In several of these media threads a common theme is debated that the media ownership has no real influence. I have just run across a quote from someone who has earned the ultimate in respect for his thoughts. So do you think you are smarter than Einstein? Or do you agree with him.

Einstein



Question for the debate
1, what specific evidence do you have to prove Einstein is right or wrong.
2, Is this a truism that will last for eternity?

I wouldn't dare to go against the brilliant mind of Einstein and I must admit that he is hitting a very important aspect of our mass-media societies in the western world.

Since some time I am really starting to wonder if people are trained to use all this information that is coming to them via television, radio, newspapers and internet. People are getting avalanched by all the news reports, opinions, statistics, polls etc. etc. How can you form an objective conclusion if you are being bombarded by political subjective opinions, half-truths, euphimisms and propaganda and not being trained in handling all that information?

I have studied history and therefore am used to look at the bigger pictures and have been trained in analyzing a range of different data. But even for me it is sometimes almost impossible to cut through all the B.S. and propaganda and keep a sharp eye on the underlying aspects, without loosing the context of events or my objectivity.

1. What specific evidence do you have to prove Einstein is right or wrong.

I think FOX News is a perfect example of Einsteins theory. They twist news items, are known for their political bashing and their unnuanced views (I have seen an item on the Dutch euthanasia and abortus laws on FOX and it was pure propaganda without any decent background check on reality. It made me so furious to see so many untruths presented about the Dutch society that I turned it off before it ended.) Watching FOX News can be interesting, but only if you realise what their hidden agenda is or their background. If you watch it without any background information there is a big chance that you will certainly will get misinformed about certain issues. Misinformation never leads to objective conclusions.

2. Is this a truism that will last for eternity?

I am always really carefull before I agree that a certain theory is a truism. Like Popper said, every theory is sound as long as it stands up to the critical evaluation. Up till now the majority of philosophical/ scientific theories have already been falsified or partly been falsified. Even Einstein Relativity Theory is partly being falsified with the introduction of the String Theory. (the link between Quantum Fysics and the Theory of Relativity)

Moreover, under existing socialist conditions, control, directly or indirectly, of the main sources of information (press, radio, education) is in the hands of the government. It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. There are no free and independent forms of media access.

I am particularly unkind to the Faux News Channel. I generally refer to it as the GOP Talking Points memo--yet to be fair and balanced they are the only news group so blatantly slanted to the Right--you would be hard pressed to find others that are not slanted to the Left--MSNBC doesn't count at all--their programming is so weak as to be worthy of pity.

As for
When it comes to physics I won't argue with Einstein--but as for political theory I don't remember ever seeing any examples of his prowess? So I find the debate itself flawed.

I believe your question would be better served as Socialism GOOD, Capitalism BAD! Agree/Disagree?

I agree with you on this one, too much (direct/indirect) influence and control of government (like the corporations) towards the media causes problems. (for example Berlusconi and his grip on the Italian media) There should be a good mix between the two, so that one can compare the different takes on a certain news topic and thus form a solid opinion.



It doesn't matter if Einstein impacted political philosophy yes or no. It doesn't matter if you never saw any examples of his prowess in this field. What matters is the validity of his theory, his conclusion and in what way it corresponds with changing reality. Personally I don't see any flaw in the question asked by Inventor.

1, what specific evidence do you have to prove Einstein is right or wrong.
What exactly are the main sources of information? I think that a large segment of society get their news and information from the internet, bypassing the cable and network news, judging it as no more valid than Entertainment Tonight.
I disagree with the esteemed Einstein that private capitalists control the main sources of information. You have news outlets for every oddball political stripe under the sun, even Naked News.
His statement however, could be found true just as easily under a corporatist rule or a socialist rule. As christopher stated, what would be worse, media controlled by private capitalists or media controlled by government??

Additionally, to have balance, you need a broad spectrum of viewpoints. No single outlet will give anyone the unvarnished truth, and there is just as much editorializing of hard news on FOX as there is in the NYT. Each of the aforementioned outlets also bring to light news events that the other disregards, so an informed citizen will comb a range of outlets to get a clear picture of world events.

If the individual citizen does not possess the mental faculties to glean factual information and pays more attention to American Idol than American politics, there is no hope for them. To force feed them news in an attempt to educate the unwilling, you become just as dastardly as this supposed monolithic control of media. After all, who gets to decide what constitutes hard news, free of spin and rhetoric?

I think Einstein's statement is obvious. The mainstream media is owned by six large conglomerates: AOL/Time Warner, Disney, Viviendi, Viacom, News Corporation, and Bertlessman. These are capitalist organizations. They own television (with the exception of public access and pbs), and nearly all major newspapers and radio stations. They own many of the oddball outlets too.



I don't see a difference, unless you are talking about a government that is truly representative of the people, that has no interest in coercion. Giant corporations are trying to simply to gain power and have no interest in the concerns of the people beyond what they think will get the people to put money in their pockets. Commercial propaganda is no different than government propaganda




Except Fox and the New York Times are controlled by corporations with the same interests. I see very little opinion outside the status quo in either of these. They are in the business of selling audiences to advertisers, so they aren't going to do anything that upsets their advertisers-- often to the point of withholding important information from the public, which, because an informed American public has the power to influence policy, sometimes makes the media compliant in horrendous crimes.

