O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron, Matt8819, Ironclad

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#21  Postby Jeffersonian-marxist » Apr 10, 2012 11:47 am

Jakov wrote:Can they really be said to be doing this willingly when they have almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media?

Perhaps "willfully" was the wrong word to use, but I agree that it is corporate-based media that ultimately wins the hearts and minds of the population regarding the relevant issues.
Jeffersonian-marxist
 
Posts: 497
Age: 24
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#22  Postby Loren Michael » Apr 10, 2012 1:03 pm

Jakov wrote:Can they really be said to be doing this willingly when they have almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media?


Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:Perhaps "willfully" was the wrong word to use, but I agree that it is corporate-based media that ultimately wins the hearts and minds of the population regarding the relevant issues.


Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7145

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#23  Postby Jeffersonian-marxist » Apr 10, 2012 1:33 pm

Loren Michael wrote:Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.

No I don't have citations. Take it or leave it.
Jeffersonian-marxist
 
Posts: 497
Age: 24
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#24  Postby Loren Michael » Apr 10, 2012 1:47 pm

I leave it. It's a feel-good good/evil narrative that fails the "but what about the internet?" test.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7145

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#25  Postby Panderos » Apr 10, 2012 2:18 pm

Jakov wrote:Stop with the stupid "what's it called" discussions. As if anything changes just because you decide to call it democracy or republic.
You're like children who think the sun is called "sun" because it's hot, bright and yellow. You must realise that the mere word used to describe is not the thing in itself.

Haha. Have you read the Theism and Its Strong Points thread yet?

How about every thread containing the world 'socialism'?
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
User avatar
Panderos
 
Posts: 2707

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#26  Postby Warren Dew » Apr 10, 2012 5:45 pm

Loren Michael wrote:Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.

Most newspapers and broadcast television networks are owned by corporations as well.

Noncorporate news sources mostly consist of word of mouth, email, blogs, and discussion boards.
User avatar
Warren Dew
 
Posts: 3701
Age: 54
Male

Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#27  Postby Jakov » Apr 10, 2012 7:33 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Jakov wrote:Can they really be said to be doing this willingly when they have almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media?


Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:Perhaps "willfully" was the wrong word to use, but I agree that it is corporate-based media that ultimately wins the hearts and minds of the population regarding the relevant issues.


Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.


You take it for granted that we think Fox news is the only bad one. Our hypothesis is that all media subject to market pressures behave like this.
That includes supposedly liberal outlets like The Guardian newspaper.

I wrote some of my thoughts about this back in 2011 when I started to realise it.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... 24772.html
I guess I should update it a little and rebutt some of the points.

There's also the book Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, which contains a lot of evidence and analysis about this.


Panderos wrote:
Jakov wrote:Stop with the stupid "what's it called" discussions. As if anything changes just because you decide to call it democracy or republic.
You're like children who think the sun is called "sun" because it's hot, bright and yellow. You must realise that the mere word used to describe is not the thing in itself.

Haha. Have you read the Theism and Its Strong Points thread yet?

How about every thread containing the world 'socialism'?


Not read the theism one but sadly I have to suffer through many threads with 'socialism' in the title.
With supporters claiming European social democracies prove socialism is good, and opponents claiming marx-leninist Russia and Cuba prove socialism is bad.
User avatar
Jakov
 
Posts: 1949
Age: 23

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#28  Postby Loren Michael » Apr 11, 2012 8:33 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.

Most newspapers and broadcast television networks are owned by corporations as well.

Noncorporate news sources mostly consist of word of mouth, email, blogs, and discussion boards.


...and until I see evidence that most people are actually getting most of their info from TV and newspapers, I'll remain skeptical of that claim, and I think others should as well. Older people are likely still hanging on to old media, but they're adapting to the new media environment as well.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7145

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#29  Postby Loren Michael » Apr 11, 2012 8:42 am

Jakov wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Jakov wrote:Can they really be said to be doing this willingly when they have almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media?


Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:Perhaps "willfully" was the wrong word to use, but I agree that it is corporate-based media that ultimately wins the hearts and minds of the population regarding the relevant issues.


Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.


You take it for granted that we think Fox news is the only bad one. Our hypothesis is that all media subject to market pressures behave like this.

That includes supposedly liberal outlets like The Guardian newspaper.

I wrote some of my thoughts about this back in 2011 when I started to realise it.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... 24772.html
I guess I should update it a little and rebutt some of the points.


I cited Fox News because it is the highest-rated of the cable bunch. If that single network's viewership is less than 1% of the US population/voting population, and it's the highest-rated, I'm thinking that suggests the others are also minuscule.

I'm also skeptical of the amount of "control" that business actually has over the media. Besides that though "...almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media" ignores vast chunks of the internet and social networks.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7145

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#30  Postby Greatest I am » Apr 11, 2012 2:37 pm

Peter Brown wrote:America is not yet lost, nor will it be because the system still allows you to still vote out the bought and paid for cronies in politics.


Sure. After they have fleeced you.
Then you start all over with the next bought and paid for batch.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 850

Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#31  Postby Jakov » Apr 11, 2012 7:03 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Jakov wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Jakov wrote:Can they really be said to be doing this willingly when they have almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media?


Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:Perhaps "willfully" was the wrong word to use, but I agree that it is corporate-based media that ultimately wins the hearts and minds of the population regarding the relevant issues.


Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.


You take it for granted that we think Fox news is the only bad one. Our hypothesis is that all media subject to market pressures behave like this.

That includes supposedly liberal outlets like The Guardian newspaper.

I wrote some of my thoughts about this back in 2011 when I started to realise it.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... 24772.html
I guess I should update it a little and rebutt some of the points.


I cited Fox News because it is the highest-rated of the cable bunch. If that single network's viewership is less than 1% of the US population/voting population, and it's the highest-rated, I'm thinking that suggests the others are also minuscule.

I'm also skeptical of the amount of "control" that business actually has over the media. Besides that though "...almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media" ignores vast chunks of the internet and social networks.



Loren Michael wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.

Most newspapers and broadcast television networks are owned by corporations as well.

Noncorporate news sources mostly consist of word of mouth, email, blogs, and discussion boards.


...and until I see evidence that most people are actually getting most of their info from TV and newspapers, I'll remain skeptical of that claim, and I think others should as well. Older people are likely still hanging on to old media, but they're adapting to the new media environment as well.



You're entitled to your skepticism about amount of control business has over the media it owns, but we've posted evidence in the form of my thread and that book.
If we were asserting this without evidence, you'd be welcome to be skeptical, but we've presented our evidence and line of reasoning so now it's your turn to either engage with it or post your own.

Isn't it true that newspapers, radio and television get virtually all of their funding from advertisers? Isn't it true that advertisers are big corporations which have their own interests (lower taxes, less environmental protection, higher profits.)

So where do you reckon people get information about the world from? How does the average person know about the unemployment rate, the rate of deaths at work, the average wage and how its changed, and all the other stuff they need to know if they're to participate in a democracy in a rational manner.

The internet and social networks are new, barely entering the mainstream 15 years ago. While printing and radio have been popular for more than a century. Everyone had a TV for the last 50 years.


Correct me if I'm incorrect, you have two arguments "corperations don't influence printing and broadcasting" and "the internet means most people don't get their information from printing and broadcasting".
These contradict themselves, if corporations don't influence printing and broadcasting, then why does it matter if most people use the internet instead?
User avatar
Jakov
 
Posts: 1949
Age: 23

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#32  Postby Loren Michael » Apr 12, 2012 8:37 am

Jakov wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Jakov wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:



Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.


You take it for granted that we think Fox news is the only bad one. Our hypothesis is that all media subject to market pressures behave like this.

That includes supposedly liberal outlets like The Guardian newspaper.

I wrote some of my thoughts about this back in 2011 when I started to realise it.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... 24772.html
I guess I should update it a little and rebutt some of the points.


I cited Fox News because it is the highest-rated of the cable bunch. If that single network's viewership is less than 1% of the US population/voting population, and it's the highest-rated, I'm thinking that suggests the others are also minuscule.

I'm also skeptical of the amount of "control" that business actually has over the media. Besides that though "...almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media" ignores vast chunks of the internet and social networks.



Loren Michael wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:Do you to have any of the [citations needed] to make such assertions?

Given that the highest-rated cable news program, Fox News, has a viewership of less than 1% of the US population AND less than 1% of people who actually vote, I'm skeptical of those kinds of claims.

Most newspapers and broadcast television networks are owned by corporations as well.

Noncorporate news sources mostly consist of word of mouth, email, blogs, and discussion boards.


...and until I see evidence that most people are actually getting most of their info from TV and newspapers, I'll remain skeptical of that claim, and I think others should as well. Older people are likely still hanging on to old media, but they're adapting to the new media environment as well.


(1) You're entitled to your skepticism about amount of control business has over the media it owns, but we've posted evidence in the form of my thread and that book.
If we were asserting this without evidence, you'd be welcome to be skeptical, but we've presented our evidence and line of reasoning so now it's your turn to either engage with it or post your own.

