NationStates Jolt Archive

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty. They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities. The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods. The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence. They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.

the US media lies, so it gets an 8.

Also, is that why you use this stupidity call fox?

I believe they skew things too much. I know people who went to Iraq and came back and said it's a lot better than its shown...and this was in Baghdad too

Not evil at all. They exist to make money by showing you what you want to see. Don't bitch at them when you don't like what the rest of society wants to see.

I wouldn't say the media is evil especially since without it life gets pretty boring

The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity

no silly that’s called rationality :p

There's a certain group of conservatives who seem willing to drop thier devotion to the 'free market' like a two-dollar whore once that market bares out in a way that they don't like...

key word there being certain. thats not all Conservatives

They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.
There's a certain group of conservatives who seem willing to drop thier devotion to the 'free market' like a two-dollar whore once that market bares out in a way that they don't like...

Not evil at all. They exist to make money by showing you what you want to see. Don't bitch at them when you don't like what the rest of society wants to see.


hmmm the many vs. the few arguement again

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty. They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities. The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods. The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence. They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.Well, US media are not necessarily evil, but stupid. Which, on the other hand, is evil. But then again, indoctrinated dumb teenagers won't become the adults to sustain US wealth and political/military power, which is good for the rest of the planet.

I wouldn't say the media is evil especially since without it life gets pretty boring



no silly that’s called rationality :p

NO NOT YOU TOO!!!! YOUR ONE OF THEM!!!!!!!!!! *pulls out sniper rifle* :sniper: AHHHHHHHHH!!!!

On a more serious level:

A: You've obviously been brainwashed because you claim your life is boring without it.

B: You submit to their indoctrinations even though they only show the bad stuff about Christians and conservatives just for sensationalism.

I believe they skew things too much. I know people who went to Iraq and came back and said it's a lot better than its shown...and this was in Baghdad too

Have heard the opposite from the guys I know ... interesting

hmmm the many vs. the few arguement again

Not really. The media is going to show what as many people as possible want to watch, so they can make the most possibly money on advertising. If the media is evil it's only because the majority of society wants it that way. No point blaming them for it.

About average on the evil chart. They're not particularly any more or less evil than, say, watermelons.

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty. They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities. The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods. The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence. They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.

They are too subservient to societies whim not the other way around, they exist to make money thats one of the downsides of having a capitalist news media ... and personally I think they are too FOR Christianity but thats what the majority is so be it

key word there being certain. thats not all Conservatives

I can do my own hedging.

I can see something similar to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFR-kpmhuVI) happening before the media went bad.

Darth Greedious: Master Disney, you come quite unnexpected.

Disney: In the name of the media and the censorship republic your under arrest...*lights light saber*

Greedious: Are you threatening me master Disney?

Disney: The board of ethics shall decide that....

Greedious: I am the board of ethics!

Disney: Not yet!

Greedious: It is treason then....

A: You've obviously been brainwashed because you claim your life is boring without it.

life is fairly boring without T.V's and computers hell even phones

Unless of course you expect me to only listen to music at concerts and buy paintings for a porn fix

B: You submit to their indoctrinations even though they only show the bad stuff about Christians and conservatives just for sensationalism.

No conservatives Christians tend to do that themselves course you will just say that I’ve been indoctrinated even though as a child I had to pray and sing Christian nonsense

Course I’d like to think that liberal social democracy was an idea I came to myself unless political and economic thinking is now hip

"the media" is not an entity, it is merely a concept. Concepts can not be goor or evil. It is simply a concept. Its purpose is whatever purpose those who use it use it for.

Have heard the opposite from the guys I know ... interesting

Yep, we get a very diffrent picture over the pond, and the impression we get here is that things are getting wrose-in fact there awful. But when i visited America your media was far mroe postive and had a far sunnier outlook on the whole thing.

well, I do not know the US media, but I guess it is like in Germany hypocritical, overregulated and full of advertising. I am allergic to advertising of all kinds so I avoid being exposed to the media.

"the media" is not an entity, it is merely a concept. Concepts can not be goor or evil. It is simply a concept. Its purpose is whatever purpose those who use it use it for.

Concepts can be evil.

con-cept (konsept)n. 1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. 2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea. 3. Usage Problem. A scheme; a plan: "began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept" (ADWEEK).[Late Latin conceptus, from Latin, past participle of concipere, to conceive. See CONCEIVE.]

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The concept of sending all Jews to the camps in WWII was an evil one Hitler had, the concept of screwing someone else for your own benefit is evil. The list goes on.

About average on the evil chart. They're not particularly any more or less evil than, say, watermelons.

Come on now--they're far more evil than watermelons. The media's more like a gourd on the evil scale, especially if it's a gourd appearing in an episode of Martha Stewart Living.

Not evil just incredibly retarded.

well, I do not know the US media, but I guess it is like in Germany hypocritical, overregulated and full of advertising. I am allergic to advertising of all kinds so I avoid being exposed to the media.

Its worse far worse....they spy on celebrities and make up scandals just for profit, they try to brainwash you to think what they want you to think, and they see the American people as cattle to milk profits out of. And most of the advertising is false. And the media is one of the main reasons the American people have become retarded.

There's a certain group of conservatives who seem willing to drop thier devotion to the 'free market' like a two-dollar whore once that market bares out in a way that they don't like...

Of course. Many self-proclaimed conservatives are not in favor of a free market. A lot of issues reflect that - against illegal immigration, against trading with "evil" nations, support of embargoes, support of government subsidies, support of increased government agencies and taxes, against the drug market, etc.

Not evil just incredibly retarded.

I say its both :(

The concept of sending all Jews to the camps in WWII was an evil one Hitler had, the concept of screwing someone else for your own benefit is evil. The list goes on.

concepts can't be evil like knives can't be evil even when they find themselves inside someone or like giraffes find it hard to be evil

Oh I’m right up your arse today aren’t I :D :p :fluffle:

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty. They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities. The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods. The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence. They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.

I agree with the first part. Not so much with the second.

Evil is itself a concept, so when you say a concept is evil all you are doing is applying one concept to another.

concepts can't be evil like knives can't be evil even when they find themselves inside someone or like giraffes find it hard to be evil

Oh I’m right up your arse today aren’t I :D :p :fluffle:

If a concept is a general idea and some general ideas can be evil (like the ones I love to parody in internationa incident :p) then concepts can be evil.

Evil is itself a concept, so when you say a concept is evil all you are doing is applying one concept to another.

not really. You can apply a concept to a thing. You can say this act meets the criteria of this concept.

But a conept can never be evil. It can never be anything, since it isn't anything itself.

The concept of sending all Jews to the camps in WWII was an evil one Hitler had, the concept of screwing someone else for your own benefit is evil. The list goes on.

Evil is in deed, evil is in act.

The concept of sending jews to camps is not evil. It's not good. It's nothing. It's an idea. An idea is not a thing, it's not an act. An idea has no moral value, it has no ethical weight. It is simply an idea.

acting on the idea on the other hand certainly does, and acting on that idea can certainly be evil.

Its worse far worse....they spy on celebrities and make up scandals just for profit, they try to brainwash you to think what they want you to think, and they see the American people as cattle to milk profits out of. And most of the advertising is false. And the media is one of the main reasons the American people have become retarded.

