Re:Painful? Yes. Helps long term? I don't see it.
on
Giant Sucking Noise
·
· Score: 1
I see, so corporations are working their people like slaves and firing Americans in order to help. Right....
So, basicly, you are saying that you are in favor of our corporations exploiting their people because in the long run those people will stop that exploitation. Um, ok. How about making our corporations pay them a minimum wage? The local elite wouldn't have anything against it. And, since things such as land are cheaper, there could still be motivation for moving overseas. What would their local elite have against it? The local elite obviously would have alot against it, since they are making huge profits by beating their population down. It's mutual cooperation between corrupt US corporations and corrupt governments in the US and abroad to beat those people down into submission.
With extra priveledges should come extra responsibility. If you want to increase their priveledge, then you should make them 100% liable for whatever their company does. I think that this would be a good thing. The thought of being completely bankrupted would provide at least some incentive for the Ken Lays out there not to screw people over.
Where will they sell it? India? Are you serious? They might try to sell it here, but they are up against a huge barrier. When's the last time you've bought software from an Indian company? I'm not talking about just xenophobia, either. I'm talking about the huge costs of advertising. They will have less to spend, and will be easy to underprice. If not, microsoft can always just give it away for free and drive them out of business. And don't tell me that from past behavior that you don't think that will happen. It's pretty obvious that this is what will happen.
So, when the money disappears from India, their market will collapse and investors will move on to the next area.
They'll lower prices by laying workers off and moving jobs overseas before they ever even think about eating into profits. And lower prices is not necessarily a guarantee.
But you forget that many markets have become monopolies or duopolies. What market share? Sure, there is one counter-example, with Intel/AMD. But, does this follow the norm? Look at music, publishing, pharmaceutical, telecom, cable, internet. From everything I've seen, internet is getting more expensive, cars are getting more expensive, music is getting more expensive, books are holding their own, software is getting more expensive, etc. So, if you can show me what exactly is supposed to motivate an industry that is monopolized by a few players to lower prices before they shift a disproportionate amount of wealth in their hands, then I'll listen. They'll lower prices by laying workers off and moving jobs overseas before they ever even think about lowering prices. And once your job goes overseas, lower prices will be the LAST thing that you are worrying about.
In order to correct for the collapse of the peso, they would have to actually show numbers that one can look at and see how much one is making one year vs another. That's what adjusting for inflation means. You do know that, don't you?
Capital formation implies that one is able to save money and doesn't have to spend that money on necessities. Not only that, but capital formation also implies that one can actually afford capital. If the local elites make a disprportionate amount, which they are, then this actually increases their power over those under them.
It's not a quick process and it's not particularly pretty to watch but it is the best we've got.
No, it's not the best process. The best process is to enforce a minimum wage law that is global. This would increase their capital much more quickly. Another thing to remember is that you are talking about a symptom, not the problem. The problem is lack of democracy both here in the US and abroad. Unless you call selecting a couple of Harvard educated aristocrats every four years to rule over you somehow is what democracy is about. If that's your definition of democracy, then yes, I guess free trade is promoting "democracy".
You are assuming that soldiers that follow illegal orders are caught. That's a rarity. There is heavy pressure for soldiers to violate the written code of conduct in favor of loyalty to their superiors and fellow soldiers. There is plently of evidence for this, and I'll leave as an excercise to the reader to discover this for yourself.
No, most multi-millionaires(I use multi-millionaire, because making a million dollars by retirment is not what I am referring to, I'm referring to people who make 10s of millions, these are the main ones I am worried about, in comparison, the average millionaire seems only well-to-do) got to where they were by making a disprortionate amount of wealth. If one could be a multi-millionaire by working hard, then they would be able to simply go to the nearest factory and work enough hours to make several million dollars. People make disproportionate amounts of wealth by driving down competition in whatever market they are in and paying others as little as they possibly can for their hard work. If you think that someone that makes one million dollars a year really works 10,000 times as hard as someone in an Indian sweatshop, then maybe you could put that to the test by making them spend a few months in a sweatshop, and see how much money they make. After all, what you are saying is that they made all this money from their labor. If that's true, then theoretically you should be able to put in an equivalent amount of effort into any profession and make one million dollars simply by working massive over-time. But, we both know that this isn't true.
You also think that I'm only talking about millionaires. By today's stands, being a millionaire isn't that big of a deal, and is about the same amount a well-to-do family can save up for retirement if they had invested in the stock market between 1980-2000. I'm talking about the top 1%, that owns 40% of the wealth of the country. That's up from 33% in 1985. By your arguement, although the top one percent only aquired the first 33% in the first 200 years of our countries existance, in the last 15 years, they have somehow increased their productivity by three times. Yes, they must be working extremely hard to have this jump in wealth accrual. Surely it doesn't have anything to do with the imbalance in competition that is caused by flooding the labor market while keeping barriers to entry in the business market intact.
I think that globalization is a safety valve that allows for the growth of a middle class in these nations. Nike, much as it might have to bribe people to get into a country, pays wages that are above local scale. When they do that, they pave the way for the rise of a new middle class that can overthrow the current elite's stranglehold on power much as the irish overthrew the brahmins in Boston a century ago.
If you think that it's about growing a middle class, then how exactly is it supposed to grow when they are making a dollar a day and the people in power are profiting immensely? This is INCREASING(isn't that obvious?) the power of their corrupt governments and local elite. They have even less of a chance of overthrowing their government, not more. As long as the local elite are making 10,000 times more than the rest of the people of that country, then they can always hire soldiers and crack a few skulls to make examples. How in the hell do you think they've kept control for the last two centuries? Do you think it happened by magic or that the people willingly gave in? How in the hell are they supposed to rebel if arms exports are curbed and on a dollar a day it would require a year or two's salary to buy a handgun? What, you think they have gun shops there? Guns are expensive, and that's just a handgun, while the people they face are now able to buy tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, nukes, aircraft, and machine guns. Yeah, you're really increasing their chance for democracy.
How does distorting data by not accounting for inflation equate to "honest numbers"? As far as stating that they are current pesos for both stats, yes, that's obvious, I already said that. Yes, it is pretty obvious that they have an axe to grind, and if you can back your accusation of "hand waving" up with real facts, in other words, show where the numbers were mis-represented, then I'll give it more merit. In the context of this arguement, your accusation of hand waving is a meaningless, ad hominem attack. As far as giving it a rest goes, that's not going to happen. However, I would encourage you to try to stick to logical, rational debate, rather than allowing your arguements to collapse into ad hominem attacks, that is, if you want to be taken seriously.
I once met a fellow (suburban Chicago) who had a lawn cutting business and worked with VMS systems. The lawn cutting business during the season was earning him more money than the computer work. He had 8 or 9 trucks going out and cutting for him.
It's important to dig deeper and ask why this is so. After all, computers and technology have far more money flowing in than lawn care, so doesn't it seem absurd to you that he is making more mowing lawns? You act as if it's a good thing. Where is all that money going? Can you answer that?
