Libs flunk econ 101

[Vihzel]

That's absolutely ridiculous on every level.

That's just an attempt to discredit any article by any other news outlet that Murdoch owns, simply because he OWNS Fox.

Looking at this the other way, You would have to conclude that Fox News is as credible as the Wall Street Journal, because Murdoch owns both of them, and has control over them.

I didn't know that I was attempting to discredit any article by Sky News and WSJ because of Rupert Murdoch. You know me a lot more than I do. What I was TRYING to imply by that is that there is at least some kind of influence, just as there is with Time Warner and CNN. Ultimately, you're at the mercy of the head boss. There has been many instances of Rupert Murdoch actively putting his influence on Fox News. Take a look at the documentary Outfoxed.

I don't blame Rupert Murdoch or WSJ for this article.

 

[byteware]

I didn't know that I was attempting to discredit any article by Sky News and WSJ because of Rupert Murdoch. You know me a lot more than I do. What I was TRYING to imply by that is that there is at least some kind of influence, just as there is with Time Warner and CNN. Ultimately, you're at the mercy of the head boss. There has been many instances of Rupert Murdoch actively putting his influence on Fox News. Take a look at the documentary Outfoxed.

I don't blame Rupert Murdoch or WSJ for this article.

You were the one trying to equate Murdoch owning both to Fox owning the WSJ.

You did make the statement:

Again... to the general public, they will be easily fooled by the article from Fox News owned WSJ.

Seems like you are trying to use the relationship to discredit the article to me.

If not, then what's the point of this (false) statement?

 

[travelingfool]

I just love how, with a wave of his scepter, Our Dear Leader pronounces Fox News an illegitimate news channel, and all the liberals parrot him like mindless lemmings.

Reminds me of the owls suffering from "moon blink" in the new movie, "The Legend of the Guardians."

 

[ElasticNinja]

I just love how, with a wave of his scepter, Our Dear Leader pronounces Fox News an illegitimate news channel, and all the liberals parrot him like mindless lemmings.

Reminds me of the owls suffering from "moon blink" in the new movie, "The Legend of the Guardians."

America needs a state broadcaster like BBC.
All the others seem full of crap, especially your precious FaUx

 

[travelingfool]

America needs a state broadcaster like BBC.
All the others seem full of crap, especially your precious FaUx

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler all agree with you regarding state-run news.

That's quite an impressive list of intellectual bedfellows with whom you agree.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler all agree with you regarding state-run news.

That's quite an impressive list of intellectual bedfellows with whom you agree.

Have you ever seen the BBC? o.0
Its probably the best news service in the world

 

[travelingfool]

Have you ever seen the BBC? o.0
Its probably the best news service in the world

Certainly. I listen to it on XM Radio. But state-sanctioned news always has the potential to become more like the Pravda and less like the BBC. In light of certain things Obama has said regarding the suppression of dissenting opinion, I'm more inclined to believe a government run news agency would become a modern-day version of the old Soviet Pravda under the present administration.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Certainly. I listen to it on XM Radio. But state-sanctioned news always has the potential to become more like the Pravda and less like the BBC. In light of certain things Obama has said regarding the suppression of dissenting opinion, I'm more inclined to believe a government run news agency would become a modern-day version of the old Soviet Pravda under the present administration.

This hasnt really happened in Western EU

 

[byteware]

This hasnt really happened in Western EU

You assume that a news story has never been downplayed or even suppressed.

You assume that it could NEVER happen.

If it CAN happen, then it WILL happen. It's just a matter of when. Someone is bound to abuse that power, if they can.

 

[travelingfool]

This hasnt really happened in Western EU

Well, then I can lay all my fears to rest.

 

[ElasticNinja]

You assume that a news story has never been downplayed or even suppressed.

You assume that it could NEVER happen.

If it CAN happen, then it WILL happen. It's just a matter of when. Someone is bound to abuse that power, if they can.

I dont assume that it could NEVER happen
Obviously governments could interfere but despite some terrible governments they havent interfered because its wrong to.

We dont live in central Africa


EDIT: who would you prefer owned a news station: a modern responsible goverment or Rupert Murdoch?

 

[travelingfool]

who would you prefer owned a news station: a modern responsible goverment or Rupert Murdoch?

That's a "straw man" arguement, setting the stage for an "either/or" response.

 

[Vihzel]

You assume that a news story has never been downplayed or even suppressed.

You assume that it could NEVER happen.

If it CAN happen, then it WILL happen. It's just a matter of when. Someone is bound to abuse that power, if they can.

You have a habit of putting words into other people's mouths. How does he assume that it could NEVER happen? I don't see how you could assume that he believes it could NEVER happen by "This hasnt really happened in Western EU". Does he ever say anything about the future?

 

[byteware]

I dont assume that it could NEVER happen

You assume it HAS never happened, because it's never been announced that it's happened.

Obviously governments could interfere but despite some terrible governments they havent interfered because its wrong to.

Do you believe it would be more wrong to interfere with the free press, or invade another country for dubious reasons(i.e. Iraq)?

EDIT: who would you prefer owned a news station: a modern responsible goverment or Rupert Murdoch?

Rupert Murdoch.

 

[Vihzel]

You were the one trying to equate Murdoch owning both to Fox owning the WSJ.


Seems like you are trying to use the relationship to discredit the article to me.

If not, then what's the point of this (false) statement?

Murdoch owns both Fox and WSJ. Yes. I agree. Was I trying not to? I don't really understand what you mean by your first statement.

Did you not read my posts? I'm trying to discredit the article based on how badly the survey was done.

