Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 The Washington Times: the NeoCons' Pravda
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2007 :  08:53:09  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
The following short post was inspired by Beskeptigal's fine item here on the Free Republic Website. I felt it was important that people who might not know, become aware of the bias of The Washington Times. Recently, the WT has been the source of several unfounded smears against Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi. It's important to understand why they do this stuff.

The WT is not simply biased, it was created for the very purpose of prompting bias. That's its job.

In 1982, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church ("the Moonies") launched The Washington Times through his News World Communications, Inc. Moon and his WT are allied with Jerry Falwell and Rapture promoter Tim LaHaye.

Moon said in 2002, "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world." David Brock wrote "the [Washington Times] was governed by a calculatedly unfair political bias and that its journalistic ethics were close to nil."

The fascistic Moon has continued to heavily subsidize the WT, pouring in $1.7 billion, up to 2002 alone. Rev. Moon is noted for getting his money's worth. If he buys a biology PhD for the likes of the Discovery Institute's Jonathan Wells, he gets himself a pet anti-evolution spokesman. Likewise, if he buys himself a newspaper, he gets a right-wing propaganda machine.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/17/2007 10:20:55

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2007 :  12:22:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Well this is a good citation for me to use in a JREF thread where the usual neocons there (I really wonder why they have so many sometimes) are claiming the 270 radio stations in 55 cities owned by the one guy who had them all ban Dixie Chicks music had every right to do so. I wonder how they'd feel if Moonies owned big media monopolies?

We need to get more publicity for the Moonies hand in things. The Moonies garner immediate suspicion among conservatives. Fox News repeats the WA Times stories on a regular basis.

The problem here (in addition to the obvious) is that marketing research shows that a negative message like the Obama Clinton lie gets into people's subconscious as a negative association long after the details of why fade. Then when the news story is retracted, the damage remains.

Listerine marketers have relied on this tactic for decades, literally. They put out ads saying Listerine prevents infections. The false ads have used one disease, tooth decay, colds & flu, or bad breath, at a time. Then the FDA would ban the ads. That took a few months so the ads played frequently during that time. Then they would change the ad just enough so that the claim was only implied and not stated. Continuing those ads had the same effect on people's beliefs as the original false ones.

One ad campaign was so blatant the FDA required them to run a retraction ad. Anyone remember an ad retracting a Listerine false claim? I don't. It didn't stick and that's no surprise. They had an entire market research department to figure out the best way to satisfy the FDA while continuing to market their product with false claims. Did you all know the amount of alcohol listed in the ingredients of Listerine is too low to even qualify as a disinfectant under EPA guidelines (EPA designates level of disinfectant products can be labeled as). IE not only does killing germs in your mouth do nothing good for you, Listerine doesn't even do that well enough to list alcohol as an active ingredient. Yet the public believes Listerine acts to prevent or stop 'germs'. But I digress and I've told you all this before.

Back to the negative story planting. You can expect a lot more because they don't even need to worry the stories will be discovered as fake. Once Fox repeats the stories the damage is done. One saving grace is the public is becoming more aware of this crap and awareness does immunize against the tactic.

Except their "base" of course. Those people believe the stories even after they have been outed. That to me is one of the really mind boggling things. Even after Bush admitted there were no WMDa in Iraq, some neocon followers are still claiming the WMDs are or were there and just haven't been found.


In addition to the Moonie paper, The neocons have some power to control stories within the New York Times. Just because they fired Miller didn't change the Republican mouthpiece reporting. They probably fired Miller because the publicity was drawing attention to their complicity in the build up to the Iraq War. The Bush 'lie us in to war' crowd would leak a story to the NYT, then go on a talk show and say, well don't take my word for it, the New York Times reported this recently.


Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/17/2007 :  15:11:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
One thing that just occurred to me: Sun Myung Moon might be the key ingredient that catalyzed the formation of the US NeoCon movement in the first place.

He comes into the US as the messianic utter dictator of a huge semi-Christian cult with a strong right-wing political background and connections -- unlike the then-existing politics-avoiding evangelicals. Then he sets up the big bully pulpit of the WT and makes nice with Falwell, LaHaye, et cetera, ad nauseum. He sprays money around like it's water. He uses dozens of front groups to exert power and influence while insulating those he influences from being called Moonies themselves. Moon may have been the very person who was most responsible for building the NeoCon movement.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  01:13:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

Well this is a good citation for me to use in a JREF thread where the usual neocons there (I really wonder why they have so many sometimes) are claiming the 270 radio stations in 55 cities owned by the one guy who had them all ban Dixie Chicks music had every right to do so.
Well, I'm no neocon but I don't at all understand what you're saying here. Of course the owner of privately-owned radio stations has "every right" to dictate what gets played on his stations and what doesn't. This is true whether he owns 1,000 stations or just one.

