FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Help NPR beat FOX





handfleisch
I have no idea if petitions make a difference, but this one is worth the chance. Pass it along to your friends who care about democracy.

READ MORE AND SIGN THE PETITION AT http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/fox_or_npr/?rc=fb_share2

Quote:
In just a few days, the White House Correspondents Association will decide which news organization will be awarded the seat recently vacated by Helen Thomas. The news organizations most actively vying for the seat are FOX, NPR and Bloomberg News.

Tell the White House Correspondents Association: Give the best seat in the briefing room to NPR, not FOX!

FOX News is a right-wing propaganda outlet, not a legitimate news agency. In recent weeks the network has turned the volume up on its race-baiting political agenda. The media assault on Shirley Sherrod is just a latest in a series of racist and politically motivated attacks on targets like Van Jones, ACORN, and Eric Holder's Department of Justice.

It's bad enough that we have to fight the constant smear campaigns and appeals to racial paranoia from FOX and the right-wing media. We can't let them have the best seat in the White House press briefing room and the legitimacy that it confers.


READ MORE AND SIGN THE PETITION AT http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/fox_or_npr/?rc=fb_share2
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
I have no idea if petitions make a difference, but this one is worth the chance. Pass it along to your friends who care about democracy.

READ MORE AND SIGN THE PETITION AT http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/fox_or_npr/?rc=fb_share2

Quote:
In just a few days, the White House Correspondents Association will decide which news organization will be awarded the seat recently vacated by Helen Thomas. The news organizations most actively vying for the seat are FOX, NPR and Bloomberg News.

Tell the White House Correspondents Association: Give the best seat in the briefing room to NPR, not FOX!

FOX News is a right-wing propaganda outlet, not a legitimate news agency. In recent weeks the network has turned the volume up on its race-baiting political agenda. The media assault on Shirley Sherrod is just a latest in a series of racist and politically motivated attacks on targets like Van Jones, ACORN, and Eric Holder's Department of Justice.

It's bad enough that we have to fight the constant smear campaigns and appeals to racial paranoia from FOX and the right-wing media. We can't let them have the best seat in the White House press briefing room and the legitimacy that it confers.


READ MORE AND SIGN THE PETITION AT http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/fox_or_npr/?rc=fb_share2
If I did not know what Fox was about, I would have supported them as a result of this campaign. I like to keep a completely open mind, and this one shows signs of a closed mind. Personally I like Bloomberg News, but don't like the idea of a "best seat" for any news organization.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
If I did not know what Fox was about, I would have supported them as a result of this campaign. I like to keep a completely open mind, and this one shows signs of a closed mind. Personally I like Bloomberg News, but don't like the idea of a "best seat" for any news organization.

err...how does that work then?
a) You like to keep a completely open mind
b) You would, because of a campaign against an organisation, support that organisation.
That seems to me like a mutually exclusive pair of sentences. If you keep an open mind you don't give support to either and you certainly wouldn't do so on the basis of a specific campaign.
The open minded person would surely first investigate the claim made by the campaign and see if it had any merit, unless they didn't care about that or didn't think it mattered.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If I did not know what Fox was about, I would have supported them as a result of this campaign. I like to keep a completely open mind, and this one shows signs of a closed mind. Personally I like Bloomberg News, but don't like the idea of a "best seat" for any news organization.

err...how does that work then?
a) You like to keep a completely open mind
b) You would, because of a campaign against an organisation, support that organisation.
That seems to me like a mutually exclusive pair of sentences. If you keep an open mind you don't give support to either and you certainly wouldn't do so on the basis of a specific campaign.
The open minded person would surely first investigate the claim made by the campaign and see if it had any merit, unless they didn't care about that or didn't think it mattered.

The first part of my sentence was obviously sarcastically meant. The part that counts is the part where I said I don't like the idea of a "best seat" for any news organization.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If I did not know what Fox was about, I would have supported them as a result of this campaign. I like to keep a completely open mind, and this one shows signs of a closed mind. Personally I like Bloomberg News, but don't like the idea of a "best seat" for any news organization.

err...how does that work then?
a) You like to keep a completely open mind
b) You would, because of a campaign against an organisation, support that organisation.
That seems to me like a mutually exclusive pair of sentences. If you keep an open mind you don't give support to either and you certainly wouldn't do so on the basis of a specific campaign.
The open minded person would surely first investigate the claim made by the campaign and see if it had any merit, unless they didn't care about that or didn't think it mattered.

