Major Media No Longer Controlled By Bush

[42PETUNIAS]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20061128/cm_thenation/1143747

Something important in the overall scheme of the American experiment happened this week.

On Monday morning, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer appeared on cable television screens across the United States and announced: "The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war -- a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We'll have a lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase, civil war."

The statement followed a similar decision by the Los Angeles Times to drop the pretense of referring to the fighting in Iraq as something other than the civil war it has obviously been for some time.

What is important about this development is that, for the first time since the debate about Iraq began, some--though certainly not all--major media outlets in the United States are making their own judgments based on developments in the Middle East. Up until now, major media has, with few exceptions, failed to embrace that most basic of journalistic responsibilities. Rather, it has served as a stenography service for the Bush-Cheney administration.

The Washington press corps has imbibed the assessments, the claims, the lies of the White House and then regurgitated them as "news." In so doing, they have warped not just the language but the very essence of the national debate. Meaningless phrases such as "stay the course" and "cut and run" have become mainstays of a discussion that has been stage-managed by White House political czar Karl Rove and his acolytes, as opposed to the news editors who are supposed to be calling the shots for broadcast and cable networks and newspapers.

Major media's on-bended-knee approach to the White House has forestalled an honest dialogue about the crisis into which Iraq degenerated after the U.S. invasion and occupation of that country.

By abandoning the role intended by the founders when they enshrined "freedom of the press" protections in the Constitution--that of checking and balancing executive excess, particularly during periods of one-faction or one-party political dominance--major media failed the Republic at precisely the point when its intervention on the side of realism was most needed.

In no measure has this been more the case than in the refusal of most media outlets to acknowledge Iraq's civil war. By following the dictates of the White House and refusing to employ the only honest description for what's happening in Baghdad and other regions of the country, broadcast, cable and print editors made themselves extensions of the Bush White House during the course of two national election cycles and three years of empty congressional debate.

This in-kind contribution to Republican presidential and congressional campaigns was never appreciated by the White House, which has perfected the art of complaining bitterly about even the most tepid deviations from the official script. But the damage was done--not merely to the Democrats and to the discourse but to the Bush himself.

A president needs a skeptical and challenging media to remind him of the realities that ideologically and personally self-serving aides seek to obscure. Read the transcripts of White House conversations involving Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War and it is evident that both men were conscious of critical reporting on their actions and often challenged the sillier spin of their advisors based on information gleaned from print and broadcast news.

For the better part of four years, as he has steered the country deeper into the disaster that is Iraq, Bush--who does not read newspapers but who reportedly catches televised news breaks while watching sports--has been at the mercy of the neoconservative nutjobs and schemers who continue to crowd his inner circle.

Now, if the president happens to tune in NBC or MSNBC, he will be exposed to the fact that he has placed more than 100,000 young Americans in the middle of a bloody civil war that they cannot resolve.

There are no guarantees that Bush will recognize reality and shift course. However, as major media begins to rise from its bended-knee position, and stenography pads are traded for reporters' notebooks, we approach the moment where Congress and the American people can open the honest discussion that should have started years ago. Too many lies have been allowed to go uncontested, too many Americans and Iraqis have died, to suggest that editors and reporters can simply adopt the term "civil war" and then hold their heads high. It will take a lot of realism, a lot of truth telling, to lift the shame that major media brought upon itself in what historians of journalism will see as an era of relinquished responsibility and propagandistic excess. But, for the sake of those still in the line of fire, not to mention the Republic, let us hope that the critical corner has been turned.


Two words: Fucking Finally

This is really good, but i dont think it will have too much of an effect on the major media. This probably has a lot to do with the democrats in the house now, and thank god for that, if this goes on. It really would be nice to have a media you can trust more than the internet. What really eats me up is how it talks about the president finding out about this if he just "happens to tune in" you know your president is badly informed when he finds out about stuff like this through chance viewing on tv.

In any case, what do you think? is this important? Or will it have no real affect on the country.

[handofpwn]

Personally i think this is very important. The information that was beoadcasted on these news programs were leading americans to make bad decisions about the president and what should be done about Iraq. Thank god bush is finally aware about what the media are saying, its like he was under a rock or something.

And its about fucking time for this to have happened.

[42PETUNIAS]

did you see the news reports? i wouldve liked to, but im at a boarding school, so no t.v.s

[Fifthfiend]

Inasmuch as this is a forum open to people across the whole of the ideological spectrum and this is a topic where people tend to have rather strongly held opinions, I'm just going to add a quick caution that we all try and allow for that and mind our manners and reminder that I'm sure we'd all prefer a thoughtful and considered discussion over hard words and hard feelings.

With that said, carry on.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

What annoys me the most about Bush's response, is how he depicted (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20061128-0729-bush.html)all of the problems being Al Qaeda's fault.

However, its long since come out that the US is exaggerating (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/4356) the extent of Al Qaeda's imput & influence in the insurgency. They certainly helped get the ball rolling, but at this point the thing has a life of its own without them, and even if Al Qaeda left Iraq completely, we'd have about the same level of violence.

SWB

[42PETUNIAS]

That's what really depresses me. I dont think the government is trying to make things better, they just don't want the blame on them. They're terrorists, they don't rely on overwhelming force, or destruction, they have exactly as much power as the people give them. However, the current administration is giving them a hell of a lot of power, which really only helps them recruit more people, and scares the american public. The government needs to stop passing on the blame, and take responsibility, and it now seems that the media is trying to do their part, and report the news, not the stuff that the white house craps out.

Edit: Sorry fifthfiend, that was probably far too strong

[Tydeus]

That's what really depresses me. I dont think the government is trying to make things better, they just don't want the blame on them. They're terrorists, they don't rely on overwhelming force, or destruction, they have exactly as much power as the people give them.

Damn straight.

The American people are really the ones at fault here. Government -- any government, representative or tyrannical, is a reflection of the people. After all, the masses have the numbers, now don't we?