Basicly what you are saying is exactly my point, even though it might not be obvious. I've been talking over and over about the devaluation of labor. And, you are backing my point up by showing that someone can make more money by owning their own lawn care business than by working in an industry that is awash in money. The reason is that the money in the tech industry is going to the owners? Why is it going to the owners? Not because they deserve, even if in some cases they do, but the reason it is going to the owner is because competition at the top is small, while at the bottom it is huge. Then there are barriers to entry in this market that are making it difficult for people to make the jump from employee to owner. The end result is a system which rewards those with power, while undervaluing labor. The way to get rid of this imbalance is by fostering competition at the highest levels. You do this by heavily subsidizing and promoting businesses that have less that 5% market share(yes, the 5% is somewhat arbitrary, but it's important to keep it small, but not too small). By promoting competition on the supply side, and among the owners of businesses, they will be forced to compete. This will ultimately increase the number of businesses, which will increase demand for labor, lower prices, and help rebalance competition.
This is my whole problem with free trade. It is effectively removing barriers to entry that third world workers have in the labor market, while at the same time keeping the barriers to entry that third world businesses are faced with in place. It is further tilting the balance of competition in favor of business owners. While they may be able to start their own small businesses, I won't even laugh at the absurdity of what you are saying. Who cares if they get crumbs if they are not given an equal chance to compete in the more lucrative businesses? What you are saying is that they will get some crumbs and that they should be greatful while large businesses profit immensely from their work, and you act as if this is a good thing.
I've started reading "The Wealth of Nations", by Adam Smith, you know, the guy that started this whole thing called capitalism. What's interesting is that he promoted an idea called the Labor Theory of Value (LVT). What the LVT states is that profit should reflect the value added by labor. So, when one goes to work and creates a product, the increase in price over that of the raw materials should reflect the hard work that someone put into building that product. He saw competition as a way of ensuring that this took place. Without competition among businesses, this does not take place. What instead happens is that businesses are allowed to leverage as much money as they want for a product rather than a fair value for the labor involved. Adam Smith never predicted that barriers to entry in markets could be used to allow people to profit immensely for relatively little work, and the reason he designed capitalism is that he was trying to fight this. It seems that we have forgotten Smith's ideals, not without a bit of cynicism, and instead big business pushes into our minds the idea that getting rich for a proportionately small amount of labor is a good thing. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in creating a society of desperate labor and freeloading wealth. That is the reason why very large businesses need to be regulated and rules need to be in place to foster competition. Without them, we may soon live in a society that is not much different than the one Smith was trying to fight.
What I wrote above was what I meant by "morally sound". Privacy protection should take precedent over the "right to know", unless somehow invading a person's privacy is able to help society. Perhaps I should have taken the vagueness out. But sometimes it's best to leave things vague, so that in a democratic society, the people can choose what's best. This is the way the US constitution is, which is for the best. The only problem right now is that the US is no longer democratic, and the people aren't given a choice of how to interpret the constitution, it's the supreme court, and corrupt legislators. Vagueness isn't a bad thing, it's only bad when it can be exploited by corrupt government.
In a democratic society, we all should decide what is morally sound. I don't think it's that difficult of a choice either. I think people watch the media that we have right now only because they aren't given a better alternative. If people were given the alternative of watching news that was relevant, intelligent, with context, and insightful, they would more than likely choose this over the crap that is showing now. I also think that the morally sound part could easily be enforced by simply enforcing privacy protection laws. We could even do something similar to what the UK does, which is create privacy protection laws that extend to the famous. That would have prevented the stuff that happened to princess Diana, where she was followed by tabloid media and crashed her car while trying to get away. This would prevent alot of the explotation of people and invasion of their privacy that we see on the media, while still allowing for certain kinds of news to be reported. Sensible privacy protection laws could be created and in a democratic society we all could decide what kinds of laws we want.
I think that one thing that is missing from the criteria for being a hero is if that person is making a choice that sets him apart from others and that require exceptional courage. In other words, if we asked a group of 1,000 strangers if they would like to go up on the space shuttle, how many would gladly volunteer? Ok, how about if we asked a group of 1,000 astronomers or scientists how many would want to go? I have a feeling that you would see 900+ hands shoot up in the first case(ok, maybe not now, but definitely before today), and 990+ shoot up in the second case. For me that doesn't qualify as being a hero. Yes, this is a tragic loss, but these people died doing what they loved. Unfortunately their loss fails the test of uniquemess, which I think is an important part of calling someone a hero. A hero is someone who is exceptional in fighting for a cause, not someone who does work that is the envy of millions.
I'm sorry it took me so long to reply. I tend to say things that bother people, and get alot of feedback. I don't do this with the intent of bothering people, but to educate them. With that said, let's begin.
I have thought about this for the last day, because the reporting of this tragedy has troubled me in the same way that the 9/11 reporting did. In response, I have come up with a couple of criteria for what I think ethical news reporting should be about, and you are welcome to critique my criteria as well as my conclusions.
Here they are: 1. The news should be relevant to the person watching. It should be an issue that they are concerned about in their daily life or would want to know about. However, reporters should not report just because people want to know something. A person's desire to know about an event should be valid only if their desire to know is morally sound.
2. Reporting events that are not immediately relevant to people is justifiable if it somehow is able to help the parties that are the focus of the news story. The lives of people being reported should be taken into account before the news is reported. In the case of a tragedy that has already occured, it should only be played over and over if there is something viewers can do to help. Furthermore, it should only be played over and over if this is something that the victims would desire. Reporting news that has an adverse effect on the people being reported is only morally justifiable if it prevents a greater injustice from happening. For example, reporting the identity of a carjacker on the loose is justifiable because it would prevent a greater tragedy. Yes, it has an adverse impact on the carjacker, but prevents other people from possibly being killed.
To expand on criteria for number one, reporting of explosions, tragedy, and carnage should only be reported if it does something more than merely show footage that satisfies certain viewer's bloodlust. Certain desires to "know" about current events are not healthy and should not be supported. For example, shows like "police chases" etc, do satisfy people's desire to know, but only in the most perverse sense. This is also somewhat true in the Columbia space shuttle's case, since many people watched to see if there was footage of the break-up.
Regarding criteria number two. The lives of the parties being viewed should be taken into account. In the case of the Columbia tragedy, it is reckless to play the news over and over, since the last thing that people want during a period of mourning is to have their personal lives on television. Again, this reporting fails criteria number two.
What exactly do we have in news reporting today? We have pandering to the lowest level of emotion. We have content that is designed to overtly manipulate the viewer into watching even more, even if only out of a sense of guilt and a feeling that by watching they are somehow helping. Then viewers go out, and in a perverse promotion of their own vanity, "mourn" the loss of people they didn't even know. You can see this same vanity in many religious types, who will go to church and pray for people, but when it comes down to actually doing something about it, lack the courage of their convictions.
