It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush controlling the 'free' press - for what purpose?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Well, then, you must've hated the press from 1992 until 2000.

To say that you don't care they are biased, is to say that you don't care that they give you half info, no-info, or just plain lie. To like a press that is always at odds with the sitting administration is a bit squirrelly, wouldn't you think?
To notice that the media never gives you the facts and all of the facts, no matter whether they are with or against the sitting administration, is the necessity.




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The advantage of having a press in opposition to the administration is that they will be looking for stuff, not just sitting back and accepting everything the administration tells them. That's what we need - people digging for dirt, and hopefully finding none.

In the past, the most important revelations of malfeasance by government hasn't come from those who support them.

This adversarial slant is necessary, IMO, to keep the government honest.

Do I want the press to lie? No. Do I want the press to look the other way because the gov't told them to? No.

I think the key is to have some balance and individual ethics in those who report the news. A sadly fading quality, IMO.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Talking about the press..........


MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.


www.timesonline.co.uk...

Ask yourselfs why your President does not answer questions in a public forum. As much as I dislike Tony Blair at least he is put on the spot in regards to answering questions from the people who elected him and questions by The House of Lords/Parliament. Indeed it is the citizens right to be able to ask questions of their leader direct, else what is it other then a democracy??

What good is the voice of the people if the ears of the leaders doesn't listen?. Britain and America have a lot to answer for, its our duty to make them answer.

Still, 'they' don't tell you anything they don't want you to know. Wonder why Britain is getting all this info now?? from our point of view it makes America's press and people look like sound asleep sheep. Good for creating rifts between the US and Europe.......

[edit on 12-6-2005 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
The media is controlled by liberals who can't help but let thier liberal bias leek into their reporting. Who even thinks that President Bush is in control of the media has clearly never watched NBC, ABC or CBS. (Or PBS)!



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   


Still, 'they' don't tell you anything they don't want you to know. Wonder why Britain is getting all this info now?? from our point of view it makes America's press and people look like sound asleep sheep. Good for creating rifts between the US and Europe.......


I think a lot of Americans ARE questioning it - but it's being supressed from the top. Which is the whole point of this thread. Somehow, our media have become complicit in what the administration is doing to try to control public opinion.

WRT Iraq, now we're there, I think we're pretty much stuck seeing it through, even though it's not worth it. Anything less will embolden our enemies to an unacceptable degree, AND leave the Iraqis with a totally unacceptable situation that we created.

As I've said many times before, I'll be glad when this administration is out of office - I can't believe people voted him in for a 2nd term!



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Well, what can we expect? Many similarities to communism...control of the press is just one of them. This is what having oppresion is all about



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
What are you people talking about?!!? The media is President Bush's biggest detracter! The media in American is liberal bais and nothing more! Have you ever watched a news program?? Can you point to ANY evidence of this pro-Bush stance by the American media????



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   


What are you people talking about?!!? The media is President Bush's biggest detracter! The media in American is liberal bais and nothing more! Have you ever watched a news program?? Can you point to ANY evidence of this pro-Bush stance by the American media????


Watch Fox News. In fact, watch any of the 3 major cable news channels anymore. The right wing attacks asserting 'liberal bias' have had an effect, and while I didn't particularly care for bias, I don't like the feeling that my news is being censored, either.

IMO, if the administration steps in and says PBS can't show a documentary on economic effects in a small town in mid America, it's censorship. But I wouldn't expect the brain washed right wing to understand the danger in that.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I seriously doubt that Bush has control over much of anything these days. Not to say that the Republican or Democratic parties can't swing their bats but I have found in the last several decades that most leaders in this country, regardless of party, don't really have much say on anything and are nothing more than puppets for the party they represent and of course for the people that fund those parties.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh


What are you people talking about?!!? The media is President Bush's biggest detracter! The media in American is liberal bais and nothing more! Have you ever watched a news program?? Can you point to ANY evidence of this pro-Bush stance by the American media????


Watch Fox News. In fact, watch any of the 3 major cable news channels anymore. The right wing attacks asserting 'liberal bias' have had an effect, and while I didn't particularly care for bias, I don't like the feeling that my news is being censored, either.

IMO, if the administration steps in and says PBS can't show a documentary on economic effects in a small town in mid America, it's censorship. But I wouldn't expect the brain washed right wing to understand the danger in that.


Fox News Channel is one out of five major news networks. If you watched CBS, NBC, ABC or PBS. You see clear liberal media bias.

The evidence is on the news every day. Where is your evidence??

Also, ever read the New York Times?


[edit on 12-6-2005 by Boatphone]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
This is a democracy. Leaders don't 'control' the press, they 'influence' it. Any one here read Noam Chomsky? He almost got on "Donahue", back in the old days, but he was even more contraversial than Ralph Nader.