Currently, America is far too democratic, to my mind. What we need is a little more concentration of power among the elites. After all, a minority ruling over a majority is very easy to keep in-check. Just rise up once in a while, and remind the people in power that you have the numbers to march up to their homes, tear off the doors, and leave with their heads on pikes. That way, they won't take such flagrant advantage of the masses. It's the way government has worked for some time. Conflict between oppressor class and oppressed class is the key to stability. Problem is, modern Americans don't want to believe that they are oppressed, so they identify (in a truly staggering distortion of reality) with the oppressor class. For once, the oppressed actually have more power than the oppressors, but they gladly hand it all over to the oppressor class, in some sort of deranged attempt to commune with the oppressors, to be like them, to pretend to be of them. The result is that the oppressor class ends up with more realized power than the oppressed, thus maintaining the status of oppressed and oppressor along the same class lines as it has always been. The oppressed, however, have more potential power.

The media, to my mind, have been tremendously successful as tools of the oppressor class in order to persuade the oppressed to identify mistakenly with the oppressors, and hand over their power. With the media distancing itself somewhat from the current governmental rulers, that effect may be diminshed somewhat. However, I think largely the American populous is simply to opulent and obsessed with the dancing shadows on the wall of the Cave to ever really confront the intensity of reality. But, if the media does bring the people into a somewhat more reality-centric frame of mind, it may mean that we won't be taken so terribly by suprise when hardship comes along and ruins the illusion. In times of struggle, you can't afford pleasant images. I think, really, that's the best we can hope for.

[42PETUNIAS]

The media, to my mind, have been tremendously successful as tools of the oppressor class in order to persuade the oppressed to identify mistakenly with the oppressors, and hand over their power.

You're definitly right, but this isn't just the major media outlets convincing people to be like the upper class, we can thank people magazine for that. That's the kind of thing that really frustrates me, that large numbers are willing to pay money to find out about whats new with people, simply because they are rich, good-looking, or have been in a good film. The whole thing pisses me off, actors should act, they should get paid large quantities of money, people should comment on how good/bad they are of an actor, then they should leave the public spectrum. This whole idea that since people are rich (like paris hilton, who simply for her money, is now a pop icon with her music, etc.) they should be famous. We should be focusing on real heroes, people who help the world. Just because they can act (and granted, it isnt an easy job) doesnt mean they should be made rich, and made into upper class, upper class should be the people who do, not those who show.

Also, you know its a good discussion forum when two people fundamentaly disagree on something in one forum, and then form a damn straight on another.

[Muffin Mage]

You're kidding about America being democratic, right? Please tell me you are, because there's no possible way anyone could mistake America for a democracy just because there are elections. People complain about politicians being the same because they are: on the whole, they are rich, mostly white, mostly male and almost entirely college educated. They make decisions based on keeping themselves steeped in the power and privilege to which they are accustomed, no matter what party they belong to. Aristotle says that this here's an oligarchy.

But that's beside the point. More important is that whoever started the topic has used an incorrect and misleading title/interpretation. It's not that Bush, having long held the country's media outlets in an iron fist, finally relents and throws open the floodgates to create a free and open press. You would be more correct in saying that the media has finally decided to start reading what they get handed. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's based on what the article said, and that's what reading comprehension is for.

[POS Industries]

Okay, Tydeus, I'm having a hard time following what exactly it is you're suggesting. Explain to me, please, how the idea of "less democracy, more oppression" is, in your mind, in any way resembling a good idea.

I mean, I'm not trying to be rude or chastise you for having an opinion, but damn.

[Kikuichimonji]

Damn straight.

The American people are really the ones at fault here. Government -- any government, representative or tyrannical, is a reflection of the people. After all, the masses have the numbers, now don't we?A reflection doesn't mean a mirror image. You see a reflection when you look into a funhouse mirror, but that doesn't mean that you're eight feet tall and shaped like a barbell.

Currently, America is far too democratic, to my mind. What we need is a little more concentration of power among the elites. After all, a minority ruling over a majority is very easy to keep in-check. Just rise up once in a while, and remind the people in power that you have the numbers to march up to their homes, tear off the doors, and leave with their heads on pikes. That way, they won't take such flagrant advantage of the masses.Hate to break it to you, but America is already ruled by elites. Most of the people who don't vote (50% of the population) don't care enough because the economy and law systems work more often than not, so there's no immediate need for reform.

And what exactly are you advocating? The majority controlling a ruling minority so they don't abuse the majority? That would actually just imply rule by the majority, because they can threaten defenestration at any of the 'ruling' minority if they don't go the way they want. Once the government's sacrosanctity is lost, all hell breaks loose. In a bad way for everyone, usually. That's why revolutions are far less common than sweeping reforms. It's also why democracy is so effective - the system incorporates regime change.

It's the way government has worked for some time. Conflict between oppressor class and oppressed class is the key to stability.Hey, who let the Marxist out of the cage? *grumbles*

Problem is, modern Americans don't want to believe that they are oppressed, so they identify (in a truly staggering distortion of reality) with the oppressor class. For once, the oppressed actually have more power than the oppressors, but they gladly hand it all over to the oppressor class, in some sort of deranged attempt to commune with the oppressors, to be like them, to pretend to be of them. The result is that the oppressor class ends up with more realized power than the oppressed, thus maintaining the status of oppressed and oppressor along the same class lines as it has always been.I'd buy that more if we hadn't just had the Democrats take control of both the House and the Senate. If the people in Congress are doing a bad job (even if by proxy, at times), they get replaced.

The media, to my mind, have been tremendously successful as tools of the oppressor class in order to persuade the oppressed to identify mistakenly with the oppressors, and hand over their power. With the media distancing itself somewhat from the current governmental rulers, that effect may be diminshed somewhat. However, I think largely the American populous is simply to opulent and obsessed with the dancing shadows on the wall of the Cave to ever really confront the intensity of reality.The media reports whatever gets the best ratings. It's not their fault people are more interested in Angelina Jolie than, say, foreign policy. Remember that the news media is a business. If anyone is to blame for any masking of the truth, it's the people because they don't really care.

Bush never controlled the media. The people wanted to hear that we were winning the War on Terror. Now we want to hear that Republicans suck because we can't deny that we're losing anymore and the economy's 'upshoots' seem to be more theoretical than physical. Mainstream news sources take whatever viewpoint gets them viewers at that time.