Responsible news reporting should be about keeping things in context and reporting facts, not just replays of emotionally charged footage. In the case of 9/11, the replays of carnage should have been reduced after the first day or two, and instead more energy should have been focused on the causes of terrorism and the history of problems in the middle east. It seems that all that news is good for today is whipping people up into an emotional frenzy so that they can be herded along the path that our leaders choose for us.
Here's a copy of a post that I put in a message above, which I know that you'll be too lazy too read it since you are busy "mourning" the loss of the astronauts.
I'm not sure who marked this guy as flamebait, but before you get too worked up, let's step back and think about things for a second. This was a tragedy, no doubt, and the majority of people want to help make the world a better place, there is no about that either. So, if you want to help the family of the astronauts, put yourself in their shoes. Imagine how you would feel if the carnage of your son or daughter was plastered up on every news station and used to make money by big media. Imagine how you would feel if your period of mourning was overwhelmed with the spectacle of another media bonanza. If you want to help people, then help those who want and need your help. Help those who would be grateful for your help and who are suffering from PREVENTABLE tragedies across the globe. Don't make the lives of those who are suffering more miserable by satisfying your sick, twisted, voyueristic fetishes. Don't use tragedy to promote you own vanity by showing fake sympathy. Don't give into the pressures of society that are telling you that you should be worked up over this, when instead you should be focusing on the things that you DO have control over. In fact, as a moral person it is your duty to focus on the tragedies that you can control and work towards changing them, not just watching them.
Here's the problem with news in America, and the attitude of most Americans: Person 1: Did you hear about the space shuttle tragedy? Person 2: Yes, I did, it was horrible, my heart goes out to them and I said three prayers for them and their families last night. Person 1: Me too, and I watched all day on CNN as they tracked down the family members to interview them. One of them even cried it was so touching.. Person 2: Yes, it was. Person 1:... Person 2: Oh yeah, did you see the last episode of "Friends"? Wasn't it great! Person 1: Yeah, did you remember when Chandler...
I'm not sure who marked this guy flamebait, but before you get too worked up, lets step back and think about things for a second. This was a tragedy, no doubt, and the majority of people want to help make the world a better place, there is no about that either. So, if you want to help the family of the astronauts, put yourself in their shoes, ok? Imagine how you would feel if the carnage of your son or daughter was plastered up on every news station and used to make money by big media. Imagine how you would feel if your period of mourning was overwhelmed with the spectacle of another media bonanza. If you want to help people, then help those who want and need your help. Help those who would be grateful for your help and who are suffering from PREVENTABLE tragedies across the globe. Don't make the lives of those who are suffering more miserable by satisfying your sick, twisted, voyueristic fetishes. Don't use tragedy to promote you own vanity by showing fake sympathy. Don't give into the pressures of society that are telling you that you should be worked up over this, when instead you should be focusing on the things that you do have control over. In fact, as a moral person it is your duty to focus on the tragedies that you can control and work towards changing them, not just watching them.
Here's the problem with news in America, and the attitude of most Americans: Person 1: Did you hear about the space shuttle tragedy? Person 2: Yes, I did, it was horrible, my heart goes out to them and I said three prayers for them and their families last night. Person 1: Me too, and I watched all day on CNN as they tracked down the family members to interview them. One of them even cried it was so touching.. Person 2: Yes, it was. Person 1:... Person 2: Oh yeah, did you see the last episode of "Friends"? Wasn't it great! Person 1: Yeah, did you remember when Chandler...
To add a bit more to my post above. If you really want to show sympathy and help people out, then quit focusing on things that don't concern you. Quit getting wrapped up in tragedies where the parties involved would rather that you just shut up and go away so that they can mourn the lost of their loved ones in peace. Instead, focus on problems where people would be grateful if you got involved, such as the increasing famine and poverty throughout the world, war, disease, dangerous working conditions, etc. If you are worried about people dying while performing their work, then focus on the many dangerous industries here in the US and abroad where working conditions are wrecklessly dangerous. As far as proving your decency by showing fake sympathy, well, don't break your arms patting yourselves on the back.
Exactly, and what is lost on most people here on slashdot, is that blanketing the airwaves with this story for who knows how long is not doing the families of these people a favor. But, that's the nature of our media. News is reported as events that people have no control over, even when tragedies such as war are preventable and in a democratic society we should have some level of control over this. It is designed to produce a feeling of resigned helplessness in the watcher and reduce the level of culpability by the people running the show to the lowest level. After all, the people running the show are tightly linked with the advertisers and the investors who fund big media companies. So, as long as the news is constrained and self censored, it might as well be entertaining.
Bring in infotainment, which is what our news has turned into. With everything from an hour of police videos on FOX, to replay of devastating explosions and atrocities all over the world. Hey, I guess if they aren't going to give people news that is relevant to their lives, and that effectively promotes disempowerment of the general population, they might as well make as much money as they can by creating a carnival atmosphere.
What's even more annoying, is that when you try to bring this up, people tell you to shut up. They're too busy being entertained by the latest tragedy, and showing their fake sympathy, to actually get up and do something about problems that they CAN solve. Of course, the people in control love the fact that they have effectively replaced news that matters with carnage.
Exactly. They are reporting it because alot of money was lost. I think that it's sick that this is the current system of values we have in place, but that is what it is. What I find disturbing is the way they focus the news on the tragedy that is affecting the families, when the reality is that they wouldn't be reporting this if the astronauts weren't in such a prestigious position. I believe that life is life, and that all lives are important. I find it dishonest and unethical to play up the loss of life of certain people and to ignore the plight of others. By attaching importance of life to money, the media is devaluing all human life.
I agree that it is a tragedy that their lives were lost. I'm annoyed that the media is not honest about the reasons they really report things. That's part of the problem with our society, is that our media and sources of information are very dishonest and manipulative. It's ultimate goal is to get viewers watching so that it can get advertisers and make money. The other motive of the news agencies is not to bite the hands that feed them, this includes both advertisers and the parent companies that own them. So, when the next war on Iraq happens, and NBC starts talking about all the cool technology used to make smart bombs, keep in mind that they are pushing the products of their parent company, which is Westinghouse Electric. It's an extremely perverse set of motives for reporting the news and results in huge distortions of perspective. Rather than report something because it's the right thing to do, they report things that get high ratings. So, when something such as this tragedy happens, they put together a story and hammer it into the ground, pushing buttons over and over until the story is milked for all that it is worth.
Already there has been discussion of getting rid of the space program. It's hard to predict what will happen, but the idea that we should stop space exploration because of the risks, while morally correct, is absurd in the context of a system that ignores risks to human life everyday when it wages unnecessary war, allows people to starve, and work in conditions that are much more dangerous than piloting a shuttle. The fact is, given the risks associated with space travel, the space program has been enormously successful, and is the one of the most carefully planned and controlled programs out there. The investments of human life and technology are protected with the utmost care and safety. What's ironic, is that this story may be twisted up into an excuse to cut the space program. This wouldn't be hard to imagine, after all, the space program was started in large part as a PR effort against the former Soviet Union. Now that they no longer exist, our short-sighted plutocrats may not see any real need to put the money into it, even if there are long term advantages to keeping it around. So, by playing up the human tragedy, it makes people ripe for emotional manipulation and loss of perspective.
