No better or worse than a state controlled media

[Jay]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061210/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/us_chile

The White House on Sunday marked the death of former Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet by calling his rule a "difficult period" and commending the country for establishing a free society.

 

"Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile represented one of the most difficult periods in that nation's history," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "Our thoughts today are with the victims of his reign and their families. We commend the people of Chile for building a society based on freedom, the rule of law and respect for human rights."

 

Pinochet terrorized his opponents for 17 years after taking power in a bloody coup.

 

His death put an end to a decade of intensifying efforts to bring him to trial for human rights abuses blamed on his regime. He was 91.

 

Pinochet died with his family at his side at the Santiago Military Hospital on Sunday, a week after suffering a heart attack.

 

What is conveniently omitted is that the US overthrew the democratically elected leader of Chile, Salvador Allende, and installed this right-wing murderer Pinochet, much the same as they did in nation after nation across the Third World resulting in the deaths of millions of people.

 

A big business controlled media is actually worse (if you like democracy) than a state controlled media in that it's a little less obvious. I have enjoyed the Bush junta though as it's made this media bias a bit more obvious to all but the most dense or apathetic. This article is a fine example. Usually bias is a simple matter of omitting certain facts.

[offense74]

There are pros and cons for both aspects (private and public owned media). The state owned TV in Sweden was a monopoly for TV in up until about 15 years ago ad alot of the middle aged Swedes are just tuning in to it by habit. If you have a TV you have to pay a fee to the state owned elevision every month but most young people refuse because the shows are made for an audience of 50+.

The news shows is biased all the way from middle to far left (in Swedish terms which means left to really far left in US terms). This is not because it's publically owned but because reporters at the station is usually far leftish in their political views.

I do find PBS and BBC to be very good sources of information though.

 

The word capitalism means different things to different people and here in Sweden it is considered to be a bad word because of (among other things) the view is biased by the state owned TV.

The leftish view of capitalism generally uses the same kind of retorics for capitalism as some christian groups does of the devil. They simplify everything and put everything they believe is evil in connection to a word that has by then lost it's original meaning. The word is different for different groups but basically it means the same thing. Christians got "the devil". Scientologists got Thetans and psychology. Far leftish people have the view of capitalism based on Marx or some other intellectual "priest".

The thing that connects all these views is that there is one simple thing that is the root of all evil and if it would perish we would all be dancing naked with lions in the garden of Eden. We are rational beings and we love to simplify so it's easy to convince people this way and so our leftish state owned TV does exactly this.

 

For me and alot of other liberals capitalism is simply the natural order that follows of self-ownership. To be able to solve the problems of our time we need new ways of thinking, new information and new products. The gaps in the market place are there and it's up to us to fill them with new positive ideas. Monsanto and McDonalds fill gaps in the market place but so does John Robbins, Joel Fuhrman and Amnesty international. This shows to me that filling demands of the market is not the problem the world faces and thus economic and intellectual growth is not the fundamental problem either. It can be positive or negative depending on peoples choices.

With htis view there are no easy solution and no "devil" to blame and thus it's harder to fit in a TV show. You can't explain the problems of the world with easy gimmics in under 1 minute.

[Jay]

That's all perfectly fine to me.

 

I think it good by the way, that part of the Mainstream media should be controlled by big business with their pro-capitalism bias. For a healthy democracy though, you need biases that are heard on a national level from the far right all the way to the far left. In the US we have only far right biases. Because of the idea of objectivity (which is crap, there is no such thing) NPR isn't too much different from the big business controlled media here in the US. If they are too different they'll get labeled biases and that is mistakenly thought to be a bad thing.

 

Saying that it's bad that all media is controlled by big business, is not an condemnation of capitalism. A person can be totally gung ho for capitalism but if they're still honest and for demoracy they should be willing to admit that a mainstream media totally controlled by big business is not a good thing at all.

 

Offense, are you saying all your national media is state owned there? Nothing owned by big business?