Sounds in parts very like the German newspaper BILD :( (BTW: can you tell me on what basis you compare it with the German media?)

But have you onsidered the opposite: that a majority of the people are dumb, want to believe the stupid advertising and are retarded and therefore watch these shows?

Sounds in parts very like the German newspaper BILD :( (BTW: can you tell me on what basis you compare it with the German media?)

But have you onsidered the opposite: that a majority of the people are dumb, want to believe the stupid advertising and are retarded and therefore watch these shows?

Many people have demanded that the media change yet the media still persists in gossiping about celebrities and doing the other bad stuff they do. I can't compare it with the German media because I have never seen anything in the German media, all I know is that the US one is evil.

Many people have demanded that the media change yet the media still persists in gossiping about celebrities and doing the other bad stuff they do.

Many people demand. Many many many many more people consume. Companies are for profit industries, they shall do what gains them profit, as long as it is compliant with the law.

People can demand media companies change their practices. But in the end they are just that, companies. People may demand all they wish, but a company is not beholdant to the public, they need not listen to any demands they do not wish to.

They do what makes them money, that's how companies work. Some people want them to change, but many more consume.

How evil is the US media?

Which media? Rush limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox, Clear Channel? ABC, CBS, NBC? Stewart, Colbert? C-Span, NPR ?

well, I do not know the US media, but I guess it is like in Germany [...]

To my comparism with what annoys me about the German media
Its worse far worse.... [...]
[...] (BTW: can you tell me on what basis you compare it with the German media?)[...]
[...] I can't compare it with the German media because I have never seen anything in the German media, all I know is that the US one is evil.

hmmmm... I smell a contradiction... or it's the pizza I forgot in the oven.

Well, I guess there are good things in both the US-media (South Park, Simpsons) and in the German media (c't TV)... and as I said: People get the media they deserve.

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty. They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities. The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods. The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence. They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.
The media are tools of communication. That's all. They are used by people who have access to them to promote the ideas they like so that others will like them, too -- whether that idea is for or against Bush/Iraq/gay marriage/religion/what-have-you or for or against Coke/Pepsi, etc. It seems to me that you think the US media are evil because they deliver messages/ideas you do not like.

But if you would really look at the media -- all of them, broadly -- you will see virtually every idea expressed by Americans, expressed in US media. This is thanks to the First Amendment and to the availability of many, many media outlets. In fact, so many different ideas are presented in the US media, that I daresay I see as many ideas that offend me as you see ideas that offend you, and I am fairly certain we are not on the same side of many issues. I don't blame the media for that, although I might blame the specific owners of specific media outlets.

I come from an advertising background, and believe me I understand the Macchiavellian uses of the media very well indeed. But to say that the media are evil because they carry messages you don't like, is like saying a pen is evil because it was used to write a lie.

You submit to their indoctrinations even though they only show the bad stuff about Christians and conservatives just for sensationalism.

What the Hell media have YOU been watching?

What the Hell media have YOU been watching?

look at the title. US media....brrrrr....its pure evil....:eek:

look at the title. US media....brrrrr....its pure evil....:eek:

I think the implication is that if you think the general trend for the US media is to be INSULTING of christians and conservatives then you are seriously mislead.

Weren't you the one just two days ago talking about how much influence the religious right has?

I think the implication is that if you think the general trend for the US media is to be INSULTING of christians and conservatives then you are seriously mislead.

Weren't you the one just two days ago talking about how much influence the religious right has?

Don't twist my words. I made it cear that I was on a crusade against brainwash, this thread only seconds my notion of there actually being intellectual war. The media tries to get people to boycott conservatives and the right tries to force their views on everyone, as do the liberals. People have the right to make their own choices, I don't want the media, the left, the right, or anyone who has the need to manipulate others making my choices for me.

The right has lots of influence and so does the left and definitely the media and many others, and all of them are trying to win over as many minds as they can. This is indeed and intellectual war which may get you to rethink the merit of the OACF.

Don't twist my words. I made it cear that I was on a crusade against brainwash, this thread only seconds my notion of there actually being intellectual war. The media tries to get people to boycott conservatives and the right tries to force their views on everyone, as do the liberals. People have the right to make their own choices, I don't want the media, the left, the right, or anyone who has the need to manipulate others making my choices for me.

How does media "manipulate" your choices? Does it force you to? Does it hold a gun to your head? Mura is right, the media presents information. Sometimes it presents information that you don't like.

But just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're "manipulated". It presents information. Sometimes that information is biased. Sometimes it's not. It's your job to process that information and reach your own conclusions. You are only manipulated if you want to be.

So since there are different viewpoints presented in the media...it's trying to brainwash you...that's not indoctrination...that's called democracy.

I gave the US media a 5, because of various lies and manipulation. Of course, with the removal of Fox, that would drop to a 3.

But then again I don't adhere to the OP's dogmatic idiocy, and am generally against censorship.

How does media "manipulate" your choices? Does it force you to? Does it hold a gun to your head? Mura is right, the media presents information. Sometimes it presents information that you don't like.

But just because you don't like it doesn't mean you're "manipulated". It presents information. Sometimes that information is biased. Sometimes it's not. It's your job to process that information and reach your own conclusions. You are only manipulated if you want to be.

Well then how come teenage chicks cause issues just for the sake of adding drama, why do people believe the media's message of peer pressure, how come people seem to care about only what the media cares about where I live? How come teenagers are notorious for letting the media determine their actions? Huh?

Edit: And your probably aware of the fact that American parents refuse to parents and schools refuse to give children basic core values which means that the youth are susceptible, the media presumably knows this and still they continue. And in a way it does force you because the media is notorious for telling people how to think, what is in fashion, whats cool, ect. So those who don't are pressured by the peers that fell under their influence and and bullied by others, its pointing social guns at people's heads basically.

Well then how come teenage chicks cause issues just for the sake of adding drama, why do people believe the media's message of peer pressure, how come people seem to care about only what the media cares about where I live? How come teenagers are notorious for letting the media determine their actions? Huh?

Edit: And your probably aware of the fact that American parents refuse to parents and schools refuse to give children basic core values which means that the youth are susceptible, the media presumably knows this and still they continue. And in a way it does force you because the media is notorious for telling people how to think, what is in fashion, whats cool, ect. So those who don't are pressured by the peers that fell under their influence and and bullied by others, its pointing social guns at people's heads basically.

wow... this is some of the dumbest claptrap I've ever heard. Peer pressure? last I heard that came from one's PEERS, not the media. I'm sorry that parents have stopped their ruthless religious indoctrination of Christianity,
but the media is not some beast waiting to swallow them up. The media makes suggestions, and people are completely free to follow them or not. You, however, seem to want to silence every voice that does not agree with you.

On a scale of 1-10............where's 11?

wow... this is some of the dumbest claptrap I've ever heard. Peer pressure? last I heard that came from one's PEERS, not the media. I'm sorry that parents have stopped their ruthless religious indoctrination of Christianity,
but the media is not some beast waiting to swallow them up. The media makes suggestions, and people are completely free to follow them or not. You, however, seem to want to silence every voice that does not agree with you.

Try moving to Arlington Washington and observe the youth there and then decide how "free" they are.