Right, not to mention that most people sacrifice their lives in occupations that they don't enjoy, and out of necessity, not by choice. If you were to bring all seven of them back and tell them what happened and say that there is a 1/20 chance of it happening if they go up again, I would be willing to bet half a years salary that every one of them would sign right back up, not because it's a huge sacrifice, but because they know how priveledged they are to be one of the select few to go. I know that I would sign up if given the opportunity. I think that it's irresponsible the way this is being reported. I think that the media lacks ethics for spinning this into a human tragedy story, when the reality is that it's about the money, and it's a convenient distraction from other worlds events. It's also annoying that they are putting the seemingly imminent war on Iraq in the background, which is going to cost many more lives and is preventable, since there is no question that Saddam is cooperating. They can split hairs about the extent of cooperation, but there is no doubt that he has allowed inspectors in.
This is basicly being used to manipulate people. They are already talking on CNN about how it is uniting both sides in the war on Iraq and that people are putting aside their differences. In other words, they are using it as a sick way of saying, "Don't worry about that little war on Iraq, it's not a big deal, instead LOOK AT THIS TRAGEDY!!! SEVEN PEOPLE DIED! SEVEN! DON'T YOU HAVE COMPASSION??? HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT OTHER ISSUES." It's a way of shutting people up. Do you see how it works? The same thing happened after 9/11, when Bush used a tragedy to push his own agenda, and he is again using the economy to push his own agenda of tax cuts for the rich, and now the war on terror to push his agenda of control over Iraq's oil. I am tired of seeing events blown up like this, while other issues that are preventable are put in the background. By focusing on news that we have little control over, and not the news that we truly do have control over, the media is portraying events to be out of our control. They are participating in the destruction of our rights to decide what our governments do. After all, if people don't think they have control over anything, they won't get up and do anything about it.
It does disgust me to a certain extent that we'll hype up the death of 7 people, whilst ignoring the huge number of people that die every day due to poverty, famine, disease, etc. But in the end, cold-hearted as it is, what do you expect the media to do? I'm not generally a fan of them, but really, what do you expect them to do, mention it every day on the 10pm news? It's called "news" for a reason (doubtless someone will correct me on the etymology of the word), if something happens every day, *it isn't news*.
I agree with your defition of news ONLY if we are talking about natural phenomena that we have no control over. So, it doesn't make alot of sense to report things that happen every day, and the criteria of what makes it newsworthy is that people already know it. However, when talking about FIXABLE, preventable, social problems, the definition of news is different. Your defition of news basicly means that every solveable social problem is not news because it happens all the time. I would say that social problems ARE news if they are fixable. After all, if they aren't news, then we can justify the under-reporting of all sorts of atrocities based on your definition. Not only that, but there is no logical arguement that could convince me that people wouldn't want to know about it.
I believe that describing world events as natural phenemona over which we have no control is done on purpose. It's designed to give the majority of people a sense of powerlessness and to inhibit any threat to the power structures in place that are causing many of these tragedies. The idea of rarity as a criteria for news is a cop out that is used to justify the lack of ethics in news and reporting.
I also think your definition is flawed in the sense that EVERY event is unique. You can arbitrarily categorize anything you want. So, you could say that every murder is unique and therefore deserves equal reporting, or you absurdly say that since murder happens all the time that NO murder needs to be reported.
Out of context, your definition of news seems to make sense, and has to do with idea of scarcity implying value which many people in free markets have bought into. However, the big gaping hole in your definition of new that states, "It's news only if it is a rare and unique event" is the defintion of rare and unique. These words in the context of your definition are meaningless. One could argue that all events are unique or that none are. Your definition excuses all sorts of biases in the news.
This is something that we need to be constantly on gaurd about when we are in a political debate. People that are pushing a certain agenda will tend to come up with ideologies and criteria that seem to be without reproach. However, you can't take ideas out of context. The test of any idea is to put it back into the context of reality. See if the idea makes sense in reality. Test the meaning of each word in a sentence and ask yourself what exactly the definition is. If there are any words that are vague, such as "unique", then we can determine that what we are hearing is nothing more than a meaningless catchphrase that is meant to allow someone to push their own agenda. So, your definition of "unique" (which is arbitrary) allows the news to heavily favor the upper classes and the rich, which was exactly my point, and is no excuse for not reporting events that are of importance to people watching the news, since by defintion all unique events are in fact unique.
I guess that statement might make sense if you meant to say it in a humorous fashion. The fact is, most third world countries are capable of sustaining human life. It's disorganization, and the fact that labor is heavily under-valued, that leads to massive impoverishment in most areas. Even in the US, people that are impoverished are not poor because we don't have abundant resources, it's because labor is increasingly under-valued.
Also, need I point out that it's pretty difficult to choose where you live. It's also difficult to get out if you don't have transportation and the proper paperwork. So, as I'm sure you know, there is very little "choice" involved.
How much funding will a pro-labor, anti-business newspaper get? Sure, there is PBS, but even they get alot of funding from corporations, and have to censor their news if they think that one of their sponsors might pull funding.
How much funding with a pro-labor, anti-business newspaper get? Sure, there is PBS, but even they get alot of funding from corporations, and have to censor their news if they think that one of their sponsor might pull funding.
You are correct about the internet, and I agree that it is the place to go for news outside the mainstream. I am hopeful that it will eventually usurp television, and remain as free and democratic a medium as it is today. As far as starting one's own TV station or newspaper that reports news from a middle class perspective, it's just not economically viable unless you have billions of dollars to fund it with and are willing to deal with alot less advertiser funding.
Don't worry, I don't think that your post is flamebait, I think you state your views eloquently. However, I believe that you are too idealistic if you think that one can just get up and start their own tv station without huge amounts of funding. That's the problem with our entire system, news doesn't get aired without corporate advertiser's support, politicians don't get in office without corporate support, etc. The end result is a tight leash on what we know, and who we can elect to do something about it.
We've just seem to become numb to everyday injustice, even though that's what should matter the most. Sad!
That's just it, I don't think that WE have become numb. I think that it's not reported because the news is decidely in favor of business/profit making interests, and does not report these things because people might get up and do something about it. News agencies are very susceptible to advertiser backlash, and will rarely report against the advertisers that support them. Our news is sorely lacking in context and history, and it's no wonder that people that get their news from tv have no perspective on the causes of events and how to solve them. Unfortunately, a pro-labor press is not economically viable, since advertising support is very small for newspapers that market themselves to the lower classes.
That's why things such as the AIDS crisis in Africa is under-reported, and when it is reported, it is reported as some kind of phenomena over which we have no control. Very little is reported about the unwillingness of our pharmaceutical companies (which are largely supported though taxpayer funded research) are unwilling to produce these drugs at cost for those that have no chance of paying the huge markup that the prescription drug cartel charges. And this is just one of many preventable tragedies that we are "numb" to, IF we even hear about it in the proper perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
I see, so corporations are working their people like slaves and firing Americans in order to help. Right....
