Well, aren't beliefs opinions? The belief itself is not a fact, just look at the theist/atheist debate for an example of this.
This is really amazing. It sounds like instead of pretending Fox News isn't biased, you are actually trying to justify being a victim of propaganda as a kind of life choice, like whether to be a Nike or Reebok person.
You know, I've been advocating for years "if you don't like it don't watch it" but it turns out conservatives love to censor stuff, and they do it every day. They just don't like to censor political propaganda.
Just curious; you do realize this was something we did until just recently, right?
How do you explain the history of our nation until the Fairness Doctrine was repealed?
80 years of Darkness? Orwellian repression?
You don't find it ironic that the propaganda started only after it was repealed? Or just signal if you are a Liberal Media Conspiracy/Fox News Network is Fair and Balanced crank.
It has never applied to anything except broadcast outlets. The media landscape is much more broad than that.
This is Michael Powel's nonsense line. Television is king, radio is its court jester. Saying it's OK to have propaganda on TV and radio because there are newspapers is like saying it's OK to drink poison because you have asprin in your cabinet.
Why is it that a newpaper advertisement costs a tiny fraction of what a TV advertisement costs?
You are not going to get a job as anybody's director of Marketing or Communications with this kind of mistaken thinking.
Believe it or not people like to hear things that they fundamentally agree with.
It sounds as if you are ready to rewrite the "News" entry in the dictionary, because propaganda isn't such a bad thing.
This is how it has been in the newspaper market for 200+ years.
You cannot confuse newspapers and television/radio. They are as different as bicycles and jet planes.
Trying to confuse the two will only confuse other people who can't tell the difference either.
Conservatives watch they want. People with different opinions watch what they want. What's the problem with that? It will lead to communism, in your view? This is nothing new.
Propaganda, in a regulated, highly powerful mass media such as television, where there is no actual competition of ideas or freedom of speech, can lead to the breakdown of democracy.
If you see Chinese newscasters and American newscasters employing the same techniques, you know we are in trouble. A Fox News employee would be fundamentally at home in a Chinese newsroom, inconvenient trivia of ideology notwithstanding.
I'm told Rupert Murdoch does do business with the Chinese, actually.
First off, it can in fact lead to censorship. Sign-up for a new account. Post a bunch of trolls. Your account and IP address will get banned after a spell, based on moderation.
Doesn't sound like you understand. Are you saying any post has actually been censored? It doesn't sound like it.
I'm guessing you're confusing it with the way slashcode disables (easily replaceable, by human beings) user accounts in order to throttle bots?
There is a real world analogy to moderation, and it's called money.
There is a reason we do not have laissez faire capitalism in this country, and in fact that no country that has ever tried to come close to having it has been anything but a social disaster.
That is because "money" is not an intelligent way to run a society.
The mass media landscape is not sufficiently diverse and is rapidly consolidating.
Conservatives aren't out to get rid of "journalism".
They would love it if there was no dissent. They are happy for the moment as long as they can rig the system to make their propaganda appear as prominently or more than regular news.
Looking at the big picture, I find that statement highly deceptive.
I've always hated it, in all its forms. Goldwater I know little about. Thurmond and Dixiecrats I dislike. Karl Rove? I have no idea what he says on it, and I doubt he will change my mind on it. Give me a link to his "orders" and I will check it out.
Hey wow, Atari, I wasn't talking about you, just ruminating on Conservatives in general. No reason to get defensive.
More evidence of FAIR bias
Is "evidence" for you like fairy dust? If you sprinkle it on a post and think happy thoughts, can you fly?
Here is what you seem to do:
1) Lie about something 2) Claim to have seen something, somewhere that relates to your lie. 3) When asked to produce it, degenerate into embarrassing nonsense.
Who knows if your story even exists. If it does, what do you want to bet it doesn't say what you claim. Or not? Who knows? It's obvious you're afraid to find out.
What is "Propaganda" is a matter of opinion.
So is what is "terrorism."
Are you soft on terrorism?
The "Fairness doctrine" meant that if you had political content, you could get harassed by frivolous lawsuits.
Yes. That's right. And tort means that anybody can get a frivolous negligence or malpractice claim. What do both kinds of laws have in common? They were both important components of the government of the most successful, powerful nation on earth. Over their decades (or in the case of tort, centuries) of application, neither one sparked an exodous to the 3rd world, where absence of such laws is more common - because on the balance, these were good laws.
Much like the noble firearm, open to abuse, but essential for American democracy and freedom.
What I really like is freedom of expression. Yes, there is plenty I do not like (what you term "propaganda"), but let them have their say.
You are a fair-weather absolutist. You only like freedom when it suits you. You enjoy political propaganda you agree with, so you pretend you're some kind of ultraradical constitutional scholar, but when something comes along you don't like, you're perfectly ready to censor. I could shout fire in your crowded theater. You wouldn't defend me. I could call all your friends and employers and potential employers, wage a letter-writing campaign, claiming you molest children. You'd sue for libel, especially if you lost a job or couldn't get another one. I could advertise "life insurance" on TV that had a five million dollar deductible. When your mom buys it, you'll sue for false and misleading advertising.
And all that is positively peanuts, absolutely small time, compared to propaganda designed to support starting a war under false pretenses, then profiteering it while putting our dedicated, brave volunteer army in harms way, at the cost of a thousand American lives and counting. Well, you've got your priorities.
You're afraid to respond on this point now, I think, because you know you made a fool of yourself, but it looks like you think calling someone a name or showing a tit on TV is more serious than mass media political hate speech that ruins American democracy and costs American lives.
It was specifically "fascist" for you to declare expression of political opinion as illegal.
Man. Lie about stuff not on the website. But don't lie about stuff in the post right above this. People have to read through the truth to get to your lie. It's just sad.
You want to try to confuse... "what gets broadcast on TV" with everyone's expression of political opinion.
They are night-and-day different.
Nobody agress with you on this. Michael Powell, chariman of President Bush's FCC doesn't agree with you. You don't agree with you.
I have yet to...
Yes you have, and you can keep denying it. It's funnier that way. You've already proved you'll lie about your first sentence by the time you're writing your third, and that's one thing that's cited for you.
there is overwhelming proof that even a lazy 3rd grader would see if they did a Google search.
"Overwhelming proof." Link to it.
Oh wait, you're lying, so you can't.
Hope it is deep and hot!
It must be hard for older hardcore conservatives, knowing they lost on mysogyny and racism, that the Goldwater years are over now... I always pitied them that tough adjustment. They still know in their hearts that a Strom Thurmond presidency would have made our country better, but now all they get to beat on affirmative action and maybe some "straw women." Price of taking orders, I guess; when Karl Rove says shut up and pretend to hate racism, you shut up, don't you.
For the record though, even though I figure you're slandering FAIR that way was kind of a desperation move and probably more or less made up, I don't support race-based affirmative action either. I'd rather see those sorts of things confined to education, and based on ecomonics...
You are flying off the handle.
Hi. My name is AtariAmarok.
I believe the First Amendment is absolute, except that I think we should be able to censor things.
Trust me, and believe my opinions.
In this context, "propaganda" is political opinions you do not agree with.
No, propaganda is propaganda, and it was illegal, until they changed the rules, less than 10 years ago. And so is showing pornography for kids on Saturday morning.
But you, you want it all to be legal, which means you are a sicko.
Or, you admit you can censor lots of things while still having a First Amendment, which means you are a big fat hypocrite.
Up to you. I won't guess which you'd prefer.
Your desire to ban political content you do not like makes you a fascist when it comes to media. That is not an insult, just a fact. Did you get this idea from the People's Republic of China?
Let's see. We've already established that you are a liar, who enjoys making things up and calling them facts.
The Fairness Doctrine says that political propaganda is illegal. You disagree with that, but not other kinds of censorship, so you are also hypocrite. Or you think porn on TV is OK for kids, but that's another matter.
What you really like is propaganda. That's every American's god-given right, and anyone who says otherwise is a fascist. Hmm. Let's see. Rules like the Fairness Doctrine date back to, say, the Communications Act of 1937. So that means... was Franklin Delano Roosevelt a fascist? This would have been news to Hitler.
No.
You are like a little baby, really, calling names. And it's funny, coming from a proven communist terrorist sympathizer, an actual friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden. In fact, I heard you personally participated in a cheering crowd of Palestinians on September 11th. Wearing a Klu Klux Klan outfit.
In fact, I even have pictures. I put them up on my website. A lazy 3rd grader could find them, with google.
Excuse me for not playing by your arbitrary rules.
Therefore, it is a fact.
However, it is clear you would rather discuss these rules than discuss the facts.
No, your rules aren't so bad. It's kind of fun. By the way, I read in the New York Post that it is an absolute proven, categorical fact that you not only hate America, but that it is your lifelong dream to move to the West Bank, wear geisha outfit and become the concubine of Mahmoud Abbas.
You will deny it, or perhaps you won't even bother, but boy, that is a Fact.
Do a Google search on fair.org and race and media. Take care to look only at the links inside fair.org. Yes, they want people hired and fired in media just for their skin color. What a bunch of bigots. Race matters....only to racists.
Translation: as far as I know there is no actual evidence, because if I had actually seen it I would just provide a link, but please go do the research to back up my outrageous claims for me. Thank you.
Race matters....only to racists.
What part of hell do lying race baiters go to?
As long as it is not falsely labelled as programming for kids, that is fine.
Oh, you hypocrite.
Don't back out on me now, Mr. Too Much of a Civil Libertarian. You are claiming you have the right to do exactly that.
How could we stop you, Mr. Porn-is-for-Kids? What kind of government interference won't square with your Wacko "I Failed out of Law School" Interpretation of the First Amendment?
False advertising, and hardcore porn (labeled as "Sex Education" for 8 year olds) between Pokemon and Mr. Rogers, is legal in your world, and you cannot prevent it. "Don't like it? Change the channel. It's a free country." That's the heart of what Fox News Network really is. And thank you, for such a stunningly sloppy response - I doubt you could make it much easier to show how intellectually bankrupt your ideas are.
I guess I am too much of a civil libertarian to want the government to decide what speech is "fair" and what isn't!
It already does, in 1001 ways. It decides what is false advertising and what's not, for instance. What is slander, libel, what threatens the President, what is obscene and profane... And until very, very recently when a cabal of conservatives and media conglomerates changed the rules, it decided what was biased. The system worked, until conservatives broke it.
And why did they break it? Because they were planning to broadcast propaganda, at that was illegal.
It's fortunately relatively easy to identify propagandists like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, and quite understandable to want to ban them from the airwaves.
I named and described a rather famous report from a while ago. You are too lazy to look it up, but not too lazy to whine "gimme a link". I am beginning to wonder if you even know what FAIR's own web site is.
You are stunning, sir. Make outrageous, obviously false claims, and then call people lazy when they don't run to justify them for you.
To get yourself out of this deep dark hole, you need to cite the report, and then list what you think is false about it, and then give us some reason to believe you have changed your personal philosphy about a fact being whatever you assert to be a fact.
A fact is a fact, whether or not you or I agree.
And it is a fact, AtariAmarok that you are a communist terrorist sympathizer, who is a personal friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden.
Now, let's start at the beginning. How is it that we distinguish "lies" from "facts?"
Hint #1: long, long ago, we determined that providing some kind of reference to back up what you are saying, like say a link or bibliographic citation... I believe they used to teach this sort of thing in elementary school.
One of the reasons I don't like FAIR is because they have fought FOR racial bias
OK, cite the source, Mr. "what I say is a fact as long as I say it is a fact."
Let's get into it.
However, I have yet to slander them.
Then you don't understand what slander is.
Which itself is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
No, it is not. It would only really make sense if you, and me, and everyone else who wanted could have a TV station, and all those stations could fit in the first few channels.
By the way, just for the record... in your world, Janet Jackson should be allowed to show both tits, right? Porn should be legal on TV?
You are setting up a straw man. You were arguing with me about the FAIR Fox 9/11 report before I ever read it. Then I read it, and found no complaints with it. You are STILL fighting.
Then you have no idea what a Straw Man is.
You claim FAIR is biased. This is nonsense, but I figure, hey, benefit of the doubt. I wonder if you've even seen a FAIR report, so I show you one.
You think it's fine.
I ask if you can even link to anything by FAIR that's not fine.
No response.
And that is you parading slander and insults and name calling as facts.
You have no credibility. You probably don't even fool yourself.
pointless argument of whether or not certain facts are "name calling"?
Because they are not facts, they are name calling. And that when you understand that, it is clear why you are wrong.
Forgive me, I just don't like racism.
You don't like groups like FAIR, who do the real work every day of trying to keep bias (including racial bias) out of the media. You slander them when they become inconvenient.
f you don't recognize BOTH of these, or try to deny it, it shows your bias.
The Fairness Doctrine merely says that broadcast media should be unbiased. Liberals can only dream of having as good (or as much) propaganda as conservatives.
And you are still avoiding finding anything specific not to like about that FAIR report.
Because you don't know anything about it that's inaccurate. In fact, you don't know much about FAIR at all. To actually have anything to do other than call them names, you'd have to do work.
Except that what I pointed out is provable and admitted.
In your imagination.
Well, cite some sources then.
Have they done similar reports against the left-wing media?
What, you mean against Mother Jones?
FAIR has a good reputation. It is a centrist group.
And you are basically proving it, because you are so far finding little you can say about them other than calling names, pretending name-calling equals facts, and refusing to cite any sources...
it has to make up most of its list of Limbaugh transgressions.
Since all we have really proven at this point is that you believe you can substitute name-calling for facts, I suppose it would be too much to ask for a link, or any kind of documentation to back up what you're saying...
I bet the best I can look forward to is a link to the report itself, with no documentation for your assertions about it... and will I even get that?
Dunno, depends how much more you want to embarrass yourself.
They have devoted a lot of time to such things demanding racial discrimination in media, and pushing to censor those with views they do not like
Hey, didn't you get the memo? You're supposed to stay off the race thing. Future minority conservatives might be reading. Isn't it supposed to be: Affirmative action, bad, criticisng out racial discrimination in the media, good?
Conservatives especially love to censor the media. Most violence is fine, but Heaven Forbid if there's anything sexual, or disrespectful of Christianity, watch those rabid First Amendment crusaders head right for the phone booth to change costumes.
FAIR is a left-wing pressure group, that pushes for left-wing bias in media
If you believed this, you would discuss the example I posted. But you won't, probably because you actually know you're lying. Besides which, it would take work, while just making stuff up is easy - a big problem with the press in general.
Read what I said: they were lucky to first name who was behind it. Nothing to do with 9/11 commission report, which came out long after.
Of course not. The point was, and is, that Fox News lies to its viewers on an unprecedented scale, FAIR (among many, many others) documents it, and here's an actually example, and do you have any specific comment at all on it, or will you continue to pretend that just calling names is enough?
I don't give them one cent.
Actually, these days, if you're a taxpayer, you are paying...
RTFA. The doom and gloom predictions for SS are overblown in order to justify bad policy; the practice of lying about SS for this reason is very, very old.
trying to get Fox censored for not sharing FAIR's political views
It's like you live in a crazy alternate reality where it is impossible to have honest news, so why try. Can you admit that it is even theoretically possible to have an organization that identifies bias and other bad practices in journalism? If you have any specific cases where you think FAIR was off base I'd love to discuss, but my guess is you're not that kind of guy.
Move to China if you love propaganda so much.
Yes, they would do it for free.
Interesting. Why pay them, then?
Call it luck or whatever, but Fox News was the first to report who was behind 9-11.
We have always put journalists on a pedestal in this country, because we understand their importance to our way of life.
Bias in journalism is like drunk driving among teenagers. Some Conservatives say, let's take away the rules, since "you'll never stop those kids anyway," but I think the adults in the country know better - let alone remember better, from pretty recent times.
That's in your opinion.
No. That's a fact.
Do I need to cite surveys confirming widely held beliefs among Americans in various notorious items of misinformation?
Everything you disagree with is not misinformation. Everyone has an interest. Regardless of how much people might hand-wring about it, everyone has an interest.
Translation: everything is fine. No need to worry as we gut the rule book and change the face of American mass media.
Individuals or organizations promoting their view is hardly sociopathic.
Why have the news at all? Why not just have 24/7 commercials?
This is not Soviet Russia. People here have jobs, and we expect them to do them. When something is "the news" we do not expect propaganda, nor do we expect this 3rd-grade relativist "all news is propaganda" bullshit. We can perfectly well tell the difference between CBS and Fox News Network.
I wonder if your bank cleaned out your account, you would claim it was your own fault, because "I'm a sucker for trusting them with all that money."
You somehow think that intense competition and corporate involvement with media is new. It's not. It is, again, exceedingly old and well established within this country. You seem to have this perception that before a certain point in history things were good with regards to journalism, and then something happened, and now it is bad.
You seem to be ignorant of the history of regulation in American media.
Google the Fairness Doctrine.
What's happening now on television and radio is quite new. Things were much better even 10 years ago. Basically, we had a successful conservative-sponsored scheme to eliminate the rules.
Both of the people you mention are fundamentally pushers of opinion
Fox News Network puts paid liars on TV. It lies about its motives and its methods. When it's convenient, its talking heads are "commentators" and are supposed to be excused for their more blatant prevarications. They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. They just think they are "watching the news."
Making this point in itself is deceptive, since egregious bias in Fox News Network's ostensible "hard journalism" is well-documented.
It seems like you most upset because people with whom you disagree or believe to be lying are able to have power and influence despite your disapproval of them.
I am upset because there is nothing that separates this country from China but journalists and voting booths, and some Conservatives are in the process of crossing journalists off the list.
Diversity of thought, diversity of opinion, and diversity of expression. If you can't accept a point of view, or the person giving it, then ignore that person and move on. There is no need to clamor for censorship.
I do not clamor for censorship, and your misunderstanding is telling. Moderation on slashdot does not censor anything. It does what it is designed to do; control prominence; making the good stuff rise to the top, and relegating bad ideas, incorrect facts, propaganda, deception, and trolling to the bottom.
Your second paragraph bit off your first. I guess you realized what I was going to say in advance: Fox News Network puts paid liars on TV. It lies about its motives and its methods. When it's convenient, its talking heads are "commentators" and are supposed to be excused for their more blatant prevarications. They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. They just think they are "watching the news."
Making this point in itself is deceptive, since egregious bias in Fox News Network's ostensible "hard journalism" is well-documented.
If you think Conservatism is special and its army of propagandists, advocates, and other helpers would do it for free, you are dreaming.
We have always put journalists on a pedestal in this country, because we understand their importance to our way of life. Bias in journalism is like drunk driving among teenagers. Some conservatives say, let's take away the rules, since "you'll never stop those kids anyway," but I think the adults in the country know better - let alone remember better, from pretty recent times.
In this country, fools and paid liars say whatever they want about an issue on television and, as far as viewers are concerned, get away with it. The enterprise of journalism, which is suppoesed to help citizens in a democracy sort through the sewer of increasingly sophisticated misinformation that comes from a variety of interested parties is in a state of free-fall, either actively subverted by self-interested and sociopathic organizations and individuals, or simply crumbling under the unique demands and exigencies of continued survival in the mass media marketplace.
The heart of the matter is that when Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity lie about something, no one is yet able to mod them down.
when the vaunted "Save the Show" Trek fan movement will have a moment of clarity, go back home, and disappear?
What are you really saving at this point? Rick Berman and Brandon Braga's paychecks?
The franchise has long ago moved past the "painful self-parody" stage into something entirely new, rare and inscrutable, like a colorful, supertoxic byproduct from the North Jersey chemical plant that is Hollywood.
Trek has become so egregiously bad that it is more like a sick, uncontrolled psychology experiment than entertainment at this point. All I can recommend for fans is confining the producers and screenwriters to environments where they can be properly studied by science, and going back to reading books.
Please, tell me the next most recent thing that Dan "The Man" Rather did that could qualify as lynching?
For bonus points, do it yourself, without googling party headquarters for a crib sheet first!
Come on, reply... pretend you don't have to answer that minor question to look credible.
Hey, if you eke out two instances of bias, that's only about a mile and a half from "a long series..."
And yes, you really have failed to take attention away from the fact that Fox News is 100 times more biased than CBS on the same day Dan Rather threw himself a little going away party.
The FNN must have had a little chuckle over CBS's contrite attempts to correct themselves. Fox News never issues a correction. And they must have howled over the senior staffers fired over that story. Man, imagine if FNN fired employees for bias. That must have been a weird feeling, watching CBS employees get fired for something you do every day, usually before your morning coffee?
This is how you argue. Not with facts, or ideas. Because you don't want the truth; it's not important. You want an outcome. So you whine: "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias"... "insane bias" even.
Wow. That's impressive. I almost forgot you're just calling names.
