslim Brotherhood tried to assasinate Assad on more then one occasion.
BTW, here's some information about the current president of Syria:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad
Here's my favorite part from there:
"Until he became President, Bashar's only formal political role was as the head of the Syrian Computer Society, which was mainly in charge of introducing the Internet to Syria in 2001"
They also dont bring up how hypocritical the Revolutionary Guards are in Iran. After all, during Iran's war with Iraq, you had arms deal between Israel and Iran.
It should be noted that prior to the revolution of 79, Iran was America's strongest ally in the Middle East. There were also direct flights betweeen Tehran and Tel Aviv. And what does Carter do? He decideds to act all innocent like Krypton and just hope for the best. The American public also didnt really care too much, especially after the situation in Vietnam. So Vietnam became communist, Iran became a fundamental regime, and thankfully Jimmy was ousted out of office.
Anyways, Iran's leaders talk about Israel 24/7 yet they accepted Israeli aid in the 80s. Of course Israel's reason to back Iran was b/c of how much Sadam was a threat at the time. Israel took care of Iraq's nuclear facility, to which most of the world is grateful to Israel. |
|
|
| Krypton |
Do you want to try again, not change the subject, and specifically counter the 5 points of the propaganda theory? I've made it clear to you, your speculation is not satisfactory in this debate. You are SPECULATING. Do you know this word? I'm asking you not to speculation and answer the 5 points DIRECTLY. Not indirectly with speculation.
So please try again. You have the floor.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. |
|
|
| CHRles |
Practice what you preach. Do you know what a model is?
I don't really wish to communicate with you further at this time. My respect towards your views was already pretty low after reading your 9/11 crap.
If someone's avoided replying here it's been you. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
Practice what you preach. Do you know what a model is?
I don't really wish to communicate with you further at this time. My respect towards your views was already pretty low after reading your 9/11 crap.
If someone's avoided replying here it's been you. |
You are an expert at hand waving arguments in which you have no NON-SPECULATIVE response to. Great job;)
| quote: | | The term handwaving is an informal term that describes either the debate technique of failing to rigorously address an argument in an attempt to bypass the argument altogether... |
You might also want to learn how to address my challenge to vigorously counter each point individually based on a premise instead of SPECULATION.
| quote: | | Argumentation theory, or argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises. Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving
---------------------------------------------------
I'll be waiting for you to address the 5 points of the propaganda model. Otherwise, your fallacy is a classical example of "handwaving" the argument away.
Additionally, I really hate being dragged into debates with you that fly all over the place and have no straight line of point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint. Thus why I have tried right here in this debate to stop, take a deep breath, and ask you to address a specific argument, and not letting you handwave it away as you have done in several other threads. Are you not capable of this? |
|
|
| Krypton |
Come on Charles, I know your up to it...;)
You answer the 5 points, I'll respond to your 5 counter points.
You don't want to lose this one do ya?:) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
How is it like for the news media in your country?
Do you rely on BBC and CNN too to get relevent international news on relevant issues? |
I like both Bandnews (a TV station) and CBN (a radio station). Bandnews is the best one, because it feels like watching a RSS news feed: no comments, no rants, no anything — just news. CBN, on the other hand, is not so good, and I hate the fact that sometimes spend way too much time with football. But they've got lots of interesting shows :) |
|
|
| atbell |
Canada has one of the most heavily concentrated media's in the world. Three companies control something like 80% of the media (TV, radio, newspapers).
CBC is the federal media outlet. It's getting destroyed by the conservative government though. www.cbc.ca
Then there is CanWest/Global which is the voice of the conservatives. They own one of two national news papers, a significant amount of local news papers, radio stations, and tv stations.
And there is also the CHUM dynasty which I don't exactly understand.
Two of the web sites that represent a large portion of Canada's media are www.canoe.ca and www.canada.com
The reason I don't know much about it is because I read the economist, foreign affairs, the financial times, bbc, and cnn. The national news paper "the globe and mail" is the only Canadian source I use and I only read the head lines because it's my home page. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Unfortunately someone on this board refuses to admit the consolidation of the media in the US..:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Krypton |
BUMP..
Chrles gets owned yet again!:haha: :haha: :haha: |
|
|
| CHRles |
Bumpity bump bump, Kypton is still a tool :stongue:
I have no intention of replying to you as there's no point. You just can't accept being so wrong on so many levels. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
Channel 4 (the best probably) |
No way! They're the worst for biased smug twatish news!
They might be left wing but that Krishnan Guru Murthy is the smuggest **** I've seen on telly to the extent he flies off on a tangent trying to catch people out when they already answered his question! Paxman he ain't! |
|
|
|
|