So, basicly, you are saying that you are in favor of our corporations exploiting their people because in the long run those people will stop that exploitation. Um, ok. How about making our corporations pay them a minimum wage? The local elite wouldn't have anything against it. And, since things such as land are cheaper, there could still be motivation for moving overseas. What would their local elite have against it? The local elite obviously would have alot against it, since they are making huge profits by beating their population down. It's mutual cooperation between corrupt US corporations and corrupt governments in the US and abroad to beat those people down into submission.
With extra priveledges should come extra responsibility. If you want to increase their priveledge, then you should make them 100% liable for whatever their company does. I think that this would be a good thing. The thought of being completely bankrupted would provide at least some incentive for the Ken Lays out there not to screw people over.
Where will they sell it? India? Are you serious? They might try to sell it here, but they are up against a huge barrier. When's the last time you've bought software from an Indian company? I'm not talking about just xenophobia, either. I'm talking about the huge costs of advertising. They will have less to spend, and will be easy to underprice. If not, microsoft can always just give it away for free and drive them out of business. And don't tell me that from past behavior that you don't think that will happen. It's pretty obvious that this is what will happen.
So, when the money disappears from India, their market will collapse and investors will move on to the next area.
They'll lower prices by laying workers off and moving jobs overseas before they ever even think about eating into profits. And lower prices is not necessarily a guarantee.
But you forget that many markets have become monopolies or duopolies. What market share? Sure, there is one counter-example, with Intel/AMD. But, does this follow the norm? Look at music, publishing, pharmaceutical, telecom, cable, internet. From everything I've seen, internet is getting more expensive, cars are getting more expensive, music is getting more expensive, books are holding their own, software is getting more expensive, etc. So, if you can show me what exactly is supposed to motivate an industry that is monopolized by a few players to lower prices before they shift a disproportionate amount of wealth in their hands, then I'll listen. They'll lower prices by laying workers off and moving jobs overseas before they ever even think about lowering prices. And once your job goes overseas, lower prices will be the LAST thing that you are worrying about.
In order to correct for the collapse of the peso, they would have to actually show numbers that one can look at and see how much one is making one year vs another. That's what adjusting for inflation means. You do know that, don't you?
Capital formation implies that one is able to save money and doesn't have to spend that money on necessities. Not only that, but capital formation also implies that one can actually afford capital. If the local elites make a disprportionate amount, which they are, then this actually increases their power over those under them.
It's not a quick process and it's not particularly pretty to watch but it is the best we've got.
No, it's not the best process. The best process is to enforce a minimum wage law that is global. This would increase their capital much more quickly. Another thing to remember is that you are talking about a symptom, not the problem. The problem is lack of democracy both here in the US and abroad. Unless you call selecting a couple of Harvard educated aristocrats every four years to rule over you somehow is what democracy is about. If that's your definition of democracy, then yes, I guess free trade is promoting "democracy".
You are assuming that soldiers that follow illegal orders are caught. That's a rarity. There is heavy pressure for soldiers to violate the written code of conduct in favor of loyalty to their superiors and fellow soldiers. There is plently of evidence for this, and I'll leave as an excercise to the reader to discover this for yourself.
No, most multi-millionaires(I use multi-millionaire, because making a million dollars by retirment is not what I am referring to, I'm referring to people who make 10s of millions, these are the main ones I am worried about, in comparison, the average millionaire seems only well-to-do) got to where they were by making a disprortionate amount of wealth. If one could be a multi-millionaire by working hard, then they would be able to simply go to the nearest factory and work enough hours to make several million dollars. People make disproportionate amounts of wealth by driving down competition in whatever market they are in and paying others as little as they possibly can for their hard work. If you think that someone that makes one million dollars a year really works 10,000 times as hard as someone in an Indian sweatshop, then maybe you could put that to the test by making them spend a few months in a sweatshop, and see how much money they make. After all, what you are saying is that they made all this money from their labor. If that's true, then theoretically you should be able to put in an equivalent amount of effort into any profession and make one million dollars simply by working massive over-time. But, we both know that this isn't true.
You also think that I'm only talking about millionaires. By today's stands, being a millionaire isn't that big of a deal, and is about the same amount a well-to-do family can save up for retirement if they had invested in the stock market between 1980-2000. I'm talking about the top 1%, that owns 40% of the wealth of the country. That's up from 33% in 1985. By your arguement, although the top one percent only aquired the first 33% in the first 200 years of our countries existance, in the last 15 years, they have somehow increased their productivity by three times. Yes, they must be working extremely hard to have this jump in wealth accrual. Surely it doesn't have anything to do with the imbalance in competition that is caused by flooding the labor market while keeping barriers to entry in the business market intact.
I think that globalization is a safety valve that allows for the growth of a middle class in these nations. Nike, much as it might have to bribe people to get into a country, pays wages that are above local scale. When they do that, they pave the way for the rise of a new middle class that can overthrow the current elite's stranglehold on power much as the irish overthrew the brahmins in Boston a century ago.
If you think that it's about growing a middle class, then how exactly is it supposed to grow when they are making a dollar a day and the people in power are profiting immensely? This is INCREASING(isn't that obvious?) the power of their corrupt governments and local elite. They have even less of a chance of overthrowing their government, not more. As long as the local elite are making 10,000 times more than the rest of the people of that country, then they can always hire soldiers and crack a few skulls to make examples. How in the hell do you think they've kept control for the last two centuries? Do you think it happened by magic or that the people willingly gave in? How in the hell are they supposed to rebel if arms exports are curbed and on a dollar a day it would require a year or two's salary to buy a handgun? What, you think they have gun shops there? Guns are expensive, and that's just a handgun, while the people they face are now able to buy tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, nukes, aircraft, and machine guns. Yeah, you're really increasing their chance for democracy.
How does distorting data by not accounting for inflation equate to "honest numbers"? As far as stating that they are current pesos for both stats, yes, that's obvious, I already said that. Yes, it is pretty obvious that they have an axe to grind, and if you can back your accusation of "hand waving" up with real facts, in other words, show where the numbers were mis-represented, then I'll give it more merit. In the context of this arguement, your accusation of hand waving is a meaningless, ad hominem attack. As far as giving it a rest goes, that's not going to happen. However, I would encourage you to try to stick to logical, rational debate, rather than allowing your arguements to collapse into ad hominem attacks, that is, if you want to be taken seriously.
I once met a fellow (suburban Chicago) who had a lawn cutting business and worked with VMS systems. The lawn cutting business during the season was earning him more money than the computer work. He had 8 or 9 trucks going out and cutting for him.
It's important to dig deeper and ask why this is so. After all, computers and technology have far more money flowing in than lawn care, so doesn't it seem absurd to you that he is making more mowing lawns? You act as if it's a good thing. Where is all that money going? Can you answer that?
