Well, that makes 2. You plus Mary Mapes equals the sum total of people who believe that the burden of proof is on the viewing public, not the "news" professionals who broadcast the news. Congratulations.

Yes indeed. Misstating "week" instead of "month" is indeed a form of alzheimer's. Congratulations on making fun of millions of people with a tragic disease in order to make yourself feel better.

Let me make this clear for you. If I wanted to debate the intricacies of fonts, OCR software and Vietnam-era IBM typewriters with someone who would insult me personally, type in endlessly-lowercased-illogical tangents, and occasionally shout "Timothy McVeigh righty conspiracy," then you would be my first choice. I trust that you will understand why I respectfully will not engage in such debate. God Speed to you in your quest to educate people otherwise.

hmmm seems curious, by default only dems seem to be speaking out about the requirements to have to spend so much to get equal access to the media. Seems to me the republicans seem to like it as is. Isn't this in itself another fact that backs up Einstein's theory of corporatists. As we know republicans yell with both lungs as loud as one can here from shore to shore if something is not equal and complain about it till the day does not end. Here is another person of high worldly esteem with more experience than the average armchair quarterback.

If the media is so un-important why was 2 billion spent on this non-presidential election cycle? Geee if you were to read what many posters say in the various media threads one would conclude those who just spent 2 billion with a B did not know what they were doing, that the armchair quarterbacks know better. Yep the media is not important to influencing the public. And gee ownership has no benefit.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6439233


carlitoswhey BTW it was not a day or as you now say a month, it was closer to two months. In the real world of engineering where numbers make a real difference this is a significant differential.

Also if you care to read it is far more than two. In fact just the group that was hired to look at the issue in real detail came back and said they could not prove they were false. I have not seen any credible source listed by you that has shown them to be false. Even the president never came out and said they were false or denied what the secretary or other officer who was there at the time said.

and best of all another Timmy boy mcveigh righty type just surfaced recently after listening from the radio I believe.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_st...net_should_.htm

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/44336/

http://dailynews.com/news/ci_4654304
Castagana "described himself as a compulsive voter who votes Republican, and he said that he sent the letters to specific individuals because he did not like their liberal politics," according to an FBI affidavit.

Here is another right corporatist that I recently found that gives reported 33 million a year to right wing causes including as Einstein said the control of education. His grants go to control education positions. Strange how the media does not go after him like they go after soros?

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11219
Right Wing Organizations


Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation



Activities

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

It makes no economic sense for a media source to be biased one way or the other on an issue for which there is no wide concensus, because it makes the most money when the most people partake in it. When its biased it not only loses most of its customers who disagree with it, but it also loses those who agree with it, but happen to want unbiased source of raw information.

The biggest problem with the capitalist free press is that it often makes mountains out of mole hills in order to increase public interest in whats going on in the world, and often even gets people killed in the process. Two idiot blokes from the BBC decided to misattribute and take out of context the words of Pope Benedict during a multi-hour speech of his, which barely even talked about Islam and...well you saw what happened.

The Right is certain that the media is a Leftist entity and that Fox is Centrist and just seems Right because in comparison it is. They point to the NYT, ABC and MSNBC as defacto proof.

The Left is certain that the media is a Rightist entity and point to (interestingly) the NYT and omissions of their current conspiracy theory.

The media is clearly doing it's job properly - everyone hates them.

But the point is that for the Media grads are generally not chemistry, physics etc. but sociology, journalism etc. AND we ALL had to take courses including politics, where the profs ideology could come through loud and clear. I was in undergrad in the 1969-72 years (economics and engineering) and I can tell you my profs for many subjects were either far left or communists and proud of it. So these folks get to give us their slant regardless of major. Certainly this is more prevalent in the NE and west but where are the major journalism schools?

My point is the “media” is dominated by liberals. Certainly no one would call NPR, or CBS neutral.

Einstein was a genius when it came to mathematics and physics.

When it came to politics, economics, and many other topics, he was a certifiable dolt.

William Shockley was a scientific genius who invented the transistor at Bell Labs... arguably the greatest invention of the modern generation. It made all modern electronics, the computers, the cell phones, the TV's, etc., possible.