[edit on 12-6-2005 by GrandCourtJester]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Liberal bias in the news media is a reality. It is not the result of a vast left-wing conspiracy; journalists do not meet secretly to plot how to slant their news reports. But everyday pack journalism often creates an unconscious "groupthink" mentality that taints news coverage and allows only one side of a debate to receive a fair hearing. When that happens, the truth suffers. That is why it is so important news media reports be politically balanced, not biased.

The Media Research Center regularly documents the national media's ongoing liberal bias — and has since 1987. For a look at media bias in the last decade, the last year or even last night, check the MRC homepage.



Here is a link, enjoy the bias!
www.mediaresearch.org...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
And perhaps we might point out the Media Research Center's own bias?



The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC).


www.mediaresearch.org...

I suppose a conservative group has no interest in making sure the media is perceived as being biased against them?

What's a bit horrifying to me about this whole issue is how many Americans actually SUPPORT the idea of the GOVERNMENT telling the press what they can and can't print - a clear violation of the free press!

Even if the media is TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY biased against conservatives, the reality is they are fully within their constitutional rights to publish whatever they want. If you object - get your own press! DON'T expect the government to restrain them!

To whit:



Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference.




Debate in the House is unenlightening with regard to the meaning the Members ascribed to the speech and press clause and there is no record of debate in the Senate.5 In the course of debate, Madison warned against the dangers which would arise ''from discussing and proposing abstract propositions, of which the judgment may not be convinced. I venture to say, that if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple, acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty.''6 That the ''simple, acknowledged principles'' embodied in the First Amendment have occasioned controversy without end both in the courts and out should alert one to the difficulties latent in such spare language. Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. ''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.''


caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Hey, the media can think what they want. I'm not calling for a change. I am just pointing out the fact that the media is in NO WAY controlled by the Bush Admin, and to say so is to ignore the facts.


Note: the title of this thread.


[edit on 12-6-2005 by Boatphone]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
"Are you tired of not getting the information you're look for on the net? Wasting time looking at ads? Tired of fighting about conspiracies? If you want to further the discussion about Conspiracy Theories, come to conspiranoia.greatboard.com... RESEARCHERS WELCOMED!"



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   


Hey, the media can think what they want. I'm not calling for a change. I am just pointing out the fact that the media is in NO WAY controlled by the Bush Admin, and to say so is to ignore the facts.


If Bush and Co aren't attempting to control the press, then why are they putting the kabosh on the PBS for showing something they didn't agree with?

That's my whole point. This is happening all the time. The administration is paying journalists to advance a certain viewpoint, they're attacking journalists for 'bias,' they're withdrawing funding ... I did a search on the internet on media bias and found hundreds and hundreds of links talking about the supposed 'liberal bias' in the media. If you don't think there's an agenda in that, you're blind. When someone is shoving something down your throat THAT hard, it's time to get suspicious!

My point is it's none of the government's business what the press do, even if they ARE biased. The fact that they're doing these things is very concerning to me because it's undermines our constitutional protections.

www.mediainfo.com...

www.thenation.com...

www.sourcewatch.org...

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.newsmax.com...

And here's actually quite a good article on the challenges going on in the so-called 'free press' today (don't let the name of the link fool you):

www.oreilly-sucks.com...

The irony is that the 'fix' he suggests is expansion of public media.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Think if we really had a free pressthere wouldn't bee all these different media companys (CNN, Fox, etc.) it would all be controlled by one big company if these companys are in it for the money then why dont they all just pull togeather because they could make more money...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Maybe bush wants this something like this to happen:



www.orwelltoday.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daniel_Davis
Think if we really had a free pressthere wouldn't bee all these different media companys (CNN, Fox, etc.) it would all be controlled by one big company if these companys are in it for the money then why dont they all just pull togeather because they could make more money...



Your statement is unclear, please explain.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   


Think if we really had a free pressthere wouldn't bee all these different media companys (CNN, Fox, etc.) it would all be controlled by one big company if these companys are in it for the money then why dont they all just pull togeather because they could make more money...


They're consolidating. There are not as many parent companies out there as you might think, despite the fact that there are multiple networks.

You might recall that the prohibition to having one company owning too many media outlets was overturned. Here's an example of the result:



The ability to control programming on their station, and to regulate who gets on and who doesn't. In the talk radio area, that means that favored conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura Schlesinger get on. They also tend to get rid of local programming, using so-called "cyber jocks" that are heard in many markets. This de-localizes what was once a very local medium.




Unprecedented political clout. Through a campaign of political giving, especially to Republicans, Clear Channel has the ears of those in power. No radio regulation will ever pass without their consent.


See this link:

www.oligopolywatch.com...




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join