Basicly what you are saying is exactly my point, even though it might not be obvious. I've been talking over and over about the devaluation of labor. And, you are backing my point up by showing that someone can make more money by owning their own lawn care business than by working in an industry that is awash in money. The reason is that the money in the tech industry is going to the owners? Why is it going to the owners? Not because they deserve, even if in some cases they do, but the reason it is going to the owner is because competition at the top is small, while at the bottom it is huge. Then there are barriers to entry in this market that are making it difficult for people to make the jump from employee to owner. The end result is a system which rewards those with power, while undervaluing labor. The way to get rid of this imbalance is by fostering competition at the highest levels. You do this by heavily subsidizing and promoting businesses that have less that 5% market share(yes, the 5% is somewhat arbitrary, but it's important to keep it small, but not too small). By promoting competition on the supply side, and among the owners of businesses, they will be forced to compete. This will ultimately increase the number of businesses, which will increase demand for labor, lower prices, and help rebalance competition.
This is my whole problem with free trade. It is effectively removing barriers to entry that third world workers have in the labor market, while at the same time keeping the barriers to entry that third world businesses are faced with in place. It is further tilting the balance of competition in favor of business owners. While they may be able to start their own small businesses, I won't even laugh at the absurdity of what you are saying. Who cares if they get crumbs if they are not given an equal chance to compete in the more lucrative businesses? What you are saying is that they will get some crumbs and that they should be greatful while large businesses profit immensely from their work, and you act as if this is a good thing.
I've started reading "The Wealth of Nations", by Adam Smith, you know, the guy that started this whole thing called capitalism. What's interesting is that he promoted an idea called the Labor Theory of Value (LVT). What the LVT states is that profit should reflect the value added by labor. So, when one goes to work and creates a product, the increase in price over that of the raw materials should reflect the hard work that someone put into building that product. He saw competition as a way of ensuring that this took place. Without competition among businesses, this does not take place. What instead happens is that businesses are allowed to leverage as much money as they want for a product rather than a fair value for the labor involved. Adam Smith never predicted that barriers to entry in markets could be used to allow people to profit immensely for relatively little work, and the reason he designed capitalism is that he was trying to fight this. It seems that we have forgotten Smith's ideals, not without a bit of cynicism, and instead big business pushes into our minds the idea that getting rich for a proportionately small amount of labor is a good thing. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in creating a society of desperate labor and freeloading wealth. That is the reason why very large businesses need to be regulated and rules need to be in place to foster competition. Without them, we may soon live in a society that is not much different than the one Smith was trying to fight.
What I wrote above was what I meant by "morally sound". Privacy protection should take precedent over the "right to know", unless somehow invading a person's privacy is able to help society. Perhaps I should have taken the vagueness out. But sometimes it's best to leave things vague, so that in a democratic society, the people can choose what's best. This is the way the US constitution is, which is for the best. The only problem right now is that the US is no longer democratic, and the people aren't given a choice of how to interpret the constitution, it's the supreme court, and corrupt legislators. Vagueness isn't a bad thing, it's only bad when it can be exploited by corrupt government.
In a democratic society, we all should decide what is morally sound. I don't think it's that difficult of a choice either. I think people watch the media that we have right now only because they aren't given a better alternative. If people were given the alternative of watching news that was relevant, intelligent, with context, and insightful, they would more than likely choose this over the crap that is showing now. I also think that the morally sound part could easily be enforced by simply enforcing privacy protection laws. We could even do something similar to what the UK does, which is create privacy protection laws that extend to the famous. That would have prevented the stuff that happened to princess Diana, where she was followed by tabloid media and crashed her car while trying to get away. This would prevent alot of the explotation of people and invasion of their privacy that we see on the media, while still allowing for certain kinds of news to be reported. Sensible privacy protection laws could be created and in a democratic society we all could decide what kinds of laws we want.
I think that one thing that is missing from the criteria for being a hero is if that person is making a choice that sets him apart from others and that require exceptional courage. In other words, if we asked a group of 1,000 strangers if they would like to go up on the space shuttle, how many would gladly volunteer? Ok, how about if we asked a group of 1,000 astronomers or scientists how many would want to go? I have a feeling that you would see 900+ hands shoot up in the first case(ok, maybe not now, but definitely before today), and 990+ shoot up in the second case. For me that doesn't qualify as being a hero. Yes, this is a tragic loss, but these people died doing what they loved. Unfortunately their loss fails the test of uniquemess, which I think is an important part of calling someone a hero. A hero is someone who is exceptional in fighting for a cause, not someone who does work that is the envy of millions.
I'm sorry it took me so long to reply. I tend to say things that bother people, and get alot of feedback. I don't do this with the intent of bothering people, but to educate them. With that said, let's begin.
I have thought about this for the last day, because the reporting of this tragedy has troubled me in the same way that the 9/11 reporting did. In response, I have come up with a couple of criteria for what I think ethical news reporting should be about, and you are welcome to critique my criteria as well as my conclusions.
Here they are:
1. The news should be relevant to the person watching. It should be an issue that they are concerned about in their daily life or would want to know about. However, reporters should not report just because people want to know something. A person's desire to know about an event should be valid only if their desire to know is morally sound.
2. Reporting events that are not immediately relevant to people is justifiable if it somehow is able to help the parties that are the focus of the news story. The lives of people being reported should be taken into account before the news is reported. In the case of a tragedy that has already occured, it should only be played over and over if there is something viewers can do to help. Furthermore, it should only be played over and over if this is something that the victims would desire. Reporting news that has an adverse effect on the people being reported is only morally justifiable if it prevents a greater injustice from happening. For example, reporting the identity of a carjacker on the loose is justifiable because it would prevent a greater tragedy. Yes, it has an adverse impact on the carjacker, but prevents other people from possibly being killed.
To expand on criteria for number one, reporting of explosions, tragedy, and carnage should only be reported if it does something more than merely show footage that satisfies certain viewer's bloodlust. Certain desires to "know" about current events are not healthy and should not be supported. For example, shows like "police chases" etc, do satisfy people's desire to know, but only in the most perverse sense. This is also somewhat true in the Columbia space shuttle's case, since many people watched to see if there was footage of the break-up.
Regarding criteria number two. The lives of the parties being viewed should be taken into account. In the case of the Columbia tragedy, it is reckless to play the news over and over, since the last thing that people want during a period of mourning is to have their personal lives on television. Again, this reporting fails criteria number two.
What exactly do we have in news reporting today? We have pandering to the lowest level of emotion. We have content that is designed to overtly manipulate the viewer into watching even more, even if only out of a sense of guilt and a feeling that by watching they are somehow helping. Then viewers go out, and in a perverse promotion of their own vanity, "mourn" the loss of people they didn't even know. You can see this same vanity in many religious types, who will go to church and pray for people, but when it comes down to actually doing something about it, lack the courage of their convictions.
Responsible news reporting should be about keeping things in context and reporting facts, not just replays of emotionally charged footage. In the case of 9/11, the replays of carnage should have been reduced after the first day or two, and instead more energy should have been focused on the causes of terrorism and the history of problems in the middle east. It seems that all that news is good for today is whipping people up into an emotional frenzy so that they can be herded along the path that our leaders choose for us.