If I owned a radio station, you wouldn't hear Michael Jackson on it, because I find him annoying, and I'd have every right to not play his music.

Perhaps you're annoyed at this guy's actions because he used his position and power to make a political statement, but he had every right to do so. As would be you or I were we station owners choosing to not play skinhead, neo-fascist, Hitler-celebrating music.
quote:
I wonder how they'd feel if Moonies owned big media monopolies?
What would it matter? The Moonies have every right to publish (or not) whatever it is they wish to publish (or not), no matter how many papers or broadcast stations they own. Were you to deny them (or anyone else) that right, you'd open the door for regulatory actions which might include Al Franken being forced to say nice things about Rush Limbaugh's ideas.

Only the government has an obligation to avoid censorship. Private citizens who own media outlets have every right to do as they please with it (within the law). Not playing someone's music as a protest for what they've said and/or as a response to their politics is itself an exercise of Constitutional rights. And as such, if you've got any respect for the First Amendment, you should be acknowledging the validity and legality of the guy's actions (even while stating that you disagree with them), instead of implying that there's something illegal - or even just unethical - about them.

The same government that allowed the guy to own 270 radio stations is the one that allows you to voice your displeasure at a guy owning 270 radio stations. You know that, just as you know what needs to be done to change the regulations so that he can't own 270 stations. Implying that the guy did not have "every right" to do what he did doesn't get you any closer to your goals, and probably impedes you by turning off other people who read your words and think you discredit yourself with the hyperbole.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  01:43:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Dave, I realize from the last couple of threads we disagreed on you have some fairly Libertarian views here. So I ask you one of the questions no one answered in the Poll thread, (reworded) So what then happens to a society when monopolies control the free market? And in particular, how could a free democracy exist if the media was completely controlled by a few ideologues? What stops a monopoly in the media from expanding? What free market controls counter such power? Intelligent Americans? Surely you jest?




Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  03:45:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
It's worse than you think. Moon is blatantly running an international, criminal enterprise, and a damned vicious one.
quote:
From petty local scams to international money-laundering, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's political/media/business/religious empire has all the looks of a global “ongoing criminal enterprise,” albeit one with enough powerful friends in Washington to protect it from serious consequences.

The artical is fairly long and goes into considerable detail. Amongst those details are the Moonie influence and associations with yet another criminal enterprise: the Bush family.

An enlightening, if chilling, read....




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  11:32:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

Well this is a good citation for me to use in a JREF thread where the usual neocons there (I really wonder why they have so many sometimes) are claiming the 270 radio stations in 55 cities owned by the one guy who had them all ban Dixie Chicks music had every right to do so.
Well, I'm no neocon but I don't at all understand what you're saying here. Of course the owner of privately-owned radio stations has "every right" to dictate what gets played on his stations and what doesn't. This is true whether he owns 1,000 stations or just one.

If I owned a radio station, you wouldn't hear Michael Jackson on it, because I find him annoying, and I'd have every right to not play his music.

Perhaps you're annoyed at this guy's actions because he used his position and power to make a political statement, but he had every right to do so. As would be you or I were we station owners choosing to not play skinhead, neo-fascist, Hitler-celebrating music.
quote:
I wonder how they'd feel if Moonies owned big media monopolies?
What would it matter? The Moonies have every right to publish (or not) whatever it is they wish to publish (or not), no matter how many papers or broadcast stations they own. Were you to deny them (or anyone else) that right, you'd open the door for regulatory actions which might include Al Franken being forced to say nice things about Rush Limbaugh's ideas.

Only the government has an obligation to avoid censorship. Private citizens who own media outlets have every right to do as they please with it (within the law). Not playing someone's music as a protest for what they've said and/or as a response to their politics is itself an exercise of Constitutional rights. And as such, if you've got any respect for the First Amendment, you should be acknowledging the validity and legality of the guy's actions (even while stating that you disagree with them), instead of implying that there's something illegal - or even just unethical - about them.

The same government that allowed the guy to own 270 radio stations is the one that allows you to voice your displeasure at a guy owning 270 radio stations. You know that, just as you know what needs to be done to change the regulations so that he can't own 270 stations. Implying that the guy did not have "every right" to do what he did doesn't get you any closer to your goals, and probably impedes you by turning off other people who read your words and think you discredit yourself with the hyperbole.

I agree that the Moonies and any radio station owner have a right to publish or broadcast (or to censor) anything they like. But I also think, in an era of corporate concentration, this is destructive to democracy.

