|
|
Post by Aravis on Dec 5, 2004 3:53:42 GMT -5
What works, what doesn't, and what needs to be changed?
|
|
pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Dec 12, 2004 22:53:39 GMT -5
Here in Western Australia we only have one daily newspaper with only one opinion.
Although it claims to be neutral on all subjects this is defintely not the case. In the recent Federal election there was a definite bias and now that we are winding up to a State election early next year the bias is starting to develop again.
I take comfort in the fact that most people watch the TV news rather than read the paper but even that is not neutral; depending on which channel you watch you will be fed propaganda from one side of politics or another.
Political rallies with no media coverage would be the only way to stop this brainwashing but I can't see it ever going back to those days and with compulsory voting, which is what we have in Australia, one hopes that the electorate has some idea of what they are being forced to vote for.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Dec 12, 2004 23:57:25 GMT -5
Brisbane only has one newspaper too - the Murdoch owned Courier Mail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Dec 13, 2004 0:02:10 GMT -5
Murdoch? Global takeover...
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Dec 13, 2004 0:38:58 GMT -5
Old hat, his already done that...
|
|
Arancaytar
New Member
There is always hope...
Posts: 18
|
Post by Arancaytar on Dec 13, 2004 10:05:45 GMT -5
Interesting thought... anyone asked about the most powerful man on Earth would, perhaps, respond with "Karl Rove" or "Dick Cheney" (on the assumption that Dubya does not carry any significant responsibility within his administration), or possibly "Bill Gates".
Rupert Murdoch is a name not often mentioned in the news. Before I deliberately searched Google last week, I didn't even know how he looked (rather nice actually, with this sort of grandfatherly smile). Of course, real power works best from the shadows... and who controls the media controls humanity. A scary notion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Dec 17, 2004 11:10:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Dec 17, 2004 13:38:24 GMT -5
Mr. Murdoch and his family must also be approved by the co-op board of the building
He might be an undesireable and rejected as unsuitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Dec 17, 2004 19:38:39 GMT -5
I'd guess, Robert, that he might not be the only bottom feeder in the building, however. Not just envy (though some of that  ) but I'd guess that the list of people worth knowing who can afford a 12 K monthly service charge would be pretty short. |
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Dec 18, 2004 23:48:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Dec 21, 2004 17:28:30 GMT -5
The bias of the media and how to balance it, is interesting to ponder.
True, Murdock is threatening to take over thought control just as did Hearst in earlier times and yet somehow we survived.
From time to time this leads to an odd schism in some papers. Before I retired I lived in San Francisco and subscribed to the morning paper, the “Chronicle” which was considered to be “liberal” as opposed to the evening “Examiner” considered “conservative”. Both papers were owned by the same corporation and in fact were physically printed on the same presses by the same crew.
During election years it was amusing. Articles in the Chronicle would generally favor Democratic policies and Candidates, but on Election Day management would run a full page in both papers endorsing a straight Republican ticket.
I understand that the same is now true of the Washington Post; long time considered a liberal paper, but now under conservative management.
I suppose management finds it to be better business not to alienate their traditional readership.
The right complains that the press is controlled by a left wing conspiracy of elitist liberal intellectuals. The left complains (me too) that too often the press lets the neocons get away with it and is too gentle with its whistle blowing.
How to find balance? Maybe this thing we are doing now on the internet is at least a partial solution. Since I started talking over current affairs on this and the preceding web forums I have had for the first time access, through Robert and Wyndham, to articles in the Australian and Canadian press.
Also I had been given links to other sites which have lead to other stories I would not have otherwise seen and other perspectives than my own.
To sum up, lest I ramble; we have just now completed a process which demonstrates that a free exchange of opinions cannot be controlled on this internet. That being the case, the press cannot effectively “manage” the truth.
Of course we must be careful not to do the same.
Let us hope to hear from other places in the world and other viewpoints. Criticism is beneficial as is disagreement. I think that the only restrictions should be those of good will and right reason. Go ahead and refute me, but state your reasons and their basis in fact.
Oops; I did get off on a rant after all, Sorry ‘bout that.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Dec 21, 2004 19:03:17 GMT -5
That made for interesting reading, Tenarke. Where's the radical press? Often GreenPeace or such organisations are painted as radical but it seems to me that we haven't much dissent. This site has some kooky elements but has been around for yonks: www.disinfo.com/site/ |
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Dec 22, 2004 2:20:38 GMT -5
Bravo, Tenarke!
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Jan 24, 2005 16:20:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Mar 5, 2005 16:27:30 GMT -5
|
|
) but I'd guess that the list of people worth knowing who can afford a 12 K monthly service charge would be pretty short.