Yet he endorsed a racial eugenics philosophy what would have made Himmler and the rest of the Third Reich proud. He proposed that based on his study of "genetics" that "blacks were inherently inferior".

Shockley article

Do you think you are smarter than Shockley?

Smart people are not smart in all areas. In the case of Einstein, he was very "specialized". As was Shockley.

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

Here, I must assume Einstien's implications are the same as if the quotation were to end with the phrase "when based solely or primarily on the main sources of information."

From a standpoint of debating the validity of economic capitalism, it is not in a major news capitalist's financial interest to impose an editorial viewpoint that capitalism should be completely abolished in favor of a strict form of socialism. From such a perspective, Dr. Einstein's assertion simply stands to reason and requires no significant evidence except perhaps the routine documentation that wealthy individuals (capitalists) have controlling interest in most media organizations, which own most of the main sources of information; evidence which is readily available.

However, it must be pointed out that for all issues other than economic capitalism, the viewpoints of our current media capitalists range from neoconservatives like Rupert Murdoch to neosocialists like Ted Turner, with a spectrum of political viewpoints in between. Those who peruse several well-chosen "main sources of information" can therefore "come to objective conclusions" and "make intelligent use of [their] political rights" on most issues other than whether to replace capitalism with socialism. The key is to be informed of the particular topics upon which each source is most objective or most biased: to "consider the source". To expect one source to always deliver reliable information on every topic is to remain willfully naiive of the way human nature manifests itself in organizations.

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

Today's widely-held corporations without dominant shareholders sometimes operate internally as microcosms of socialism within a larger context of capitalism, to the extent that it might not actually be against such a corporation's interests to openly promote a transition to socialism. Such a situation is more common today than it was in Einstein's time.

Furthermore, with the decentralization of monolithic paleomedia to more diverse neomedia, it is more difficult to assign an inescapable, inherent capitalist bias to trusted blogs costing less than a few hundred dollars to own and operate. If anything, any bias of the neomedia would seem inherently anti-establishment, otherwise, the participants would probably try to establish or collaborate financially with larger paleomedia groups. A happy balance between the "professional" paleomedia and the neomedia's "long tail" of "amateur" citizen journalists seems to be offering an increasing amount of both objectivity and subjectivity to those with access to the technology and a desire to seek out the truth.

If Dr. Einstein were around today, he'd probably write his quotation above in the past tense, then speak in glowing terms of the possibilities computer-mediated communication has to offer, as well as pointing out whatever weaknesses it needs to overcome. I doubt the situation is as bleak today as it might have been in Dr. Einstein's day. I also doubt Einstein would be as concerned that socialism hasn't been given a fair shake at our point in history-- its theory and structures have proven too susceptible to tyrannical corruption to be safely risked, at least not until all its known weaknesses have been fully addressed and rigorously tested on smaller scales. But that's a topic for a different discussion.

I would respectfully disagree with your point about it does not make economic sense on several levels. One philosophical and the other practical.

On the philosophical side we can look at some ultra rich people who do not buy media for money but to get their message out, Rev Moon is a great example of this, it is inferred by many that the right wing paper the Washington Times has never turned a profit. Then as I have listed in this and many threads people like the Bradleys, Coors, Olins, Scaife, lord Black all ultra righys have given fortunes to their causes and my bet this is the tip of the iceberg.

Next on the economic side, GE purchased NBC many years ago, and Westinghouse purchased CBS many years ago. Remember the days when defense contractors were being nailed by independent reporters. Seems this came to an end when GE and Westinghouse both defense contractors, energy, aerospace, medical companies purchased the 2 out of three of the major networks back then. So lets assume that that the big money is spent in military spending and healthcare et al. Keeping the public from hearing negative reports on these highly profitable ventures may be well worth the small cost of owning a media source. There is a saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. IE fighting a little bad PR could cost 10 times more than stopping it from getting out.

Plus you get a competitive advantage, you can put out your propaganda for free or reduced cost and your competitors have to pay your company to get their message/spin out. So in essence you can put out your position on the environment and then the sierra club raises all their money to give (put a ad on your network) to or fund their competitors so to speak own propaganda, certainly a viscous incestuous trap.


but the question/challenge is give us examples how Einstein was wrong if you disagree. You posted nothing to show he was wrong but posted that another person was wrong in another area. In my book you just showed how Einstein is above even that person, not that he is lessor.