 

The news shows is biased all the way from middle to far left (in Swedish terms which means left to really far left in US terms). This is not because it's publically owned but because reporters at the station is usually far leftish in their political views.

I do find PBS and BBC to be very good sources of information though.

It can be publicly owned and be anywhere from far left to far right. It depends on who decides who gets hired and what get's printed/reported on. The goal should be organizations that are expressly biased from far left to far right. None of that "objective" crap.

[offense74]

Offense, are you saying all your national media is state owned there? Nothing owned by big business?

Now we do have privatly owned media but most of them just follows what the state owned does since they have the biggest audience. People above 50 doesn't switch channels here simply because they are not used to commercials.

I'm with you on that nothing can be called "objective" (except in science) and that all views should be represented. The problem I have with state owned media is that I have to pay for their view and not my own. As a statement, me and alot of other Swedes refuse to pay for it. There are however good things about SVT (the state owned TV) that are good that I would like to pay for and I believ that this will be the future of SVT, to divide and sell the parts to people. I believe that they will be more successfull doing this.

 

When it comes to pressure the things that affect the news and the politics in Sweden and the US are very diverse. Your idiots are fundamental christians. Our idiots are far left communists and feminists that want to forbid everything, apartheid style. They want to limit what can be said in public, the want to tax men more than women, some don't want men to be out on the streets after 10pm, they're hate for the US is nothing short of frightening, they don't want to help men who beats their wives with treatment (even though it's been effective as close as Norway). To get their point through they use more violence than our dumb ass nazis does.

Your fundamental christians are in your parliment and your media talking about flagburning and creationism and other stupid shit. Our idiots are also in our parliment and on SVT. I'm glad they exist so that other ideas seems so much better in comparison but I don't want to be forced to pay for the idiots.

[andgbr]

I hate to say that, but It's good to hear, that he's FINALLY dead, Augusto Pinochet betrayed his country, he terrorized a lot of people, it's sad that the media, nor another country tried to do anything, when we really need intervention they ignore it. Sadly, it's all about interest.

[bronco]

Our idiots are far left communists and feminists that want to forbid everything, apartheid style. They want to limit what can be said in public, the want to tax men more than women, some don't want men to be out on the streets after 10pm, they're hate for the US is nothing short of frightening, they don't want to help men who beats their wives with treatment (even though it's been effective as close as Norway). To get their point through they use more violence than our dumb ass nazis does.

That's an impressive load of paranoid nonsense.

[loveliberate]

I agree with Bronco. Those are some major claims Offense - please offer some documentation (preferably in english & web-based) to back them up.

[offense74]

Our idiots are far left communists and feminists that want to forbid everything, apartheid style. They want to limit what can be said in public, the want to tax men more than women, some don't want men to be out on the streets after 10pm, they're hate for the US is nothing short of frightening, they don't want to help men who beats their wives with treatment (even though it's been effective as close as Norway). To get their point through they use more violence than our dumb ass nazis does.

That's an impressive load of paranoid nonsense.

Ok.

[offense74]

I agree with Bronco. Those are some major claims Offense - please offer some documentation (preferably in english & web-based) to back them up.

Here's another person describing how the social democrats (in government for nearly a century) have incorporated the ideas in their agenda. The ideas were to a greater extent taken up by "Feministiskt initiativ" who got 0.7% in the latest election. This agenda doesn't have the people behind it but that shouldn't stop it from happening right?

[Jay]

But they got 0.7% of the vote. In the US they got 60 million votes because in the US big business has just adopted these fundy positions as they correctly recognize fundamentalists are the most likely to vote against their own economic interests. In the US these idiots have massive power and influence, in Sweden these few "feminists of the man curfew ilk" have no power.

 

But talking about a man curfew and that sort of thing reminds me of how "liberals" in the US are planning to destroy Christmas. Their probably is 0.7% of people in the US who would like to see Christmas destroyed but to listen to hate radio (which is virtually all political radio) or for that matter FOX news or even Beck on CNN now you'd think tens of millions of democrats are planning to destroy Christmas. If you say "Happy Holidays" (instead of Merry Christmas to someone) you're trying to destroy christmas according to this rightwing propaganda.

 

A republican at work knows I'm on the far left and I guess he assumed I'd be anti-christmas and made some jibe to that effect towards me. He was at a loss for words when told I'd just spent the last hour decorating the christmas tree. He's so brainwashed by the hate propaganda he was certain I'd have some anti-christmas agenda just because I've talked a little with him about media bias and IMF SAPs.

 

...I'm fine with my tax dollars supporting right wing media as long as I'm also supporting left wing. If big business is afraid to really push a right-wing message in Sweden, then the government should step in and help them with tax monies to get going. Or perhaps splitting off some of the funds spent on the current state media and instead using them on a right bias media.

[Jay]

This agenda doesn't have the people behind it but that shouldn't stop it from happening right?

I don't understand what you mean here. If it doesn't have the people behind it then that should stop it from happening.

[michaelhobson]

He was at a loss for words when told I'd just spent the last hour decorating the christmas tree.

 

Now that is disappointing!

[bronco]

Here's another person describing how the social democrats (in government for nearly a century) have incorporated the ideas in their agenda. The ideas were to a greater extent taken up by "Feministiskt initiativ" who got 0.7% in the latest election. This agenda doesn't have the people behind it but that shouldn't stop it from happening right?

Phfew, some men are really scared of the idea that women should have equal rights. It is a rather comforting tought though, that people like you lie sleepless at night in fear of a feministic takeover.

[offense74]

Here's another person describing how the social democrats (in government for nearly a century) have incorporated the ideas in their agenda. The ideas were to a greater extent taken up by "Feministiskt initiativ" who got 0.7% in the latest election. This agenda doesn't have the people behind it but that shouldn't stop it from happening right?

Phfew, some men are really scared of the idea that women should have equal rights. It is a rather comforting tought though, that people like you lie sleepless at night in fear of a feministic takeover.

There are different ways of looking on liberation. Some believe it comes from more state control while others believe it comes from less violence and force by the state.

I cannot believe how anyone who are for less liberty for everybody can ever call themself a liberator of anything.

[offense74]

But they got 0.7% of the vote. In the US they got 60 million votes because in the US big business has just adopted these fundy positions as they correctly recognize fundamentalists are the most likely to vote against their own economic interests. In the US these idiots have massive power and influence, in Sweden these few "feminists of the man curfew ilk" have no power.

The social democrats wanted more equality between sexes (which is a good intention) and gender feminism ofered them an easy anwere. I've described this before. Politicians are not really in any power to solve tough problems but they want to it seem like they are on top of things so they locate an easy explanation and stick to it. Gender feminism offered such solution so they incorporated it in their agenda but did so rather quietly because they knew it didn't have the peoples support. It did as much for gender equality as bombing Iraq did for the liberation of the middle east. As I said social democrats (even though not in power now) have more or less monopoly in Swedish politics.

But talking about a man curfew and that sort of thing reminds me of how "liberals" in the US are planning to destroy Christmas. Their probably is 0.7% of people in the US who would like to see Christmas destroyed but to listen to hate radio (which is virtually all political radio) or for that matter FOX news or even Beck on CNN now you'd think tens of millions of democrats are planning to destroy Christmas. If you say "Happy Holidays" (instead of Merry Christmas to someone) you're trying to destroy christmas according to this rightwing propaganda.

Crazy, isn't it. The polar caps are melting. Your idiots are talking about how to say hello, Jesus style and ours are giving my money to a department that has decided that christmas lights in the windows are discriminating. I'm glad my workhours doesn't go to stupid shit

...I'm fine with my tax dollars supporting right wing media as long as I'm also supporting left wing. If big business is afraid to really push a right-wing message in Sweden, then the government should step in and help them with tax monies to get going. Or perhaps splitting off some of the funds spent on the current state media and instead using them on a right bias media.

I for paying for it as long as it is objective. We both agreed that this is not going to happen so I'd prefer not to be forced to pay for it at all. It wold be very frustrating to me to be forced to pay for nazi propaganda (or agriculture subsidices for that matter) for example.

[Jay]

I for paying for it as long as it is objective. We both agreed that this is not going to happen so I'd prefer not to be forced to pay for it at all. It wold be very frustrating to me to be forced to pay for nazi propaganda (or agriculture subsidices for that matter) for example.

Offense, I mean that there is literally no such thing period. And anyone who pretends to be objective is a liar. And it's perfectly fine to hear biases viewpoints. The problem is only hearing one bias. There should be at least 4 seperate national medai organizations representing the far left, moderate left, moderate right and far right. Much better would be if there were 8 or 16 with multiple seperate far lefts, rights, to ensure many different viewpoints.

 

I'd be happy to pay for such a system including supporting organizations whose viewpoint I disagreed with. I think such a system is essential for a healthy democracy. If instead any system is mainly controlled by big business or the state and whatever else there is too paralyzed by the myth of objectiivity to dare to be much different, then it's a pretty sorry excuse for a democracy.

[offense74]

I would pay for it by free will too but it itches a little bit if I had to pay for it by force.

Isn't the problem in the US the same as in Sweden in that there actually are good documentaries and news just that people don't tune in to them? I've seen a fair deal of US documentaries that have been good. US has a lot of good media people especially when it comes to production and finishing so the end product usually is more appealing than the EU ones (excluding perhaps BBC).

[Jay]

I would pay for it by free will too but it itches a little bit if I had to pay for it by force.

It can't work that way. If everyone only has to pay for it if they feel like it, then necessities such as food and shelter just become more expensive (because the producers of food and shelter know that people now have more money and they still Must have food and shelter so they'll be willing to pay a little more for it thus there's suddenly more "demand" for food and shelter). And suddenly you've less money to potentially spend for something like mass media or for charity or whatever.

 

The people have to decide that certain things are Essential and those things Must be paid for with taxes. Otherwise, they just become things that most people can't afford to pay for. In capitalism you just don't get the majority of people amassing huge savings.... Food and shelter are going to cost about as much as they are willing to pay. And food and shelter trumps all.

 

And it's called civilization. They also force you to not commit robbery, etc.

 

Isn't the problem in the US the same as in Sweden in that there actually are good documentaries and news just that people don't tune in to them? I've seen a fair deal of US documentaries that have been good. US has a lot of good media people especially when it comes to production and finishing so the end product usually is more appealing than the EU ones (excluding perhaps BBC).

The problem is that when any major news organizations such as CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, etc covers any given issue they spend 5% or much less of the time talking about the left viewpoint and the rest of the time pushing the rightwing viewpoint. As most Americans don't watch news 24/7 they end up totally missing the left viewpoint. Fair.org has done tons of studies on this where they literally watch 24/7 for months on end and have quantified this stuff.

 

For example leading up to the current Iraqi War they found that guests on their shows concerning the war, less than 5% were against the war. This on NBC, CNN, etc.

 

The only way to get the left viewpoint in the US is to either live in a big city or to have the internet and be very interested in politics. To even see these leftist documentaries you need the internet to rent them. (Or live in a really big city where they might be shown in a theater or rentable.) Also there's a radio station called Pacifica which is far left and available in 5 major cities. It's funded by donations. I haven't donated to it as I'm just some poor schmuch trying to survive from day to day. I wish everyone was forced by give it money through taxes then we'd all have a little less money and there'd be slightly less demand for food and shelter, thus they'd be cheaper plus we'd have a healthier democracy.

 

Big business media on the other hand can easily survive off advertisements. Big corporations are happy to fund right-wing news with advertisements. They aren't happy to do so for leftwing news and in fact I can give examples if you are interested. In fact the corporations that own the these right-wing news media (like General Electric owns NBC) are often happy to run there right-wing news organizations at a loss even as long as they are pushing a right-wing viewpoint that helps the parent company. For example GE makes huge profits off wars while NBC is busy firing Phil Donahue despite him having the highest ratings of any show on MSBNC because he dared to question the Iraqi War.