Edit: I don't think it matters what system of government we have technically. People think it works well enough, we elect other people if things don't work, and everyone's content enough not to keep AK47s in their car.

[42PETUNIAS]

You're kidding about America being democratic, right? Please tell me you are, because there's no possible way anyone could mistake America for a democracy just because there are elections. People complain about politicians being the same because they are: on the whole, they are rich, mostly white, mostly male and almost entirely college educated. They make decisions based on keeping themselves steeped in the power and privilege to which they are accustomed, no matter what party they belong to. Aristotle says that this here's an oligarchy.

Uhh... see, i try to be a little more delicate with my stance, i agree that America isnt a perfect democracy, but ogligarchy? thats a little strong. Also, i think getting angry at the people who make the laws for the united states of america for being college educated is one of the stupidest things ive ever read. Would you rather have a country run by southern hicks? Yes, the government is in a pretty sorry state, but absorbing a completly extreme viewpoint doesnt help make it better, it only gets your opinion disregarded.

oh, and psssssssttt

Inasmuch as this is a forum open to people across the whole of the ideological spectrum and this is a topic where people tend to have rather strongly held opinions, I'm just going to add a quick caution that we all try and allow for that and mind our manners and reminder that I'm sure we'd all prefer a thoughtful and considered discussion over hard words and hard feelings.

Your whole post just completly defied something that a mod (and not just any mod, fifthfiend) clearly stated only a few posts earlier.

Yes, america is ruled by elites, but the people can change it, they arent forced into their position, they accept it. Just now, the democrats were given a majority, none of this happens in an ogligarchy. Think of sparta, thats an ogligarchy, this doesnt quite match up.

[POS Industries]

Hey, who let the Marxist out of the cage? *grumbles*

No one did. Marx's idea was that the oppressor/oppressed system (or as it is commonly termed, the "Haves" and "Have-nots") was the major flaw in human civilization. All that had happened thus far was the upper and lower classes continuing a vicious cycle of oppression and revolution, and Marx's solution was to scrap the whole thing and make everyone equal.

And there you have Communism. Too bad it was never once implemented properly and ended up becoming synonymous with dictatorship, making it more oppressive than the system is was supposed to be replacing. But hey, that's what you get when you decide that the country has to have a "leader", one guy that stands above all the rest and tells everyone what to do.

And on a domestic note, thanks for that, Jackson/Van Buren administration......

See, that's the major problem: We don't have nearly enough democracy (I mean, hell, six years ago we had a guy not become President even though more people voted for him. You look at that and tell me we have too much democracy), and what little democracy we have is completely ruined due to the powers that be misinforming the public, or not informing them at all. Media is intended to be a neutral source of solid information, keeping the people properly informed as to what is happening in the world and making them able to properly make decisions involving the fate of the nation.

[42PETUNIAS]

Marx's solution was to scrap the whole thing and make everyone equal.
And there you have Communism.

your forgetting one thing, marx didnt want communism. Marxism preaches a society where everyone is equal with no government communism is actually an intermediate phase between ordinary communities and marxism, but most people think of this as the absolute.

But the major problem i think with the U.S. democracy is the electoral college. Cause without it, Bush wouldnt be president, there would be no iraq war, and we might have a better society to thank for it.

[Kikuichimonji]

No one did. Marx's idea was that the oppressor/oppressed system (or as it is commonly termed, the "Haves" and "Have-nots") was the major flaw in human civilization. All that had happened thus far was the upper and lower classes continuing a vicious cycle of oppression and revolution, and Marx's solution was to scrap the whole thing and make everyone equal.I could debate this, but I was just making a quip about his beliefs and the correlation I saw to classical Marxism. It's off-topic and nitpicky to go into this further.

Media is intended to be a neutral source of solid information, keeping the people properly informed as to what is happening in the world and making them able to properly make decisions involving the fate of the nation.But people don't care about the fate of the nation. They (rightfully or wrongfully) trust that political leaders aren't generally going to screw up the good system we have going now. When people start worrying more about their personal lives than government corruption, the media reflects that.

But the major problem i think with the U.S. democracy is the electoral college. Cause without it, Bush wouldnt be president, there would be no iraq war, and we might have a better society to thank for it.That's debatable. The Republicans would have still controlled the Senate and House, which have the actual powers to declare war. Perhaps the Republicans wouldn't have been as unified, and thus fail at pushing for the war, but remember that a large number of Democrats also wanted to go to war. Would we have gone to war without Bush's misinformation? I don't know. I hate Bush as much as the next person, but to blame just him for the war is simplifying things.

[POS Industries]

But people don't care about the fate of the nation. They (rightfully or wrongfully) trust that political leaders aren't generally going to screw up the good system we have going now. When people start worrying more about their personal lives than government corruption, the media reflects that.

But the fate of the nation directly affects the personal lives of the people living in it. And given how much politics is and has always been such a hot button issue in the US, I don't know exactly where the idea that "people don't care about how the government is directly trying to fuck over its citizenry" came from, but I have a hard time believing that it's true. I mean, here we are, talking about it. We have countless threads dedicated to different aspects of the fact that the US government seems to be directly trying to fuck over its citizenry. Obviously, we care. How is it so much of a leap to think that other people do, too?

[42PETUNIAS]

When people start worrying more about their personal lives than government corruption, the media reflects that.

I dont think personal lives is the problem, its that they care more about pamela anderson and kid rock getting divorced (im only half ashamed that i know this) than they care about whether theres a civil war in iraq.

[Muffin Mage]

Uhh... see, i try to be a little more delicate with my stance, i agree that America isnt a perfect democracy, but ogligarchy? thats a little strong. Also, i think getting angry at the people who make the laws for the united states of america for being college educated is one of the stupidest things ive ever read. Would you rather have a country run by southern hicks? Yes, the government is in a pretty sorry state, but absorbing a completly extreme viewpoint doesnt help make it better, it only gets your opinion disregarded.

oh, and psssssssttt



Your whole post just completly defied something that a mod (and not just any mod, fifthfiend) clearly stated only a few posts earlier.