And I will also defend Einstein, as being the son of another genius I can tell you there are physicists with PhD's that are well versed in many areas. my father has a undergrad in journalism, masters in Engineering and PhD in Physics, as he was born in the USA he also spoke several languages fluently. His co-workers who were PhDs themselves would tell me as a kid how he was in a league above them. Just because you may not have been in the company of real geniuses do not assume you know more and can dismiss a person like Einstein's abilities so easily just because his words do not agree with yours. Do you really think you know Einstein's limitations, or think they are relative to the theory? or was that theory of relativity?


please give me that detailed report on the majors of the talking heads in the media. Boy I can not believe your Engineering classed had politics. I can tell you never in my engineering classes did politics ever get discussed. EVER........ now that is regarding a major, not regardless. I also took about 20-30 hrs of business courses and same in those classes, no politics. Ever...

and again my point is if as you say they are pushing their political beliefs in all classes, seems they have not been very successful in converting the masses have they?

too add some other points, from what I have seen of Journalism tests and from reporters I knew the or an emphasis in their classes is objectivity. If I was trying to slant journalists I would not be teaching them objectivity and how important it is. In fact since you claim or assert most if not all educators are liberals commies and the sort since they are teaching objectivity in the journalism classes this speaks volumes, my guess is if it was controlled by conservatives there would be no objectivity taught, we can look at the journalism school a prominent righty journalist went to to become a journalist, The conservative school which gave this guy papers to get into the white house under Bush was a weekend or week cource and he had passes throughout the white-house over 300-400 times, his background was he was also running a male escort/prostitution service pimping himself. Does Gannon/gucket ring a bell for a top white-house called on reporter to ya. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon Now that week/weekend school of journalism may to the right be a qualifier for being a reporter but I think we can do better.

Even Walter Cronkite went to a red state journalism school in Texas. Dan Rather went to another Texas school for his journalism. Hardly states of liberalism.

Now why are more actual journalists liberals, well why are more military officers conservatives, why are more nurses and teachers liberals, why are present day MDs more conservatives, why are more lawyers conservatives? Why are more people who enlist in the military initially liberals. Now this is one schooling that does use brain washing techniques to modify the political beliefs of the students. Generally once they are out of basic training these former liberals tend to be conservatives. My father an officer brother and both had issues with this in the military. I know of no university that physically and mentally breaks people down as a matter of fact for their education.

And here is a article of/about what journalists (who responded to the poll) think of their corporatist managers and owners of the media. Gee why would we believe the actual journalists who believe/support what Einstein is inferring.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...olumnId=2781901
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3852885

Here is a example of another physicist who can switch hit so to speak very effectively. I know of many who are outstanding in several areas. this below one is a major example, Nobel prise in economics should suffice.http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html

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

Here is another player in the media who obviously is well to do that he gave 9 million in back door money. Seems he is a very partisan media owner. Gee why do we only hear about sorros in the media? want to buy a clue? because the media is owned and controlled by the right who do decide what is put out. Does anyone really think a partisan like this guy does not control what goes on in his media empire.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17037299/

This is pure nonsense. If the private capitalists, who you no doubt think are all right wing nuts, influenced all news then it would all be right biased – which is clearly not the case. There is bias but it is not all “right” or “left”

Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Ted, I have read that entire report before. did not see the link for it. I read the entire thing...

I have found some significant major flaws in it before. I would have failed anyone who passed it on to me. First they do weighting. No problem with doing this but they make a major critical flaw that they do not discuss in their paper. They assume the liberals in congress are not centrist liberals. and they assume that the right congress are as politically not to an extreme as the democrats. Just the fact that he did not understand this which was core to his weighting principle shows how pathetic their grade school paper is. IE it is my belief that the dems who were elected before this lose term paper research were very centrist and not many extremist liberals. Whereas I say the ones elected by the republicans tend to be much more hard core to the extreme side. like delay. Thus by them not even recognising it shows their inability to be objective in anything or they are just stupid, I don't think they are that stupid. So that is why their outcome is so rediculous. they did not understand when using weightying that your basisline needs to be objective and talked about. yes there may be times when the right do not have the extream right and may be more centrist but I do not believe when they did this study was such a time.