(2) Isn't it true that newspapers, radio and television get virtually all of their funding from advertisers? Isn't it true that advertisers are big corporations which have their own interests (lower taxes, less environmental protection, higher profits.)

(3) So where do you reckon people get information about the world from? How does the average person know about the unemployment rate, the rate of deaths at work, the average wage and how its changed, and all the other stuff they need to know if they're to participate in a democracy in a rational manner.

(4)The internet and social networks are new, barely entering the mainstream 15 years ago. While printing and radio have been popular for more than a century. Everyone had a TV for the last 50 years.


(1) The evidence you cite in your link is in regards to print and television media. Both of these are on the decline, and the internet is making up the difference.

(2) Yes, but see (1) again. They are increasingly irrelevant. Another, minor problem is that (2) also assumes that business' agenda items are monolithic/not diverse and that the loss of an advertiser over one exposé won't possibly be mitigated by the replacement by another advertiser.

(3) Many people are probably mostly ignorant to most direct sources of news, and get their cues for voting from their friends and family.

(4) So what? Newspapers have been folding across the country. Age hardly buys immunity from death-by-internet-competition.

Correct me if I'm incorrect, you have two arguments "corporations don't influence printing and broadcasting" and "the internet means most people don't get their information from printing and broadcasting".
These contradict themselves, if corporations don't influence printing and broadcasting, then why does it matter if most people use the internet instead?


Corporations don't influence printing and broadcasting to the degree that you suggest, AND most people are beginning use the internet instead. Nothing about either negates the other. There's no contradiction.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7145

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#33  Postby Greatest I am » Apr 12, 2012 1:09 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtg9W2VQ ... re=related

The internet just might be a web of lies.
Like the bible, it can be made to say anything we want.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 850

Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#34  Postby Loren Michael » Apr 12, 2012 2:45 pm

Greatest I am wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtg9W2VQjOA&feature=related

The internet just might be a web of lies.
Like the bible, it can be made to say anything we want.


The alternative to "corporate-controlled media" might not be a panacea.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7145

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#35  Postby Greatest I am » Apr 12, 2012 3:26 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtg9W2VQjOA&feature=related

The internet just might be a web of lies.
Like the bible, it can be made to say anything we want.


The alternative to "corporate-controlled media" might not be a panacea.


Yep. Who can say?

Might be nice to try it though.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 850

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#36  Postby Jakov » Apr 12, 2012 5:33 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
Jakov wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
Jakov wrote:

You take it for granted that we think Fox news is the only bad one. Our hypothesis is that all media subject to market pressures behave like this.

That includes supposedly liberal outlets like The Guardian newspaper.

I wrote some of my thoughts about this back in 2011 when I started to realise it.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... 24772.html
I guess I should update it a little and rebutt some of the points.


I cited Fox News because it is the highest-rated of the cable bunch. If that single network's viewership is less than 1% of the US population/voting population, and it's the highest-rated, I'm thinking that suggests the others are also minuscule.

I'm also skeptical of the amount of "control" that business actually has over the media. Besides that though "...almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media" ignores vast chunks of the internet and social networks.



Loren Michael wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Most newspapers and broadcast television networks are owned by corporations as well.

Noncorporate news sources mostly consist of word of mouth, email, blogs, and discussion boards.


...and until I see evidence that most people are actually getting most of their info from TV and newspapers, I'll remain skeptical of that claim, and I think others should as well. Older people are likely still hanging on to old media, but they're adapting to the new media environment as well.


(1) You're entitled to your skepticism about amount of control business has over the media it owns, but we've posted evidence in the form of my thread and that book.
If we were asserting this without evidence, you'd be welcome to be skeptical, but we've presented our evidence and line of reasoning so now it's your turn to either engage with it or post your own.

(2) Isn't it true that newspapers, radio and television get virtually all of their funding from advertisers? Isn't it true that advertisers are big corporations which have their own interests (lower taxes, less environmental protection, higher profits.)

(3) So where do you reckon people get information about the world from? How does the average person know about the unemployment rate, the rate of deaths at work, the average wage and how its changed, and all the other stuff they need to know if they're to participate in a democracy in a rational manner.

(4)The internet and social networks are new, barely entering the mainstream 15 years ago. While printing and radio have been popular for more than a century. Everyone had a TV for the last 50 years.


(1) The evidence you cite in your link is in regards to print and television media. Both of these are on the decline, and the internet is making up the difference.

(2) Yes, but see (1) again. They are increasingly irrelevant. Another, minor problem is that (2) also assumes that business' agenda items are monolithic/not diverse and that the loss of an advertiser over one exposé won't possibly be mitigated by the replacement by another advertiser.

