Slashdot Mirror

Some cool links:

• Democratic Underground - Bob Bouderlang is awesome!
• Media Whores Online - Excellent expose of the so-called "liberal" media
• BartCop - Not the brighest spark in the matchbox, but certainly a site well worth visiting.
• The Moderate Indpendent - Quite a good "mainstream" discussion site.

Err, uhh, http://www.mediawhoresonline.com?

Posted AC because this is Off-Topic.

Support Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières, Red Lobster...

There's an active campaign to change that, but it's arguable all it will do is, together with the long time attacks by freepers on percieved left wing bias, simply batter journalists into a sort of don't-offend-anyone submission. Still, arguably, that's what we have right now: Especially if the right is right and most journalists position themselves left of center, they're definitely not writing as if they're left of center.

Not that I believe they are, or at least, not to the same extent as conservatives believe they are. FAIR did a survey in which they polled journalist's positions on various issues and compared them to the national average. They found that while journalists leant to the left/center in terms of the causes they supported - Medicare, Social Security, Taxes, etc, they were generally to the right of what studies generally showed were the American public's positions on the same issues. This probably goes some way towards explaining why even some of the more intelligent right wingers are convinced of a left wing bias to the press - it's to the left of them.

Why is this relevent? Well, right now criticising government means, by definition, being critical of and willing to question right wing Republican policies. And, except for a burst for the last month or so, there's been very, very, little criticism of the government. Even before 9/11, CNN was devoting something in the order of 50% of its TV coverage (evidence from memory) of a scandal involving a Democratic congressman where he lied to police during a murder investigation, and there simply was no news on that score - he lied, that was it. Nothing came in, but the same story was repeated and excuses were found to repeat it, over and over again. And Condit (for it is he) isn't exactly an important figure.

The press, at the moment, is in the hands of people who do not want powerful forces challenged. Right now, those powerful forces are those in government. Until and unless there's a change of hands, and journalists feel they can breath and be more free, there will not be another Woodward and Bernstein.

FoxNews use the slogan "Fair and balanced" (not to mention "We report, YOU decide!".) So, yeah, they do deny that they have a conservative slant.

The NYT may occasionally dare to criticise Bush (apparently), but they're also the people who reported the results of the 2001 Florida recount as being that Bush would have won anyway, going so far as to lie about what one of the judges intended to do concerning going for a state-wide recount at the time of the election. There's a campaign over at Media-Whores Online to have the NYT print a retraction.

They're certainly "middle of the road" in the sense that they'll prostitute themselves to whoever/whatever's in power, regardless of political affiliation.

The problem with media in Britain is that it's run by and controlled by the governement.

And given, from what I see, the US media is comprised entirely of people terrified of being cast as "liberal" who go out of their way to whore for the Republicans, I don't think you can accuse the UK press of being any more controlled by the government than that in the US, NPR/PBS being an ironic honourable exception.

Posted anonymously by squiggleslash because this is off-topic.

ksheff said:
"The starving people of Iraq only have Hussein to blame for their condition. It's obvious he has no problem letting them die if it makes him look good in the eyes of other radicals and it makes the whiny bleeding hearts in the West turn against their governments.

Pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. -- George Orwell, 1941"

I don't want to see Orwell's name attached to the type of non-critical thinking, nationalist(otherwise known as Orwellian) point of view that you are promoting. Therefore, I feel the need to correct you on this:

Orwell's own phrase "objective pro-fascist" (from a 1942 publication in the Partisan Review) is exactly the kind of standard-issue Stalinist polemic that Orwell ended up so vigorously rejecting in his best work. Orwell was never a Stalinist, but later said that he was driven to use language he regretted by "the lunatic atmosphere of war" (Partisan Review, 1944). That same year he specifically rejected the Stalinist use of the word "objective fascist" to smear people who are not Fascists at all, but who do things which others believe are helpful to Fascism ("As I Please", Dec. 1944)."
Source: http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/main.htm

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."
Source: George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945 http://www.zmag.org/quotes/quotesResults.cfm?topic 1=War

As for myself, I am neither a Hawk nor a Dove but something in the grey area, between. I have heard that this position is called an Owl. I seek justice, not revenge, and I question and research everything in support of the U.S.

for example, take a look at Media Whores Online

As they describe themselves: "The site that set out to bring the media to their knees - but found they were already there"

They stomp on everyone's toes.

good stuff

-

- - -
Radio Free Nation
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"