Next to show how ridiculous their research is here are a few examples that do not pass a low level sniff test that you even posted. it is so funny to read from their method of weighting that they found the wall street journal's news pages more liberal than the new York Times. That the best is Drudge leans to the left... and anyone with a straight face would give their outcome any credibility is telling. oh the other laughable one is Rev Moons washington times that has been reported to have never made money;( he is a right wing to the max person), his paper only was slightly to the right of center. come on this is so pathetic.

But it appears it is as good as a person from the right can do. After all they do have the hundreds of millions in grants to other people to make fake research like this from people like Olin, Bradley, Coors, Richard Mellon Scaife, T Boone Pickens, Lord Black and so on. and this is the best they can do with all those hundreds of millions, their highly funded think tanks have not even been this perposterious... laughable.

oh this one is great...

.


So all “liberals are centrists and all conservatives are hard core ‘right” Come on please. Can you support this wild allegation?

Actually I read the WSJ and it is rather socially liberal. Of course it is a “financial” paper so to you it no doubt represents all those baaaaaaad “corporatists”.


And We should buy the analysis of FAIR. Left wing FAIR. Ya sure.

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), founded in 1986, is an American organization that works against and documents what it perceives as bias in the media, censorship, and erroneous reporting.
FAIR describes itself on its website as "the national media watch group" and defines its mission as working to "invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints." FAIR refers to itself as a "progressive group"[1]. It is described by Columbia Journalism Review[2] and Media Matters for America[3]as a "liberal media watchdog".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting


And their ranting about how great Chavez is:

The Repeatedly Re-Elected Autocrat
Painting Chávez as a 'would-be dictator'

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4


You must be joking.

Ted, not sure how FAIR was being pulled into our micro debate on the people who said Drudge and moonies paper are almost centrist or wall street journal is more liberal than the NYT but went to your fair link.

Here is what I really found interesting... That the corporatists are blackballing the only real partisan liberal station. over 90 corporatists got together to tell ABC that they will not advertise on AAR. this itself is amazing that 90 huge corporations would get together on this.... shame on these corporatists.... from HP to WalMart... geee even GE who owns NBC is in on this boycott. goo figure..
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2983



Next even the link you provided to Hugo showed how pathetic the reporting of the corporatist NYT was on him.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4


I found this one interesting.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2967

inventor, don't assume everything is a conspiracy. A lot of advertisers avoid all political talk radio, because they're afraid of being boycotted by angry partisans on either side. Rush Limbaugh's advertisers are freqeuent targets of boycott campaigns, and these "righty corporatists" fold because they don't want the hassle:






Yep, advertiser boycotts and economic pressure aren't just for the religious right anymore. One of our fellow AD members set up BuyBlue so Democrats could steer their money away from Republican campaign contributors.

Here's a fan of liberal talk radio to put this Air America "blacklist" in perspective for you:



Much more here, so click through.

Jobius very nice... some I can buy... thanks for linking us to an obscure blog... butttt... To a uninformed person you would be completely on track. But if you know whos who of corporate donations world you would know it passes the sniff test.. The reason I posted the list is because I am well aware of many of these listed on the list for other political actions they have taken. My for instances are all the Walmart kids are absolutely against liberals. Just check where their money for campaigns go, Same with others I recognise on the list from the Home Depot, Toys are us, Dell, GE, then we go to insurance. these CEOs have no problems with being politically public with their corporate donations...

insurance give 2 to one to republicans, Note probably much more as pacs are not broken down in all these and PAC money is large... . http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=F09 then defense contractors like GE it is also close to 2-1 and again we know that pacs would be higher. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indu...&cycle=2006, look at building materials, it is about 4 to one to the repugs again all not including pacs. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indu...006&ind=C05, for drug industries it is about 3 to 1 for repugs http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indu...6&ind=H4300 , transportation is close to 3 to one, http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indu...&cycle=2006, retail sales 60 percent to 40 to the repugs http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indu...006&ind=N03, food and beverage almost 4 to 1 http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indu...006&ind=N01, FedEx 2 to one http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.as...Name=FedEx+Corp , UPS 2 to one. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.as...+Parcel+Service, banking 2 to one http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.as...an+Bankers+Assn bank of america favor the right http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.as...Bank+of+America, rjr tobaco and nabisco about 8 to one, http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.as...eynolds+Tobacco exon 9 to one http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.as...ame=Exxon+Mobil , philip Morris, 2 to one but use to much worse http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.as...me=Altria+Group

I'm willing to believe that some of those companies avoid Air America for explicitly political reasons, rather than just wanting to avoid all controversy. But that doesn't make it a conspiracy, or this fax a smoking gun.