The point is that people mod down those who disagree--i.e., those who don't lean left... You finish the hole-digging when you mentioned "result of a democratic process."
Here we go again. Any group of people who agree on something? Groupthinkers. Sheep.
Guess what. We agree that incest is bad, too. What sheep we all are.
I see I made you especially angry with my comment about democratic processes. I knew it would. I'm sure this needled you so much, you couldn't resist making a special effort to deny it. Nothing here is censored, as you well know - you can read it all. All that happens is a popularity contest, if you will. One tinged with objective pretensions, because of the adjectives we use to score things with.
Get the hint. They are not modding just on the basis of what is or isn't "leftism" - which is a patently ridiculous assertion that you could never bear out with analysis. Real libertarians thrive here, as do many traditional republicans when they stay off the talking points. They are modding down bad ideas, incorrect facts, propaganda, deception, and trolling. This means the conservative playbook will not fare well here. This is the system working.
If you don't like it, stick around. We love watching you lose.
I thank you for the basically charitable tone of your response. But I am forced to say: No.
You are confusing the magnitude of the enormous conservative propaganda apparatus by (of all things) referencing Dan Rather's mistake. This is exactly what I am talking about.
There is no comparison between the Rather SNAFU and Fox News (alone, let alone the fact that FNN is part of a much larger, well-organized whole). Rather's self-destruction was a stream of urine compared to an explosion at a sewage treatment plant.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The point is not "everybody's biased." That is a way of concealing who is way worse.
I am not trying to say conservatism is better or worse. But it is indisputable that they have better propaganda than liberals.
By the way, I have another problem with your statement:
if they were serious about not judging personal philosophies, then they wouldn't be trying to change mine.
Liberals can perfectly well judge personal philosophies - the idea that they propose philosophical or moral relativism is one of the big lies of the Right; and, democracy makes everyone compromise. Everyone is always "being changed" by whatever our system settles on as law.
You must base your worldview entirely on Slashdot headlines. You must ignore the innaccuracy and editorial shortcomings of the Slashdot staff. You must buy into the groupthink of the comment threads. This is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE.
This guy knows that unlike many stifling, practically religious, communities, iconoclasm gets modded highly here, or he wouldn't have penned this screed (who reads zero-level AC's?).
Post the lamest, most obvious, and most unfunny jokes imaginable. They will be modded up "+5 Funny." Even Malda couldn't stand it any longer and made Funny mods not count toward karma.
No sense of humor: check.
Everything involving Linux is flawless and perfect.... Anything involving Mozilla is flawless and perfect.
Yeah, intelligent criticisms of systems never get a fair hearing here. Duh... Maybe he hasn't been around long. Critical ideas get modded highly all the time... and everyone knows it, including you.
What if something is actually good, or actually bad? Better not reach a strong consensus on it, otherwise we might be subjected to flamebait from ignorant wannabe-elitists...
Whenever someone has a criticism of the current moderation system, refer to Taco's "future moderation system."
Can you fill this one in for me? Not even sure what the joke is here.
You must lean left. You must obsess over George W. Bush and make Bush jokes whenever possible, no matter how irrelevant to the topic. In political articles, you must upmod anti-Bush comments and downmod independent or pro-Bush comments. Use the "Overrated" moderator whenever possible.
Let me go out on a limb here. Criticism of our current political administration is a sign of a healthy, intelligent community.
The fact that they have not yet really succeeded in gaming the slashdot moderation system frustrates the repulican net squad to absolute conniptions.
I am actually willing to go out on a limb here and say leaning left is perfectly good for any community. If slashdot is not prone to victimization by America's latest naked emperors (faux libertarianism, excessive religious interference in state affairs, energy-driven imperialism, etc), so much the better for them - and it obviously really galls you that any "bias" here is the result of a democratic process and not something you can just blame on a "biased" editor.
Use the term "FUD" religiously in everyday conversation.
Sign of the times.
Demonization is far easier than debating the issues.
Don't you know it!
Whenever Linux Torvalds says anything, it is newsworthy and infallible... Linus does not make mistakes... arrogance and closed-minded attitude.
Lies... straw man fallacy... and disengenuousness.
Believe articles like "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China," based entirely on the idea that Microsoft is evil because Windows is used by the government there. Ignore the fact that China has its own custom Linux distribution called Red Flag Linux. Slashdot is unbiased and holy.
This is a whopper. I think he's actually suggesting we would not demonize a company collaborating with a totalitarian regime on the basis of its products source license.
Wow man, you hit that out of the park. Not.
Ignore that Slashdot is corporate-owned, by a company called OSTG that employs Rob Malda and makes money off selling OSS products. Ignore the conflict of interests in running a "tech news" site that coincidentally posts articles critical of competitors. Ignore that if Microsoft owned a tech news site that did the same, it would be criticized for it.
Oooh... wave the word "corporate" around like it's a shrunken voodoo head.
No single news outlet could pass your implied standards. And by the way, Microsoft does run a news organization, and we do criticize their biases, when they arise.
We have to learn a new vocabluary in this country, or we will never be able to talk about fairness and accuracy properly.
What appears to be evolving in the crucible of American politics is a startling robust form of doublethink. Conservatives have unquestionably mastered it; it's not clear if other political groups are for the moment less able or less willing.
Fox News is a propaganda organization; it is so biased as to basically redefine the concept of bias in the U.S. media. But how does it defend itself? By exclaiming that it is the most fair, and the most balanced. In fact, by going even further accusing everyone else of bias.
This kind of audacity is more associated with religious figureheads and communist states. But regardless of who is using it most effectively this week (and believe me, I am cynical about all American professional politicians, regardless of professed ideology), the problem is that the approach is sound, and based on good cognitive psych. It exploits a weakness in the way people think and reason. In layman's terms, it short-circuits the brain. Sadly, vehemence and a threatening posture do figure deeply into the calculus of our decision-making.
When you see through it, you realize it's an extraordinarily cynical trick. The problem is that many, many people are confused by it. In fact, much as Orwell observed, the lie is embraced especially well by people who know, on some level, it is a lie. These are many of the people who, for instance, engage in revert wars in Wikipedia over the Fox News entry.
It is the human's great strenght and weakness: we are fully capable of lively psychological engagement with paradoxes and contradictions.
In order to prevent societal free-fall, it will be necessary for each of us to learn to see through this kind of technique, call a spade a spade. To not be confused or intimidated by hypocrisy, in other words.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, aren't beliefs opinions? The belief itself is not a fact, just look at the theist/atheist debate for an example of this.
This is really amazing. It sounds like instead of pretending Fox News isn't biased, you are actually trying to justify being a victim of propaganda as a kind of life choice, like whether to be a Nike or Reebok person.
You know, I've been advocating for years "if you don't like it don't watch it" but it turns out conservatives love to censor stuff, and they do it every day. They just don't like to censor political propaganda.
Just curious; you do realize this was something we did until just recently, right?
How do you explain the history of our nation until the Fairness Doctrine was repealed?
80 years of Darkness? Orwellian repression?
You don't find it ironic that the propaganda started only after it was repealed? Or just signal if you are a Liberal Media Conspiracy/Fox News Network is Fair and Balanced crank.