On a scale of 1-10............where's 11?

NS wouldn't let the options exceed 10. :(

wow... this is some of the dumbest claptrap I've ever heard. Peer pressure? last I heard that came from one's PEERS, not the media. I'm sorry that parents have stopped their ruthless religious indoctrination of Christianity,
but the media is not some beast waiting to swallow them up. The media makes suggestions, and people are completely free to follow them or not. You, however, seem to want to silence every voice that does not agree with you.
QFT.

On a scale of 1 - 10 in terms of stupidity, this thread goes well beyond a 10...

Try moving to Arlington Washington and observe the youth there and then decide how "free" they are.

As I'm not about to move to prove a point, you might want to try, you know, describing them to me. With words.

The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence.
Bloody excellent say I. The other points have been addressed adequately by Arthais and Cyrian Space.

You are only manipulated if you want to be.
Mind if I quote that? :) It's very true in the context of the media.

On a scale of 1 to 10, the US Media is Myrth.

Well then how come teenage chicks cause issues just for the sake of adding drama,

Overly stereotypical and and unsupported.


why do people believe the media's message of peer pressure,

I suggest you look up the definition of peer pressure.

How come teenagers are notorious for letting the media determine their actions? Huh?

The same shit was said about my generation, it's said about your generation, it was said about the ones before that and before that. It has been said about every generation and will be said about every generation from now until eternity.

Teenagers are stupid because they are teenagers.

Edit: And your probably aware of the fact that American parents refuse to parents and schools refuse to give children basic core values which means that the youth are susceptible,

No, I'm not "aware of that fact", and you really haven't substantiated anything.

And in a way it does force you because the media is notorious for telling people how to think, what is in fashion, whats cool, ect.

People are only forced if they want to be. Nobody makes you do ANYTHING. You chose. People chose.

And believe it or not, people have the right to chose to do things you don't like. This isn't a clamor about the media, this isn't about a possible legitimate argument about bias in the news.

This is about you having some version of how people can behave, and getting bothered that people chose to do things differently than you. Then you try to blame the media for making people "wrong". As stated before, just because people do things differently than you, doesn't mean your method is any better.

Mind if I quote that? :) It's very true in the context of the media.

sure, if you wish.

Beauty isn't bad, they just overdo it and the murders and rapes...

Overly stereotypical and and unsupported.




I suggest you look up the definition of peer pressure.



The same shit was said about my generation, it's said about your generation, it was said about the ones before that and before that. It has been said about every generation and will be said about every generation from now until eternity.

Teenagers are stupid because they are teenagers.



No, I'm not "aware of that fact", and you really haven't substantiated anything.



People are only forced if they want to be. Nobody makes you do ANYTHING. You chose. People chose.

And believe it or not, people have the right to chose to do things you don't like. This isn't a clamor about the media, this isn't about a possible legitimate argument about bias in the news.

This is about you having some version of how people can behave, and getting bothered that people chose to do things differently than you. Then you try to blame the media for making people "wrong". As stated before, just because people do things differently than you, doesn't mean your method is any better.

True, the media's influence isn't technically peer pressure. But it's alot like peer pressure in some ways, and is more widespread.

But you're right about the whole choice thing - just because the pressure exists - doesn't mean you HAVE TO YIELD TO IT. I never did.

Don't twist my words. I made it cear that I was on a crusade against brainwash, this thread only seconds my notion of there actually being intellectual war. The media tries to get people to boycott conservatives and the right tries to force their views on everyone, as do the liberals. People have the right to make their own choices, I don't want the media, the left, the right, or anyone who has the need to manipulate others making my choices for me.

The right has lots of influence and so does the left and definitely the media and many others, and all of them are trying to win over as many minds as they can. This is indeed and intellectual war which may get you to rethink the merit of the OACF.

It kind of sounds like you are trying to win over as many minds as possible for your imaginary war against trying to win over as many minds as possible. Interesting.

Meanwhile, biased against Christians and conservatives? How did they win the presidency? Magic beans?

Brainwashing- to fear, to hate, and mostly to buy buy buy! American news has really run out of any good news, with their every 5 minute BREAKING NEWS-that's not really important.

This is indeed and intellectual war which may get you to rethink the merit of the OACF.

I assume then that the soldiers of the Ohio Association of Cemeteries & Funeral Homes aren't keeping their end up to quite your satisfaction, eh? Halve their rations, then. This war of yours, this war upon intellect makes a mockery of... well - of you, mon brave.

It's your laugh. Not mine.

The American media is indeed evil and corrupt. advertising is a byproduct of Corporations greedily consuming each other. It not only makes our Nation become brainwashed but it also makes Americans retarded. Americans want to watch stupid TV because they are already remedial from watching it their whole lives. Its like a drug that once taken cant be stopped and slowly takes over the users life. Evil in my opinion can be defined as ignorance, and since the media which is a thing can be ignorant therefore it can also be defined as evil. Some say that the media is biased towards Christianity but it is not. It is biased against any form of intelligence though. Another point which promotes stupidity is the censorship in America. I ask everyone what is the big deal if someone sees something that is "wrong"? Japan which has no censorship whatsoever has the lowest crime rate in the world so; Censorship is a contributing cause to ignorance because it doesn't allow the full potential of artists.
all this should justify that American media is evil. this is all coming from an American Christian by the way.
I gave a rating of 10, Nothing is more evil than the American media

advertising is a byproduct of Corporations greedily consuming each other.
Do you actually think before you type?

Americans want to watch stupid TV because they are already remedial from watching it their whole lives.
The media provides a product. If Americans do not like it, they can turn off their televisions.

Evil in my opinion can be defined as ignorance, and since the media which is a thing can be ignorant therefore it can also be defined as evil.
I don't know which is worse - your premise that evil = ignorance or your assertion that the media is ignorant. :confused:

Do you actually think before you type?


I don't know which is worse - your premise that evil = ignorance or your assertion that the media is ignorant. :confused:

Whats wrong with that? by saying byproduct i mean waste which we would refer to as crap if this were a human body.

Whats wrong with that? by saying byproduct i mean waste which we would refer to as crap if this were a human body.
No, what doesn't make sense is that corporations consume each other. How?

I believe they skew things too much. I know people who went to Iraq and came back and said it's a lot better than its shown...and this was in Baghdad too
Why would you take the soldiers word for it? They've more reason to lie than anyone.

No, what doesn't make sense is that corporations consume each other. How? They buy each other and they form monopoly's. a corporation is a group of businesses together that all bought into each other. My definition sint that good but you get the idea.

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty. They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities. The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods. The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence. They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.

If they are SOOOOOO evil and SOOOOOO good at brainwashing, why are you still able to fight off their influence?

If they are SOOOOOO evil and SOOOOOO good at brainwashing, why are you still able to fight off their influence?

he's special of course.

It kind of sounds like you are trying to win over as many minds as possible for your imaginary war against trying to win over as many minds as possible. Interesting.

Meanwhile, biased against Christians and conservatives? How did they win the presidency? Magic beans?

the allies fought the war to end wars...

Originally Posted by Arthais101 View Post
Overly stereotypical and and unsupported.




I suggest you look up the definition of peer pressure.



The same shit was said about my generation, it's said about your generation, it was said about the ones before that and before that. It has been said about every generation and will be said about every generation from now until eternity.