The first part of my sentence was obviously sarcastically meant. The part that counts is the part where I said I don't like the idea of a "best seat" for any news organization.

So how do you define a 'news organisation'? Do they have to be impartial? Can any billionaire setup a group of people and call them a news organisation and expect high-level access to politicians and civil-servants?
Much of the stuff I have seen on Fox does not count in my book as any sort of journalism, so I would question whether they should ever have had a seat at all...
Would you be happy for a correspondant from the KKK member's magazine to claim the same seat as other journalists in briefings and conferences?
deanhills
@Bikerman. Perhaps they can do it the same way as the Green Card system, by lottery? Whether we like or dislike the KKK or Fox should not be the main issue here. Fairness should be the main issue. And absence of bias.
Voodoocat
It's called freedom of the press, and like it or not, it is at the heart of America. There are many organizations that profess to be "news organizations" on all sides of the politcal spectrum. Just because you dislike their political view does not mean that they are not a news organization. Take MSNBC. They lean hard to the left (Don't believe me? Listen to one of Ken Oberman's rants!), yet I don't hear the public outcry against MSNBC.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
It's called freedom of the press, and like it or not, it is at the heart of America. There are many organizations that profess to be "news organizations" on all sides of the politcal spectrum. Just because you dislike their political view does not mean that they are not a news organization. Take MSNBC. They lean hard to the left (Don't believe me? Listen to one of Ken Oberman's rants!), yet I don't hear the public outcry against MSNBC.

FOX is not a new agency, it's a political organization. Should the Communist Party or the KKK get a seat in the White House press room? No, and neither should FOX.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
FOX is not a new agency, it's a political organization. Should the Communist Party or the KKK get a seat in the White House press room? No, and neither should FOX.

A quick question for you handfleisch (not that I expect you to actually answer it): Do you ever try to think for yourself rather than blindly parrot every meme and piece of propaganda your fringe-left buddies put out there? This latest attack on free speech is just another example of the Left’s strategy of silencing any and all opposing voices that don’t goosestep to their own twisted view of the world. But at least you can try thinking for yourself and being a bit more creative for a change.
Quote:
MoveOn.Org Adores NPR, Conducts E-Mail Campaign Against Fox Getting the Helen Thomas Seat

For anyone who does not think National Public Radio is a taxpayer-funded propaganda organ for the left, consider that the radical leftists at MoveOn.org are conducting an e-mail campaign to assign the "Helen Thomas seat" in the front row of the briefing room to NPR a "real, public" news organ, not that Fox "propaganda machine." They think NPR can offer a better cloning of Helen Thomas:
Quote:
Dear MoveOn member,

As early as Sunday, the White House Correspondents' Association will decide which news organization will be awarded a recently-vacated front-row center seat in the White House briefing room. The contenders? National Public Radio, Bloomberg News—and Fox.

Yes, Fox—which we all know is actually a tool in the right-wing propaganda machine, not a legitimate news organization. They simply don't deserve the best seat in the White House briefing room—a seat held for years by journalist Helen Thomas until she retired recently.

So we're joining our friends at CREDO Action to petition the Correspondents' Association to award the seat to a real, public news organization: NPR.

Can you sign the petition today? Tell the Correspondents' Association to give the best seat in the briefing room to NPR, not Fox.

The petition says, "Give Helen Thomas' former briefing room seat to NPR, which has provided public interest coverage for decades—not Fox, which is a right-wing propaganda tool, not a legitimate news organization."

Then, please forward this email to your friends and post on Facebook and Twitter so we can spread the news faster. Already 140,000 people have signed onto this call through CREDO Action. Help us get up to 250,000 before the meeting on Sunday!

Winning this seat would give Fox legitimacy it simply doesn't deserve—not after years of race-baiting, smears against progressives and Democrats, and spreading right-wing propaganda 24/7.

So instead we're calling on the Association to award the seat to one of our nation's premiere news organizations, which has served the public for years and currently reaches an audience of 27 million.


Media Matters is encouraging the petition, naturally, and reports "They have collected more than 80% of their targeted 200,000 signatures. Read the petition text below and add your name to the more than 162,000 signers".

NPR's current White House correspondent is Ari Shapiro, who "married" Michael Gottlieb in San Francisco in 2004. A friend gushed: "Mike and Ari are the first of my friends to get married and I'm thrilled for them. This movement is even more exciting when it is your friends in the front lines."

Major Garrett of Fox News is assigned to the second row, and NPR is in the third row. In reality, both news organizations are going to be addressed in every briefing they ask a question, if not every presidential news conference. A front row seat for Fox News could make it more noticeable if Obama tried to skip over them. But for the most part, the leftists are simply trying to deny any prestigious symbolism for Fox News that would come from the front-row seat.

Are we really supposed to believe the ad makers of "General Betray Us" are great judges of news organizations? They already put a dent in the reputation of the New York Times by gaining a reduced-rate ad for their slimy attack on Gen. Petraeus, now Obama's man in Afghanistan. If NPR ever wanted to build a "fair and balanced" brand, this certainly doesn't help them.

Source = http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/07/30/moveon-org-adores-npr-conducts-e-mail-campaign-against-fox-getting-helen
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
FOX is not a new agency, it's a political organization. Should the Communist Party or the KKK get a seat in the White House press room? No, and neither should FOX.

A quick question for you handfleisch (not that I expect you to actually answer it): Do you ever try to think for yourself rather than blindly parrot every meme and piece of propaganda your fringe-left buddies put out there? This latest attack on free speech is just another example of the Left’s strategy of silencing any and all opposing voices that don’t goosestep to their own twisted view of the world. But at least you can try thinking for yourself and being a bit more creative for a change.
Quote:
MoveOn.Org Adores NPR, Conducts E-Mail Campaign Against Fox Getting the Helen Thomas Seat


Those suffering from right wing delusions tend to project their own problems and symptoms onto others they see as opponents. You accuse others of parroting things, while you have a record of repeating the most obviously false and ridiculous right wing smears and lies (like the one about Obama sending "thugs" to stop town hall meetings). You call things you don't understand stupid when the fault is your own (like in this thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-117145.html ). And now you tell me to think for myself and be creative while you spew cliches right out of Propaganda 101 ("goosestep") and cite lame-brain websites for your proof. Time to check the mirror.

By the way, the piece you cite seems to have a problem with the NPR correspondent just because he is gay and married, and mocks his marriage:
Quote:

NPR's current White House correspondent is Ari Shapiro, who "married" Michael Gottlieb in San Francisco in 2004.

Does this homophobia also reflect your view?
Voodoocat
Quote:
FOX is not a new[sic] agency, it's a political organization

Why is FOX news not a news agency? There are other media companies in America that claim to be news agencies that clearly expound a left wing bend. Once again, MSNBC is an obvious example. Or take NPR. I like to listen to NPR, and enjoy Terry Gross' "Fresh Air", but it definately has a left bias. Even NPR admits this:
Quote:
Last week, NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming.

Following up with:
Quote:
....by coming across as a pro-Franken partisan rather than a neutral and curious journalist, Gross did almost nothing that might have allowed the interview to develop."

Source: http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2003/col20031021.asp

Bernard Goldberg has even wrote a book about liberal bias in the news media
Quote:
A veteran CBS reporter exposes how liberal bias pervades the mainstream media, arguing that fairness, balance, and integrity have disappeared from network ...


http://books.google.com/books?id=vOrLY-HXnzYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=media+bias&source=bl&ots=NqqudoSs0q&sig=qNkBZaHkr4ex1WDUFrCXtIcpGfw&hl=en&ei=d7dWTIHCC4T58AamtvSpBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCw#v=onepage&q&f=false


So why not focus on the real issue here: what is a fair and unbiased method of assigning press seats to presidential events.
Bikerman
For info - here is a fair sample of what general opinion is about Fox amongst the centre-left of the UK..plus a few facts you might or might not be aware of...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/19/comment.usa
Alaskacameradude
And for further info....here are some studies done by the project for Excellence in Journalism....

http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
And for further info....here are some studies done by the project for Excellence in Journalism....

http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
Guess it all has to do with manipulation of the media, big time, and that is probably achieved with paying top dollars, or whoever happens to serve on the Board of that News Agency?
Voodoocat
I guess the White House disagress with the petition Laughing

I am actually very suprised. Pleased, but surprised.