Not illegal, not unconstitutional: destructive. The Founding Fathers never anticipated media control in the hands of a few. I'm not sure how I'd like things to be changed, but I think there is a problem. It's a contradiction between our near-absolute right to freely express ourselves, and our practical ability to do so. The first makes it continuingly possible for any poor schmuck to set up a blog an have his say. The second insures that a few corporations will control the bulk of the media seen by most people.

I have no solution to propose, not governmental tinkering, for instance. But there is a problem, Dave, and it's major.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/18/2007 11:33:28
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  15:49:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
They don't have every right, HM. There are slander and libel laws. The Moonies need a few lawsuits to remind them of that.


Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  15:56:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Well, Half, I certainly didn't intend to suggest or imply that there wasn't a problem. In fact, my last paragraph addresses the solution that I know beskeptigal has in mind: getting the FCC to re-instate the regulations against mass ownership of media outlets. But that wasn't my main point.

Which was that beskeptigal's choice of language and/or denial of the simple fact that the guy did have a right to "ban" the Dixie Chicks doesn't help her get any closer to any sort of solution, and will instead turn a non-zero fraction of her intended audience away because she can't bring herself to acknowledge that simple fact.

Instead, she's simply tried to make this about me, furthering digging herself into her pit of denial. Regardless of one's politics, the guy had a right to do what he did, otherwise the FCC would have already fined him. But you, beskeptigal, seem to think that by acknowledging that fact, one makes oneself out to be a libertarian?

There is a huge difference between what is and what ought to be. Until you can acknowledge that fact, and thus realize that by stating what is, I was not arguing for what I think ought to be, I've got no motivation whatsoever to answer your irrelevant questions.

That all goes for the neutrality thread, too, except that there, you left the ball in your court. Plus - and even more insanely - I was asking you to convince me of your argument, and you took that to mean that I was opposed to your argument. And as I said over there, beskeptigal, I admire your passion, but I think it prevents you from thinking rationally about even the constructive criticisms you receive.

Libertarian my Aunt Fanny.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  16:00:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

They don't have every right, HM. There are slander and libel laws.
Oh, come on! Don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that we (Half and myself) haven't been talking about legal forms of speech and expression. We were talking about a guy having "every right" to not play the Dixie Chicks on his radio stations. If you can make the case that not playing someone's music somehow slanders them, I'd love to hear it.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  16:14:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Besides, would you have a problem if 270 like-minded owners of individual radio stations in 55 cities all decided to not play the Dixie Chicks as a form of mass protest against the Chicks' politics? How would that be different from one guy doing it, from the point of view of the listeners?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  17:25:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy

It's worse than you think. Moon is blatantly running an international, criminal enterprise, and a damned vicious one.
quote:
From petty local scams to international money-laundering, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's political/media/business/religious empire has all the looks of a global “ongoing criminal enterprise,” albeit one with enough powerful friends in Washington to protect it from serious consequences.

The artical is fairly long and goes into considerable detail. Amongst those details are the Moonie influence and associations with yet another criminal enterprise: the Bush family.

An enlightening, if chilling, read....





Thanks, Fil! That was a damned good read, and very alarming.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Mycroft
Skeptic Friend

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  20:00:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Mycroft a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

Dave, I realize from the last couple of threads we disagreed on you have some fairly Libertarian views here. So I ask you one of the questions no one answered in the Poll thread, (reworded) So what then happens to a society when monopolies control the free market? And in particular, how could a free democracy exist if the media was completely controlled by a few ideologues? What stops a monopoly in the media from expanding? What free market controls counter such power? Intelligent Americans? Surely you jest?



The word you're looking for is not "monopoly" but "cartel."

http://www.answers.com/cartel&r=67
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  21:20:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Well it seems I'm getting these threads mixed up since there is so much overlap. I'll have to review and edit this post after figuring out why Dave thinks it's about him. So I'll pull this post temporarily and start over.


Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/18/2007 21:28:48
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  21:26:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

They don't have every right, HM. There are slander and libel laws.
Oh, come on! Don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that we (Half and myself) haven't been talking about legal forms of speech and expression. We were talking about a guy having "every right" to not play the Dixie Chicks on his radio stations. If you can make the case that not playing someone's music somehow slanders them, I'd love to hear it.

You might have gone there, I was still on the Moonies printing fake news about Hilary digging up Obama's grade school history. Isn't this thread about the WA Times?


Now I see it isn't just me mixing up these threads.
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  21:30:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft


The word you're looking for is not "monopoly" but "cartel."

http://www.answers.com/cartel&r=67

I believe it is a combination of monopolies and cartels as defined in your link.


Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.24 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000