Teenagers are stupid because they are teenagers.



No, I'm not "aware of that fact", and you really haven't substantiated anything.



People are only forced if they want to be. Nobody makes you do ANYTHING. You chose. People chose.

And believe it or not, people have the right to chose to do things you don't like. This isn't a clamor about the media, this isn't about a possible legitimate argument about bias in the news.

This is about you having some version of how people can behave, and getting bothered that people chose to do things differently than you. Then you try to blame the media for making people "wrong". As stated before, just because people do things differently than you, doesn't mean your method is any better.

don't pretend you know me. I don't to make everyone the same as me. None of you understand me, none of you know my life story, none of you know why I came to the conclusions I did which formed my opinions over time. And since I oppose communism I wouldn't want everyone to be the same as me. What makes you think I want all other different from me eliminated. Is it because I "silence those who disagree with me"? Well thats me defending my opinion not me trying to indoctrinate you. How dare you call me a communist by suggesting I want everyone like me. I declare RP war on you.

International incidents, any tech, in Arthais101-South Lizasaurian war. Be there this weekend if not tonight.

And keep in mind that your persistence in libeling and flaming me was your declaration of intellectual war in that you are trying to win as many minds on NS as you can to hate, boycott or look down to me due to your constant criticism which is not always accurate and not in the slightest bit constructive. And I am merely trying to salvage my honor and dignity.

And also note that this isn't about you trying to correct me, this is about strong hatred, you just want to insult me, infuriate me and defame me as much as possible.

Wow, that truly has to be one of the dumbest posts I have ever read in my time on NS. Congrats on that. :D

How dare you call me a communist by suggesting I want everyone like me. I declare RP war on you.

International incidents, any tech, in Arthais101-South Lizasaurian war. Be there this weekend if not tonight.

Um....what?

no.

And keep in mind that your persistence in libeling and flaming me was your declaration of intellectual war in that you are trying to win as many minds as you can to hate, boycott or look down to me due to your constant criticism which is not always accurate and not in the slightest bit constructive. And I am merely trying to salvage my honor and dignity.

First off, good that you got "libel" right, most say slander. I disagree with the usage of the term, but at least you matched the right word to the right medium.

now on to the meat of this. I'm going to be uncharacteristically nice here, and try to explain things slowly. The way you are perceived is dependant entirely on the image you present here. Your words are the only way we have to evaluate you.

Go back over your posts, look at the times you made an argument, or thought you made an argument. Did you present facts? Did you use actual hard evidence to support your claims? Have you attempted to substantiate your position?

Seriously, go take a look. Go look at the posts where you are making your position. Have you done anything to back up your arguments? Not "everybody knows" or "well people who live by me", or anything like that.

Read over, carefully, the things you have said here. Read over, carefully, the image you have cultured here. Look at what you say, and don't try to just read it. Try to read it like someone who doesn't know you, someone who has no idea who you are, someone who has no impression of you.

is the image that you are presenting the image you truly wish to convey?

You know what, here, it's stuff like this:

the allies fought the war to end wars...

Just like that. See here you are going comparing yourself to America in world war II. World War II combatted Hitler and the nazis. CNN is not the nazi party. Hannity isn't Hitler. This is what I talk about when I mean dillusional. Seriously, think of what you are comparing yourself to, to what you are comparing the reality to. You are comparing the media to nazi germany

Now whatever you're doing, whatever you're about to say, stop.

Read that last line again.

You are comparing the media to NAZI GERMANY. And not only is the media nazi germany, but you apparently think you're the allies.

Likewise you compare yourself to the allies.

You aren't.

You are not the french resistance. You are not Oscar Shindler. You are not agents in West Berlin shuttling families around the wall.

Think about what you are comparing yourself, and your "war" to. Is an analogy to nazi germany really appropriate here? Is likening yourself to Eisenhower and MacArthur really appropriate here?

Do you really want to leave people with the impression that you think of yourself as General MacArthur?

because that's exactly what you're doing.

the allies fought the war to end wars...



don't pretend you know me. I don't to make everyone the same as me. None of you understand me, none of you know my life story, none of you know why I came to the conclusions I did which formed my opinions over time. And since I oppose communism I wouldn't want everyone to be the same as me. What makes you think I want all other different from me eliminated. Is it because I "silence those who disagree with me"? Well thats me defending my opinion not me trying to indoctrinate you. How dare you call me a communist by suggesting I want everyone like me. I declare RP war on you.

International incidents, any tech, in Arthais101-South Lizasaurian war. Be there this weekend if not tonight.

And keep in mind that your persistence in libeling and flaming me was your declaration of intellectual war in that you are trying to win as many minds on NS as you can to hate, boycott or look down to me due to your constant criticism which is not always accurate and not in the slightest bit constructive. And I am merely trying to salvage my honor and dignity.

You're welcome to do this stuff but why don't you leave it in RP. It's clear that this is not really based in reality. You're not fighting a war.

Meanwhile, your argument falls apart completely on that you are trying to do exactly what you say you are trying to stop.

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty.

If you're dumb enough to be "brainwashed" by the media in this fucking country...you deserve it.

They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities.

I have a very hard time seeing this as a bad thing.

They report on the suffering of the general public because that is...get this...NEWS. Hurricanes, explosions, toxic waste leaks.

Sometimes people want to know about these things.

The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods.

Worship the media?

Maybe their band-of-the-week.

The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence.

Since when has American TV had any qualms about violence?

Oh noes...they're against Christianity!!1!

They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.

Media outlets focus on the negative because those are the stories that people want to hear. It's not the media's fault...it's always been that way.

I suggest you go take a media or mass-communications course and educate yourself...as this just sounds like paranoid ramblings.

How evil is the US media? ...They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.

Its not evil. its selfish. You wanna know evil? I used to make faces at little kids on the bus so they would get all riled up and then their exhausted and crabby parents, who instead of humoring their complaints, would simply slap them.

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty. They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities. The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods. The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence. They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.

Ummm I hate to break it to you but all media outlets all over the world have some sort of bias that push their own agenda...

the allies fought the war to end wars...



don't pretend you know me. I don't to make everyone the same as me. None of you understand me, none of you know my life story, none of you know why I came to the conclusions I did which formed my opinions over time. And since I oppose communism I wouldn't want everyone to be the same as me. What makes you think I want all other different from me eliminated. Is it because I "silence those who disagree with me"? Well thats me defending my opinion not me trying to indoctrinate you. How dare you call me a communist by suggesting I want everyone like me. I declare RP war on you.

International incidents, any tech, in Arthais101-South Lizasaurian war. Be there this weekend if not tonight.

And keep in mind that your persistence in libeling and flaming me was your declaration of intellectual war in that you are trying to win as many minds on NS as you can to hate, boycott or look down to me due to your constant criticism which is not always accurate and not in the slightest bit constructive. And I am merely trying to salvage my honor and dignity.

And also note that this isn't about you trying to correct me, this is about strong hatred, you just want to insult me, infuriate me and defame me as much as possible.

South Lizasauria, you sound like you've come straight out of one of those frightful militant Christian youth camps like 'Teen Mania' where you're convinced that in America (of all places) Christians (of all people) are somehow persecuted and discriminated against. Are you saying that CNN and FOX are somehow giving Christians a bad name? Hell, CNN just had a documentary playing around Christmas called "After Jesus" for crying out loud, which highlighted the horrors of Christian persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. Saying that FOX is anti-Christian is just ridiculous. Anti-Islamic, yes, Anti-Christian, no. I won't even touch your understanding of communism.

True, the media has its problems, but anti-Christian it is not.

Thank you. I've been bugged all day trying to figure out what this reminded me of. That's it.
In fact, he reminds me specifically of these guys (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517787&highlight=Europa+Maxima). Who knows, perhaps he's one of them.

South Lizasauria, you sound like you've come straight out of one of those frightful militant Christian youth camps like 'Teen Mania' where you're convinced that in America (of all places) Christians (of all people) are somehow persecuted and discriminated against.

Thank you. I've been bugged all day trying to figure out what this reminded me of. That's it.

In fact, he reminds me specifically of these guys (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517787&highlight=Europa+Maxima). Who knows, perhaps he's one of them.

So creepy.

And I suspect you are correct.

But isn't it funny that people are brainwashed into believing that a different group of people are brainwashing them? So they think they're so hip to to brainwashing...but they've really missed the boat altogether.

it's the hot topic mentality. Let's go here to be different, just like everybody else.

Stop it, I'm wise to you, Mister. You're just trying to brainwash me.

So creepy.

And I suspect you are correct.

But isn't it funny that people are brainwashed into believing that a different group of people are brainwashing them? So they think they're so hip to to brainwashing...but they've really missed the boat altogether.

it's the hot topic mentality. Let's go here to be different, just like everybody else.

But isn't it funny that people are brainwashed into believing that a different group of people are brainwashing them? So they think they're so hip to to brainwashing...but they've really missed the boat altogether.
Of course... if someone else is brainwashing you, how could your own beloved cult possibly be doing so? It's just showing you the Light!

Of course... if someone else is brainwashing you, how could your own beloved cult possibly be doing so? It's just showing you the Light!
A nice meme: "if you do not think the same as us, you have been brainwashed!"

A nice meme: "if you do not think the same as us, you have been brainwashed!"

Well the problem with that position is people attempt to seriously take it. It only works if you are dillusional enough to believe yourself superior to your audience. Which is to say, you believe THEY are stupid enough to be brainwashed, YOU are smart enough to know the truth.

Unfortunatly, it appears that this is exactly the dillusion the OP is faced with.

Try moving to Arlington Washington and observe the youth there and then decide how "free" they are.

Look, just because you live in a semi-rural suburban shithole like Arlington (which is too proud to become Granite Falls, too stupid to aspire to Marysville and too poor to approximate Lake Stevens -- all of which are semi-rural suburban shitholes for different reasons), don't think you have your finger on the pulse of...well, ANYthing, really.

You live in an insignificant town whose chief industries are the Arlington Fly-In and Nothing Else. I feel badly for you, but the "youth" there you're desperately trying to distinguish yourself from are no more a product of "the media" than they are a product of abiogenesis...though there may be some debate on that last point.

I grew up in Lake Stevens (1979-1991, LSHS class of 1988), the same shithole as Arlington, just richer on average because of lakefront property. Trust me, I know of "the youth" to which you refer. They're isolated and have only their equally isolated peers and television from which to draw conclusions about the world. Despite teachers' best efforts (and as a sub in the Lake Stevens district from 2003-2005, I can attest), acquiring culture is just plain difficult in a place that culture forgot. Not only that, but the glaring class distinctions between those on or near the lake and those in places like Frontier Heights and other run-down low-income gulags amplifies the complete isloation and inanity of that general area.

So you can't rely on TV or the internet, you've gotta READ, UNDERSTAND, EXPERIENCE and LEARN on your own. Get the hell out of the A-hole and get down to Seattle or up to Vancouver every once in a while. Go with your friends so you can divide the cost and make it easier to afford. The only thing worse than someone numbed by life in the 'burbs are those who whine about it while doing nothing to inform their point of view.

Stop it, I'm wise to you, Mister. You're just trying to brainwash me.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/brainwash.jpg

New Bible-scented Brainwash keeps even the
most sensible intellectual concepts at bay...

he's special of course.

Stop portraying me as the communistic, devilish narcissist you keep trying to. This is an act of intellectual war because you are trying to make as many conform to your hateful beliefs about me and I respectively ask you to stop.

We both have to stop even thought I'm the guy minding my own business and your the bully who has nothing better to do than to search for all my posts and make a flame that corresponds with each one. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12424339#post12424339)

Its not evil. its selfish. You wanna know evil? I used to make faces at little kids on the bus so they would get all riled up and then their exhausted and crabby parents, who instead of humoring their complaints, would simply slap them.

Dude! By your standard all tasteful BBS characters are evil! :p

Stop portraying me as the communistic

buh?

and your the bully who has nothing better to do than to search for all my posts and make a flame that corresponds with each one.

Dude, seriously, in all honesty, what makes you think that I go looking for your posts?

You made a thread. I didn't go looking for it, I saw it. I replied to it within about 30 minutes of you making it. It was on the front page.

You made this thread. You put it out there. You posted your opinion. You put your opinion out into the public space. You can't expect people not to comment on it. If you place your opinion into the public space, you are inviting criticism to your comment. Which is what has been done here. People have placed their commentary on your opinion.

And I say this as politely as possible, but you are not immune from criticism. You are not immune from having your opinions challenged. My first post to this thread was not insulting, it was not flaming, it was not an attack on you. It was an attack on your premise. I criticized your idea, not you.

I challenged whether or not the media, as a concept, can be defined in terms of good or evil.

That is, after all, what this board is. It is a place for the critiquing of ideas. And when you place your ideas out there, you have to accept that people will critique it.

Now I have said nothing flaming in this post, said nothing offensive, nothing derogatory. So if you wish to consider this post a flame, because I restate my challenge to your position (note, your position, not you), I can't help that.

buh?



Dude, seriously, in all honesty, what makes you think that I go looking for your posts?

You made a thread. I didn't go looking for it, I saw it. I replied to it within about 30 minutes of you making it. It was on the front page.

You made this thread. You put it out there. You posted your opinion. You put your opinion out into the public space. You can't expect people not to comment on it. If you place your opinion into the public space, you are inviting criticism to your comment. Which is what has been done here. People have placed their commentary on your opinion.

And I say this as politely as possible, but you are not immune from criticism. You are not immune from having your opinions challenged. My first post to this thread was not insulting, it was not flaming, it was not an attack on you. It was an attack on your premise. I criticized your idea, not you.

I challenged whether or not the media, as a concept, can be defined in terms of good or evil.

That is, after all, what this board is. It is a place for the critiquing of ideas. And when you place your ideas out there, you have to accept that people will critique it.

Now I have said nothing flaming in this post, said nothing offensive, nothing derogatory. So if you wish to consider this post a flame, because I restate my challenge to your position (note, your position, not you), I can't help that.

Well I don't see you flamebait anyone else. I won't flame you if you don't flame me. Mkay? Truce?

In fact, he reminds me specifically of these guys (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517787&highlight=Europa+Maxima). Who knows, perhaps he's one of them.

No actually if you actually read up on the nature of the OACF especially while I was recruiting months ago you'd know that those are kinds of people we're against.

I give it a 5, because it's not Dick Cheney evil, but really just stupid and greedy. It's a tool of evil rich people, but it is not necessarily itself evil. If good rich people (stop that laughing!) paid for it, then it would be less expressively evil than it is now.

If good rich people (stop that laughing!)
Wasn't even laughing to begin with.

Wasn't even laughing to begin with.

Then obviously I wasn't talking to you.

If they are SOOOOOO evil and SOOOOOO good at brainwashing, why are you still able to fight off their influence?

Because Jesus loves him, yes, yes he does. No one can brainwash you if Jesus loves you. But since Jesus loves everybody...

Well I don't see you flamebait anyone else. I won't flame you if you don't flame me. Mkay? Truce?

Look, sonny, it isn't flamebaiting, and you've been warned about this in Moderation. Let it go already. Respond to my earlier post, that's gotta scare you that I know all about WHERE... YOU... LIIIIIVE... muhahahaaa!

Or something.

"The Media", which, as a target of concrete discussion is about as solid as mercury blancmange, are only as salacious, irresponsible and awful as we allow them to be. Corporations long ago made news and entertainment slaves to the almighty dollar. So guess what? That means that, like out elected officials, this mess is OUR FAULT. Much in the same way that no politician comes from outer space (well, except Dean or Buchanan...or State Sen. Val Stevens from Washington), no program that loses money stays on air long.

So if it's popular, it gets pumped up and imitated and you all know the rest. If the crap bothers you, stop watching the crap. It isn't as though it's broadcast against your will directly into your brain. If you're really so susceptible to commercial influence, you need to think seriously about sterilizing yourself -- we need no more Abercrombie-wearing, product-using, big-name-humping people growing up to become voters.

So if it's popular, it gets pumped up and imitated and you all know the rest. If the crap bothers you, stop watching the crap. It isn't as though it's broadcast against your will directly into your brain. If you're really so susceptible to commercial influence, you need to think seriously about sterilizing yourself -- we need no more Abercrombie-wearing, product-using, big-name-humping people growing up to become voters.
Or consumers, for that matter.

On a scale of 1 - 10 in terms of stupidity, this thread goes well beyond a 10...

Too bloody right.

Better poll: What does more damage to the reputation of Christianity? The US media, or rabid young Christians who refuse to see outside the box their brain has been placed in by a hypocritical spiritual leadership?

Too bloody right.

Better poll: What does more damage to the reputation of Christianity? The US media, or rabid young Christians who refuse to see outside the box their brain has been placed in by a hypocritical spiritual leadership?

tushe'

Teenagers are stupid because they are teenagers.

Arthais wins!

Stop portraying me as the communistic, devilish narcissist you keep trying to. This is an act of intellectual war because you are trying to make as many conform to your hateful beliefs about me and I respectively ask you to stop.

We both have to stop even thought I'm the guy minding my own business and your the bully who has nothing better to do than to search for all my posts and make a flame that corresponds with each one. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12424339#post12424339)

Look, really, you do realize that A101 is often disagreed with. I don't know that I've ever agreed with him. My opinion of you is completely based on your actions and your actions are a bit paranoid, like hershey's kisses have a bit of chocolate in them.

You weren't told to ask him to stop. You were told to ignore him. Instead you keep talking about this intellectual war and challenging him to RP as if that will make any difference. I don't know if you're just bored or what but if it's your reputation you're trying to protect the ignore button will do wonders.

No actually if you actually read up on the nature of the OACF especially while I was recruiting months ago you'd know that those are kinds of people we're against.

Except you are using the same tactics you claim to abhore. When people challenge your ideas you claim they are mistreating you and beg for sympathy. When that doesn't work you attempt to use authority to get your way. None of what you do shows you, you know. rationally arguing your points.

Except you are using the same tactics you claim to abhore. When people challenge your ideas you claim they are mistreating you and beg for sympathy. When that doesn't work you attempt to use authority to get your way. None of what you do shows you, you know. rationally arguing your points.

He was creating flamatory responses for as many of my posts as he could find. That is not how to challenge someone properly. Now lets get on topic with the media.

He was creating flamatory responses for as many of my posts as he could find. That is not how to challenge someone properly. Now lets get on topic with the media.

This is the topic. You claim to be fighting brainwashing but you're not willing to rationally argue your position instead choosing tactics that closely tie to brainwashing. You attempt everything but rational discourse.

Here, I'll tell you what. Without hyperbole why don't you tell us about what media is doing in the US? Avoid words like evil, brainwashing and other nonsense. Care to try?

This is the topic. You claim to be fighting brainwashing but you're not willing to rationally argue your position instead choosing tactics that closely tie to brainwashing. You attempt everything but rational discourse.

Here, I'll tell you what. Without hyperbole why don't you tell us about what media is doing in the US? Avoid words like evil, brainwashing and other nonsense. Care to try?

For smeg sake I am on a crusade against brainwash but I seldom have operations here for this reason, the topic is "do you think the media is evil?" IF I was trying fight brainwash here I wouldn't have put a poll.

For smeg sake I am on a crusade against brainwash but I seldom have operations here for this reason, the topic is "do you think the media is evil?" IF I was trying fight brainwash here I wouldn't have put a poll.

Again, you didn't address any arguments other than claiming that you're not brainwashing. Make an argument. Why are you so reluctant to do so?

Tell us WHY the media is so bad without using hyperbolous language that indicates that you're not really hear to discuss it. Try it. That's the topic. Tell us what is bad about the media without nonsense like evil and brainwashing and communism and whatnot. Serioulsy, give it a shot. Prove you can rise above and every topic doesn't have to be about you fighitng evil.

Again, you didn't address any arguments other than claiming that you're not brainwashing. Make an argument. Why are you so reluctant to do so?

Tell us WHY the media is so bad without using hyperbolous language that indicates that you're not really hear to discuss it. Try it. That's the topic. Tell us what is bad about the media without nonsense like evil and brainwashing and communism and whatnot. Serioulsy, give it a shot. Prove you can rise above and every topic doesn't have to be about you fighitng evil.

I did make threads that weren't about me fighting evil. Did you see the "silly news" in I.I and the "meteror missing earth" ones?

I did make threads that weren't about me fighting evil. Did you see the "silly news" in I.I and the "meteror missing earth" ones?

Again. I don't want to talk about you. I keep asking you to make your argument. You're upset about people not seeing you as you are, well, here is your chance. Make an ARGUMENT. No one cares about you. You're just another faceless name. The only thing anyone cares about on the debate forum (not II or the others) is what you have to say about the topics and to the other debaters. You seem to only want to talk about you.

Now, do you have anything to say on the topic that isn't a bunch of emotional words? Real arguments. Examples. Evidence. A discussion of ideas. Something that doesn't involve you or your group or your quests.

Again. I don't want to talk about you. I keep asking you to make your argument. You're upset about people not seeing you as you are, well, here is your chance. Make an ARGUMENT. No one cares about you. You're just another faceless name. The only thing anyone cares about on the debate forum (not II or the others) is what you have to say about the topics and to the other debaters. You seem to only want to talk about you.

Now, do you have anything to say on the topic that isn't a bunch of emotional words? Real arguments. Examples. Evidence. A discussion of ideas. Something that doesn't involve you or your group or your quests.

the CS monitor, NS , would observing the behavior of others count?

the CS monitor, NS , would observing the behavior of others count?

I'll interject: No.

An argument is your own. It is something you create yourself, to back up your political/religious/whatever standpoint.

Citing sources doesn't constitute an argument.

the CS monitor, NS , would observing the behavior of others count?

Observing the behavior of others when you're the media is your job. Now, is that your entire argument? That they observe newworthy people and report on them in the *gasp* news?

Evil does not truely exist. It as a subjective concept for what you personally find distasteful to a large degree. what you consider "evil" can and will be perfectly fine to another person.

Evil does not truely exist. It as a subjective concept for what you personally find distasteful to a large degree. what you consider "evil" can and will be perfectly fine to another person.

That is profound... ly useless. We all get that evil is a concept. We also all get, even the OP, that people view evil differently. You know how you can tell, he posted a poll. *nods*

Observing the behavior of others when you're the media is your job. Now, is that your entire argument? That they observe newworthy people and report on them in the *gasp* news?

Noticing things and remembering them counts as observing, stop making it sound like I'm the only one who does it here.

Noticing things and remembering them counts as observing, stop making it sound like I'm the only one who does it here.
Jocabia, I'd love to know where you get the patience to deal with this... :confused:

Noticing things and remembering them counts as observing, stop making it sound like I'm the only one who does it here.

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about your argument. Where is it? What is your evidence? What is your argument? So far all I've gotten is a vague reference to some newspapers. I haven't seen any noticing or remembering. Just a complete lack of argument.

You keep saying you're being treated wrongly. I'm offering you a chance to be treated how you'd like to be treated. On a debate forum, that's going to require that you make your argument. I'm willing to listen if you're willing to actually offer up debate. Notice the replies so far. That's not A101's fault. That's the reaction of people watching you refuse to offer anything to a debate.

Come on, you're how old? You must have written some papers by now. Would your teachers just let you say the media is evil with only vague references to back it up or would you have to offer up specific points supporting your claim? Where is your support? Why is the media bad? How is the media bad? Please cite examples. Specific supports. Explain yourself. Here's your chance to be treated like everyone else.

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about your argument. Where is it? What is your evidence? What is your argument? So far all I've gotten is a vague reference to some newspapers. I haven't seen any noticing or remembering. Just a complete lack of argument.

You keep saying you're being treated wrongly. I'm offering you a chance to be treated how you'd like to be treated. On a debate forum, that's going to require that you make your argument. I'm willing to listen if you're willing to actually offer up debate. Notice the replies so far. That's not A101's fault. That's the reaction of people watching you refuse to offer anything to a debate.

eyewitness no longer counts for anything does it here? :confused:

eyewitness no longer counts for anything does it here? :confused:

Eyewitness? What are you talking about? If you're saying that your argument is you saw it so it's true... no, that counts for nothing. At all.

Can you write a paper in school that is the following in its entirety:

"The media is evil. I saw it be evil and so it is. The end."

Where is your support? Where is the rest of your paper? Evidence, my friend. That's what you need to pursuade people.

the US media lies, so it gets an 8.

Also, is that why you use this stupidity call fox?No, it is sublimal messaging to make all the rednecks slaves to the Bush dynasty.

So let's see, four hours, and so far we've heard about A101 being the fault of your lack of argument and vague references to what you witnessed. Four hours. You're here the whole time. Still no argument. We don't even know what you're claiming you've witnessed that is evidence. Four hours of requests for ANY argument. Four hours of coming up empty-handed. So now if you're curious why people are reacting to you the way they are, you know. It's because you are unwilling to do anything other than preach.

You can still fix it though. Just post your arguments and enter the debate.

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty. They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities. The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods. The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence. They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.
But how does that make TV, radio, papers, the interwebz, etc. evil? And as for profiting off the suffering of celebrities, I couldn't care less.

The media is what the majority wants it to be. If the majority decides [insert name here] is hot, the media will hype up [insert name here]. If the majority support [insert political party], the media will hype that party. It really all depends on what the people want. Like democracy, without the benefit of the people.

I give them a 5. TV is only as evil as we make it.

Eyewitness? What are you talking about? If you're saying that your argument is you saw it so it's true... no, that counts for nothing. At all.

Can you write a paper in school that is the following in its entirety:

"The media is evil. I saw it be evil and so it is. The end."

Where is your support? Where is the rest of your paper? Evidence, my friend. That's what you need to pursuade people.

Fine I'll get you an argument.

The media profits off the suffering of celebrities and the suffering of others, they ruin people's reputations, they libel. They are notorious for all this. They even helped start the Spanish-American war because "war sells" (source Journalism Ethics by[forgot the author])

Fine I'll get you an argument.

The media profits off the suffering of celebrities and the suffering of others, they ruin people's reputations, they libel. They are notorious for all this. They even helped start the Spanish-American war because "war sells" (source Journalism Ethics by[forgot the author])

That's not an argument.

One, they profit off of news. Sometimes suffering is news. We PAY them to tell us the news. What does that have to do with brainwashing? How is doing what you're paid to do evil? Do they cause the suffering? Nothing you've said indicates that. You specifically said US media, so I assume that you think the media in the rest of the world just refuses to report on hurricanes, no?

Libel is illegal. Can you post examples of the general media being guilty of this? Again, not just vague references. Actual examples.

They started the SA war how? By what means?

Again, you've still not offered any support, just vague references. Be specific.

EDIT: Now your paper is:

"The US media is evil. I saw them be evil. They profit from reporting the news. They ruin people's reputation. They commit libel. They started the Spanish-American war.

Bibliography: Journalism Ethics by some guy I don't remember"

Five hours. Night, now.

EDIT: Nearly 12 hours and this paper is still virtually non-existant. You get an F.

About average on the evil chart. They're not particularly any more or less evil than, say, watermelons.

I'm glad somebody gets it. How can the media be 'evil'? What is the point of assigning purely human attributes to something that is not human, especially when those attributes can be entirely relative?

If I am Conservative, I might say that Air America is evil. If I am Liberal, I might say that Rush Limbaugh is evil. This does not make either of them evil.

I'll take back what I said up there, evil isn't relative. It is absolute. It's just that only a very small percentage of the population are right about what is evil and what is good. The rest just think they are right. And I'm going to call out the 'moral relativists' in the crowd too. I think they are the most confused of them all b/c their logic is so circular that it is utterly ridiculous (e.g. "Nothing is really evil. You should tolerate everybody. But people who don't tolerate other people, you have to tolerate them too because they're not really evil, it's just that they have a different perspective"... NO, YOU MORON, CERTAIN THINGS ARE EVIL. If somebody stones a woman to death because she was raped, they have committed an evil act. I don't care how the person was raised). The funniest thing about moral relativists is that they absolutely believe that to not be morally relative is evil, but only if you were born in a society 'advanced' enough to understand moral relativism.

Okay, that last paragraph was a bit of a ramble. Point is, there is a such thing as evil and it is absolute. The other point is, the media CANNOT be evil or good. Even if we could all agree on the standard for evil, some members of the media would fall on one side and some on the other. The media is an abstract thing. It's like saying the 'church' is evil b/c of priests who molest kids. Or the 'market' is evil b/c there are inequalities of wealth. I could go on and on.