It has never applied to anything except broadcast outlets. The media landscape is much more broad than that.
This is Michael Powel's nonsense line. Television is king, radio is its court jester. Saying it's OK to have propaganda on TV and radio because there are newspapers is like saying it's OK to drink poison because you have asprin in your cabinet.
Why is it that a newpaper advertisement costs a tiny fraction of what a TV advertisement costs?
You are not going to get a job as anybody's director of Marketing or Communications with this kind of mistaken thinking.
Believe it or not people like to hear things that they fundamentally agree with.
It sounds as if you are ready to rewrite the "News" entry in the dictionary, because propaganda isn't such a bad thing.
This is how it has been in the newspaper market for 200+ years.
You cannot confuse newspapers and television/radio. They are as different as bicycles and jet planes.
Trying to confuse the two will only confuse other people who can't tell the difference either.
Conservatives watch they want. People with different opinions watch what they want. What's the problem with that? It will lead to communism, in your view? This is nothing new.
Propaganda, in a regulated, highly powerful mass media such as television, where there is no actual competition of ideas or freedom of speech, can lead to the breakdown of democracy.
If you see Chinese newscasters and American newscasters employing the same techniques, you know we are in trouble. A Fox News employee would be fundamentally at home in a Chinese newsroom, inconvenient trivia of ideology notwithstanding.
I'm told Rupert Murdoch does do business with the Chinese, actually.
First off, it can in fact lead to censorship. Sign-up for a new account. Post a bunch of trolls. Your account and IP address will get banned after a spell, based on moderation.
Doesn't sound like you understand. Are you saying any post has actually been censored? It doesn't sound like it.
I'm guessing you're confusing it with the way slashcode disables (easily replaceable, by human beings) user accounts in order to throttle bots?
There is a real world analogy to moderation, and it's called money.
There is a reason we do not have laissez faire capitalism in this country, and in fact that no country that has ever tried to come close to having it has been anything but a social disaster.
That is because "money" is not an intelligent way to run a society.
The mass media landscape is not sufficiently diverse and is rapidly consolidating.
Conservatives aren't out to get rid of "journalism".
They would love it if there was no dissent. They are happy for the moment as long as they can rig the system to make their propaganda appear as prominently or more than regular news.
Looking at the big picture, I find that statement highly deceptive.
I've always hated it, in all its forms. Goldwater I know little about. Thurmond and Dixiecrats I dislike. Karl Rove? I have no idea what he says on it, and I doubt he will change my mind on it. Give me a link to his "orders" and I will check it out.
Hey wow, Atari, I wasn't talking about you, just ruminating on Conservatives in general. No reason to get defensive.
More evidence of FAIR bias
Is "evidence" for you like fairy dust? If you sprinkle it on a post and think happy thoughts, can you fly?
Here is what you seem to do:
1) Lie about something
2) Claim to have seen something, somewhere that relates to your lie.
3) When asked to produce it, degenerate into embarrassing nonsense.
Who knows if your story even exists. If it does, what do you want to bet it doesn't say what you claim. Or not? Who knows? It's obvious you're afraid to find out.
What is "Propaganda" is a matter of opinion.
So is what is "terrorism."
Are you soft on terrorism?
The "Fairness doctrine" meant that if you had political content, you could get harassed by frivolous lawsuits.
Yes. That's right. And tort means that anybody can get a frivolous negligence or malpractice claim. What do both kinds of laws have in common? They were both important components of the government of the most successful, powerful nation on earth. Over their decades (or in the case of tort, centuries) of application, neither one sparked an exodous to the 3rd world, where absence of such laws is more common - because on the balance, these were good laws.
Much like the noble firearm, open to abuse, but essential for American democracy and freedom.
What I really like is freedom of expression. Yes, there is plenty I do not like (what you term "propaganda"), but let them have their say.
You are a fair-weather absolutist. You only like freedom when it suits you. You enjoy political propaganda you agree with, so you pretend you're some kind of ultraradical constitutional scholar, but when something comes along you don't like, you're perfectly ready to censor. I could shout fire in your crowded theater. You wouldn't defend me. I could call all your friends and employers and potential employers, wage a letter-writing campaign, claiming you molest children. You'd sue for libel, especially if you lost a job or couldn't get another one. I could advertise "life insurance" on TV that had a five million dollar deductible. When your mom buys it, you'll sue for false and misleading advertising.
And all that is positively peanuts, absolutely small time, compared to propaganda designed to support starting a war under false pretenses, then profiteering it while putting our dedicated, brave volunteer army in harms way, at the cost of a thousand American lives and counting. Well, you've got your priorities.
You're afraid to respond on this point now, I think, because you know you made a fool of yourself, but it looks like you think calling someone a name or showing a tit on TV is more serious than mass media political hate speech that ruins American democracy and costs American lives.
It was specifically "fascist" for you to declare expression of political opinion as illegal.
Man. Lie about stuff not on the website. But don't lie about stuff in the post right above this. People have to read through the truth to get to your lie. It's just sad.
You want to try to confuse... "what gets broadcast on TV" with everyone's expression of political opinion.
They are night-and-day different.
Nobody agress with you on this. Michael Powell, chariman of President Bush's FCC doesn't agree with you. You don't agree with you.
I have yet to...
Yes you have, and you can keep denying it. It's funnier that way. You've already proved you'll lie about your first sentence by the time you're writing your third, and that's one thing that's cited for you.
there is overwhelming proof that even a lazy 3rd grader would see if they did a Google search.
"Overwhelming proof." Link to it.
Oh wait, you're lying, so you can't.
Hope it is deep and hot!
It must be hard for older hardcore conservatives, knowing they lost on mysogyny and racism, that the Goldwater years are over now... I always pitied them that tough adjustment. They still know in their hearts that a Strom Thurmond presidency would have made our country better, but now all they get to beat on affirmative action and maybe some "straw women." Price of taking orders, I guess; when Karl Rove says shut up and pretend to hate racism, you shut up, don't you.
For the record though, even though I figure you're slandering FAIR that way was kind of a desperation move and probably more or less made up, I don't support race-based affirmative action either. I'd rather see those sorts of things confined to education, and based on ecomonics...
You are flying off the handle.
Hi. My name is AtariAmarok.
I believe the First Amendment is absolute, except that I think we should be able to censor things.
Trust me, and believe my opinions.
In this context, "propaganda" is political opinions you do not agree with.
No, propaganda is propaganda, and it was illegal, until they changed the rules, less than 10 years ago. And so is showing pornography for kids on Saturday morning.
But you, you want it all to be legal, which means you are a sicko.
Or, you admit you can censor lots of things while still having a First Amendment, which means you are a big fat hypocrite.
Up to you. I won't guess which you'd prefer.
Your desire to ban political content you do not like makes you a fascist when it comes to media. That is not an insult, just a fact. Did you get this idea from the People's Republic of China?
Let's see. We've already established that you are a liar, who enjoys making things up and calling them facts.