ABC confirms what that obscure blogger said: "It is not uncommon for advertisers and/or agencies to request that their ads run or not run in specific programming environments or dayparts. ABC Radio Networks does not solicit nor encourage these requests from advertisers. If a request is made by an advertiser/and or agency we make our best effort to comply." Why believe them? Well, Disney, the parent company of ABC, leans toward the Dems and gave more than twice as much to the Democrats as to the Republicans in the 2004 cycle. Actually, the whole Communications/Electronics industry leans Democratic. So does the subcategory of TV/Movies/Music.

As an aside, you used the word "repugs" three times in your last post. This isn't constructive. I'm not personally offended (I've never been a Republican), but surely AD isn't the place for name-calling.

Next I find your statement of ABC giving more than twice a bit off in reality. plus strange when the 2006 cycle is listed why you skipped it, this in my book is appears to be intellectually dishonest . Time for a reality check from me for this irresponsible argument. In the last election cycle 2006 it was 56% to dems and 43% to "repubs" (ok I will not take artistic liberty anymore.). but the more off reality issues is the fact that they this amount of money given is such a small amount $383,186.00 for dems and $291,794.00 for repubs. if you think giving slightly over $100,000.00 more to the dems constitutes a big league network bias???? come on , do you think $100k in the most recent election cycle is buying off the dems... or is real conclusive to bias. even your conveniently slanted 2004 cycle it was $400,000.00 when some of the companies I listed it was to the tune of millions in their industries. after all Altria (philip morris Kraft) in one election cycle 2000 gave 3 million dollars differential, they did this for 4 election cycles. and now that they know the repubs are in trouble they have backed off both. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.as...me=Altria+Group

Now lets talk ABC did you really expect them to say anything different. I do not trust a company with a conflict of interest. Do you trust companies with conflicts of interests? Here is another thing I do not trust ABC for. Look at their core radio line up and where they place these conservatives at the prime time slots. You would agree having a partisan host is far more powerful than a 30 second ad a advertiser puts on wouldn't you, which may cost the advertiser to do it nationally over the $100,000.00 two year election cycle differential. IE 100 minutes of hard core partisan trashing editorializing 50 weeks plus a year vs what can be done in a 30 second ad. http://www.abcradio.com/Article.asp?id=341544 here is some of the the ABC core partisan line up. Mark Levine, Bob Brinker, Saun Hanity, Paul Harvey, Mark Davis. Not one overtly partisan liberal given a prime time slot. IE I do not trust the word vs the actions. Putting on people with very partisan agendas does not in anyway show me a balance. If it was all Larry Elders that seem only slightly to the right I would say they are somewhat balanced. But with these off the chart to the right people with no counter balance hmmmm. fool me once... I know there is an Arkansas saying out there. should we ask the president what it is?

further to this point, to the Disney company giving twice as much does not mean diddley. Again they give these overtly partisan hacks 200 minutes of trash talk time to no free partisan liberal time. Again don't be fooled by the trojan horse. I am sure you agree Ruppy Murdoch is as partisan hater of democrats as they come ie he started FOX. If you look at one of the years he gave more money to dems than republicans, if I remeber it was one of the recent years.. But here he has a media empire dedicated to trashing dems. That is 24/7/365 of attacking dems. What is the monetary value of that? But with your stated argument because he gave more money to the dems his media empire is somehow dem...

Next the issues is not the dems getting contributions in this micro debate, it was to prove those on this list were partisans. Which I think is a decent means test to your first challenge.