Debating media bias is a rather pointless exercise, but I have often wondered why the bias at CNN (Ted Turner) is never mentioned but there is constant attention on FOX (Murdoch). It seems to me that people that believe CNN has been objective for the last 20 years are probably the same people that don’t like Fox. Pew recently released a poll that found 63% of the journalists polled believe that establishing a stable democracy in Iraq will fail (37% of Americans share that view). If the evil right leaning “corporations” that run the media are so powerful what is stopping them from reigning in the consistent negative coverage from their journalists.

Michael Jordan was one of the greatest basketball players of all time and we would not ask him about physics. Einstein’s strength was not politics.

just to further clairify my last post. I don't think the question of media control by corporations has anything to do with liberal and conservative.

1, what specific evidence do you have to prove Einstein is right or wrong.

Einstein was a brilliant physicist. That does not make him an infallible philosopher. In fact, no philosopher is infallible. We can look at Einstein's statement:



which was made almost 60 years ago and see that is is incorrect on its face. How do we know this? The premise may be correct (capitalists control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information) but the conclusion is wrong.

Capitalists are, by their very nature, in competition with one another. They are not a group that colludes. If they did, they would no longer be "me first" capitalists, would they? They would be something else: oligarchists. Ah, but they cannot be oligarchists because the power structure changes with subsequent generations, technology, and politics.

To examine the conclusions, we must ask ourselves "can the individual citizen come to objective conclusions and make intelligent use of his political rights?" Well, in the last election 51% of the people voted for Bush and 48% for Kerry. Unless you assert that there is no difference in that choice (and I am sure that some will assert that...) then you must admit that different people have come to different conclusions and thus have made different choices.

Were the conclusions objective? Well, objective simply means that you use relevant facts and viewpoints when coming to a decision. Wikipedia: objective approach Obviously, the emphasis placed on different facts and viewpoints differs from person to person, but the process remains objective as long as relevant facts and viewpoints are the basis of the decision making.

Of course, Einstein himself gave us the theory of relativity, which states that every observation depends on the observer's frame of reference. Therefore, Einstein believed that everything was relative, so it is odd that he places such emphasis on "objectivity".

2, Is this a truism that will last for eternity?

No. There will always be alternative sources of information in a capitalist society due to the competitive nature of the system. In a socialist society (advocated by Einstein), there is an inherent incentive to frame information in a certain fashion in order to convince individuals to give up their self-interest for the good of the society. Since theoretically there is no competitive basis in a socialist system, there is no mechanism for alternative viewpoints to emerge (at least in the approved fashion). Information, therefore, is naturally just another resource that needs to be sheparded and used for the good of society. Not good, in my opinion.

1, what specific evidence do you have to prove Einstein is right or wrong.

The specific evidence I will put forward to refute Einstein is the Internet. This did not exist in his day, but through the Internet, the big news outlets can be challenged, and the budgets don't have to be nearly as huge.

Consider local newspapers. Yep, you've got your conglomerates running a bunch of them too, but some are independent:

The Independent

Then there are the blogs that have been developing over the past few years. I think a trend is underway to bring news back down to the local level and to provide outlets for stories that don't make it to the big outlets.

2, Is this a truism that will last for eternity?

Nothing will last for eternity, at least in the news business. Grassroots news on the Internet coordinated efforts to stop the invasion/liberation of Iraq. This was unsuccessful in stopping the war, but it was successful in getting more people out on the streets than ever before.

AD is an especially worthwhile place to test ideas and to debunk fake news. While the main media reports that a pony came to visit, ADers love to point out the pile of pony droppings left behind. I'm not sure how effective this is for helping people to be more aware, but it's better than simply depending on the main media.

The Internet also brings bogus news sites. They are all over the place, but at least with forums like this, the validity of the sites can be looked over.

But then some folks won't change their opinions no matter what the facts are. Eh, that might be eternal.

Your example of Jordan in my book is so off base. Equating physical ability with intellectual ability is to me anti-intellectual common sense. Maybe you equate sports with intellectuals but I don't even see anything close to it. I know of intelelctuals who are very talented in many areas, one in history, physics, science, writing, engineering. Yes there are some smart athletes that coulsd actually be involved in this debate and maybe Jordan is a intellectual giant, I just have not heard of his intellectual abilities to date.

And here we have a president who is in charge of so many intricate issues and he was at best a cheerleader is the only analogy I can come close with.

So I find your specific example of Jordan lacking. Can you find a better example, I know what you are saying/getting at but lets get better examples to debate. I assume your premise is geniuses are limited to their field of art.

I do not know why debating the media is pointless, even Einstein who was from a era where government “Hitler” used it and he also saw what capitalism did with it. I find it very enlightening. CNN was only on cable at the time of its launch and had a nothing market share for many years. Ted sold it a heck of a long time ago and it has gone down hill, it is trash with Rush’s girlfriend Darron, Lou, Paula, Larry King, Nancy et al partisan rightys on it. Maybe it is pointless because you like the propaganda of saying it is liberal. Again a nicely crafted bit of propaganda that Einstein is talking about.

Ted Turner sold his controlling interest in CNN to AOL/Time Warner. CNN doesn't even have have a Democratic coloring to its news coverage, let alone leftist and certainly not leftist with made up facts like those used repeatly at Fox.

Citing statistic about what jounalists believe versus the public is hardly meaningful. Presumably, journalist follow events more carefully than the general public and their opinions should be better informed. However, what they believe is not the controlling factor determing what makes it to our TV sets and newspapers. The publishers and producers, heavily influenced by their owners, determine that.

One example of the total lack of major media coverage is the air war in Iraq. Ownership inluence is illustrated by the Arab Prince who called Rupert Murdoch and got a banner changed within 30 minuets. Several links and excerpts follow explaining these examples.


(See this Dahr Jamil Article).

(See WorldNetDaily Article).

I agree with the fact that his conclusion is wrong indeed.



I am sorry Amlord, I have read these lines a few times, and I still do not understand what you are trying to say. Capitalism and Oligarchy are not two things that exclude eachother. In fact they fit perfectly together. The richest people in a country always tend to form an elite group (the good old boys) and in most cases will use their money to gain political influence behind the scenes. Examples of this are numerous and from all times and places.



I am sorry but I do not agree with this paragraph. In your first sentence for example you make as remarkable assumption. You said that due to the competitive nature , there will always be alternative sources of information in a capitalistic society. I do not think alternative sources of information has anything to do with competitiveness in a society. It has everything to do with wanting to hear the real truth. Maybe you can explain?

Your third sentence also defies my logic, but thats probably because it is directly linked with your first sentence.

Inventor, since you repeatedly assert that nearly all media is owned by 'rightys', and you decry capitalist control of media outlets, and around half of the topics you have started center around your perceived bias in media.........what is your solution?

The diametric opposite of capitalists control of media, is that of government........and nobody has yet put forth a viable, repeat viable middle ground solution, how would you solve Einstein's dilemma?

In my opinion, anyone who says that they cannot find a multitude of opinions and reporting using all available sources and outlets, is living in a self sustained bubble.


It could also be proposed that this is a favorite subject because you like the propaganda of saying the media is conservative.

Exactly how is that dificult to believe--there is always going to be someone who wants your customers. Information in an information based society--which is undeniably what we now live in--is always going to be worth something to someone.
With the exception of some very classified material--and I will also claim that THAt can also be bought--there is no information that cannot be found with some effort.
As for media outlets--anyone can form their own body of distribution with some effort. For those who expect it to be handed to them, I feel no sorrow.
With todays technologies anyone can produce any media format--with quality equalling any network.
Will it happen overnight? No--but these days it has a good chance of happening that fast. Like anything else a little work will get you far.
It wouldn't take long for info sources to become availible--people always want to talk.

The whole "Big bad corporations" is generally a whine from those who believe everything should be handed to them. Corporations control only what they are allowed to control if no one tries to build the better mousetrap.

That is a completely separate debate in itself; I think my initial analogy stands up. Being an expert in one field does not make you an expert in another. If it makes you feel better exchange Michael Jordan with Bobbie Fisher.


TedN5, your attempt at claiming that the Iraqi news coverage is somehow has a “conservative bias” is remarkable. Is the consistent fixation on every negative aspect of what is going on there not enough for you? How much more pessimistic and gloomy does the coverage have to be to sate your appetite? I have heard a lot more about this alleged Al-Walid Murdoch thing than the CNN producers who were telling their journalists to jack up the emotional outrage on air.

CNN’s news coverage is just as bias as any time in its history. At least FOX hasn’t lowered itself to putting Xs over prominent members of government. Which by the way CNN claimed was an accident (FOX has also denied Al-Walid’s claim). This is exactly why debating this type of stuff is pointless, because no one believes their side is getting a fair hand in the media.

there are probably a few, as we know our military is in reality a socialist organization, so are many other things in our society like putting electric and phone in remote areas. There is no reason we do not allow one TV station to either be aired by the minority party completely when all branches of government are controlled by one party. There is no reason in our capitalist society that all other radio and TV channels do not competitively bid for the other channels like we do for concessionaires in our national parks, our national parks are our socialist parks and so are our airwaves. and so are our streets and highways. Next if one party does not control all branches the TV is broken into proportionate segments like 2 days for the dems, one day for greens, three for the right, one for the militia. those national platforms can run whatever they want possibly no commercials. this would be funded by the airwave revenue. This would be worth trying. Same with radio, the DNC, RNC and two other partys would get their own stations.

Not sure if it is Einstein’s dilemma but can be done as above where several national parties get free airtime.

Some people do not own computers and have the available time to be on one like you. Some people have three jobs, which is "uniquely american" (per Bush)

I would counter that that with I am taking a point of view that is not said by the media, I am differing with them, and am open to the debate of it. I am not assuming the status quo stated position is a fact as someone calling it stupid to debate. I am Not calling or inferring it a silly thing to discuss.

In a normal open socialistic society this is also possible. Information is always important no matter if you live in an open capitalistic society or an open socialistic society and there will always be people trying to spread different opinions/thruths. Besides that in a socialistic society one also has access to internet and objective newspapers. Why is socialism always stereotyped as a system that takes away freedom from the people?

Under normal circumstances people can have access to different sorts of media. it doesn't matter if you life in a social-democratic /socialistic society or in a capitalistic society, that's what I mean. It has nothing to do with competitiveness.



Could you please explain this, I have no idea what you mean. But I am interested

You left out an important aspect of capitalism. The push for greater proficiency and profitability usually leads the capitalist to consolidating a greater share of the market. By its very nature it diminishes competitors and the capitalist’s incentive to keep prices down, and likely increases prices for consumers in a monopoly.

Congress and the FCC have been in the business of busting monopolies and stopping mergers under antitrust laws for decades. Bad news for the businessman, good news for the republic. The most famous breakup may be Ma Bell and the creation of a demarcation line between the customer’s private property and the phone company’s lines. If Congress hadn’t acted perhaps businesses and private citizens today would be paying exorbitant charges for daily needs.

Recently however, the trend is reversing in what conservatives call the pursuit of the Ownership Society. Perhaps the most infamous antitrust lawsuit is WorldCom. The fallout from WorldCom successfully dodging FCC lawsuits and going ahead with acquisitions is in the billion-dollar range. Big media conglomerates aren’t insulated from the same pressure to cook the books. More importantly however is the public skepticism keeping pace with the mergers.

FreeSpeech TV and Current TV are but two examples of TV stations run by and for liberals.....so 'we' do 'allow' stations to be run by the minority party. I understand your proposal (I think) but I believe it to be undeniably unfeasible....rotating TV schedules, stations and airtimes based on the current political breakdown, not to mention the temporary nature and fluidity of the workforce mandated by such a system.


Now I'm confused......so you support the idea that if one party controls the three branches of government, then TV does not need to air minority viewpoints?


When buggy whip manufacturers went out of business and people complained that they couldn't get their wagons to keep up with automobiles, did they whine, or did they evolve with society?
Strangely, I don't work three jobs under Bush's presidency, but my Grandfather did under FDR and Truman.........

did you have to bring another sport into the picture? one that brings intellectual into the picture? nice example to confuse the issue....

yes I think my team in high school placed 9th in the midwest and second in state. I was the first freshman to get a varsity letter in sports,,, for chess. (hows that was bragging rights ha, got the babes with that one) I am not aware of Fisher ever entering other areas, but would have liked to see what he thought in many other areas. There have been many other great chess players in the world and for some reason most seem to be Russian. So maybe we could look to see if any of them have entered other areas and are tops. That would be some interesting information. I will say that almost all the top chess players I played with are top Engineers, musicians, lawyers, doctors, artists; intellectuals in general that are very well versed in many areas. That is anecdotal from my experience.

We are way off topic now... Bobby Fisher is obviously a smart individual, but he's also a raving lunatic.

Alright Renger look at it like this--you want internet access?
I can find you basic plans starting at 10 dollars a month.
If that is too much for someone they have much bigger needs than internet access.
How do you know that your papers are objective?
in my experience this has generally meant that they agree with someone's point of view--otherwise they are accused of being puppets or fake.
I watch no particular channels--i distrust anything sponsored by anyone. I go through it all and look for consistencies, what seems to add up. After awhile the bias of each particular venue becomes easy to spot. certain key phrases start appearing regularly.
That and a little careful research can quickly make you better informed than any news source by itself--just read some of the posters here. Some of the AD regulars have research talents to make reporters and detectives look lazy and inept--tick off Wertz someday and try to hit him with a weak argument--game over.

As for socialism--socialism DEPENDS on others sacrificing and wanting no better than anyone else. You have to be willing to settle for less. On the other hand with Capitalism--what you are willing to sacrifice for and to build you can have.
It requires effort and some determination--not just accepting handouts.

Is Capitalism selfish?

YES!

and i don't really feel bad about it--why?

because if I put in the work and the effort and the sacrifice--then why should i allow it to be parceled out to others?
I have my own family to feed and care for--and then would come friends and then would come causes i believe in.
Why should I support others--let them take care of themselves and their own--who gives them the right to force me to care for theirs?
I have my own life and live it like I wish--because I can pay for my own needs and am dependent on nobody else.
I want a better life, so i have been back at school and learning skills that are marketable--Therefore i am worth more money to potential employers. I put in the late hours and sacrificed my free time when i could have been having fun--but in the end the gain will far outweigh that cost.
Socialism would tell me its unfair to others for me to succeed and have more--and maybe MUCH MUCH more --than others.
If my business were to become successful eventual I might even reach evil corporatist status .

people want a news source more to their liking or meeting THEIR personal idea of fair and unbiased--Start your Own. if its worth anything people will pay attention--and even pay to have it.

People need to have more faith in what they can do. humanity has a lot of potential.
Its long past time for people to remember that.

I do not understand what you are getting at. Internet access for 10 bucks a month, seems a good deal. So?



Again what are you getting at? Of course I do not have proove that the Dutch papers are 100% objective. No paper can claim to be that. And what has that got to do with the fact that I disagree with Amlords statement that socialism, due to its lack of competitiveness, makes it impossible for other alternative viewpoints to emerge.



Socialism is about equality with a strong focus on social welfare and healthcare. I agree.



What less? Less money due to high taxes, in return for a good healthcare system?
Socialism does not exclude having a nice career, chasing your dreams, getting rich. Everything is possible.



