joep182

Bush's Cuba Detour | venezuelanalysis.com

He makes a good point about western media manipulation. The question i would like to pose is, is it better that the government or the ruling class decide what we see ? I suggest that when the government is in control we at least expect a little manipulation, but when the ruling class are in control people are much more susceptible to the notion that they have a fair free media.

iTaliAN_ICe

The government is the only "ruling class" we have in America. How about we control what we see ourselves and let TV channels regulate their own content? As in most aspects of life, The government need not be involved.

joep182

You do have a ruling class but it is the media and all owners of production. The people who choose what you see and fund the most succesful one party state in the world. You are all being manipulated by the media but you dont even know it, because you have been fooled into believing this idea of freedom.

LessGovMrPrez

I love your sources joe. From 1 dictatorship to another.

joep182

yeah yeah. You've had your obligatory pop at both Venezuela and Cuba but do you have anything to add to the debate ?

iTaliAN_ICe

In a market or mixed economy like that of the US, the media has an incentive to report news accurately and without too much bias. If a business fails to do this, nobody will watch their news or subscribe to their paper, and they'll suffer financially until they go out of business. The market has its way of weeding out low-quality businesses.

I don't know about where you live, but America isn't so socioeconomically black and white that it can be divided simply into bourgeois and proletariat as your political philosophy demands. Relative economic and social mobility is enjoyed at almost all levels of American society; anyone can be an "owner of production" if they really want to.

Only I choose what I see. If I'm not satisfied with or doubt whether something a particular source says is true, there are a wealth of other news sources I can consult to verify the factuality of that news. The government can't be allowed to have complete control over the media. A private media industry is necessary so citizens can know the true actions of their government and what is really going on in the world rather than having filtered, propagandistic bile fed to them by the state.

Unless the "one party state" comment is alluding to the so-called "ruling class", I don't really know what you mean when you say that.

Believe me, I'd know if I was being manipulated. As strange as it sounds, there is no conspiracy within the media industry to "manipulate" people.

Freedom of the press and free speech? No, I value those because I choose to. Unfortunately, it seems as if you're who's been fooled into thinking such an unrealistic, unworkable, and outdated system as Communism is superior to those already in place. History and common sense have already shown us the opposite is true.

joep182

Okay so if they go out of bussiness, who takes their place in the market ? Another wealthy person with the same values to protect. Even if they aren't inaccurate as such, the media will always put a spin on stories that are favourable to their beliefs and values.

And the market doesn't even get rid of manipulators and liars. For instance we have a newspaper here called The Sun (it's like Fox News in print). Everyone with half a brain knows it's trash and full of crap, but it's still the top selling newspaper in the country


I would believe you if you had genuine equallity of opportunity, but you don't. People cant just decide to become the owners of production. It takes capital and an opening in the market. Others are born the owners of production. There is a real difference in peoples chances of owning production. people may become a bit wealthier than their parents but that is about it - there will be the odd person who comes good and becomes an owner, this makes the rest of you believe that it can happen to anyone.


that is the key point. Just because you dont doubt something doesn't mean it is not a lie. And with a private media we tend not to doubt so much.


yep. You have supposedly two parties but they both represent the valus of their funders - the ruling class.

i just look at facts and listen to my coscience both of which say Marxism/Leninism is far superior and fairer than the exploitation of man by man.

iTaliAN_ICe

And the government wouldn't? C'mon. That's why it's important to read the same story from several different news sources.

If everyone with half a brain knows it's bullshit, then there isn't really a problem, is there? Just don't read it.

Both of which can be obtained through hard work and perseverance.

It can happen to anyone - the vast majority apparently don't try hard enough. Even if it can't, why should the rich and the successful be dragged down by the lazy and the stupid? Is that fair?

If a poor person is allowed to ride the government's welfare program for a while and still doesn't get a job, they probably deserve to be poor. Communism faultily assumes all people are equally deserving of capital, when some work harder and better and clearly more deserving than others.

Think of the economy as a school assignment. If you earn a 100, another one of your classmates earns an 80, and a third classmate who doesn't even bother doing the assignment earns a 0, would it be fair if your scores were averaged out and you were each given a 60?

I tend not to doubt when there is no good reason for me to do so...

I support the abolition of political parties in America, as well as private funding for political candidates. Candidates should run alone and off of public funds so people actually have to vote for who they believe is the best candidate, rather than idiotically voting by party. The problem can easily be solved without turning the country into a Communist dictatorship.

Perhaps it is on paper, but in practice, Marxism is exactly what it claims to oppose: the exploitation of many (the populace) by few (the government).

joep182

It is a problem because we are dumbing down society. Oer unfair educational system leads to us having many people who are lets say naive. Just about all of media outlets are guilty of manipulative poor quality journalism, it's just that the newspaper i mentioned is particularly trashy. But even our supposedly good journalistic outlets have been caught out lying , but when they are caught out itdoesnt get the same coverage as the lie and so people keep believing the lie. For instance Channel 4 news (one of our more respected sources) ran a report with some Washington spokesperson (i cant remember his name) where he just launched a tirade on Venezuela and Chavez - continually lied and put an ultra spin on the truth. The reporter just accepted everything he said and moved onto the next question. This was picked up on by John Pilger who called it the worst piece of journalism he had saw in his life. But believe me, his criticism and putting straight of the story recieved little coverage, particularly in comparison with the original story. So many people will go on believing the lies.

And what do you do when the entire media is telling the same lie. Sucha as the "Wipe off the Map" lie ?

There is difference in dragging people down and providing absolute equallity of opportunity.

They deserve to be poor if they dont accept a job and have had the same opportunity as every one else. If trhey haven't had this then we simply do not know what they deserve or what they could have achieved.

I really dont get this Nozick argument. The economy/society are not a school assignment and so should not be thought of as one. How you run society can be the difference between life and death for many so the comparison is not valid - a school assesment pales in comparison of importance to running the economy.

If you got rid of parties it would be a mess. It would be near impossible to govern. I would like to see the abolition of private funding for candidates also. But the problem is they would still have to reflect the ruling class values and beliefs if they wanted elected.


Cuba tells us otherwise. The people govern the people.

iTaliAN_ICe

The educational system is primarily state-run. I thought you were a big fan of government ownership of industry...

Pilger?

Yeah, I wouldn't be too surprised if that Chavez-loving buffoon criticized anyone that spoke negatively of his beloved hero.

The fact that the mainstream media doesn't have a pro-socialist bias doesn't make it corrupt per se.

The "wipe off the map" lie? I'm sorry, you'll have to elaborate... I'm not entirely sure of what you're referring to.

Absolute equality of opportunity is an unrealistic goal. It's simply impossible in nations as large and as diverse as ours. People will have to rely on themselves rather than their government to get things done, and I don't really have a problem with that.

If someone is on welfare, they can get a job if they want one. Unfortunately, many people just ride the program as long as they can without bothering to even try and find a job... in my opinion, those who do nothing to try and better their own situation, and expect their government and fellow citizens to continually prop them up, are worthless to society.

I've never actually read Nozick's ideas. I just made this up as I wrote it.

It's an analogical metaphor. I'm not actually saying they should be thought of as one, I was simplifying a real economic situation to make it more easily understood. Do you have anything to counter what I said?

Again... It was a metaphor. You're trying to dodge a legitimate point I brought up, so I'll ask again: would that be fair?

Why do you think so?

I disagree with the second part. If private funding was abolished, candidates would have to appeal to common citizens and reflect the values that most of the populace holds. The only reason some of them feel they have to reflect the values and beliefs of the rich is because that's where their funding comes from. If private funding was abolished, this problem wouldn't exist.

Have you lived in or been to Cuba?