(3) Many people are probably mostly ignorant to most direct sources of news, and get their cues for voting from their friends and family.

(4) So what? Newspapers have been folding across the country. Age hardly buys immunity from death-by-internet-competition.

Correct me if I'm incorrect, you have two arguments "corporations don't influence printing and broadcasting" and "the internet means most people don't get their information from printing and broadcasting".
These contradict themselves, if corporations don't influence printing and broadcasting, then why does it matter if most people use the internet instead?


Corporations don't influence printing and broadcasting to the degree that you suggest, AND most people are beginning use the internet instead. Nothing about either negates the other. There's no contradiction.


Yes, the internet is overtaking other kinds of media. (And I think that's a good thing.) But this has absolutely nothing to do with the hypothesis that print, radio and television are compromised by market forces.

For (2), of course its true that just one advertiser cannot change much on its own, but the entire group of them have similar interests of lower taxes, fewer environmental restraints, less public exposure to scandals and higher profits. There's the whole wealth of evidence in my other thread and the Manufacturing Consent book that shows big business indeed has the power to do all these things.

I don't know about (3). I guess both are true to certain extent. We see that what gets reported in the media does affect polling figures that measure voting intentions. But then again it doesn't affect them that much.
User avatar
Jakov
 
Posts: 1949
Age: 23

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#37  Postby Loren Michael » Apr 13, 2012 3:03 am

Jakov wrote:(1) Yes, the internet is overtaking other kinds of media. (And I think that's a good thing.) But this has absolutely nothing to do with the hypothesis that print, radio and television are compromised by market forces.

For (2), of course its true that just one advertiser cannot change much on its own, but the entire group of them have similar interests of lower taxes, fewer environmental restraints, less public exposure to scandals and higher profits. There's the whole wealth of evidence in my other thread and the Manufacturing Consent book that shows big business indeed has the power to do all these things.


(1) Your initial statement (that Jeffersonian-marxist concurred with) was that people in America "have almost no other source of information than the corporate-controlled media". My statements regarding the internet are showing that "almost no other source of information" is untrue; my statements regarding (2) are questioning the validity of the "corporate-controlled" portion of your statement.

(2) There's some overlap among businesses, but you overstate its significance. In general, firms want an easier time running their business. Not all firms are engaged with the environment to the extent that they'd prefer fewer environmental regulations though (and indeed, some may prefer more stringent environmental regulations to drive up entry costs, or to promote that firm's alternative technology that relates to the environment, etc); to firms engaged seriously with R&D, better business-related laws would be lower barriers to immigration, not less stringent environmental regulations; not all scandals take the same form, what is a scandal for ExxonMobil isn't going to be a scandal for Amazon.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7145

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#38  Postby Mononoke » Apr 13, 2012 5:25 am

Corporations don't bother with the people. they got straight to the party and politicians. All corporations back both parties, one overtly & the other covertly. It's kind of like hedging
User avatar
Mononoke
 
Posts: 3750
Age: 27
Male

Sri Lanka (lk)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#39  Postby Loren Michael » Apr 13, 2012 6:04 am

Mononoke wrote:Corporations don't bother with the people. they got straight to the party and politicians. All corporations back both parties, one overtly & the other covertly. It's kind of like hedging


Very true. Businesses don't lobby people except maybe as an afterthought. They lobby people who make laws.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7145

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

#40  Postby turnerj41 » Apr 13, 2012 6:37 am

Greatest I am wrote:O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

The U. S. is on sale. Buy it while it’s hot.

O say can you see,
by the dawn's early light,
what so proudly we hailed
we now proudly renounce.
democracy

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY

Plato theorized that democracies, as they matured, evolved into oligarchies or plutocracies. We are witnessing exactly that.

When the new political election funding laws came into effect, the U. S. democratic system became an oligarchy or plutocracy. Billionaires are now buying political candidates and are in fact buying the leadership of the nation. They are now the power behind the throne and control the government and thus the people. Now, instead of working 9 to 5, Americans are working 24/7.

When did the U. S. devolve from the leading democracy of the West, to a tyranny up for sale?

Regards
DL


Nice try, When Plato lived these things already existed, not very hard to predict empire. This is suspiciously tied to tea party dribble that some have posted on the topic. What period in U.S. history are we romanticising? Tyranny has always been for sale, what do you think they do on Wall Street today? Democracy is just a fancy name for mob rule, assimilationist style; kinda like the Chinese calling themselves Communist, we dont really do politics even we just prop up capitalism.
turnerj41
 
Posts: 92

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest