|
News Channels.. (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| I'm disguested by these politicians..:whip: |
|
|
| CHRles |
I'm disgusted with the Hezbollah.
Thankfully I live in the US where politicians mess up, but also do a lot of good, and are open to criticism.
PS Hillary rocks! |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
PS Hillary rocks! |
Ugh.
She's another just one who wants to sell out our country to the highest bidder.
At least we now know where Hillary stands in regards to the New World Order. |
|
|
| CHRles |
It'll be a while until the countries of the world trust enough to form a single Global government. Kind of like the UN, only effective.
You're not likely to see that form until some sort of great war or some other catastrophe ends up uniting the people of the world. In sceince fiction stories, people point out that an alien invasion can ultimately help to unite the world. People will realize they're not all that different from one another. It is also likely that we will soon (relatively speaking) start to try and colonize other planets. That'll end up bringing this planet closer together b/c the people colonizing those planets will come from all parts of Earth.
Right now though, there's too much of a clash between Christian vs. Muslim values.
A global government representing all of planet Earth will evantually happen form. If the countries of Europe can unite to form the EU, and if the fifty states here can form the US, and if the US can partner with Canada and Mexico, I see all these countries evantually coming together. Soon afterwards Southeast Asia and Latin America will want to join in, as will parts of Africa.
Nationalism was something that took hold of countries starting in the late 18th century, but it wasn't until the early part of the 20th century that it ironically became a global movement. So yeah, evantually nationalism will be replaced by globalism.
I'm all for it. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
I'm disgusted with the Hezbollah.
Thankfully I live in the US where politicians mess up, but also do a lot of good, and are open to criticism.
PS Hillary rocks! |
Are you still referring to my classification of Hezbollah as a grass roots organization? Do you want to not be a latinlover, and support your opinion by proving to me with some evidence that Hezbollah is not grass roots, that the Shiite populace of Lebanon don't back Hezbollah...
You are an idiot of the highest order by attributing my dissent of US foreign and economic policy to a support of terrorism...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| CHRles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You are an idiot of the highest order terrorism...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
That means so much coming from you, someone who supports the Hezbollah :toocool: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Are you still referring to my classification of Hezbollah as a grass roots organization? Do you want to not be a latinlover, and support your opinion by proving to me with some evidence that Hezbollah is not grass roots, that the Shiite populace of Lebanon don't back Hezbollah... |
I, for one, never understood your argument. In order to be grassroots, you're arguing that it simply must be popular among a certain segment of a certain population? The KKK could qualify under those parameters. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
That means so much coming from you, someone who supports the Hezbollah :toocool: |
Do you want to provide a non-bull response? Because truthfully, you already pussied out before in this very same thread (page3 remember)...:haha: :haha:
First, you completely disregard my challenge..."...support your opinion by proving to me with some evidence that Hezbollah is not grass roots, that the Shiite populace of Lebanon don't back Hezbollah..."
And you wimped out to my first challenge...The Propaganda Model, which you oh so gracefully used anecdotal stories about your teacher which somehow was supposed to debunk the model. I'm astounded...
Do you want to try again?? I'll again post the filters so you can address each one as to why you believe they are wrong, in specific terms. I really want to know what you are thinking. That's why I want you to support yourself with some sources. I don't care about your teacher, or your personal life. Just post your sources that support your assertions. That's all...:)
----------------------------------------------------
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). |
|
|
| CHRles |
| Nope, I'm gonna pussssssy out again, and stick with my original answer :disbelief |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
A global government representing all of planet Earth will evantually happen form. If the countries of Europe can unite to form the EU, and if the fifty states here can form the US, and if the US can partner with Canada and Mexico, I see all these countries evantually coming together. Soon afterwards Southeast Asia and Latin America will want to join in, as will parts of Africa.
|
And the government of Canada, US, and Mexico will get 5 armies a year, while the Latin American government will only get 2 armies a year.
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
Nationalism was something that took hold of countries starting in the late 18th century, but it wasn't until the early part of the 20th century that it ironically became a global movement. So yeah, evantually nationalism will be replaced by globalism.
I'm all for it. |
Oh, I read this wrong the first time.
I thought you supported nationalism.
I do like the parallel you draw between nationalism and globalism. I think it's quite apropriate. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
Nope, I'm gonna pussssssy out again, and stick with my original answer :disbelief |
Then why are you here if you refuse to debate? Are you latinlover under a different name? Are you two related?
Obviously, you don't have the ability to counter-argue with specific points, but would rather use cute little stories about your teacher, and your own speculative unsupported opinion. The reason I'm asking you to address specifically my arguments is because I want to know what you're thinking. Why else would I be so adamant in asking you for your view on something you obviously said you don't agree with? So why don't you support your case?
If you want me to change my mind, and have your opinion, why don't you support your argument against my view of the media, supported by the Propaganda Model? |
|
|
|
|