The Fairness Doctrine says that political propaganda is illegal. You disagree with that, but not other kinds of censorship, so you are also hypocrite. Or you think porn on TV is OK for kids, but that's another matter.
What you really like is propaganda. That's every American's god-given right, and anyone who says otherwise is a fascist. Hmm. Let's see. Rules like the Fairness Doctrine date back to, say, the Communications Act of 1937. So that means... was Franklin Delano Roosevelt a fascist? This would have been news to Hitler.
No.
You are like a little baby, really, calling names. And it's funny, coming from a proven communist terrorist sympathizer, an actual friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden. In fact, I heard you personally participated in a cheering crowd of Palestinians on September 11th. Wearing a Klu Klux Klan outfit.
In fact, I even have pictures. I put them up on my website. A lazy 3rd grader could find them, with google.
Excuse me for not playing by your arbitrary rules.
Therefore, it is a fact.
However, it is clear you would rather discuss these rules than discuss the facts.
No, your rules aren't so bad. It's kind of fun. By the way, I read in the New York Post that it is an absolute proven, categorical fact that you not only hate America, but that it is your lifelong dream to move to the West Bank, wear geisha outfit and become the concubine of Mahmoud Abbas.
You will deny it, or perhaps you won't even bother, but boy, that is a Fact.
Your rules, baby.
Do a Google search on fair.org and race and media. Take care to look only at the links inside fair.org. Yes, they want people hired and fired in media just for their skin color. What a bunch of bigots. Race matters....only to racists.
Translation: as far as I know there is no actual evidence, because if I had actually seen it I would just provide a link, but please go do the research to back up my outrageous claims for me. Thank you.
Race matters....only to racists.
What part of hell do lying race baiters go to?
As long as it is not falsely labelled as programming for kids, that is fine.
Oh, you hypocrite.
Don't back out on me now, Mr. Too Much of a Civil Libertarian. You are claiming you have the right to do exactly that.
How could we stop you, Mr. Porn-is-for-Kids? What kind of government interference won't square with your Wacko "I Failed out of Law School" Interpretation of the First Amendment?
False advertising, and hardcore porn (labeled as "Sex Education" for 8 year olds) between Pokemon and Mr. Rogers, is legal in your world, and you cannot prevent it. "Don't like it? Change the channel. It's a free country." That's the heart of what Fox News Network really is. And thank you, for such a stunningly sloppy response - I doubt you could make it much easier to show how intellectually bankrupt your ideas are.
I guess I am too much of a civil libertarian to want the government to decide what speech is "fair" and what isn't!
It already does, in 1001 ways. It decides what is false advertising and what's not, for instance. What is slander, libel, what threatens the President, what is obscene and profane... And until very, very recently when a cabal of conservatives and media conglomerates changed the rules, it decided what was biased. The system worked, until conservatives broke it.
And why did they break it? Because they were planning to broadcast propaganda, at that was illegal.
It's fortunately relatively easy to identify propagandists like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, and quite understandable to want to ban them from the airwaves.
I named and described a rather famous report from a while ago. You are too lazy to look it up, but not too lazy to whine "gimme a link". I am beginning to wonder if you even know what FAIR's own web site is.
You are stunning, sir. Make outrageous, obviously false claims, and then call people lazy when they don't run to justify them for you.
To get yourself out of this deep dark hole, you need to cite the report, and then list what you think is false about it, and then give us some reason to believe you have changed your personal philosphy about a fact being whatever you assert to be a fact.
A fact is a fact, whether or not you or I agree.
And it is a fact, AtariAmarok that you are a communist terrorist sympathizer, who is a personal friend and supporter of Osama bin Laden.
Now, let's start at the beginning. How is it that we distinguish "lies" from "facts?"
Hint #1: long, long ago, we determined that providing some kind of reference to back up what you are saying, like say a link or bibliographic citation... I believe they used to teach this sort of thing in elementary school.
Only if it is factual.
What a riot.
One of the reasons I don't like FAIR is because they have fought FOR racial bias
OK, cite the source, Mr. "what I say is a fact as long as I say it is a fact."
Let's get into it.
However, I have yet to slander them.
Then you don't understand what slander is.
Which itself is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.
No, it is not. It would only really make sense if you, and me, and everyone else who wanted could have a TV station, and all those stations could fit in the first few channels.
By the way, just for the record... in your world, Janet Jackson should be allowed to show both tits, right? Porn should be legal on TV?
You are setting up a straw man. You were arguing with me about the FAIR Fox 9/11 report before I ever read it. Then I read it, and found no complaints with it. You are STILL fighting.
Then you have no idea what a Straw Man is.
You claim FAIR is biased. This is nonsense, but I figure, hey, benefit of the doubt. I wonder if you've even seen a FAIR report, so I show you one.
You think it's fine.
I ask if you can even link to anything by FAIR that's not fine.
No response.
And that is you parading slander and insults and name calling as facts.
I don't count "center" as "where I stand".
But you also believe whatever you say is a fact.
You have no credibility. You probably don't even fool yourself.
pointless argument of whether or not certain facts are "name calling"?
Because they are not facts, they are name calling. And that when you understand that, it is clear why you are wrong.
Forgive me, I just don't like racism.
You don't like groups like FAIR, who do the real work every day of trying to keep bias (including racial bias) out of the media. You slander them when they become inconvenient.
f you don't recognize BOTH of these, or try to deny it, it shows your bias.
The Fairness Doctrine merely says that broadcast media should be unbiased. Liberals can only dream of having as good (or as much) propaganda as conservatives.
And you are still avoiding finding anything specific not to like about that FAIR report.
Because you don't know anything about it that's inaccurate. In fact, you don't know much about FAIR at all. To actually have anything to do other than call them names, you'd have to do work.
Except that what I pointed out is provable and admitted.
In your imagination.
Well, cite some sources then.
Have they done similar reports against the left-wing media?
What, you mean against Mother Jones?
FAIR has a good reputation. It is a centrist group.
And you are basically proving it, because you are so far finding little you can say about them other than calling names, pretending name-calling equals facts, and refusing to cite any sources...
it has to make up most of its list of Limbaugh transgressions.
Since all we have really proven at this point is that you believe you can substitute name-calling for facts, I suppose it would be too much to ask for a link, or any kind of documentation to back up what you're saying...
I bet the best I can look forward to is a link to the report itself, with no documentation for your assertions about it... and will I even get that?
Dunno, depends how much more you want to embarrass yourself.
They have devoted a lot of time to such things demanding racial discrimination in media, and pushing to censor those with views they do not like
Hey, didn't you get the memo? You're supposed to stay off the race thing. Future minority conservatives might be reading. Isn't it supposed to be: Affirmative action, bad, criticisng out racial discrimination in the media, good?
Conservatives especially love to censor the media. Most violence is fine, but Heaven Forbid if there's anything sexual, or disrespectful of Christianity, watch those rabid First Amendment crusaders head right for the phone booth to change costumes.
I see.
Let's play by your rules.
If I say, "AtariAmarok" is a communist, terrorist, friend of Osama bin Laden, I am just pointing out an "obvious" "fact" too.
