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
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  21:48:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

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.
There aren't enough rolleyes to express my disappointment with you, beskeptigal.

This thread was about the Times, until you said,
quote:
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.
You could have simply acknowledged the fact that he did have "every right" to do so, even if you don't think he should have had "every right" to do so. But now at least part of this thread is about your denial of the facts as part of your own efforts to encourage others to follow your political path. Given that, you are just as guilty as the Moonies of politically twisting the information you "publish," even if you're not making stuff up completely, so your behaviour here falls nicely into line with the rest of the thread.

- 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 :  22:50:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Trying again to reply to this curious post:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

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.
Actually, from what you have said, you don't know what I think would result in change. I believe the most good would have come from public disclosure about the influence owning all the stations had in this instance, and news coverage of the facts instead of the fake news selling itself at the expense of a well informed populace. I think if we had that, the rest would take care of itself.

There have been a number of claims in this forum the monopoly owners had a right to do what every private property owner has a right to do. And it was a business decision. I see evidence it was a political decision and if that was clear to the public, then the public might just be more than a little concerned about how many stations one voice had.

The company rep felt the need to pretend, as evidenced by his unbelievable testimony in the oversight committee, that it was a bunch of individual stations deciding independently because they were all in unanimous agreement. What was he afraid of? That the public may not want him to own 270 radio stations if he was going to make a single political podium out of them.

Then there was our formula "controversy sells" news which made it look like every country fan in America banded together in support of our illustrious President against the evil DCs. But their concerts remained sold out in the South. They weren't ostracized by their fans. A few people threw their CDs in a pile and ran a steam roller over them in a staged news event, not some spontaneous outpouring of support for Bush. Bush supporters were likely a big part of staging the event.

So it is my view that spreading media literacy around like discussing the specifics regarding how the news media distorts things and that consolidated media does result in control of information with dangerous results is the thing that will effect change. While skeptics know how the news is distorted, how many here are questioning their actual perceived view of the backlash against the DCs vs the actual evidence of how extensive that backlash really was? Does the evidence show these country music stations were just all going along with the flow? Or does the evidence show a well orchestrated set of events gave the impression that was the case and the control at the top allowed the orchestration to be carried out as if it were a public outcry?

Once again, in the name of, "they own it they can do what they want", sure, but I can work to disclose that what they want was strictly a politically influential tool, not a business run by financial decisions or a response to their audiences. I don't doubt there was a group of an unknown size that did indeed have a red neck-pro Bush-shut up woman and cook sing-knee jerk-reaction. But the news media certainly didn't send a reporter into any of the concerts to see what the actual reaction was.



quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Instead, she's simply tried to make this about me, furthering digging herself into her pit of denial.
What? Why on Earth would I spend all this time on all these threads on several forums and all along it was about you? Are you nuts? Sorry Dave, but that statement might ought to send you off for a psych eval. And what denial are you on about? Because you may or may not be a Libertarian and since you never said you weren't I posted with the premise you were?

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

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?
No but it is consistent with the Libertarian position. Not everyone does think the guy had this 'right' and not everything that is wrong is covered by a law. My position is if he thought it was his "right" then why be afraid to say so, which he was? And my answer is because the majority of people don't want media monopolies to use them for political megaphones. It's not hard to recognize that is a bad thing.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

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.
Don't you think that's a little condescending claiming I need to acknowledge the huge difference between what is and what ought to be? You don't think you could have just clarified you were not arguing for what you thought ought to be? Because in the thread on Net Neutrality if that is the one you are referring to, it wasn't clear.

And I didn't know you were purposefully not answering the Libertarian questions or I wouldn't have asked.


quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

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.
Well this version of events will likely be upsetting but this is what I understood you to say. I let that discussion die because I didn't have the time or energy to invest in it. The distance between our positions was quite hopeless. [paraphrasing what it seemed to me you were saying] "There was no evidence because the evidence wasn't similar enough. Since there was no evidence, there was no legitimate argument for concern. We should wait until it's a problem before concluding it's going to be a problem." I just don't have the time to go there. If you want to correct m
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/18/2007 :  22:58:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

There aren't enough rolleyes to express my disappointment with you, beskeptigal.
....

These things happen, Dave. If a clarification of my post didn't fit your imaginary version, I certainly can't help you. And am I supposed to care if I disappoint you? Because I don't.

The fact I didn't follow your train of thought is hardly deserving of this pissy mood you are in. You could just say what you thought, I say what I thought, all is cleared up.

Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/18/2007 22:59:43
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 02/19/2007 :  05:45:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Mycroft
Skeptic Friend

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 02/19/2007 :  21:59:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Mycroft a Private Message

quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Once again, in the name of, "they own it they can do what they want", sure, but I can work to disclose that what they want was strictly a politically influential tool, not a business run by financial decisions or a response to their audiences.


You're kidding, right?

"Political tool" and "business" are certainly not mutually exclusive terms. If someone uses his business as a platform to express a political opinion, that is in no way evidence that he doesn't want a business.

Further, the evidence is clearly that this collection of radio stations is primarily a business, and that this one time use to make a political protest was the exception and not the rule.

quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I don't doubt there was a group of an unknown size that did indeed have a red neck-pro Bush-shut up woman and cook sing-knee jerk-reaction. But the news media certainly didn't send a reporter into any of the concerts to see what the actual reaction was.



So pro-Bush people are misogynistic red-necks?

That's just plain prejudiced. You should be ashamed.


Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2007 :  00:28:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Why would giving up a small profit in a big profit business to support the political party that passed legislation which favored the business be an exception and not the rule?

Are you saying market forces would keep political power in check?

Monopolies are bad for capital markets. That is capitalism 101. Psychology 101 says there are always going to be people in a large enough groups that will want to be politically powerful. Government 101 says corruption is more common than not.

Just what makes you think the American democracy doesn't require a little vigilance with some occasional maintenance? All is well, the monopolies are in your favor? That's almost guaranteed to come back and bite you.




Go to Top of Page

Mycroft
Skeptic Friend

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2007 :  02:06:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Mycroft a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal

Why would giving up a small profit in a big profit business to support the political party that passed legislation which favored the business be an exception and not the rule?

Are you saying market forces would keep political power in check?

Monopolies are bad for capital markets. That is capitalism 101. Psychology 101 says there are always going to be people in a large enough groups that will want to be politically powerful. Government 101 says corruption is more common than not.

Just what makes you think the American democracy doesn't require a little vigilance with some occasional maintenance? All is well, the monopolies are in your favor? That's almost guaranteed to come back and bite you.



Who is this addressed towards?
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous 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 0.25 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000