Quote:

At Tuesday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs joked about Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler’s newfound front row presence

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/04/as-fox-news-takes-its-front-row-seat-reporters-complain-about-handling-of-briefings/#ixzz0vdmGP2CE


Notice that the White House has recognized that Fox News is a news agency, in spite of Handfleisch's objection. Very Happy
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
I guess the White House disagress with the petition :lol:

I am actually very suprised. Pleased, but surprised.

Quote:

At Tuesday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs joked about Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler’s newfound front row presence

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/04/as-fox-news-takes-its-front-row-seat-reporters-complain-about-handling-of-briefings/#ixzz0vdmGP2CE


Notice that the White House has recognized that Fox News is a news agency, in spite of Handfleisch's objection. :D


Sorry, Voodoo, the WH has also been pretty clear about FOX being a political organization, not a news agency. If you want to celebrate this, then be a good right winger and celebrate the power of money and lies.

Oh, and any time you want to answer my questions about your errors, lies and smears on your joke "Obamacare Fiasco" thread, feel free.
ocalhoun
For the record, an easy way to determine the difference between Fox and the KKK newsletter would simply be viewership/readership.

Perhaps press seats should be allocated to organizations that apply for them based on the number of viewers/readers that organization has?
That would be an easy way to guard against any possible bias from the administration.
gandalfthegrey
I guess all the white house reporters are idiots to pick FOX "NEWS" and their neo-con propaganda service over a real news service like National Public Radio. This is all about a wider dumbing down and propagandizing of the U.S. media. Idiotic Americans want to hear news that fit with their current world-view, rather then having news being broadcast critically.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
For the record, an easy way to determine the difference between Fox and the KKK newsletter would simply be viewership/readership.
Huh? Numbers or type? Numbers will tell you how many, nothing more. Type requires some analysis which is always open to question.
For example, 10 million people in the UK read the SUN. The paper frequently carries stories which are not just untrue but are completely ludicrous - Elvis sighted on the moon and that sort of stuff. Can we then say that the fact that 20% of the UK public read the paper makes the Elvis story legitimate news?
I think not - in fact it would be an ad-populum fallacy to do so.
On the other hand, can we assume that the 10 million readers are stupid, because they believe the story? Not really - it is at least as likely that they don't believe it and take it as entertainment rather than news...
And there is the problem....where do you draw a line between entertainment and news - or do you draw that line at all? Fox, to me, is entertainment - including Fox news.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
For the record, an easy way to determine the difference between Fox and the KKK newsletter would simply be viewership/readership.
Huh? Numbers or type? Numbers will tell you how many, nothing more. Type requires some analysis which is always open to question.

Numbers only.

Sure, you might well get some tabloids in 'the good seats'...
But, for that price, you get perfectly objective impartiality in press seat selection.
If the tabloids start to crowd out 'legitimate' news organizations, you need more seats, not more exclusivity.

...And yes, Fox is just entertainment, more or less.
To quote the CEO of Fox:
"If putting two dogs having sex on screen would raise ratings, I'd do it."
Fox's only goal is more viewership, at the expense of all else, which explains their high numbers.
The interesting question then becomes, why do so many people prefer Fox to other news programs?
What does Fox provide that they don't get elsewhere?
Bikerman
I think the answer to that last question is easy. To understand the news is not easy, unless it is dumbed down. You need a grasp of the underlying issues. If a news report says there has been a bombing in the Sudan then unless you have some grasp of the politics and social factors then it is just one more piece of evil on the news. Many people don't like the news because it involves thinking and is not easy - even when presented well. It is much easier to watch the cartoon versions presented by Fox, the SUN and other similar entertainment media.

The problem for people like me is if we allow popularity to decide what is news, then where do I get the real news from? Commercial pressure would force-out any organisation that didn't have some alternative revenue-stream and the comic/cartoon news would quickly become all that was available.
Here in the UK we have the BBC - but Murdoch maintains a constant attack on it, via the fact that it is funded from a general tax (the license fee). If the BBC went then where would I go for an adult version of the news, I wonder?
Voodoocat
Quote:
via the fact that it [BBC] is funded from a general tax (the license fee).


Aren't you worried about getting your news from a company funded by the government? Intellectual it may by, but at the minimum such reliance on government funding raises conflict of interest questions.

I am not being snarky here nor am I claiming that BBC is biased in any way (I have never watched any BBC news broadcasts), but government funding and news make strange bedfellows. I prefer private funding for private enterprise.
Bikerman
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
via the fact that it [BBC] is funded from a general tax (the license fee).