And if you fail, it is game-over. That's the ugly side of capitalism.



Can you proove this, cause that is not what I see as socialism?



Something I fully agree with.

The way Einstein portrayed socialism exactly as Karl Marx did. He bemoans the fate of the worker as he is subject to the capitalist--exactly as Karl Marx did.

What he failed to realize is the opportunities the system he is railing against gave HIM!! A poor, Jewish boy becoming one of the influential scientists of his day!!

Einstein says:


So he acknowledges the competition among capitalists, but he says it is a bad thing. He admits (previously) that it fuels technological advances, but he complains that technology leads to higher unemployment.

Again, we see empirically the error of his thought process. In the "capitalist" United States, unemployment is low. In the more "socialist" Europe, unemployment is higher. How can we explain this if Einstein's (Marx's) theory is correct?

Capitalism raises everyone. Why? Simply put, everyone is a capitalist. Every worker, no matter what his background or education, can choose to invest his income (his capital), however small. In fact, if he chooses to invest that capital in himself (his very own business or education) the payback is immense.

Back to information. Information is a commodity. It has a market. It has consumers. It has suppliers. This was true in the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church controlled much of the learning centers, and it is true today. People have always paid for knowledge.

In the modern era, information is cheaper than ever because of technology. It employs more people than ever, thanks to technology. It is in the hands of capitalists, but those capitalists are so widespread and diverse that the information market cannot be controlled by any one monopoly. Indeed, the only monopoly that could control the information industry is the government and it could only do so through force of arms. I think we can agree that no one wants that.

But you protest that the government (at least the socialist government) would never do such a thing. Yet the communist governments of Cuba, China and the USSR all tried (and partially succeeded) in limiting access to information. They did so by limiting access to technology to the masses. This still goes on in many countries today (such as China).

In the "pure capitalist" society, information is widespread because each opinion is valued by a different set of consumers. Information which is viewed by some as bunk is taken in by others as gospel. Each viewpoint has consumers and thus is available to any who wish to consume it. That doesn't mean that each viewpoint is valued equally, but each is available and as widespread as the market for it is.

If you complain that a certain viewpoint is not heard enough, consider the fact that it is not valued as highly. Under capitalism, suppliers will appear to fill the demands for any product, including (and especially) information.

Let's consider Einstein's conclusions:


He admits that the proper education system is essential for the socialist society to function. In other words, the government controls education and directs the education of the individual to stress one point of view: social goals. In other words, it would subvert the desires of the individual for the goals set by the planners of society.

Of course, the fly in the ointment is that the planners of society are only human, only fallible. It took only a few years for the grand experiment in Russia to turn to tyranny. At least under capitalism, a man with a good idea is able to gather a little something for himself and do with it as he pleases. Under a socialist system, only the planners decide what is best for each individual. Unless those planners are both selfless and infallible, the system inevitably fails.

Very nice find.. very interesting. he said
Remember some of the righty religious fanatics also said we in some respect deserved 9-11 for the immoral americans wasn't it. So they are right there with Fisher. I don't agree with any of them.

And back to topic in defense of Einstein, Fisher was not known for being an intellectual Einstein was as I will show. In many areas. Have you ever read his numerous sayings, like the one I posted at the bottom of my posts "imagination is more important than knowledge". This one alone; is it physics or is he a genius in this area also, same with the other 50 or more.
http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/einstein_albert/ note he was a dyslexic and note they note many were mis-spelled.

Here is some background on him many big ideas. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/


Hmmm, though it seems many here on this board believe Einstein was very limited and should keep him mouth shut on politics world affairs, (possibly by their own limied thought process) how many of you are being offered presidencies of countries????????? without a vote?



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/...ain547722.shtml

Yes, I am smarter than Einstein but I don't think he's wrong about this. Specific evidence? Well, I don't own a TV station for one. Never will. Also when I have an objection to some mass media tripe, I or anyone else I personally know for that matter, or anybody like me, won't get airtime to say it. I find rational informed opinions on major issues all the time, but it's not from TV or radio or the news paper so much. It's not from places which take no effort to find. People can't just passively expect to be fed the truth, which is what the mass media is all about, about not "losing" their audience by asking them to use their heads. People also can't get an education of the world between commercials.

It's impossible to focus and to think seriously about anything with some pretentious advertisement running, and when I say "pretentious advertisement" I'm being completely redundant. You can't be real in your head while accepting something so unreal into your consciousness at the same time, which may be why there are some news stories you'd think would stir people to do something, but nothing happens.

I'll just say that about the first question. For the second, yes it's an eternal truism as long as the conditions exist for it. Individuals will fail to be objective or know what's happening - really - as long as there is so much support for shoddy information and just plain misinformation. I mean if it didn't work, it wouldn't survive. If it didn't actually succeed in stupefying people, then it wouldn't be able to continue. There'd be no continuing money or support for it. It's like what they say about the Devil, that "his" greatest evil is to convince you he doesn't exist, his greatest sucess. The same is true of propaganda. When people think they are not being influenced by it, that's the only time it can succeed.