Yes, america is ruled by elites, but the people can change it, they arent forced into their position, they accept it. Just now, the democrats were given a majority, none of this happens in an ogligarchy. Think of sparta, thats an ogligarchy, this doesnt quite match up.
I mentioned college education as just another thing they all have in common. I certainly didn't mean that it was bad by any means.

And no, Sparta was primarily a monarchy, at least according to my vague recollection of what Aristotle said. If you want a closer parallel, look at the later Roman Republic. An oligarchy is, in Aristotle's terms, a corruption of the aristocracy, wherein the wealthy and powerful few act to perpetuate their wealth and power rather than acting for the good of the state. In contrast, the aristocracy is, ideally, where the few skilled and able act for the welfare of the state. Something along those lines. And granted, though my descriptions qualify them, they're really morally ambivalent. I could probably spin scenarios, but I'll leave that up to you.

Somewhere, I forget where, Jefferson or Adams had the notion that the House would be made of farmers, shopkeepers, artisans, etc. and then the Senate would be mostly professionals, and thus the entire nation would have some kind of representation in the national legislature. Going back to my first point, I have to say that the homogeneity is less than ideal for representation.

[Kikuichimonji]

But the fate of the nation directly affects the personal lives of the people living in it. And given how much politics is and has always been such a hot button issue in the US, I don't know exactly where the idea that "people don't care about how the government is directly trying to fuck over its citizenry" came from, but I have a hard time believing that it's true. I mean, here we are, talking about it. We have countless threads dedicated to different aspects of the fact that the US government seems to be directly trying to fuck over its citizenry. Obviously, we care. How is it so much of a leap to think that other people do, too?Because, in Europe, a much, much larger majority of the people are politically active. Because they need to be. Really, does a person worry about government in her day-to-day life if she's not being directly messed with by government? Most people don't care about politics in general, just specific issues. People who have strong ideological opinions on politics are a minority of the population. Most people have a "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" idea of government. This can be seen in the way that people vote for political officers. If a politician has done a decent job and runs for re-election, he has a much higher chance of winning as an incumbent (he gets about 10% more of the total vote) than he does in his first election, on average. People don't rock the boat if things move along fairly smoothly. I'm not saying that people don't care at all, but rather that they don't care a lot unless there are problems staring them in the face. How many more people dont post on forums about how the government is 'trying to fuck over its citizenry?'

[Tydeus]

Hate to break it to you, but America is already ruled by elites. Most of the people who don't vote (50% of the population) don't care enough because the economy and law systems work more often than not, so there's no immediate need for reform.

I think I addressed this in my post. America is ruled by elites, but only in the most technical sense. The elites are subject to the shifting wind of public opinion. The elites are too easily held accountable by the people. Now, they must be held accountable at times, but not quite so directly and easily as this. Examine Athens, when it was a democracy. One day they're hiding safe behind their walls while Sparta fumes and sputters before going home to make sure the slaves don't revolt, and the next they're taking the field, only to get utterly pwned. If you had some elites running the show, you'd actually be more likely to have people in power who know what the hell they're doing, and take a course of action because they perceive it to be the best course, not just because it bolsters the public's opinion of them.

Basically, it's all about conflict. If you have agreement, then you're truly fucked. France circa Louis XIV-XVI: the aristocracy is stripped of power by XIV's cunning use of high-society, celebrity-style shows of manners and pomp. Result? With no one left to check the king, the whole situation gets out of control in a flash. The king ultimately becomes so insulated, coddled by legions of doting aristocrats that even the obvious discontent of the people is spun so thoroughly that he doesn't do anything until it's too damn late.

Subsequently, the people behead the king, etc. Result? With no one to check the will of the people (Rousseau was a douchebag, btw), things get out of hand, stability collapses just as it did when there was no one to check the king. Bottom line is that in both cases, those in power had no conflict -- everyone around them agreed out of fear, ignorance, delusion, or self-interest.

Let's contrast this with Rome, from the Republic up on through to the end of the reign of Augustus (yes, I know, I use Rome as an example in every discussion thread. What can I say? 1,000 years of history provides a lot of examples.). In Rome, the elites ruled. Senators were generally drawn from the highest ranks of society. That is, until the First Plebian Secession around 300 B.C., at which point everyone just up and left the city. To remedy the situation, plebian Senators are taken into the Senate, and the position of the Tribune is created -- an office directly elected by the plebs with the power to veto Senatorial decisions.

As you can see, the ruling minority was easily checked by the disenfranchised majority -- there wasn't even any violence invovled. Just a show of numbers, a reminder to the Senate of just who exactly formed the army, who built the Senate house, who paved the roads and raised the walls of Rome. Consider it similar to the massive, ongoing protests of the 1960s -- a rejection of society, until that society undergoes suitable change. Now, for the plebs, it only took one protest, because they were all united. A good example for oppressed people around the world.

Anyway, although the egregious offenses of the Senate were checked, they were still pretty much immune from public opinion on a day-to-day basis. This meant they didn't have to pander, didn't have to raise "moral" issues or propose censorship of media just to rally public support. They dealt with the issues of the day that mattered, and sought the best solution, not just the one the public wanted. However, there was still conflict. They, after all, had no political parties. Factions of Senators were typically at most about a dozen strong (in a Senate that ranged in size throughout the years up to 600 in number). If you fucked up? Well, the other Senators were only too happy to throw you to the wolves, and gain renown and influence for themselves (and maybe take your stuff, too, when you got expelled from Italy).

The result? Every politician had to be proving himself, constantly. Politicians had to prove that they were worthy to lead, they had to produce results. And of course, always in the back of their mind were the plebs. They knew they could not overstep certain boundaries. And when one Senator, or a dozen advocated such an oppressive move? Well, the Tribunes were there to instigate the downfall, and then it was only a matter of time before the offending Senators were torn apart by their ravenous colleagues. Altogether, an excellent system, rife with conflict, and stable for nigh on 500 years.