"Again... to the general public, they will be easily fooled by the article from Fox News owned WSJ. To anyone who has studied basic political science... and I mean this is even encroaching AP Government level in high school... this survey would be an EASY one to tell that it's poorly done with the sole purpose to deceive."

I wonder why there would be an article from the WSJ on this survey if it was obviously done badly. I would be embarrassed if I did an article commenting (not criticizing) on something that I knew had clear flaws... and I mean a lot of clear flaws.

 

[byteware]

You have a habit of putting words into other people's mouths. How does he assume that it could NEVER happen? I don't see how you could assume that he believes it could NEVER happen by "This hasnt really happened in Western EU". Does he ever say anything about the future?

First, I never put words into your mouth. I interpreted your statement exactly as you intended it to be.

I'm certain that if that were not the case, you would respond to my post and clear up what exactly it was you meant to do by that statement.

Secondly, if he thought it would happen, then it would be important to prevent it.

These statements indicate that he doesn't believe it HAS happened, and doesn't believe it WILL happen:

Obviously governments could interfere but despite some terrible governments they havent interfered because its wrong to.

We dont live in central Africa

 

[ElasticNinja]

There has been no instance I can recall of government using the state media to their advantage in the British Isles in the last ten years.
If there was the (non-state) media would be all over it.


Do you think the US would be less responsible?

Accidental double post.

Opera mini is a curse

 

[mpw]

...But state-sanctioned news always has the potential to become more like the Pravda and less like the BBC...

Just to be clear, the BBC is independent of the government, with full independent editorial. It has a charter to serve the Public; 'to inform, educate and entertain' and to promote, amongst other things, citizenship & civil society, education & learning, the stimulation of creativity and cultural excellence.

It is not a government mouthpiece; watch Newsnight or Question Time, for just two quality, excellent examples of editorially independent current affairs programming.

The BBC output is world class, I would suggest that very few if any other broadcasters are an equal to the BBC anywhere in the world, I'm yet to hear a radio station from the US that comes close to practically any of the BBC's many stations.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Just to be clear, the BBC is independent of the government, with full independent editorial. It has a charter to serve the Public; 'to inform, educate and entertain' and to promote, amongst other things, citizenship & civil society, education & learning, the stimulation of creativity and cultural excellence.

It is not a government mouthpiece; watch Newsnight or Question Time, for just two quality, excellent examples of editorially independent current affairs programming.

The BBC output is world class, I would suggest that very few if any other broadcasters are an equal to the BBC anywhere in the world, I'm yet to hear a radio station from the US that comes close to practically any of the BBC's many stations.

+1

Only thing I hate about the beeb is their soccer coverage.
All the analysts agree with each other

 

[travelingfool]

Just to be clear, the BBC is independent of the government, with full independent editorial. It has a charter to serve the Public; 'to inform, educate and entertain' and to promote, amongst other things, citizenship & civil society, education & learning, the stimulation of creativity and cultural excellence.

It is not a government mouthpiece; watch Newsnight or Question Time, for just two quality, excellent examples of editorially independent current affairs programming.

The BBC output is world class, I would suggest that very few if any other broadcasters are an equal to the BBC anywhere in the world, I'm yet to hear a radio station from the US that comes close to practically any of the BBC's many stations.

My reply was in response to this:

America needs a state broadcaster like BBC.
All the others seem full of crap, especially your precious FaUx

It was the notion of state broadcasting that sparked my responses, not the BBC. As stated, I enjoy listening to the BBC. It was shadowninty who equated the BBC with state broadcasting. Perhaps you should have quoted him/her instead.

 

[byteware]

There has been no instance I can recall of government using the state media to their advantage in the British Isles in the last ten years.
If there was the (non-state) media would be all over it.

Really? How exactly would THEY know?

Do you think the US would be less responsible?

Nope. I think it would be JUST as responsible. That's the problem.

Opera mini is a curse

Chrome...

 

[ElasticNinja]

Really? How exactly would THEY know?


Nope. I think it would be JUST as responsible. That's the problem.

Chrome...

They're watching YOU..

My reply was in response to this:



It was the notion of state broadcasting that sparked my responses, not the BBC. As stated, I enjoy listening to the BBC. It was shadowninty who equated the BBC with state broadcasting. Perhaps you should have quoted him/her instead.

I'm a guy

BBC is state funded
It was a private broadcaster that got taken over by the United Kingdom government in the 20/30's (think it was early thirties)

Its not China Central TV or something

 

[travelingfool]

BBC is state funded
It was a private broadcaster that got taken over by the United Kingdom government in the 20/30's (think it was early thirties)

Its not China Central TV or something

Chill with the rolleyes emoticon. It's seriously annoying. Anyhow, why do you refuse to acknowledge that my main point is not about the BBC and is about my distrust of what government run news could morph into under the Obama administration? You pick and choose what you will reply to; and not just in this thread.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Chill with the rolleyes emoticon. It's seriously annoying. Anyhow, why do you refuse to acknowledge that my main point is not about the BBC and is about my distrust of what government run news could morph into under the Obama administration? You pick and choose what you will reply to; and not just in this thread.[/
QUOTE]

Do you really think Obama is going to start using a state broadcaster as a propaganda tool


Or is the whole idea of a state broadcaster too communist?

 

[travelingfool]

Chill with the rolleyes emoticon. It's seriously annoying. Anyhow, why do you refuse to acknowledge that my main point is not about the BBC and is about my distrust of what government run news could morph into under the Obama administration? You pick and choose what you will reply to; and not just in this thread.

Do you really think Obama is going to start using a state broadcaster as a propaganda tool


Or is the whole idea of a state broadcaster too communist?

What, are you twelve? I had a more coherent conversation with my wife's grandmother the day she passed away from Alzheimer's Disease.