People are convinced they're not effected by it, but propaganda plays to people's ego's and their need to "know" they have made up their own minds. No one wants to know they've been manipulated. Propaganda is not propaganda if that need isn't factored into it, and it doesn't work if it's not sucessfully factored in.

are these broadcast all over the US? never seen freespeech tv or heard of it and current is not a partisan political channel. I am talking about a major channel on sat, cable, airwaves that is partisan to the degree of Fox. to un-spin the spin. Not a real fair and balanced channel.


it is inversely proportionate if no monopoly by one party.

1, what specific evidence do you have to prove Einstein is right or wrong.

I don’t think you have to prove anyone wrong. You cannot escape the fact that people that are in control of things, or are in the position to control something might in turn have an effect on it, the simple act of observation can have an impact on something. To say something like maybe a powerful black politician might use his or her position to act on things important to him or her, should this be looked at as wrong or what not. I think the point that I am getting that might be missing here is how wrong is it if such was to be the only option in terms of obtaining information, after all a central nervous system in terms of thinking can only really think on what it knows.

2, Is this a truism that will last for eternity?

I don’t know, human nature and nurture is a mystery to modern primates.

Yes he acknowledges competition among capitalists and rightfully stresses the potential danger in these developments.


Eventhough he wrote 60 years ago in a complete different world, his warning is precisely what happened in the U.S., the most capitalistic country in the world. (a nice example is of course the Gargyle group and its direct ties with the Bush administration, I hope I do not have to explain that this is not in the best interest of the American people or the U.S. democracy.)



I don't know, maybe because a lot of European countries are still struggling with the change occurred with the introduction of the Euro and the Stability pact? Sounds like a good explaination. Especially if one acknowledge the fact that other European countries who did not introduce the Euro (like Denmark or Switserland) are doing economically better than countries like Germany, Holland or France. Besides that socialist Europe does not lack capitalism.



And as I said before, if you fail, it is game over. No one to help you, cause everybody is too busy surviving themselves. The ugly side of capitalism.



In a socialistic society you also have consumers (readers) and suppliers (mass media). As if only capitalistic societies has a thirst for knowledge and the truth.



Yes, I agree with fully you on this one.



I already was afraid that you would use the USSR, Cuba and China to proove your point. I do not support any of these countries or their political ideology. It is clear that up till now communism (an extreme form of socialism!) has failed to evolve into a decent political alternative. All communistic governments have produced a political oligarchy and tried to dominate popular thought. This is unacceptable.



This applies to capitalistic as well as socialistic societies. Information distribution is not something inherent to capitalism. That's where we disagree.

Inventor, for all your agreeing with me (and disagreeing), you have not yet proven (or attempted to prove) that capitalist influence on the media leads to a loss of political rights.

You agree with me that media in the US and in Europe are influenced by capitalists. However, where is the demonstrated loss of political rights due to this?

I have already granted that Einstein's contention that capitalists will influence, to one degree or another, information. What I contest is his conclusion: that this leads to a less well-informed public who cannot exercise their basic political rights.

I agree with you Amlord. I also do not see the link between corporate dominance in the media and loosing political rights. What is happening, in my opinion, is the fact that people, because of the competition between newschannels, are being avalanched with different opinions, aspects, details, mud-slinging etc 24/7. I am worried that people are not prepared to do deal with so much information and opinions and will get more and more confused and frustrated by the news. At this moment quantity seems the rule, quality comes second. That's a worriesome development.

I'd have to disagree here Renger. I would say it is not the number of sources that are the problem, nor the amount of information. I would say it is human behavior at its simplest. People want to hear what they WANT to hear. If they don't get that you get accusations of unbalanced or "false" reporting.

People will gravitate towards sources that present info they believe "true" and naysay the rest.

You are right to stress the prejudices of people. A lot of times people indeed only want to hear want they think is the truth. It doesn't matter how much information is out there, some people are just really subborn in their opinion. It almost minimalises the importance of media in general. Why do we need so many news stations, so much data, so much opinions if what they say hardly changes peoples opinion. How important is the truth then?

I think people always want to know more about the world around them, but are loosing the context of things because of the unlimited access to information. It could be that people still have to adapt to the rise of modern mass media?


The world is globalizing and is getting smaller and smaller, but are we mentally ready for this change? Just a side-question

Current TV is on DirecTV, Comcast Cable in the LA area and Time-Warner Cable in the NYC area. If you don't believe it to be of a serious liberal leaning, then I surmise that you haven't watched it.
Free Speech TV (FSTV) is on DISH Network and 140 community access channels across the nation. Both are just as accessible to pay TV subscribers as is FNC.

I don't mean this to come off as too critical, but you seem to keep moving the goalposts in your argument against the current media. You lament the corporate or 'righty' ownership of many MSM outlets, but are not aware of the many other options available to you and every other American citizen. I have no love for the state of cable news channels, not to mention network news. But for all the hue and cry over corporate ownership or how FNC is satan in digital form, it is absolutely undeniable that anybody of every political bent or conspiracy theory can find an outlet that appeals to them, or that gives news that they think is the truth.

Because that is what it truly boils down to. People will believe what they want to believe. If they are anti-conservative, they won't believe anything on FNC, because they think it leans right. If they are anti-liberal, they won't believe anything on NPR or CNN, because they believe it leans left. It is perfectly acceptable in my opinion to critique the mainstream media as shallow, greedy and sensation driven. It comes off as partisan whining when people claim that there is no outlet that they find acceptable.
Christopher summed up succinctly when he said:
People will gravitate towards sources that present info they believe "true" and naysay the rest.