Here's a copy of a post that I put in a message above, which I know that you'll be too lazy too read it since you are busy "mourning" the loss of the astronauts.
...
I'm not sure who marked this guy as flamebait, but before you get too worked up, let's step back and think about things for a second. This was a tragedy, no doubt, and the majority of people want to help make the world a better place, there is no about that either. So, if you want to help the family of the astronauts, put yourself in their shoes. Imagine how you would feel if the carnage of your son or daughter was plastered up on every news station and used to make money by big media. Imagine how you would feel if your period of mourning was overwhelmed with the spectacle of another media bonanza. If you want to help people, then help those who want and need your help. Help those who would be grateful for your help and who are suffering from PREVENTABLE tragedies across the globe. Don't make the lives of those who are suffering more miserable by satisfying your sick, twisted, voyueristic fetishes. Don't use tragedy to promote you own vanity by showing fake sympathy. Don't give into the pressures of society that are telling you that you should be worked up over this, when instead you should be focusing on the things that you DO have control over. In fact, as a moral person it is your duty to focus on the tragedies that you can control and work towards changing them, not just watching them.
Here's the problem with news in America, and the attitude of most Americans:
Person 1: Did you hear about the space shuttle tragedy?
Person 2: Yes, I did, it was horrible, my heart goes out to them and I said three prayers for them and their families last night.
Person 1: Me too, and I watched all day on CNN as they tracked down the family members to interview them. One of them even cried it was so touching..
Person 2: Yes, it was.
Person 1:
Person 2: Oh yeah, did you see the last episode of "Friends"? Wasn't it great!
Person 1: Yeah, did you remember when Chandler...
I'm not sure who marked this guy flamebait, but before you get too worked up, lets step back and think about things for a second. This was a tragedy, no doubt, and the majority of people want to help make the world a better place, there is no about that either. So, if you want to help the family of the astronauts, put yourself in their shoes, ok? Imagine how you would feel if the carnage of your son or daughter was plastered up on every news station and used to make money by big media. Imagine how you would feel if your period of mourning was overwhelmed with the spectacle of another media bonanza. If you want to help people, then help those who want and need your help. Help those who would be grateful for your help and who are suffering from PREVENTABLE tragedies across the globe. Don't make the lives of those who are suffering more miserable by satisfying your sick, twisted, voyueristic fetishes. Don't use tragedy to promote you own vanity by showing fake sympathy. Don't give into the pressures of society that are telling you that you should be worked up over this, when instead you should be focusing on the things that you do have control over. In fact, as a moral person it is your duty to focus on the tragedies that you can control and work towards changing them, not just watching them.
...
Here's the problem with news in America, and the attitude of most Americans:
Person 1: Did you hear about the space shuttle tragedy?
Person 2: Yes, I did, it was horrible, my heart goes out to them and I said three prayers for them and their families last night.
Person 1: Me too, and I watched all day on CNN as they tracked down the family members to interview them. One of them even cried it was so touching..
Person 2: Yes, it was.
Person 1:
Person 2: Oh yeah, did you see the last episode of "Friends"? Wasn't it great!
Person 1: Yeah, did you remember when Chandler...
To add a bit more to my post above. If you really want to show sympathy and help people out, then quit focusing on things that don't concern you. Quit getting wrapped up in tragedies where the parties involved would rather that you just shut up and go away so that they can mourn the lost of their loved ones in peace. Instead, focus on problems where people would be grateful if you got involved, such as the increasing famine and poverty throughout the world, war, disease, dangerous working conditions, etc. If you are worried about people dying while performing their work, then focus on the many dangerous industries here in the US and abroad where working conditions are wrecklessly dangerous. As far as proving your decency by showing fake sympathy, well, don't break your arms patting yourselves on the back.
Exactly, and what is lost on most people here on slashdot, is that blanketing the airwaves with this story for who knows how long is not doing the families of these people a favor. But, that's the nature of our media. News is reported as events that people have no control over, even when tragedies such as war are preventable and in a democratic society we should have some level of control over this. It is designed to produce a feeling of resigned helplessness in the watcher and reduce the level of culpability by the people running the show to the lowest level. After all, the people running the show are tightly linked with the advertisers and the investors who fund big media companies. So, as long as the news is constrained and self censored, it might as well be entertaining.
Bring in infotainment, which is what our news has turned into. With everything from an hour of police videos on FOX, to replay of devastating explosions and atrocities all over the world. Hey, I guess if they aren't going to give people news that is relevant to their lives, and that effectively promotes disempowerment of the general population, they might as well make as much money as they can by creating a carnival atmosphere.
What's even more annoying, is that when you try to bring this up, people tell you to shut up. They're too busy being entertained by the latest tragedy, and showing their fake sympathy, to actually get up and do something about problems that they CAN solve. Of course, the people in control love the fact that they have effectively replaced news that matters with carnage.
Exactly. They are reporting it because alot of money was lost. I think that it's sick that this is the current system of values we have in place, but that is what it is. What I find disturbing is the way they focus the news on the tragedy that is affecting the families, when the reality is that they wouldn't be reporting this if the astronauts weren't in such a prestigious position. I believe that life is life, and that all lives are important. I find it dishonest and unethical to play up the loss of life of certain people and to ignore the plight of others. By attaching importance of life to money, the media is devaluing all human life.
I agree that it is a tragedy that their lives were lost. I'm annoyed that the media is not honest about the reasons they really report things. That's part of the problem with our society, is that our media and sources of information are very dishonest and manipulative. It's ultimate goal is to get viewers watching so that it can get advertisers and make money. The other motive of the news agencies is not to bite the hands that feed them, this includes both advertisers and the parent companies that own them. So, when the next war on Iraq happens, and NBC starts talking about all the cool technology used to make smart bombs, keep in mind that they are pushing the products of their parent company, which is Westinghouse Electric. It's an extremely perverse set of motives for reporting the news and results in huge distortions of perspective. Rather than report something because it's the right thing to do, they report things that get high ratings. So, when something such as this tragedy happens, they put together a story and hammer it into the ground, pushing buttons over and over until the story is milked for all that it is worth.
Already there has been discussion of getting rid of the space program. It's hard to predict what will happen, but the idea that we should stop space exploration because of the risks, while morally correct, is absurd in the context of a system that ignores risks to human life everyday when it wages unnecessary war, allows people to starve, and work in conditions that are much more dangerous than piloting a shuttle. The fact is, given the risks associated with space travel, the space program has been enormously successful, and is the one of the most carefully planned and controlled programs out there. The investments of human life and technology are protected with the utmost care and safety. What's ironic, is that this story may be twisted up into an excuse to cut the space program. This wouldn't be hard to imagine, after all, the space program was started in large part as a PR effort against the former Soviet Union. Now that they no longer exist, our short-sighted plutocrats may not see any real need to put the money into it, even if there are long term advantages to keeping it around. So, by playing up the human tragedy, it makes people ripe for emotional manipulation and loss of perspective.