When you are ready to do it the rational, adult way, signal with a list of specific problems with the FAIR report. Or with any FAIR report.
FAIR is a left-wing pressure group, that pushes for left-wing bias in media
If you believed this, you would discuss the example I posted. But you won't, probably because you actually know you're lying. Besides which, it would take work, while just making stuff up is easy - a big problem with the press in general.
Read what I said: they were lucky to first name who was behind it. Nothing to do with 9/11 commission report, which came out long after.
Of course not. The point was, and is, that Fox News lies to its viewers on an unprecedented scale, FAIR (among many, many others) documents it, and here's an actually example, and do you have any specific comment at all on it, or will you continue to pretend that just calling names is enough?
I don't give them one cent.
Actually, these days, if you're a taxpayer, you are paying...
RTFA. The doom and gloom predictions for SS are overblown in order to justify bad policy; the practice of lying about SS for this reason is very, very old.
trying to get Fox censored for not sharing FAIR's political views
It's like you live in a crazy alternate reality where it is impossible to have honest news, so why try. Can you admit that it is even theoretically possible to have an organization that identifies bias and other bad practices in journalism? If you have any specific cases where you think FAIR was off base I'd love to discuss, but my guess is you're not that kind of guy.
Move to China if you love propaganda so much.
Yes, they would do it for free.
Interesting. Why pay them, then?
Call it luck or whatever, but Fox News was the first to report who was behind 9-11.
Here, Read this.
It's a FAIR report titled "Fox News Spins 9/11 Commission Report".
You can reply to this and make some specific, legitimate complaints about what it says. I will be thrilled to discuss it.
You don't give a damn about fair journalism, you just don't want anyone talking about views you don't agree with.
Well, like Fox, you find it easy to pile on the slime. You are just as wrong as they are.
I say, hell no. I detest Dan Rather's escapade. It's simple: you don't complain about the shoplifter when the store is being held up.
The Conservative line is that Conservative Propaganda is fair, and everything that is not Conservative Propaganda is biased.
There is no comparing CBS to Fox News Network. Not in your wildest dreams.
CBS fired people for that stunt. All Fox News fires people for is not being Conservative enough.
Journalism has always been a taudry business.
That's tawdry.
We have always put journalists on a pedestal in this country, because we understand their importance to our way of life.
Bias in journalism is like drunk driving among teenagers. Some Conservatives say, let's take away the rules, since "you'll never stop those kids anyway," but I think the adults in the country know better - let alone remember better, from pretty recent times.
That's in your opinion.
No. That's a fact.
Do I need to cite surveys confirming widely held beliefs among Americans in various notorious items of misinformation?
Everything you disagree with is not misinformation. Everyone has an interest. Regardless of how much people might hand-wring about it, everyone has an interest.
Translation: everything is fine. No need to worry as we gut the rule book and change the face of American mass media.
Individuals or organizations promoting their view is hardly sociopathic.
Why have the news at all? Why not just have 24/7 commercials?
This is not Soviet Russia. People here have jobs, and we expect them to do them. When something is "the news" we do not expect propaganda, nor do we expect this 3rd-grade relativist "all news is propaganda" bullshit. We can perfectly well tell the difference between CBS and Fox News Network.
I wonder if your bank cleaned out your account, you would claim it was your own fault, because "I'm a sucker for trusting them with all that money."
You somehow think that intense competition and corporate involvement with media is new. It's not. It is, again, exceedingly old and well established within this country. You seem to have this perception that before a certain point in history things were good with regards to journalism, and then something happened, and now it is bad.
You seem to be ignorant of the history of regulation in American media.
Google the Fairness Doctrine.
What's happening now on television and radio is quite new. Things were much better even 10 years ago. Basically, we had a successful conservative-sponsored scheme to eliminate the rules.
Both of the people you mention are fundamentally pushers of opinion
Fox News Network puts paid liars on TV. It lies about its motives and its methods. When it's convenient, its talking heads are "commentators" and are supposed to be excused for their more blatant prevarications. They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. They just think they are "watching the news."
Making this point in itself is deceptive, since egregious bias in Fox News Network's ostensible "hard journalism" is well-documented.
It seems like you most upset because people with whom you disagree or believe to be lying are able to have power and influence despite your disapproval of them.
I am upset because there is nothing that separates this country from China but journalists and voting booths, and some Conservatives are in the process of crossing journalists off the list.
Diversity of thought, diversity of opinion, and diversity of expression. If you can't accept a point of view, or the person giving it, then ignore that person and move on. There is no need to clamor for censorship.
I do not clamor for censorship, and your misunderstanding is telling. Moderation on slashdot does not censor anything. It does what it is designed to do; control prominence; making the good stuff rise to the top, and relegating bad ideas, incorrect facts, propaganda, deception, and trolling to the bottom.
Your second paragraph bit off your first. I guess you realized what I was going to say in advance: Fox News Network puts paid liars on TV. It lies about its motives and its methods. When it's convenient, its talking heads are "commentators" and are supposed to be excused for their more blatant prevarications. They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. They just think they are "watching the news."
Making this point in itself is deceptive, since egregious bias in Fox News Network's ostensible "hard journalism" is well-documented.
If you think Conservatism is special and its army of propagandists, advocates, and other helpers would do it for free, you are dreaming.
We have always put journalists on a pedestal in this country, because we understand their importance to our way of life. Bias in journalism is like drunk driving among teenagers. Some conservatives say, let's take away the rules, since "you'll never stop those kids anyway," but I think the adults in the country know better - let alone remember better, from pretty recent times.
Substitute "vastly more often" for "always" and you've about got it.
In this country, fools and paid liars say whatever they want about an issue on television and, as far as viewers are concerned, get away with it. The enterprise of journalism, which is suppoesed to help citizens in a democracy sort through the sewer of increasingly sophisticated misinformation that comes from a variety of interested parties is in a state of free-fall, either actively subverted by self-interested and sociopathic organizations and individuals, or simply crumbling under the unique demands and exigencies of continued survival in the mass media marketplace.
The heart of the matter is that when Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity lie about something, no one is yet able to mod them down.
when the vaunted "Save the Show" Trek fan movement will have a moment of clarity, go back home, and disappear?
What are you really saving at this point? Rick Berman and Brandon Braga's paychecks?
The franchise has long ago moved past the "painful self-parody" stage into something entirely new, rare and inscrutable, like a colorful, supertoxic byproduct from the North Jersey chemical plant that is Hollywood.
Trek has become so egregiously bad that it is more like a sick, uncontrolled psychology experiment than entertainment at this point. All I can recommend for fans is confining the producers and screenwriters to environments where they can be properly studied by science, and going back to reading books.
Thank you, for so strongly implying you know I am right.
You're hardcore, huh? I love you guys!
Please, tell me the next most recent thing that Dan "The Man" Rather did that could qualify as lynching?
For bonus points, do it yourself, without googling party headquarters for a crib sheet first!
Come on, reply... pretend you don't have to answer that minor question to look credible.
Hey, if you eke out two instances of bias, that's only about a mile and a half from "a long series..."