I think it is quite an easy solution- don't allow corporations to own more than one newspaper- or one radio station, or one TV station, period. The reason we are in this trouble was the loosening of the regulations that allowed too much ownership of the media outlets. Don't even allow the networks to own the stations themselves- allow the local channels to pick and choose thier news items, and make it impossible for a news network to censure them in any way for what they choose to run.

This would lead to a truly free press.

Or as Robert Hienlien (to me the most famous and best libertarian) said (paraphrasing) "got to a time when anyone with a hand operated printing press can make the news" .

I'm going to espouse a slightly different take on this. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, you are correct about ownership. I think the "proof" that the Corporate secret weapon is working is the elections. You see, I think the Corporations realised that if you allow the libs to get on their networks and expose themselves daily, the general public will run rapidly in the opposite direction. It appears to be working...




I certainly hope so

On the other hand, I'm always amazed at how evil Corporations are looked upon by liberals. I just saw an article on the funding of the Anti-Alito effort. Millions is being funneled by groups from AT&T, FoMoCo, Wal-Mart and the likes to oppose Alito. Liberals ought to be sending Christmas, er Holiday, cards to EbilCorporations dotcom...
Human Events

If you mean "free" in the sense of the first amendment, yes BUT... it would not be "free" in the sense that you would be exponentially increasing the operating costs for local media, making them much less profitable, at least in the short term.

I see where you are going with this, but it's a paradigm shift that I'm not sure would work. You don't just "pick a news item" to run, you need a reporter in the field, camera crew, production, etc. (we aren't going back to one chain-smoking white guy at a desk anytime soon) So, if you can only own one station, then a la carte content providers would spring up to serve this market.

The problem is, it's expensive to produce content and America doesn't want to see carlito's minicam news, so stations would go to professional content providers. Like any other industry, the good content producers will consolidate into video reuters, video AP, TV networks, etc. And whaddaya know - "righty" corporations control the organizations who sell your local news their content. Problem not solved.

The rich irony in this debate is that we are living in this time. What is The Daily Kos if not a guy with a (virtual) hand-operated printing press? We are worried about "righty" corporate control of media, and we are doing that worrying right here, using a medium that is controlled by no corporation, righty or otherwise.

I'm going to have to stop you right there. Not even the most ardent capitalist economists make this argument. Capitalism does not raise everyone. Feel free to argue the merits of capitalism (I'm inclined to agree with you on most of it), but do not fall into the trap of blind faith in the system. There are definite losers. Real income, share of the GNP, etc. have all stagnated for a great many people in a great many places despite the general dissolution of the liberal economic order over the last thirty years.

I think you nailed this part on the head.

My way of thinking is human nature is more of a fixed known/constant than as some have pointed out there are a few holes in some of his physics theories. It would be fitting that what he is not famous for may be more important to humanity than his reality, more eternally important than his physics endeavors.

After all aren't the greatest artists never recognized when they are alive.





A point I would like to make, if you notice on the other threads on media until I found the Einstein words, some of those on the right vionmently debate ownership does not lead to propaganda and the media is “liberal”. Now I am seeing a sway/seeing a major change that most do see that it can have an influence, though the concession seems to be only corporate. Now seems we are shifting to can it effect the political thinking/thoughts if I catch what you are saying. Is the loss of political rights similar in concept of being manipulated on issues. Do you lose political rights when you are being brain washed? Is that one in the same? The answer for me is would you have made the same decision if both sides of the argument were played/ received , would you have taken a different action or different opinion? To me this is a loss of political rights.

I have to say I understand his statement very clearly as Einstein seemed to discuss it
There are many examples, Kind of like reading and understanding the theory of relativity, some will never grasp it and others it is simple.

Axiom 1, first we know that repetition works for advertising, companies do not spend big bucks to advertise because it does not work.

Axiom 2, we know that repetition works to modify human behavior/beliefs. Commonly called learning.

Axiom 3, we know that when the repetition is done by a perceived trustworthy source is more effective. (the reverse psychology of the righty propaganda machine in calling the media liberal so their canned messages are subliminally accepted, oh “I heard it on the liberal media” that is actually carefully crafted by right wing think tanks where they figure out how to manipulate the masses)

Axiom 4, we can learn by receiving information in the media

First as stated in number one if you repeat a lie enough people believe it as fact. I think that was one of Hitlers Gerblings principles of propaganda.

Next we have in engineering terms, noise in the mix. This noise is brought in via amplification in at least two forms. One is multiple source amplification and the second is a false faith amplification.

Repeating from various different sources (owning the main stream media that reaches 95% of the public. This statistically increases the probability that the human will accept it as fact because of repetition and multiple times hearing it from different sources. This in effect give it maybe the effect of mathematically squaring the sound amplification. This seems to be very elementary and obvious to me.

Second form of amplification is the false faith amplification noise. Yell and scream it is the liberal media for a false positive and force the propaganda out through the backdoor. I.E. take or remove the guard filtering hesitation people naturally have to being told things, the doubting Thomas’s we have within. By having a “quote” trusted source say something mathematically cubes in strength the amplification of propaganda acceptance. ( a good example is the military paying to place information without being named in Iraq media, this gave a false positive to the people; another that is not perfect example is J Miller at the Times cheerleading the war, I would really like to know if her clearance she has was because she was CIA, her lies on the war gave a false positive to liberals)




The media, at the best can point to two stations that are in neverland. Dontreadonme presents as evidence that some supposed partisan liberal format is on 140 city cables, this is what I say is a cause for intellectual distrust, this figure is so misleading, I can play this game, gee there are what over 33,000 cities and they cover 140. much a do about nothing less than a half of percent. http://www.hometownusa.com/ Next I will guess it is not a partisan liberal source, just another barney station. Yep to some on the right Barney is a partisan liberal. Get a clue, we are talking political partisanship. Yes I do remember people calling into Rush’s show and calling him a liberal, is it just that those on the right are blind or is it they are dumb?

I think we can now agree that it is a lie when someone says that the media is liberal. When they speak of the media are they talking about current TV?

Yes I have seen current TV, which puts on viewer made clips. Yep it is so left like-as to the right like these political partisans; Rush, Hannity, Hume, Paula, Larry King, Paul Harvey, Dr. Laura, Fox, North, Liddy, Keys, Sinclair, Kafferty, Rev Gram, Pat Roberson, Mike Savage, Mike Reagan, O’Ro\ieley, JC watts, Bill Kristol, Laura Engram, Glen Beck, John Bachelor, Lou Rukeyser, Armstron Williams, Mike Galager, don Imas, Bob Dormon, Joe Scarburo, Bob Novak, Tucker Carlson, Buchanan, Bill Snider William Buckley Ann Coulter, George Will. And many more. So who is on current TV? Give us some names of the political commentary on current TV the “quote” new overtly liberal partisan network that you can not get at home.

Fox has several stations sat, cable, and broadcast not just as accessible as you elude to.

Intellectual distrust? The facts are what they are, I notice that you didn't disprove them, you just don't like them. My point is and always has been is not that the mainstream media is necessarily liberal, but that you are able to find the news/spin/propaganda that caters to your worldview. The problem might lie in the fact that you are guessing.

Why don't you investigate for yourself, instead of deflecting and bringing a purple dinosaur into the discussion. Really, Barney???


No 'we' do not agree. Thank you for your opinion, but kindly do not affix it to everyone else. That would be intellectual distrust.......

Bringing up an alleged caller to the Rush Limbaugh show repeatedly is completely irrelevant to this debate. Do you know the political affiliation of the caller? The mental stability? The reason for the call i.e prank?
No, you do not, but we are expected to take your word and use this nonsensical tidbit as some sort of fact for your argument? That would be intellectually distrusting on our part.

Uh...Fox has one news channel..........broadcast on usually two mediums, three if you count the website. I suppose Fox SportsNet could be biased to the right.......

And just who exactly is this Gerblings character? Maybe you mean Goebbels. Really if you wish to bring Hitler's minions into a debate on the political bent of the media numerous times, you could get the spelling right. Just remember that the lies propagated do not always come from the right. The left lies just as often, and those lies find their way to cable and network news, not just those from the right.

Where do you get the news that you trust? If you name off any sources from a broadcast, print or internet medium, then your repeated assertions lose ground with me. You can find the propaganda that is to your liking, are you simply against others finding what is to their liking?

I am getting a bit confused here..

Media is "liberal" v.s. media is "right-wing". Should the information media channels not strive to be objective and neutral in their reports?

It leads me to a curious question:

Are there any newschannels in the U.S. that are regarded "neutral" and "objective"?

I guess that depends on who you ask
For me, FNC lives up to it's "Fair and Balanced", but since it's place on the continuum is to the right of NPR and CNN, that makes it "Right". It's all a matter of perspective.
FNC inevitably puts on one person from each point of view. Even the libs who are regulars are vocal about how well they are treated. I've seen their headliner, O'Reilly savage Bush and others on the right like you'd never see the MSM do to their heros.

Perhaps we can shed light upon this debate by referring to what happened in the "good old days" when media was not controlled by capitalists (notice, Einstein never said right wing capitalists, simply capitalists).

During the American Revolution, how did people get their information?

Let's see, we have the newspaper. How did they behave during the tumultuous times? The Changing Role of Printers and Newspapers



Ah, so even in the good old days, printers (one of the few sources of information) were "partisan".

The article continues:


In times of tumult, printers could not stay objective due to economic forces. Aha!! one might say: capitalists! But which would be preferable, partisan papers (of both stripes) or a nation of newspapers controlled by only one side--the government.

During the revolution, the other sources of information would have been gossip (still available), pamphleteers (a single issue newspaper), and orators. Oration may be a lost art in these days, but it need not be so. I could go to the mall and stump on any issue I wanted. In fact, oration has taken a turn and many orators of yesteryear have become comedians today. I just watched George Carlin (in "Life is Worth Losing") last night rail against the "owners of America who want to keep us all dumb and contented". He leaves out any mention of how a high school dropout like himself could become successful, but we're all short-sighted I guess. Carlin is funny and has a counter-message and no one seems to be keeping him out of people's homes.

Returning to the Revolution, I guess the media