Aren't you worried about getting your news from a company funded by the government? Intellectual it may by, but at the minimum such reliance on government funding raises conflict of interest questions.

I am not being snarky here nor am I claiming that BBC is biased in any way (I have never watched any BBC news broadcasts), but government funding and news make strange bedfellows. I prefer private funding for private enterprise.

Yes, I would prefer an alternative. It certainly does have an effect (especially every few years or so when the license fee is up for renegotiation), but the BBC are a pretty independant lot and they are responsible to the board, not the government. The board are relatively independant of Government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/running/executive/

The BBC have a long history of getting up the nose of both major parties. Whichever party is in power normally complains that the BBC is left/right wing in its coverage. Some of the programs put out by the BBC are extremely critical of government - no matter who is in power - and the Government are sensible enough to realise that if they force the issue and there is a choice between politicians and the BBC, well, it would be no contest for the vast majority of the population.

I actually don't rely on any one source for news. I take more from the BBC than any other - simply because my radio is permenantly tuned to the speech channel BBC Radio 4, but other sources include the Guardian newspaper, Z magazine and Z space, and then a variety of sources depending on what particular story I'm interested in....
Voodoocat
Quote:
I actually don't rely on any one source for news


Very astute! Your approach is the most intellegent one. It's a shame most people are not as well informed. Of course if they were, politicians would run for cover!
Bikerman
I think most people are not that interested in global news. They just want a quick summary of anything 'big' happening. Certainly I have to say that the US is pretty parochial in a lot of news broadcasting - or it was last time I was there a decade ago. Most of the major network news was dominated by home events (excluding wars and events involving US citizens abroad) and there was very little coverage of world news generally.
I won't repeat the cliche of the American woman asking the UK visitor whether they spoke English in England...oops just did....it is a stereotype and as such not to be taken seriously. But I will say that I have been asked some pretty dumb questions by Americans regarding my homeland on several occasions - not that they were stupid, just breathtakingly uninformed.

I'm not saying that you won't find such ignorant people in the UK or in Europe - you certainly will. I think there are more in the US though - and for the very good reason that the place is so damn big that events in europe must seem a million miles away, and so damn important that such events must seem pretty trivial anyway. I can totally understand it, I just think it can be dangerous sometimes.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I think there are more in the US though - and for the very good reason that the place is so damn big that events in europe must seem a million miles away, and so damn important that such events must seem pretty trivial anyway. I can totally understand it, I just think it can be dangerous sometimes.
This is hitting the nail right on its head. Same in Canada as well. Unless one is really tuned into the right news sources, you hardly find any international news of substance, and sometimes not of a very high quality either. Three or more sources may have statistical differences for example. So did not know what to trust. Also there is this continuous repetition of old news, so people probably after a while give up on the news. Best sources for international news for me were Time Magazine and the Economist, i.e. the written media. Also the Financial Times, although a few years ago they have adapted FT to be regional rather than English, and that has spoilt it a bit for me.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

I won't repeat the cliche of the American woman asking the UK visitor whether they spoke English in England...oops just did....it is a stereotype and as such not to be taken seriously. But I will say that I have been asked some pretty dumb questions by Americans regarding my homeland on several occasions - not that they were stupid, just breathtakingly uninformed.


There are astoundingly stupid and/or ignorant people in all countries, of course.
(Though possibly more of them in the US than in other places...)
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

I won't repeat the cliche of the American woman asking the UK visitor whether they spoke English in England...oops just did....it is a stereotype and as such not to be taken seriously. But I will say that I have been asked some pretty dumb questions by Americans regarding my homeland on several occasions - not that they were stupid, just breathtakingly uninformed.


There are astoundingly stupid and/or ignorant people in all countries, of course.
Oh certainly - I would never say otherwise.
Quote:
(Though possibly more of them in the US than in other places...)
Perhaps - the reasons would, I think, be the ones I gave, related mainly to the size of the US...
Da Rossa
Too bad I got late in this topic. I would be interested in the petition but to vote FOR FOX!

How come FOX is not about democracy and not a legitimate news organisation?? This is a trend nowadays, both in the US and in Brazil: every non-left-oriented thing is accused of being non-democrat and/or hate speech.
liljp617
Da Rossa wrote:
Too bad I got late in this topic. I would be interested in the petition but to vote FOR FOX!

How come FOX is not about democracy and not a legitimate news organisation?? This is a trend nowadays, both in the US and in Brazil: every non-left-oriented thing is accused of being non-democrat and/or hate speech.


I don't know, maybe it has something to do with them referring to this, on the air, as a "terrorist fist bump:"



Or maybe they air a purely fear-mongering man, twice a day, who has related Obama's policies to Hitler's multiple times.

...in the midst of an election -- very democratic I must say.


There are numerous reasons people criticize Fox News, and most of them are fairly obvious. And before we continue, I'm well aware it happens on both sides...I excuse neither side. If you can't dish it out without taking criticism, then don't dish it out. But when you do dish it out and people come after you, don't play the "the evil left is just out to get us" card. It's a BS card to pull.
ocalhoun
Da Rossa wrote:

How come FOX is not about democracy and not a legitimate news organisation?? This is a trend nowadays, both in the US and in Brazil: every non-left-oriented thing is accused of being non-democrat and/or hate speech.

And every left-oriented thing is being accused of being socialist and terrorist-friendly.


It happens.


I do have a slight problem with it when those in power use it to give favoritism to their own friends though.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:

How come FOX is not about democracy and not a legitimate news organisation?? This is a trend nowadays, both in the US and in Brazil: every non-left-oriented thing is accused of being non-democrat and/or hate speech.

And every left-oriented thing is being accused of being socialist and terrorist-friendly.


It happens.

That is factually incorrect. Besides its ridiculously slanted reporting, FOX News is now known to be the public relations division of the right wing of the Republican Party due to its over-the-top political activities which no legitimate news organization would even think about doing, the latest of which:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/fox-parent-news-corp-donates-1.html
Quote:
Fox parent News Corp. donates $1 million to Republican Governors' Association

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) this year, Bloomberg reported. The company owns Fox News and the New York Post. (You can see the full IRS filing here.)

The filings show that the RGA raised $58 million between Jan. 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010.
Da Rossa
Quote:
And every left-oriented thing is being accused of being socialist and terrorist-friendly.


In your country, maybe. Not from Mexico to Antarctica. Unfortunately. Thanks to Foro de São Paulo.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:

How come FOX is not about democracy and not a legitimate news organisation?? This is a trend nowadays, both in the US and in Brazil: every non-left-oriented thing is accused of being non-democrat and/or hate speech.

And every left-oriented thing is being accused of being socialist and terrorist-friendly.


It happens.

That is factually incorrect.


Wait ... what?

Are you saying left-oriented things are not accused of being socialist and terrorist friendly?
deanhills
I would not regard Obama as left, however I do think people have criticized him at times for being "terrorist-friendly"as well as a socialist. Also being very anti-Fox (coming from the White House). As a President, I would have thought he would have stood neutral with regard to the media including Fox and all the other crazy right wing organizations. But who knows, maybe Obama is more of a political than an executive President?
Da Rossa
Well, he is a socialist, but there will always be a million people saying otherwise. He has behaved like a socialist by installing his "ObamaCare" system. Then I would say no non-socialist would do such a thing. So he is socialist and non-socialist at the same time. Bush would not act 'socialistically', do you agree?
liljp617
What definition of socialism are we using?
Da Rossa
liljp617 wrote:
What definition of socialism are we using?


This question is another problem. Just as an example, when we accuse a socialist/communist regime of being cruel, genocidal and totalitarian, the supporters of the left side say "but he was never a socialist, that is no socialism, that was a corruption and distortion of what socialism is meant to be." For Christ sake, when are we going to end this fraud? For how long will the "self-postponable-proposal for a decent future" will be there? For how long will we have democidists ruling the countries along with the "the future hasn't come yet, but I'll bring it, so support me in the revolution!" speech?

So, as for the question, I think we should use the 'ideal' concept. Let's take it as a regime in which the ruler and his gang (I mean, the party) will stay on top, being this party confused with the State itself, under the pretext of bringing social justice and equality for every one (note that I didn't use the word 'citizen'), and, for achieving so, he would center in his own hands the power, the means of production, the large companies and the banks, the food production, and also, for achiving this ideal goal, limiting the individual rights in the name of 'public interest'. So, first comes the State, then the society, then, at last and least, the individual.

Obama, of course, would not be able to accomplish all of these in a single administration. And wouldn't do in four administrations. But socialism is about this: slow, quiet revolution, just like Antonio Gramsci thought. Like a poisonous snake that bites you in the ankle, the toxing rises up calmly and, when you realise, you're infected.
deanhills
I don't see Obama as a socialist, however I do see him as looking at socialist type solutions, including the medical health programme and his media campaigns. Nothing better to appeal to the people for voting purposes than a President having the appearance of looking after their welfare! But for me in the bottomline the Presidency is seated in a capitalist system that he would have to wreck completely first before he can introduce socialism proper as per the definition below:
Quote:
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Source: Wikipedia
Bikerman
Da Rossa wrote:
So, as for the question, I think we should use the 'ideal' concept. Let's take it as a regime in which the ruler and his gang (I mean, the party) will stay on top, being this party confused with the State itself, under the pretext of bringing social justice and equality for every one (note that I didn't use the word 'citizen'), and, for achieving so, he would center in his own hands the power, the means of production, the large companies and the banks, the food production, and also, for achiving this ideal goal, limiting the individual rights in the name of 'public interest'. So, first comes the State, then the society, then, at last and least, the individual.
That isn't even close to a definition of socialism - let alone an 'ideal' concept.
Socialism is the political view that the means of production should be owned by the state. Obama is not a socialist by any measure of the word.
Da Rossa
Bikerman wrote:
Da Rossa wrote:
So, as for the question, I think we should use the 'ideal' concept. Let's take it as a regime in which the ruler and his gang (I mean, the party) will stay on top, being this party confused with the State itself, under the pretext of bringing social justice and equality for every one (note that I didn't use the word 'citizen'), and, for achieving so, he would center in his own hands the power, the means of production, the large companies and the banks, the food production, and also, for achiving this ideal goal, limiting the individual rights in the name of 'public interest'. So, first comes the State, then the society, then, at last and least, the individual.
That isn't even close to a definition of socialism - let alone an 'ideal' concept.
Socialism is the political view that the means of production should be owned by the state. Obama is not a socialist by any measure of the word.


Sorry, I made a mistake. I got excited and wrote about what socialism was/is when transported to reality.

But you can't deny that the ideal concept is inserted in my definition above: the state holding the means of production. I only added what the ruler of that state would be.

No, Obama is not a socialist according to this short and simplistic definition - control of means of prodution. Actually, in the west you only see some leaders (faulty, by the way, such as Hugo Cháves, Fidel Castro, Evo Morales, Cristina Kirschner, Lula and Rafael Correa), that are actually implementing socialism not only by seizing the means of prodution, but using also the power of state to create huge public companies like in Brazil: one for telecommunications, other for insurance contracts.

Back to Obama: he will not seize everything overnight. But the fall of capitalism will be carried with the weapons from the own capitalist system: first, by increasing responsibilities and the gvt control over financial institutions. This will fatally weaken the power of the companies and the business in general. Couldn't it be a taxes increase the next step? What next?
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
Back to Obama: he will not seize everything overnight. But the fall of capitalism will be carried with the weapons from the own capitalist system: first, by increasing responsibilities and the gvt control over financial institutions. This will fatally weaken the power of the companies and the business in general. Couldn't it be a taxes increase the next step? What next?
Sounds both ridiculous but also very true at the same time. If one really sits down and look at capitalism in the United States, where is the capital? In the United States? China? Japan? Internationally? And why does the dollar have any value? Is it because countries outside the United States are pegging their currencies against the US Dollar or is it because of the strong capitalist foundation of the US economy?
Da Rossa
Quote:
Sounds both ridiculous but also very true at the same time.


You see? This is what it's all about: things aren't easy to be believed at all because they're unpleasant. Obama is a socialist. But socialists can play like capitalists too, and, unfortunately, very well.
toasterintheoven
NPR rocks because it's on the radio and I get to listen to it while I drive to work in the mornings
Related topics
CNN even knows Fox Rox!
I have superiority complex and I need help.
Morning Sickness--anyone have any good tips to help?
Caffeine Addiction
What is it called?
Torture and the US
pirates/spiderman
Islamic claims of world rule
The Cat and the Doors
SQL Problem Help
10 Bizarre Experiments
Would You Help A Stranger?
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Things only a Republican could believe
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.