Next if you are expanding the debate. if you look at the communications industry look specifically at the TV/radio stations. they give mainly to the right. But again the trojan horse principle works here, they put on partisans to the right to no partisan liberals on prime time.. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indu...6&ind=C2100 and pull out the actors/directors/musicians themselves you will find the entire TV/Radio Station industry owners/corporatists about 60 40 to for the right. But that is not the point of the list I had suggesting they were not on the list blackballing AAR.

too summarize my points here, the trojan horse gifting by ABC of minuscule amounts favoring dems yet putting on partisan hacks without counterbalance is deceptive. where the purchased time to be equivalent is mind boggling, so this is unregulated gifting. ABC making a statement they agree is a conflict of interest that can not be taken at face value. It is like asking a used car salesman if the car works well.

Your constant us of “corporatist” tells me you are looking at this from the far left. The FAIR story the link is to shows how far they are to the left an apparently you agree with their point of view. From that perspective even the famously liberal NYT may look “conservative” to you.

If this is the case we are so far apart we have little to discuss. All but a few sources from the far left (if any) meet your criteria as not being controlled by the “corporatist” elite in some vast right wing conspiracy.




Nice claim about censorship – no proof of course. Is an “investment- oriented show necessarily “right”. I think not. As proof – do you remember the PBS scandal in Boston from a few years back? I can attest to its validity because my wife donated to the local PBS – and they then sold the names to organizations that they felt represented the “audience”. What followed was letters from the DNC, HCI and every liberal organization in the US. They got slapped for it.

FAIR is clearly a far left organization.

Ted, Yes I believe the NTY is corporatist, have you looked at the board of directors lately? I know many will say the board of directors like the CEO and all managers have nothing to do the the end product. I laugh out loud at this contention. Yep we have a board or directors and managers for no reason. They simply are there to get paid the top money of the institution and do not have any responsibility for their product. kinda pretty faces of the organization. So with the New Yort Times they had an flunky reporter by the name of Judith Miller who was the leader/cheerleader with un-named sources to go to war. I, a independent blogger am breaking this rumor. I believe she was a paid CIA agent to get us to go to war. As we know the CIA has agreed to no longer pay the 400 or more reporters they had on the payroll anymore. They certainly made it public that they welcome reporters to work for them unpaid. But with the new direction the Bush administration went in paying off reporters through normal broadcasting and his secret signing statements to counter laws which he is now famous for I believe the CIA is allowed to pay reporters again. Again they have plenty of places where they can pay without ever being traced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

http://www.webcom.com/lpease/media/ciamedia.htm

http://www.namebase.org/news17.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird



Ted, you have eluded to conspiracies by me on other threads which is a form of degrading/insulting me, so is this one were 400 reporters and who knows how many in the CIA another fantasy conspiracy in your opinion? Yep our government is above this aren't they.

Inventor


I guess if you are looking at the US from the very far left and assume all “corporations” are in league to subvert the government then you could come to this conclusion. The NYT is overwhelmingly liberal. If you think Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller is CIA I think you are way off. No she is not the typical NTY left biased reporter but she is no CIA “agent”.

Making claims that ‘corpoatists” as you call them are in some sort of vast conspiracy is IMO not supported by your posts.

Yes Miller supported the view that Iraq had WMD – WOW so did most of the world, The UN and the clear evidence. This makes her a spy?

Poll: Bias 'alive and well' in press



Perhaps the real question is: Are you smarter than 64 percent of the population?

tell me it ain't so. IE tell me that the right do not yell and scream that the media is "liberal" every chance they get. Tell me advertising ie peat and repeat are not effective forms of propaganda, again wasn't that the Nazi way the big lie.

And tell me the world is still flat? should we vote or let the church tell us how to channel....

but from your link it also says

and



Next, just watched the PBS feature on the build up to Iraq and how the journalists were not allowed to question in essence because of the corporate interests. Donahue was a prime example. as he said the "management" would not let UN inspector Ritter on any show unless there was a neocon for balance. But Pearl was allowed on without balance. And if there was one liberal there had to be two neocons. Again this is out of Phil mouth who experienced it. Then Phil was fired. They "the corporatists from above" said for ratings issues. But an person released a internal memo which said he was to be removed because they were not looking pro american enough.

They had several other writers one from AP who said he had his pieces edited by the above to make things look not so one sided against the war. I bet the other side did not have problems. Also it was reported that papers had to move anything critical of the war off the front pages because it looked unpatriotic this was ordered from above. same with CNN having to put positive war stories on because the advertisers were complaining they did not look pro-american enough.

now isn't that exactly what Einstein was saying... corporatists control... the funny thing is some have posted that the corporate ownership board has nothing to do with the product.


hear is an interesting one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological...nited_States%29



why do corporatists want to own the media..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory

Actually if you look you see this is NOT the right but the majority of Americans. Little hard to just blow off this survey isn’t it.

So if the “media” is owned by the “right” they are doing a terrible job of effecting the “news” aren’t they????




Well many of us believe Ritter sold out to Iraq in 2000. This is why “balance” is required for this traitor. Did you ever read his 1998 testimony to Congress right after the UN inspectors were booted from Iraq??? Do so and then lets discuss – ok?

Ted you said "So if the “media” is owned by the “right” they are doing a terrible job of effecting the “news” aren’t they???? "

not really, there are so many serious things going on that have been going on that only because the dems are able to have hearings with subpoena power are we getting to the bottom of things, like the 150 regent and liberty university law school grads where one was testifying today as one of the highest people in the justice department who did not know what breaking the law is vs rules. there was a 1986 court order stopping republicans from selectively targeting minority and democrat ares with voter filtering that she admitted to being involved in and aware of at the top of the republican party, but she called it the rules, not the law. As she was directly asked about this practise of "caging", she said to the effect, I crossed the lines but I did not mean to... Was that taken from the Reagan playbook? Grant it she has immunity. But she as a lawyer did not know law vs rule difference. This has been known after the 2000 elections going on and only Greg Palast reported about it that I am aware of back then. as a minimum with her testimony she should be disbarred.

Here is another article to back up how pathetic the corporate media is. Here the president did a no comment and the media would not get it out of him if he as it was testified to under oath by ashcrofts number two man that the whitehouse sent its hit men to get ashcroft while in intensive care to sign a document to make their other illegal acts legal. And the media just did nothing...

the bolded statement is another conclusion that Einstein has it nailed on the head.

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

Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies.

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

I hope not...I hope you'll go read it.

Welcome! Just a friendly tip - If there is evidence to support your argument in the book you cite, you should kindly either link it, or summarize it and explain the source. Otherwise, your post looks like an ad for the book.

From the survival guide, you will see:

If there was some quick, quotable segment that would instantly make everything clear, I would post it immediately. Unfortunately, brevity is the enemy of trying to convey complex ideas, and anything I could pick at random from the book would just be out of context: the ENTIRE book is about the subject.
So basically, my post IS an add for the book: I can't stress enough that everyone interested in the function of American media go get themselves a copy and read all several hundred pages, 'cause I'm not going to be able to change your opinion in a paragraph, and I would be embarrassing myself to even try to summarize a Chomsky book. If you think you're going to find new and complex ideas in a few sentences from me, then you're looking for answers in the wrong places. If you're serious about educating yourself on the American media system, then buckle down and read the WHOLE book...that's all I can say.

I'm not looking for answers, nor to 'educate myself' friend. I'm participating in a debate website. If you'd like to debate, given the rules, you are welcome to do so. There are plenty of other places for you to enthusiastically promote your favorite book. The custom here is to actually answer the debate questions, then post evidence that supports your position. The title of a book (not even a link - jeez) is simply not a response.

As such, I'll 'buckle down' and read some Chomsky when I'm good and ready. You might say the same if I asked you to 'buckle down' and read Atlas Shugged before you (or Noam Chomsky) lecture me on some given subject. Really, you simplly MUST read it, before you can understand anything. See what I mean?

Here is a very interesting one. This is a real sad commentary of what Fox is about. It fits into Einstein's theory perfectly. IE lie to keep advertisers/corportists.... at any cost.

now if this doesn't say it all... OK fox fans, defend this story... this is how I read it and is a sad story about what america is... and how people support this trash,

In essence FOX was being sued for firing a broadcaster for not giving a false news story. the person would not lie on the air for the management and was fired. Sad FOX is defending their right to lie on the air and newscasters must lie or be fired is such sad commentary and furthur that FOX argues they have the right to lie is even worse.


http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q4/lawsuit.html







Again they testified to the effect that they did not want to lose an advertiser that could cost then advertising all across the USA. they would rather lie and potentially let people die if the drug is dangerous. just that one market was $50,000.00 potential loss in advertising.

this was later overturned on a technicality because there for whitleblower status, there must be a law that is broken. and as Fox argued they have the right to lie and mislead all they want. And again this is sad commentary about america that people back such disturbing behavior.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/akre022103.cfm

I found this students paper to be very well written for such a short paper.. His discussion/backing up the corporate bias of the media and such is one of the best I have seen lately. He makes serveral points that are briefly backed up. I had never read the concept of working the ref so to speak for the analogy to what is going on but it is certainly a great point from my perspective.
http://taylorsias.blogspot.com/2004/12/com...ia-part-ii.html


here is a corporate CEO of GE which owns NBC, though he does not head the NBC division he made his wishes known by not only personally contributing to both bush's but by making sure it was known and he made the unprecedented be at the election returns area of NBC as the election coverage was being decided.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Reviews/09240...92404engel.html



Now here if there was a shred of liberal owned media edwards haircuts would never be discussed.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/15/i...ki-a-buckraker/


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/14/se.14.html

Actually a "well-written" paper would spell Bill Kristol, correctly. Why not start a new thread about the Conason book? Have you read it?


Yes, I look everywhere and see pro-Bush infotainment. It's hard to miss. Whether watching "lil Bush" on Comedy Central, or watching all of the celebrities say how great Bush is in their awards ceremonies, or watching the relentlessly pro-Bush spin on the Sunday talk shows. Heck, there are pro-Bush movies, pro-Bush books, pro-Bush television, pro-Bush newspapers. It's absolutely everywhere. Every afternoon, I drive by a huge pro-Bush billboard here in Chicago. Great point.

You have to be joking. How many hundreds of programs have I heard, and stories read with a clear liberal bias – fair? You have to be kidding and the American people agree with me – not you. And has anyone ever accused Nader of being fair?

The vast majority of American voters detect the presence of political bias in the mainstream news media, according to a Zogby poll released yesterday in conjunction with the George Washington University Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet.
Sentiment is strong: 83 percent of likely voters think bias is "alive and well." Of that number, 64 percent said the press leans left, while slightly more than a quarter -- 28 percent -- said there was a conservative bias.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070315-114454-8075r.htm



As for pro Bush bias I am with carlitoswhey -

I think this is the perfect thread for misspelling if I have ever seen one where it should be acceptable. Einstein is a dyslexic and his spelling is as bad as mine. In fact I remember reading a list Einstein made of saying where he even spelled the name of the list wrong. So this well written student paper makes it from the standpoint of the word of Einstein.

I have not read connasons book, as a dyslexic reading books is not fun. Now if it is a book on tapes I love um if traveling. See my commute to work is only 3 minutes. so no chance there and since I live beachfront I tend not to travel as much as I use to. I guess I could design a transmitter to transmit to a waterproof headset when I windsurf. But I do take some nasty spills every once in a while.

TEDwell as I have said Goebbels big lie, you say a lie long enough and people will believe it. After all the world was flat for a long time.

As far as your assumed accusation that Nader is not fair, you would be the one to judge right? and you quote a source the washington times, here is a propaganda machine to the max. Rev Moon is the owner, do you remember the days when he had his followers, the moonies in airports pan handling? WT does not make money it is a loser, if this is not the perfect example of buying media to control, no one can argue it is capitalist to make money. It is simply propaganda by a right wing religious fanatic. and they were outed by former top employee david brock. Yes I actually did read this book. Yep Brock was paid big bucks by two on the right Rev Moon and Richard Mellon Scaife who owns another paper in PA that also is not a money maker. Scaife also bankrolls other hard core right wing publications, like the spectator and more.

I have listen to Nader for 25 years. He hates corporate America and is as biased as they come (left).

Again say all you want but the majority American public detects liberal bias in the “media” – all of it.

You no doubt think the opposite and that is fine.

You call it a lie but you have no proof to back up your assumptions. 83% of the populace sees the media as biased, while 64% see it as leaning left. 64% is a strong majority of people which means that it must encompass people who identify themselves as liberal to begin with. Even if assuming that every conservative found the media biased towards the left.