Please go peddle your off-topic prattle elsewhere. This is neither the time nor the place to push your moronic agenda.
No.
Right, not to mention that most people sacrifice their lives in occupations that they don't enjoy, and out of necessity, not by choice. If you were to bring all seven of them back and tell them what happened and say that there is a 1/20 chance of it happening if they go up again, I would be willing to bet half a years salary that every one of them would sign right back up, not because it's a huge sacrifice, but because they know how priveledged they are to be one of the select few to go. I know that I would sign up if given the opportunity. I think that it's irresponsible the way this is being reported. I think that the media lacks ethics for spinning this into a human tragedy story, when the reality is that it's about the money, and it's a convenient distraction from other worlds events. It's also annoying that they are putting the seemingly imminent war on Iraq in the background, which is going to cost many more lives and is preventable, since there is no question that Saddam is cooperating. They can split hairs about the extent of cooperation, but there is no doubt that he has allowed inspectors in.
This is basicly being used to manipulate people. They are already talking on CNN about how it is uniting both sides in the war on Iraq and that people are putting aside their differences. In other words, they are using it as a sick way of saying, "Don't worry about that little war on Iraq, it's not a big deal, instead LOOK AT THIS TRAGEDY!!! SEVEN PEOPLE DIED! SEVEN! DON'T YOU HAVE COMPASSION??? HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT OTHER ISSUES." It's a way of shutting people up. Do you see how it works? The same thing happened after 9/11, when Bush used a tragedy to push his own agenda, and he is again using the economy to push his own agenda of tax cuts for the rich, and now the war on terror to push his agenda of control over Iraq's oil. I am tired of seeing events blown up like this, while other issues that are preventable are put in the background. By focusing on news that we have little control over, and not the news that we truly do have control over, the media is portraying events to be out of our control. They are participating in the destruction of our rights to decide what our governments do. After all, if people don't think they have control over anything, they won't get up and do anything about it.
It does disgust me to a certain extent that we'll hype up the death of 7 people, whilst ignoring the huge number of people that die every day due to poverty, famine, disease, etc. But in the end, cold-hearted as it is, what do you expect the media to do? I'm not generally a fan of them, but really, what do you expect them to do, mention it every day on the 10pm news? It's called "news" for a reason (doubtless someone will correct me on the etymology of the word), if something happens every day, *it isn't news*.
I agree with your defition of news ONLY if we are talking about natural phenomena that we have no control over. So, it doesn't make alot of sense to report things that happen every day, and the criteria of what makes it newsworthy is that people already know it. However, when talking about FIXABLE, preventable, social problems, the definition of news is different. Your defition of news basicly means that every solveable social problem is not news because it happens all the time. I would say that social problems ARE news if they are fixable. After all, if they aren't news, then we can justify the under-reporting of all sorts of atrocities based on your definition. Not only that, but there is no logical arguement that could convince me that people wouldn't want to know about it.
I believe that describing world events as natural phenemona over which we have no control is done on purpose. It's designed to give the majority of people a sense of powerlessness and to inhibit any threat to the power structures in place that are causing many of these tragedies. The idea of rarity as a criteria for news is a cop out that is used to justify the lack of ethics in news and reporting.
I also think your definition is flawed in the sense that EVERY event is unique. You can arbitrarily categorize anything you want. So, you could say that every murder is unique and therefore deserves equal reporting, or you absurdly say that since murder happens all the time that NO murder needs to be reported.
Out of context, your definition of news seems to make sense, and has to do with idea of scarcity implying value which many people in free markets have bought into. However, the big gaping hole in your definition of new that states, "It's news only if it is a rare and unique event" is the defintion of rare and unique. These words in the context of your definition are meaningless. One could argue that all events are unique or that none are. Your definition excuses all sorts of biases in the news.
This is something that we need to be constantly on gaurd about when we are in a political debate. People that are pushing a certain agenda will tend to come up with ideologies and criteria that seem to be without reproach. However, you can't take ideas out of context. The test of any idea is to put it back into the context of reality. See if the idea makes sense in reality. Test the meaning of each word in a sentence and ask yourself what exactly the definition is. If there are any words that are vague, such as "unique", then we can determine that what we are hearing is nothing more than a meaningless catchphrase that is meant to allow someone to push their own agenda. So, your definition of "unique" (which is arbitrary) allows the news to heavily favor the upper classes and the rich, which was exactly my point, and is no excuse for not reporting events that are of importance to people watching the news, since by defintion all unique events are in fact unique.
I guess that statement might make sense if you meant to say it in a humorous fashion. The fact is, most third world countries are capable of sustaining human life. It's disorganization, and the fact that labor is heavily under-valued, that leads to massive impoverishment in most areas. Even in the US, people that are impoverished are not poor because we don't have abundant resources, it's because labor is increasingly under-valued.
Also, need I point out that it's pretty difficult to choose where you live. It's also difficult to get out if you don't have transportation and the proper paperwork. So, as I'm sure you know, there is very little "choice" involved.
Oops. First paragraph was supposed to be:
How much funding will a pro-labor, anti-business newspaper get? Sure, there is PBS, but even they get alot of funding from corporations, and have to censor their news if they think that one of their sponsors might pull funding.
How much funding with a pro-labor, anti-business newspaper get? Sure, there is PBS, but even they get alot of funding from corporations, and have to censor their news if they think that one of their sponsor might pull funding.
You are correct about the internet, and I agree that it is the place to go for news outside the mainstream. I am hopeful that it will eventually usurp television, and remain as free and democratic a medium as it is today. As far as starting one's own TV station or newspaper that reports news from a middle class perspective, it's just not economically viable unless you have billions of dollars to fund it with and are willing to deal with alot less advertiser funding.
Don't worry, I don't think that your post is flamebait, I think you state your views eloquently. However, I believe that you are too idealistic if you think that one can just get up and start their own tv station without huge amounts of funding. That's the problem with our entire system, news doesn't get aired without corporate advertiser's support, politicians don't get in office without corporate support, etc. The end result is a tight leash on what we know, and who we can elect to do something about it.
We've just seem to become numb to everyday injustice, even though that's what should matter the most. Sad!
That's just it, I don't think that WE have become numb. I think that it's not reported because the news is decidely in favor of business/profit making interests, and does not report these things because people might get up and do something about it. News agencies are very susceptible to advertiser backlash, and will rarely report against the advertisers that support them. Our news is sorely lacking in context and history, and it's no wonder that people that get their news from tv have no perspective on the causes of events and how to solve them. Unfortunately, a pro-labor press is not economically viable, since advertising support is very small for newspapers that market themselves to the lower classes.
That's why things such as the AIDS crisis in Africa is under-reported, and when it is reported, it is reported as some kind of phenomena over which we have no control. Very little is reported about the unwillingness of our pharmaceutical companies (which are largely supported though taxpayer funded research) are unwilling to produce these drugs at cost for those that have no chance of paying the huge markup that the prescription drug cartel charges. And this is just one of many preventable tragedies that we are "numb" to, IF we even hear about it in the proper perspective.