Basically, it's Machiavelli's principle of stability set forth somewhat in The Prince, but better fleshed-out, and more coolly-reasoned in Discourses on Livy. Essentially, assume everyone is an asshole, because most of the time you'll be right, and you can't count on them not being assholes, because it makes you vulnerable. OK, got that? Good, because the next step is perfectly logical -- make sure no one ever gets their way. Better to pit two groups of assholes against each other, balancing one another, than to let any one group gain control.

The oppressed may be victims, to varying degrees, but they tend to be stupid, lazy, bigoted, and perfectly happy with that mediocrity. They yearn for nothing more than to not be oppressed. They are, in short, self-involved, unless otherwise prodded. The oppressors, by contrast, work towards the accretion of power. If left unchecked, their greed, power-lust, and ruthlessness will tear a nation apart. If checked by the ignorant masses, they will view the society, the state, as their vehicle to power. They must always be reminded that without the oppressed going along with it all, they have no power. And of course, nations and societies are nothing more than constructs, prisons, to entrap the oppressed. But goddamn if some of them aren't so comfortable that you don't care that you're not supposed to leave -- who would want to leave such a nice place?

If the oppressors are constantly reminded that the state is their most potent tool for retaining and increasing their power, then they will work towards the best interest of that state. If, like Gaius and Nero, they lose sight of the state as key to oppression, or are even without lust of power, then the state suffers, and the oppressed suffer with it, as their prison loses its furnishings, warmth, and temptations, and becomes a prison outright, bars and bare concrete walls. History reinforces this conclusion, especially Roman history. It was really not until after Augustus that any Roman leader truly acted out of self-interest. Even the ones who grabbed power for themselves did so with the intent of bettering Rome. Sulla, who became Dictator for a time, tried to strengthen the Senate for the future -- the very institution which he had overthrown! Julius, the man who killed the Republic, did more for Rome's poor than any man before or after, arguably. Scipio Africanus fulfilled desires of power as consul, and used that power to defeat Hannibal, and save Rome from a mortal threat.

Like I said -- conflict. The knowledge that someone was always biting at your heels, ready to rip you to pieces the moment you couldn't keep up, the moment you faltered. It must have been wonderful. It was also a way to keep politicians honest and hard-working.

By contrast, in modern America, the key to power is by pandering to the people. After all, the people hold the power, and to gain it for yourself (as a poltician), you must persuade the people to give it to you. But this power, this lust of power, is essentially unchecked. With only two parties, vast numbers of politicians are immune, or nearly so, to criticism. Yes, the Dems just won the house, but of 430+ seats, only 33 changed hands. The party structure makes politicians weak, lazy, and complacent. No one is gunning for the congressman from rural Alabama, waiting to pounce on him with banishment from the contiguous 48, and the confiscation of his property.

Anyway, the point here is that the people have too much power, and the politicians merely play the role of patronizing panderers -- essentially, it is an attempt to achieve consensus, that dreaded force that destroys nations. Luckily, we have the populous artificially divided into two groups, and so there are two groups that pander and patronize, but have some conflict with each other. However, most of the conflict is for show. Not all, but most. No one, on either side of the aisle, dares to demand sacrifice of the people, if it can be avoided by any means. Some pandering -- on issues, on philosophies, that are at the core of any nation's stability -- is universal among the elites. The result is the slow decline we are now facing. Our military -- hell, all our public services -- are underfunded, and unappreciated by the younger generations. Our country is steadily bankrupting itself. Our citizens are concerned more with reality television than reality, and our education system is far too yielding and placating and undermined to change that. Where's the nationalism? Where's that pride, that feeling of civic duty? Where's the community? It seems, to me at least, that it's disappearing. And I think this may be reasonably traced to a tyranny of the majority (something our founding fathers all feared with great intensity, by the way).

And what exactly are you advocating? The majority controlling a ruling minority so they don't abuse the majority? That would actually just imply rule by the majority, because they can threaten defenestration at any of the 'ruling' minority if they don't go the way they want. Once the government's sacrosanctity is lost, all hell breaks loose. In a bad way for everyone, usually. That's why revolutions are far less common than sweeping reforms. It's also why democracy is so effective - the system incorporates regime change.

First of all, in most societies where there is a ruling minority (and I mean this is the sense that the minority are officially endowed with their powers, as opposed to the U.S., where the power is officially endowed to the majority, which then willingly turns it over to the minority), the majority is mostly complacent, just as in most nations in general. They only rise up when the minority crosses certain boundaries, and commits offenses of a scale that they cannot be tolerated.

And, furthermore, the defenestration (love that word) of the regime is neither necessary nor the norm. Again, refer to the First Plebian Secession as the prime example. Alternately, workers' protests in early-19th-century Britain could be provided as an example. Not necessarily "Get the fuck out," but rather "shape the fuck up, or else we will throw you out."

It all comes down to the society-as-prison metaphor. The society is the tool of oppression that enables the ruling elite to maintain and accrete power. When a group -- or the entire oppressed class -- rejects the society (stages a prison-break, if you will), then the ruling minority knows that it must restructure the society to make the prison adequately comfortable that the masses will willingly lock themselves up.

So, how is this structure different from majority rule? Well, let's review (that came off as way more patronizing than I meant): in majority rule, there is a far higher degree of complacency, peace, and consensus. The masses, who tend to be self-invovled, and not concerened with the state (which, after all, is their prison), wield a great degree of power, and hold all politicians at their mercy. The result is that the elite, though technically in power, really serve as nothing more than panderers, ready to constuct comforts of illusion for the masses, who all too happily buy into those illusions. The result? The state is left to wither, while the masses wield the power, essentially unchecked.

This is contrasted to minority rule, in which the majority only rarely holds the minority accountable, and only when the offenses are greivous (this is not an ideal set-up, either; history shows us that it is in fact typical). The result is that most of the time, the elite is able to maintian the prison, which is crucial to their very existence. As long as a minimum level of conflict is maintained, both among the elites, and with the masses, the elites will always be reminded that they must tend to the state in order to tend to their own power-lust. The result is a society that has a dedicated class of people who do nothing but endeavor to maintain the state, because they are intertwined with it, their two fates bound together, the health of one mirroring the health of the other.

