Media "Control" of the Elections?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Mike,

The Detroit Unions got a lot of money for the deserving workers. Pay, benefits, work rules. They did real good for themselves.

They did so good the companies can no longer support those deserving to have a job and who did the work while the fat cats went out golfing and negotiating contracts on the golf course. Having way too much fun doing their jobs. Unfair.

But the golfers were good guys too. Just about everything the unions asked for they got. The managers couldn't say no. Why? Well the union could engage in pattern bargaining: strike one company while collecting dues from the other two. Thus they could outlast management.

So it was easier to make a deal than take a strike. The deal is now unsupportable. Soon neither the negotiators on the golf course nor the metal benders in the factory will have jobs.

This is what we call the result of envy.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

I could argue that the current problem has more to do with falling sales of autos, but, since (as I've said repeatedly), my point was not to support unions, or the left, or anything like it, I really don't have to, do I?

Mike

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Mike Holmes wrote:I could argue that the current problem has more to do with falling sales of autos, but, since (as I've said repeatedly), my point was not to support unions, or the left, or anything like it, I really don't have to, do I?

Mike
GM was losing money in 2005 when the economy was booming. Chrysler has been a basket case for 30 years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Just the latest example of the revolving door between Media and the Democrats.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090108/tv_nm/us_matthews


David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

While we're on the thread of media bias in elections....


Check out these stories.

"
By Nearly 8-to-1, Voters Say Journalists Want Obama to Win
By 5-to-1 Public Thinks Most Journalists Trying to Elect Obama
Rasmussen: By 10-to-1 Public Says Reporters 'Trying to Hurt Palin'
Pew Finds Media Credibility Plummets to All-Time Lows
Rasmussen: '55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem than Campaign Cash'
Fox News Poll: Two-Thirds Think Most Journalists Want Obama to Win
Rasmussen: Three Times More See Pro-Obama Over Pro-McCain Bias
Pew: Many Recognize Media's Pro-Obama Bias, Democrats Prefer CNN
"

http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp


Also...

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalert ... 0722.asp#1



David

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Oh, I believe that people think this is a problem. You're not alone. But I think it's just more fear-mongering. The sky is falling because people in the media have a liberal tendency. I'm not seeing it. Fortunately for me, I think that radical ideas for altering the system will not be adopted. Complacency sometimes works to advantage.

Consider that people have been saying that media influence has been a problem since the country began. Consider the good old days when people had many fewer media outlets to resort to - usually just their own local paper. You could have argued better then that there was a problem, but somehow we seem to still have had a public debate despite this.

Now MSimon says that, in fact, it's always been a problem. Well, I'm a big fan of the greatest democracy on earth, and I ask again, how would you change it?

In any case, he and I agree that the problem, to whatever extent it exists, is getting better daily.

I mean, go ahead, vote with your dollar to depose the liberal media. That's certainly your right. I'd urge you to keep it legal, however... you do still have representatives in government you can work through, too. In the meanwhile, you can rest assured that the pendulum will probably eventually swing back your way as people become sick of the current politicians in office. Like clockwork, this effect, more than the media bias, means that we end up with alternating liberal and conservative governments at regular intervals.

It seems that our nation's inborn skepticism does keep us on an even keel. Well, at least that's how it seems to me.

I don't know that we're making much ground here any more. We've both made our points pretty clearly, I think.

Mike

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Awesome article by Gary Graham !

"One Pissed-Off Dudeby Gary Graham

I’m an American. This has always been my favorite label, but of late even that has seemed to mean less and less. Being called an American used to carry with it a certain pride and esprit de corps that now apparently is dated and passe. How else can one explain the rash of America-haters in our midst who only claim pride in America if a Leftist resides in the White House, and can only back a war effort if the decision to go to war was that of a Democrat.

I’m a Conservative. And I am also an actor who lives and works in Hollywood. Many of my friends advise me to keep that on the down-low, advise me to not speak up lest I scuttle any future employment prospects, so predominantly liberal is the entertainment biz. And yet I persist.

You see, I’m one pissed-off dude.

I’m told I’ll hurt my career if I continually spout off about Liberalism — which I see as a growing cancer in our society. Worldwide, I’ve seen Liberalism metastasize into virulent incarnations of Socialism, and, left unchecked, even into its malignant cousin, Communism. Only the arrogant or the somnambulist would think such a thing could never happen here. It’s a matter of increment. Once a group organizes into a coalition, it’s a short step to claiming the right to the property of another group. All that is necessary is for an individual’s right to personal property to become a secondary concern. The ‘needs’ of the group must supercede, dontcha know. It’s a vicious cycle – wants become needs become rights. The fact that the thievery is done at the behest of a ‘civilized’ government does not sanitize the crime.

“At least the highwayman has the decency to wear a mask.” – Author unknown.

"

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/author/ggraham/


David

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Beware the slippery slope!!!

Joseph McCarthy's shade does not yet rest.

Oh well...

Mike

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Mike Holmes wrote:Oh, I believe that people think this is a problem. You're not alone. But I think it's just more fear-mongering. The sky is falling because people in the media have a liberal tendency. I'm not seeing it. Fortunately for me, I think that radical ideas for altering the system will not be adopted. Complacency sometimes works to advantage.

Consider that people have been saying that media influence has been a problem since the country began. Consider the good old days when people had many fewer media outlets to resort to - usually just their own local paper. You could have argued better then that there was a problem, but somehow we seem to still have had a public debate despite this.

In any case, he and I agree that the problem, to whatever extent it exists, is getting better daily.

I mean, go ahead, vote with your dollar to depose the liberal media. That's certainly your right. I'd urge you to keep it legal, however... you do still have representatives in government you can work through, too. In the meanwhile, you can rest assured that the pendulum will probably eventually swing back your way as people become sick of the current politicians in office. Like clockwork, this effect, more than the media bias, means that we end up with alternating liberal and conservative governments at regular intervals.

It seems that our nation's inborn skepticism does keep us on an even keel. Well, at least that's how it seems to me.

I don't know that we're making much ground here any more. We've both made our points pretty clearly, I think.

Mike

I guess my point is that not only do people THINK there is a problem. There really IS a problem. I'm not sure you want to look at the evidence, ( because it is long and tedious) but there is a LOT of evidence to prove the point.

I have started posting examples of the incredibly close relationship between the vast majority of everyone involved in the News and Entertainment industries, and the Liberal wing of the Democrat party. They are MARRIED to each other, they are RELATED to each other, they WORK for each other, they are basically a family.

Rather than decide there is no more to be had from discussing this topic, I would suggest that we just put it on the back burner. I'll occasionally post examples of extreme intimacy between Media and the Left, and perhaps over time it will become clear that it's not an imaginary problem.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now MSimon says that, in fact, it's always been a problem. Well, I'm a big fan of the greatest democracy on earth, and I ask again, how would you change it?


I would steer it back to a Republic. I would require that ONLY people who pay for the Government will have a say in what it does. (requires a constitutional amendment thanks to the Dumb Asses of the early 60s)

Taxpayers should be the only people permitted to vote. This is the essence of a Republic as opposed to a Democracy.

Requiring someone be a taxpayer restricts the pool of voters to people at least intelligent enough to make a living. The opinions of non taxpayers is worse than useless.



David

JaMorg
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:03 am

Post by JaMorg »

Mike Holmes wrote:Beware the slippery slope!!!

Joseph McCarthy's shade does not yet rest.

Oh well...

Mike
I lurk here quite often but...

give me a wide enough readership that trusts me and I can make anyone into the devil.

The english language has very few emotionally neutral words for example, lets say I am writing a story on campaign crowds

mob, crowd, throng, gathering. I can further color those choices enthusiastic mob, energized crowd, intimate gathering. These words evoke an emotional psychological reaction: Mob=bad, Energized Crowd=Good, Intimate Gathering=small group, low support etc.

To the point about red and blue...absolutely correct. Red used to stand for challenger, blue for incumbent. It changed at some point in time. It is interesting to me because psychologically speaking people associate Red with danger and aggression.

Its all psychology...once you understand the trigger words and emotional underpinnings people associate with words, phrases and colors you can appear to be completely neutral ("Look, I have an equal number of articles on McCain and Obama!") while subtly coloring your stories to steer readers to your preference.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Mike Holmes wrote:Beware the slippery slope!!!

Joseph McCarthy's shade does not yet rest.

Oh well...

Mike
Joe McCarthy? What does this have to do with Joe McCarthy?

Is there a liberal bias? Mark Halperin, political director for ABC believes there is. And he is talking about his own network and CBS - not MSNBC or Fox. See this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSFYNyZmaX0

I am trying to understand your position better, Mike. It seems that you are not arguing against a bias but rather against its degree and significance. Is that correct? Are you saying, as I think you are, that the bias exists, has always existed, and is not that big a deal? And are we who believe that this bias is significant Joe McCarthy like? Or did I miss a reference?

regards

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

You have the essence of my argument, yes. The Joe McCarthy post was in response to the quote in the post previous to it from Gary Graham, who intimated that the liberal bias is a slippery slope to communism emerging in the US.

"Worldwide, I’ve seen Liberalism metastasize into virulent incarnations of Socialism, and, left unchecked, even into its malignant cousin, Communism. Only the arrogant or the somnambulist would think such a thing could never happen here."

That literally sounds like McCarthy right there. McCarthy once refered to the Democratic presidencies of the 30s and 40s as "20 years of treason." Ike wasn't just good for conservatives in that he won the presidency, but in that he brought a little sanity to the debate as well. Heck, you could argue that the liberal nature of Hollywood was practically created by McCarthy's witch hunts generating sympathy in that community.

Mike

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

ravingdave wrote:Taxpayers should be the only people permitted to vote. This is the essence of a Republic as opposed to a Democracy.

Requiring someone be a taxpayer restricts the pool of voters to people at least intelligent enough to make a living. The opinions of non taxpayers is worse than useless.

David
In a lot of ways a good idea. Government passes a law taking property from a person for a government cause, they become a taxpayer. Need to be clear that general forced labor and mandates such as minimum wage are also morally taxes for the purpose. And whatever law is passed needs to not be biased. But overall a good idea.

No way I can see it coming to pass short of armed revolution against the populists.

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

Speaking of communism and psychology - I always think of "red" as "communist". So when I see republicans in red I just assume they are
communists!! It's really dumb because obviously they are fascists.
:wink:

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

drmike wrote:Speaking of communism and psychology - I always think of "red" as "communist". So when I see republicans in red I just assume they are communists!! It's really dumb because obviously they are fascists.
:wink:
It is all a red herring. We have two socialist parties in America. The moral socialist party and the economic socialist party.

The original American Party was the "leave us alone" party. It gets no representation in the current mix.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply