A day in the life of Fox News

[Zevico]

Yes, when they portray it as something else.

Using what? A three word slogan? As opposed to their consistently voiced opposition to the particular policies of the Democrats and that party in general? Or their founders' statements to the contrary?

I suppose you saw nothing wrong with Pravda, either.

The broadcasters in Fox News are quite able to express their views as and when they see fit. By contrast, Pravda was a byproduct of a regime that forbade the exercise of free speech. None of its journalists could express dissentient views without risking imprisonment or execution. The gulf between Fox News and Pravda could not be wider.

[Cort Haus]

The broadcasters in Fox News are quite able to express their views as and when they see fit.

You mean they are able to express the views of the organisation - which may or may not be their own views - as and when the organisation sees fit. I knew a bloke once who wrote for the Daily Mail - widely regarded as the most poisonously prejudiced newspaper in Britain. "You just write their bull****" he'd say.

By contrast, Pravda was a byproduct of a regime that forbade the exercise of free speech. None of its journalists could express dissentient views without risking imprisonment or execution. The gulf between Fox News and Pravda could not be wider.

The motivations and methods behind a one-eyed news organisation can be varied, but the end results can be similar in terms of propaganda. If I am reading a biased and/or untrue news source it doesn't really make a difference to my perception of this news whether it is being distorted by risk of imprisonment or risk of career-loss.

[Cort Haus]

In fact, I'd argue that the propaganda is actually more insidious when it comes from an organ of a supposedly free and objective press. In the Soviet Union, at least people knew they were being lied to.

[BeBMan]

In fact, I'd argue that the propaganda is actually more insidious when it comes from an organ of a supposedly free and objective press. In the Soviet Union, at least people knew they were being lied to.

There is no completely "objective" media even in a free society, but I agree insofar that it should at least aim not to be an outright propaganda tool.

To claim that it was clear to everyone in the Soviet Union that their own media was just full of lies for propaganda purposes however makes no sense at all.

[Cort Haus]

I didn't say which people, tbf.

[BeBMan]

I didn't say which people, tbf.

In the Soviet Union, at least people knew they were being lied to.

?

[Cort Haus]

Yeah I used the word people. I didn't specify which people - all / some / many.

[Zevico]

Yeah I used the word people. I didn't specify which people - all / some / many.

Trouble is that most people in such states accept state propaganda to some extent. In a society where propaganda is manufactured
to bring one to believe certain views, it is difficult to make or come to logical conclusions. Even if you might identify problem A, B and C with the government's "line", you may still accept "D", or "E" as being true (even though it is expressed by the government).

Quick example--Baghdad Bob was reviled in the western press. But articles on the reaction in gaza/west bank and syria evidenced that many people in those areas were very surprised when Iraq fell, his press statements notwithstanding. For the PA/Hamas and Syria's Ba'ath, Baghdad Bob's views were the government line (an inevitable American defeat); those who expressed contrary views were traitors.

[Cort Haus]

Well, maybe, but I don't think this should distract too much from the main points I was making. Yellow journalism has a long history, and doesn't require an authoritarian regime.

[The Mad Monk]

Obama's high-speed rail plan extended far beyond the Boston-DC corridor.

a White House proposal to spend $53 billion over six years to create a national high-speed rail network that would eventually be within reach of 80 percent of the U.S. population.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-08/news/ct-met-high-speed-rail-0209-20110208_1_high-speed-rail-kevin-brubaker-trains

My, there's a lot going through Chicago.

[Dinner]

It is "America's second city" and the major hub of existing railways in the upper midwest. I'm sure those were all major and legit considerations.

[The Mad Monk]

The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 was not solved by urban planners etc but by a technological paradigm shift. It's not a given that a similar shift will solve the Great Oil Crisis of the past umpteen years, but it's certainly not a possibility that should be ruled out.

Horse Manure

[giblets]

Yeah, I'm a little shocked Obama thinks high-speed rail in the midwest should focus on what is by far the largest metropolitan area in the midwest.

[The Mad Monk]

Look at the proposed routes, too. Every western route but one is funneled through Chicago. There is no other option unless you want to tour the bayou.

edit: are those proposed routes, or non-high-speed routes? Either way, it still looks odd.

[Asher]

Look at the proposed routes, too. Every western route but one is funneled through Chicago. There is no other option unless you want to tour the bayou.

edit: are those proposed routes, or non-high-speed routes? Either way, it still looks odd.

Are you aware of Chicago's history?