Altogether, history -- of Rome, of France, of Britain, of Germany, of Russia, of America -- shows that the minority-led structure tends towards stability, growth, and prosperity, while the majority-led structure tends towards instability, decay, and poverty. Of course, when I say "minority-led," I refer to the Roman-style oligarchy, as opposed to more tyrannical conceptions of the nation-state. Yet, in all honesty, those tyrannies are a subset of minority-led rule, and an undesirable one. However, whereas minority-led rule can result in productive oligarchy, or destructive tyranny, majority-led rule, thus far in human society, tends towards decay uniformly. Minority-led rule has, at least, the potential of success, and many very successful results under its belt, whereas majority-led rule has produced either failures, or results which are not yet concluded, though most of them are already in decline (see: modern Europe, America).

Thus, to me, it seems prudent to pursue that which has proven most effective, if not totally effective, because, after all, what has?

Hey, who let the Marxist out of the cage? *grumbles*

What?!? Marxist? I don't think I could be more insulted! :P

Seriously, though, I tend more towards fascism, actually. I'm a community-over-individual kind of guy. I believe in the state, in nationalism, in glory, and in power. None of that sits very well with poor, naïve Marx.

I'd buy that more if we hadn't just had the Democrats take control of both the House and the Senate. If the people in Congress are doing a bad job (even if by proxy, at times), they get replaced.

This is another thing I adressed up in the bulk of my post, above. Basically, all politicians are panderers, and merely changing a few superficial titles and perhaps supporting conflict on a very few issues doesn't really eliminate the problems of majority-led rule.

The media reports whatever gets the best ratings. It's not their fault people are more interested in Angelina Jolie than, say, foreign policy. Remember that the news media is a business. If anyone is to blame for any masking of the truth, it's the people because they don't really care.

Well, yes. Like I said -- all truth and responsibility in media does is prepare us more adequately for the eventual fall.

[Mirai Gen]

Ty - I find it funny you're talking to Kukiji. Because...
If you make a long post, it better be goddamn worth the time it takes to read. Because I'm lazy.
Having said thus.

Anyway, the point here is that the people have too much power, and the politicians merely play the role of patronizing panderers -- essentially, it is an attempt to achieve consensus, that dreaded force that destroys nations. Luckily, we have the populous artificially divided into two groups, and so there are two groups that pander and patronize, but have some conflict with each other. However, most of the conflict is for show. Not all, but most. No one, on either side of the aisle, dares to demand sacrifice of the people, if it can be avoided by any means. Some pandering -- on issues, on philosophies, that are at the core of any nation's stability -- is universal among the elites. The result is the slow decline we are now facing. Our military -- hell, all our public services -- are underfunded, and unappreciated by the younger generations. Our country is steadily bankrupting itself. Our citizens are concerned more with reality television than reality, and our education system is far too yielding and placating and undermined to change that. Where's the nationalism? Where's that pride, that feeling of civic duty? Where's the community? It seems, to me at least, that it's disappearing. And I think this may be reasonably traced to a tyranny of the majority (something our founding fathers all feared with great intensity, by the way).
Look, while I'm all about the "Fight the power!" and "Death to the system!" and all of that, I don't see if you're refuting Kukichi's words or not. Are you agreeing or what? Or is this just clarifying a possible misunderstanding? (Which I'm thinking it is)

Because, well, I think he's right. People honestly don't give a damn because our goverment doesn't work extremely well. So long as they can go along, why should they care? Its part of that same douchebaggery of "Well, I'd vote, but it really doesn't matter!" which is sadly a majority of the view the population sees.

But, I think we're getting VERY off topic. Am I wrong in this belief?

On topic: I'm iffy on this statement. On one hand, it is a good thing that we're finally being blatant and knocking off the damn "Al Queida this" and "Al Quieda that", so hopefully people who are neutral who don't watch Fox News for their 'information' will get a clue, however, the sheer idea that this statement alone will sway any number of people to do anything more than jack shit seems to be ill-fated hopes at best.

I mean, its a part of the same ship, right? There's the demographic who will vote for Bush because that's what they do, even though they're stuck in New Orleans shifting through the rubble of their former home, then there's the group who is anti-Iraq occupation, then there's the in betweeners. I don't know if this news report is anything that's going to cause an overnight tidal wave of swayed opinion.

[42PETUNIAS]

Tydeus, please stop posting essays (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=458209&postcount=19) in my threads. They're hard to read, annoying, difficult to respond to, etc. they dont really help get your point across, they just choke off the thread.

Although i will admit this is more on topic than a reply about you being a sociopath on a thread about the genocide in darfur.

Edit: meant to post this last night, didnt work though

And no, Sparta was primarily a monarchy, at least according to my vague recollection of what Aristotle said. If you want a closer parallel, look at the later Roman Republic. An oligarchy is, in Aristotle's terms, a corruption of the aristocracy, wherein the wealthy and powerful few act to perpetuate their wealth and power rather than acting for the good of the state. In contrast, the aristocracy is, ideally, where the few skilled and able act for the welfare of the state. Something along those lines. And granted, though my descriptions qualify them, they're really morally ambivalent. I could probably spin scenarios, but I'll leave that up to you.

Somewhere, I forget where, Jefferson or Adams had the notion that the House would be made of farmers, shopkeepers, artisans, etc. and then the Senate would be mostly professionals, and thus the entire nation would have some kind of representation in the national legislature. Going back to my first point, I have to say that the homogeneity is less than ideal for representation.

Well, i dont know if this was a part of the aristotle i learned, so maybe aristotle said something different, but i learned that ogligarchy was when the the many were slaves, ruled by the few. I cant imagine a realistic society where an upper class devotes its time and money completly into the state, its obviously going to help itself, the most we can hope for is a compromise. The problem right now, is that a lot of people in the middle class are the ones doing the community service, while the rich tend to stay away from anything but what helps themselves, i guess its sort of like an ogligarchy, but i definitly would not go as far to say that america could be compared to a society where the majority of the population are slaves.

As for a house full of shopkeepers, unless the government completly changes into a form where the house is determined by a jury-duty-like system, those who make the laws are always going to be those most qualified, anything else would be ridiculous.