And yes, you really have failed to take attention away from the fact that Fox News is 100 times more biased than CBS on the same day Dan Rather threw himself a little going away party.
The FNN must have had a little chuckle over CBS's contrite attempts to correct themselves. Fox News never issues a correction. And they must have howled over the senior staffers fired over that story. Man, imagine if FNN fired employees for bias. That must have been a weird feeling, watching CBS employees get fired for something you do every day, usually before your morning coffee?
This is how you argue. Not with facts, or ideas. Because you don't want the truth; it's not important. You want an outcome. So you whine: "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias" "bias"... "insane bias" even.
... You finish the hole-digging when you mentioned "result of a democratic process."
Wow. That's impressive. I almost forgot you're just calling names.
The point is that people mod down those who disagree--i.e., those who don't lean left
Here we go again. Any group of people who agree on something? Groupthinkers. Sheep.
Guess what. We agree that incest is bad, too. What sheep we all are.
I see I made you especially angry with my comment about democratic processes. I knew it would. I'm sure this needled you so much, you couldn't resist making a special effort to deny it. Nothing here is censored, as you well know - you can read it all. All that happens is a popularity contest, if you will. One tinged with objective pretensions, because of the adjectives we use to score things with.
Get the hint. They are not modding just on the basis of what is or isn't "leftism" - which is a patently ridiculous assertion that you could never bear out with analysis. Real libertarians thrive here, as do many traditional republicans when they stay off the talking points. They are modding down bad ideas, incorrect facts, propaganda, deception, and trolling. This means the conservative playbook will not fare well here. This is the system working.
If you don't like it, stick around. We love watching you lose.
they are just as able, and just as willing.
I thank you for the basically charitable tone of your response. But I am forced to say: No.
You are confusing the magnitude of the enormous conservative propaganda apparatus by (of all things) referencing Dan Rather's mistake. This is exactly what I am talking about.
There is no comparison between the Rather SNAFU and Fox News (alone, let alone the fact that FNN is part of a much larger, well-organized whole). Rather's self-destruction was a stream of urine compared to an explosion at a sewage treatment plant.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The point is not "everybody's biased." That is a way of concealing who is way worse.
I am not trying to say conservatism is better or worse. But it is indisputable that they have better propaganda than liberals.
By the way, I have another problem with your statement:
if they were serious about not judging personal philosophies, then they wouldn't be trying to change mine.
Liberals can perfectly well judge personal philosophies - the idea that they propose philosophical or moral relativism is one of the big lies of the Right; and, democracy makes everyone compromise. Everyone is always "being changed" by whatever our system settles on as law.
You must base your worldview entirely on Slashdot headlines. You must ignore the innaccuracy and editorial shortcomings of the Slashdot staff. You must buy into the groupthink of the comment threads. This is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE.
... Anything involving Mozilla is flawless and perfect.
This guy knows that unlike many stifling, practically religious, communities, iconoclasm gets modded highly here, or he wouldn't have penned this screed (who reads zero-level AC's?).
Post the lamest, most obvious, and most unfunny jokes imaginable. They will be modded up "+5 Funny." Even Malda couldn't stand it any longer and made Funny mods not count toward karma.
No sense of humor: check.
Everything involving Linux is flawless and perfect.
Yeah, intelligent criticisms of systems never get a fair hearing here. Duh... Maybe he hasn't been around long. Critical ideas get modded highly all the time... and everyone knows it, including you.
What if something is actually good, or actually bad? Better not reach a strong consensus on it, otherwise we might be subjected to flamebait from ignorant wannabe-elitists...
Whenever someone has a criticism of the current moderation system, refer to Taco's "future moderation system."
Can you fill this one in for me? Not even sure what the joke is here.
You must lean left. You must obsess over George W. Bush and make Bush jokes whenever possible, no matter how irrelevant to the topic. In political articles, you must upmod anti-Bush comments and downmod independent or pro-Bush comments. Use the "Overrated" moderator whenever possible.
Let me go out on a limb here. Criticism of our current political administration is a sign of a healthy, intelligent community.
The fact that they have not yet really succeeded in gaming the slashdot moderation system frustrates the repulican net squad to absolute conniptions.
I am actually willing to go out on a limb here and say leaning left is perfectly good for any community. If slashdot is not prone to victimization by America's latest naked emperors (faux libertarianism, excessive religious interference in state affairs, energy-driven imperialism, etc), so much the better for them - and it obviously really galls you that any "bias" here is the result of a democratic process and not something you can just blame on a "biased" editor.
Use the term "FUD" religiously in everyday conversation.
Sign of the times.
Demonization is far easier than debating the issues.
Don't you know it!
Whenever Linux Torvalds says anything, it is newsworthy and infallible... Linus does not make mistakes... arrogance and closed-minded attitude.
Lies... straw man fallacy... and disengenuousness.
Believe articles like "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China," based entirely on the idea that Microsoft is evil because Windows is used by the government there. Ignore the fact that China has its own custom Linux distribution called Red Flag Linux. Slashdot is unbiased and holy.
This is a whopper. I think he's actually suggesting we would not demonize a company collaborating with a totalitarian regime on the basis of its products source license.
Wow man, you hit that out of the park. Not.
Ignore that Slashdot is corporate-owned, by a company called OSTG that employs Rob Malda and makes money off selling OSS products. Ignore the conflict of interests in running a "tech news" site that coincidentally posts articles critical of competitors. Ignore that if Microsoft owned a tech news site that did the same, it would be criticized for it.
Oooh... wave the word "corporate" around like it's a shrunken voodoo head.
No single news outlet could pass your implied standards. And by the way, Microsoft does run a news organization, and we do criticize their biases, when they arise.
All part of this the
We have to learn a new vocabluary in this country, or we will never be able to talk about fairness and accuracy properly.
What appears to be evolving in the crucible of American politics is a startling robust form of doublethink. Conservatives have unquestionably mastered it; it's not clear if other political groups are for the moment less able or less willing.
Fox News is a propaganda organization; it is so biased as to basically redefine the concept of bias in the U.S. media. But how does it defend itself? By exclaiming that it is the most fair, and the most balanced. In fact, by going even further accusing everyone else of bias.
This kind of audacity is more associated with religious figureheads and communist states. But regardless of who is using it most effectively this week (and believe me, I am cynical about all American professional politicians, regardless of professed ideology), the problem is that the approach is sound, and based on good cognitive psych. It exploits a weakness in the way people think and reason. In layman's terms, it short-circuits the brain. Sadly, vehemence and a threatening posture do figure deeply into the calculus of our decision-making.
When you see through it, you realize it's an extraordinarily cynical trick. The problem is that many, many people are confused by it. In fact, much as Orwell observed, the lie is embraced especially well by people who know, on some level, it is a lie. These are many of the people who, for instance, engage in revert wars in Wikipedia over the Fox News entry.
It is the human's great strenght and weakness: we are fully capable of lively psychological engagement with paradoxes and contradictions.
In order to prevent societal free-fall, it will be necessary for each of us to learn to see through this kind of technique, call a spade a spade. To not be confused or intimidated by hypocrisy, in other words.