[Fifthfiend]

Couple of things real quick:

Tydeus, please stop posting essays (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=458209&postcount=19) in my threads. They're hard to read, annoying, difficult to respond to, etc. they dont really help get your point across, they just choke off the thread.

Although i will admit this is more on topic than a reply about you being a sociopath on a thread about the genocide in darfur.

Posting essays is pretty much what the discussion forum is for. If you don't want to read all of that then fine, but nobody's going to be held at fault for having a lot to say.

I mean you did start the thread with an article that's probably getting up into the thousand-word range. It's hard to blame anybody for wanting to respond in kind.

As far as the s-word, if he's not bringing it up, then let's just not bring it up. Nothing good's going to come of that.


Also, as far as this --

Your whole post just completly defied something that a mod (and not just any mod, fifthfiend) clearly stated only a few posts earlier.

-- Well, I don't know about his whole post, it was mostly okay. If he wants to describe America as an oligarchy I mean, sure it's debatable, but it's not against the rules.

However Muffin --

You're kidding about America being democratic, right? Please tell me you are, because there's no possible way anyone could mistake America for a democracy just because there are elections. People complain about politicians being the same because they are: on the whole, they are rich, mostly white, mostly male and almost entirely college educated. They make decisions based on keeping themselves steeped in the power and privilege to which they are accustomed, no matter what party they belong to. Aristotle says that this here's an oligarchy.

But that's beside the point. More important is that whoever started the topic has used an incorrect and misleading title/interpretation. It's not that Bush, having long held the country's media outlets in an iron fist, finally relents and throws open the floodgates to create a free and open press. You would be more correct in saying that the media has finally decided to start reading what they get handed. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's based on what the article said, and that's what reading comprehension is for.

-- that part where you go after people's "reading comprehension," that was probably crossing the line. Especially as the title as-worded seems at least to me to be an entirely accurate summation of the article cited. Just because someone has a different view than yours doesn't mean you have to get personal about it.

That's all for now.

[42PETUNIAS]

I'm sorry, i was tired and in a bad mood, thats my fault. About using the "s-word" I didn't mean to offend, and i didn't use it in a way to discredit his opinions.

*cough"

You know I was alll set to argue this, and then I was like wait, I'm going to argue why excessive, violent force is bad, with a guy who openly admits to being a sociopath?


*cough*

Thats probably not worth arguing over though, as im sure you've apologized

I guess i was also a little bitter that the old thread i started broke down into a discussion on personal views on life, and not the actual issue like i had intended.

[Fifthfiend]

*cough"

*cough*

That's a nasty cough there, you should get that looked at.

As far as that quote goes well

1. that statement was made maybe six hours after he'd originally brought it up, whereas now it's like two weeks later which sort of makes it a different situation.

2. that quote is basically the entire reason I am saying we don't need to be dredging all that up again. I'm not going to re-argue that argument every two weeks from now unto eternity.

If you don't feel this thread is going in the direction you would ideally like to see it go then write a post that goes in the direction you'd like to see this thread go. I promise you, this will do a a lot more to get this thread to go the way you want it to go than complaining how unfair it is that this thread isn't going the way you want it to go.

I'm making an effort here to try and be nice, if people are going to have a problem that, then I have no problem going back to being not fucking nice.

[42PETUNIAS]

In any case, im curious to how other news stations have reacted to calling iraq a civil war, has it been universally adopted, or is it only used by a few people, while the rest of the news media continues to ignore the situation?

[Dragonsbane]

When did Bush actually control a major media?

[Sky Warrior Bob]

When did Bush actually control a major media?

Well, I wouldn't call it control, but for a long time post 9/11, the media had a habit of treating him with kid gloves. At very least a number of justifications his administration made for Iraq, could have been dealt with a bit more scrutiny.

The fact that NBC is getting ahead of everyone else & declaring this a civil war is a big deal.

And just to add... Powell's (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/29/powell-civil-war/)on board with the idea of this being a civil war.

SWB

[Dragonsbane]

They did portray him a lot better (relatively speaking) after that because a lot of the problems hadn't achieved the level of publicity that they do now. As for the kid gloves, the media must try at least to be subtle in its criticisms, attempting to report only the facts, or they risk seeming partisan and losing credibility.

Although, at the time, there was a lot less reason for that scrutiny. The problems only came to light later.

Control, however, is just a silly way to put it. He's as good as gone out of his way to help the media show his worst points and his most egregious errors.

Finally deciding to call it a civil war, judging by the media's usual behavior, actually came about when I expected it to. Sooner, in fact.

Additionally, hooray for Powell! Now THAT is a man I would vote for, if he was interested.

[Fifthfiend]

They did portray him a lot better (relatively speaking) after that because a lot of the problems hadn't achieved the level of publicity that they do now. As for the kid gloves, the media must try at least to be subtle in its criticisms, attempting to report only the facts, or they risk seeming partisan and losing credibility.

I think the issue is that the press is all too happy to avoid reporting the facts, out of some kind of purported fear of seeming partisan.

Which is a pretty partisan thing to do.

I mean just as a for instance, there was something like a year and a half straight following the invasion where just about every single day you could pick up the Washington Post and on the front page was a report from Donald Rumsfeld's latest press conference saying how totally great things were going in Iraq. And then buried in the bottom corner of page A18 was the latest report from Walter Pincus, their actual reporter in Iraq, laying out in stark detail how badly things were going in Iraq. Heck, like Patrick Cockburn puts it (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2021233.ece):

I remember a team from a US network news channel staying in my hotel in Baghdad complaining to me, as they buckled on their body armour and helmets, that they had been once again told by their bosses in New York, themselves under pressure from the White House, to "go and find some good news and report it."

I mean all I'm trying to say is, my personal impression of the media over the last five or so years has been less one of a media straining itself to report only the facts, and more of one straining itself to do anything but report the facts.

[42PETUNIAS]

This is the problem with america and freedom of speech. Yes, the government should have some check over the news media, but only so they aren't telling enormous untruths, or to prevent them from spewing out hateful things, or promoting unnessecary rebellion (like the rwandan media before the hutu (dont know how to spell that) tutsi genocide) As citizens of our respective countries, we should take care that we keep the government away from this media, because it helps no one when the government is hijacking the media to throw our country into denial.

[Tydeus]

I mean all I'm trying to say is, my personal impression of the media over the last five or so years has been less one of a media straining itself to report only the facts, and more of one straining itself to do anything but report the facts.

Exactly.

Oh, thank you for defending my right to post tremendously, enormously, even obscenely lengthy, grandiose, florid, and otherwise verbose, corpulent, and bloated posts. Get it? See, I used too many adjectives to describe how wordy I am! Ha ha! What a wit!

Honestly, I do kind of feel guilty for only ever expressing myself in massive, essay-length posts, but it's just kind of the way my brain works. I can't really do it any other way. Sometimes I actually come to entirely new realizations/theories while on this forum (and others). That's part of the reason I love the debate here -- I always seem to become a little more enlightened as a result. Anyway, the way I flesh out and test those realizations/theories is by writing gargantuan posts. I'm a guy who turned a 3-page philosophy assignment into a 23-page treatise on free will and human nature. I get carried away easily.

[42PETUNIAS]

Yeah, that was a jackass move on my part getting angry at you for writing long posts. Shiney does have a bit of a point though, it can help but to keep things concise. Still, thats no excuse for me to be a dick.

[Tydeus]

Yeah, that was a jackass move on my part getting angry at you for writing long posts. Shiney does have a bit of a point though, it can help but to keep things concise. Still, thats no excuse for me to be a dick.

Hey man, I understand. No hard feelings.

[42PETUNIAS]

I mean all I'm trying to say is, my personal impression of the media over the last five or so years has been less one of a media straining itself to report only the facts, and more of one straining itself to do anything but report the facts.

This isn't only reflected by the news on Iraq, but news stations seem to focus on all the small and unimportant things as news. You see this all the time, one station reports a story that sounds good, but isn't actually important, then a bunch of stories pick up on this, and it throws the media into a senseless craze trying to get information on a stupid topic to outdo other stations, instead of getting real news.

For example, the huge media hype about that little girl who was murdered a long time ago. The whole media picked up on this, despite the fact it had happened like 10 years earlier, and was one death, absolutely nothing that would cause damage to the american people. Another situation i remember a few years ago, a small girl was kidnapped, and the media in toronto seemed to cover this issue continuosly. These stories are tragic, but people are kidnapped and murdered all the time, its just when the media can pick up on a single story that makes people watch, because they want to see what happens.

Once in a while, i like to hear news, not the sob story of the week.

[Fifthfiend]

This seems topical.

Dan Froomkin: On Calling Bullshit
Posted at 5:09 pm, November 30th, 2006 (http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/blog/?p=53)

Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do.

What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit.


Calling bullshit, of course, used to be central to journalism as well as to comedy. And we happen to be in a period in our history in which the substance in question is running particularly deep. The relentless spinning is enough to make anyone dizzy, and some of our most important political battles are about competing views of reality more than they are about policy choices. Calling bullshit has never been more vital to our democracy.


It also resonates with readers and viewers a lot more than passionless stenography. I’m convinced that my enthusiasm for calling bullshit is the main reason for the considerable success of my White House Briefing column, which has turned into a significant traffic-driver for The Washington Post’s Web site.


I’m not sure why calling bullshit has gone out of vogue in so many newsrooms — why, in fact, it’s so often consciously avoided. There are lots of possible reasons. There’s the increased corporate stultification of our industry, to the point where rocking the boat is seen as threatening rather than invigorating. There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum.


The return of Democrats to political power and relevancy gives us the opportunity to call bullshit in a more bipartisan matter, which is certainly healthy. But there are different kinds of bullshit. Republican political leaders these past six years have built up a massive, unprecedented credibility deficit, such that even their most straightforward assertions invite close bullshit inspection. By contrast, Democratic bullshit tends to center more around hypocrisy and political cowardice. Trying to find equivalency between the two would still be a mistake – and could lead to catty, inside-baseball gotcha journalism rather than genuine bullshit-calling.



If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers.


But here’s the good news for you newsroom managers wringing your hands over new technologies and the loss of younger audiences: Because the Internet so values calling bullshit, you are sitting on an as-yet largely untapped gold mine. I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.

Dan Froomkin
froomkin@niemanwatchdog.org
Dan Froomkin is deputy editor of Niemanwatchdog.org. He also writes the White House Briefing column for washingtonpost.com.

[42PETUNIAS]

thats definitly a good article, but i do have a problem with all those small news sites. They're small enough to accept and ratify any progressive news, yet they're never the ones to actually call things out differently, they're too small to be limited in what they say, but too big to be like bloggers and completly question authority. They're stuck in the middle, and only report whats already been reported, nothing new.

[Tydeus]

That Dan Froomkin guy is wonderful.

Bullshit-calling is exactly what we're missing in America -- I've been saying this for years.

And, really, if you think about it, calling Iraq a civil war is a not-so-subtle way of saying "Dude, all that torturous euphimistic language you guys are using? That's totally bullshit. It's a gorram [can I steal that please?] civil war. Admit it. Stop spewing bullshit."

So, hooray NBC for taking a first step in the right direction. Call that bullshit!

[Fifthfiend]

thats definitly a good article, but i do have a problem with all those small news sites. They're small enough to accept and ratify any progressive news, yet they're never the ones to actually call things out differently, they're too small to be limited in what they say, but too big to be like bloggers and completly question authority. They're stuck in the middle, and only report whats already been reported, nothing new.

Yeah, internet-commentary type places aren't really the places to look for original reporting and information, and I usually avoid citing them for that reason (among others), but inasmuch as the thread is about media criticism, a Washington Post columnist's criticism of the media seemed appropriate.

I mean, for all that he said the S-word a whole bunch of times.

[42PETUNIAS]

Huh, i wasn't aware he was a columnist for the washington post, i guess i missed that part. I suppose that lends a little more power to this, but he didnt post it in the post, did he?