Many people on the post pointed out bad effects that the media has on modern society as proof that it is evil. Forms of media exist to fill a place in the market. Some (a very few) people want unbiased truth (if that is even possible). Therefore, there is some (a very small) amount of media outlets that provide it (once again, if it is possible). Some people want their media to glorify physical beauty, material wealth, and insert your vice here. Therefore, some media outlets provide it. Some people want left-leaning or right-leaning news. Therefore, some media outlets provide it. If enough people wanted unbiased truth in the media, they would get it. But enough people apparently don't want that. If the things that are depicted on the media are untrue or harm society, it is because people want that. This doesn't make the media evil. Just like any negative effect of capitalism doesn't make the market evil. It's just what people want (to those of you who argue that people are too dumb to know what they want, I tell you it is b/c those people value staying blissfully ignorant more than trying to learn what they want).

The problem with freedom is that it means people are free to harm themselves. The answer to the problems posed by the media is to allow the media to be free and unregulated enough to meet customer demand in the marketplace. The only legitimate 'criticism' of the media that I've read on this post so far is that the media is controlled by the state (at least, it is legitimate to the extent that it is true; I'm not willing to concede that the media is controlled by the state, although certain outlets certainly are). In a free market for media, the media is going to eventually meet everyone's demands. This will cause there to be 'good' media out there, and those people who want 'good' media will get it and hopefully more and more people will end up wanting it.





(I spoke some about moral absolutes and yet I am obviously a strong supporter of a highly libertarian/capitalist society. I doubt anybody has read this far, but if you want to know how I reconcile the two, here I go. I am a Christian. I would like everybody else to be a Christian and for the whole world to live a sin-free life... impossible, but bear with me. But I'm not going to espouse state regulation as a means to this end. Why? Because part of being Christian is free will. God grants us all free will. We are so free that we can choose to do things that help us or hurt us, it is our own choice. I do not think it would be any easier living a Christian lifestyle in a place where all forms of sin were outright banned. Why not? Because we would not have the free will to choose Christ. The life of a Christian is not meant to be a life of ease, anyhow. People are supposed to mock us for our beliefs, live in sin around us, etc; yet, we are supposed to show Truth through our words, actions, and lifestyles even when surrounded by this. Plus, I think that a libertarian/capitalist society is the best kind for practicing the Christian lifestyle, regardless of whether people around us are sinning. In a system of freedoms, you must still make unpopular choices to be Christian. But at least these aren't going to result in the state using force against you. Instead, you are going to have to do without some conveniences of life, deal with being ridiculed by the majority, and perhaps suffer a bit economically. These 'persecutions' are alot less harsh that you will find in another system. Plus, you can vote with the dollar in a capitalist society. And like I said before, living in a society that allows people to be free to choose sin makes a believer's witness that much more effective.)

How is doing what you're paid to do evil?

Mafia hitmen? American soldiers in Viet Nam who murdered babies and other innocents and burned villages? Most Germans under Hitler's rule? Suicide bombers who's families are paid by the various Arab governments? The people currently working in the government of Kim Jong Il? I could keep going, and I'm sure you could, too.

I agree with pretty much everything else you've said, but let's not get carried away. :)

Mafia hitmen? American soldiers in Viet Nam who murdered babies and other innocents and burned villages? Most Germans under Hitler's rule? Suicide bombers who's families are paid by the various Arab governments? The people currently working in the government of Kim Jong Il? I could keep going, and I'm sure you could, too.

I agree with pretty much everything else you've said, but let's not get carried away. :)

They were not paid to murder babies and other innocents.

Meanwhile, I was asking him to expand on his claims. They were paid by the very people he claims they are being evil to, to do exactly what he claims is evil. He needs to expand on that, thus the question.

They were not paid to murder babies and other innocents.

Meanwhile, I was asking him to expand on his claims. They were paid by the very people he claims they are being evil to, to do exactly what he claims is evil. He needs to expand on that, thus the question.

I know you don't care what I think, but I get to say it anyway... Although most of your argument has been fine, you went too far with that one. It was the only really good argument he's made.

IF gossip is wrong then bad gossiping must be worse. IF gossiping about other people's misfortunes is wrong but it makes you more popular to do it, it is a temptation to do wrong. How can making a profit from gossiping be anything other than temptation to the extreme and even worse? Essentially then, an entire industry based around the product of 'bad gossiping' about other people must be evil.

I'm not saying that I'm agreeing that news corporations are nothing but bad news gossiping about other people's misfortunes, but the argument could be made.

I know you don't care what I think, but I get to say it anyway... Although most of your argument has been fine, you went too far with that one. It was the only really good argument he's made.

IF gossip is wrong then bad gossiping must be worse. IF gossiping about other people's misfortunes is wrong but it makes you more popular to do it, it is a temptation to do wrong. How can making a profit from gossiping be anything other than temptation to the extreme and even worse? Essentially then, an entire industry based around the product of 'bad gossiping' about other people must be evil.

I'm not saying that I'm agreeing that news corporations are nothing but bad news gossiping about other people's misfortunes, but the argument could be made.

The problem isn't the argument couldn't be made. It's that it wasn't made. I posted those questions, read through the many questions I asked him, to bait him into actually making his argument. I'm honestly trying to show him why he's getting all this flak. All he has to do is think about the questions people will ask, like the ones I posted, and answer them.

The fact is your post, and the post earilier that said much the same thing, are answering the question in the way SL should be but won't. That's the point.

It doesn't mean he's wrong. It just needs he needs to actually show why he thinks he's right and so far he's failed to do so.

EDIT: And you're wrong. I think what you said was quite reasonable even if we don't entirely agree. Sometimes I debate with people who have nothing to say, but usually I debate with people who have something to say, but I disagree with their conclusion. Thus, I do care. You might not believe me, but usually if I debate with someone vehemently it's a sign of respect. Ny Nordland is a perfect example. Most trolls don't get my attention. They burn out in a flaming ball. He did because he made his argument in a way that while flawed could certainly be convincing and thus needed to be debunked (assuming one finds his message dangerous as I do) or deserved a reply (in cases where I just disagree).

The problem isn't the argument couldn't be made. It's that it wasn't made. ...

The fact is your post, and the post earilier that said much the same thing, are answering the question in the way SL should be but won't. That's the point.

He did say something along those lines though...He said;

Fine I'll get you an argument.

The media profits off the suffering of celebrities and the suffering of others, they ruin people's reputations, they libel. They are notorious for all this. They even helped start the Spanish-American war because "war sells" (source Journalism Ethics by[forgot the author])

He just didn't fill in the blanks is all... But like I said before, it's not really my argument. Just pointing out what position he took that I thought might be defendable, but you previously seemed to have dismissed out of hand.

He did say something along those lines though...He said;



He just didn't fill in the blanks is all... But like I said before, it's not really my argument. Just pointing out what position he took that I thought might be defendable, but you previously seemed to have dismissed out of hand.

Filling in the blanks is what we're talking about. I think his position is defensible. People are upset because he thinks they are being unreasonable in asking him why he thinks things and not accepting "because I'm not brainwashed" as an answer.

I suspect he really does know how to answer these questions. Like I sad to him, if he were writing a paper, I think he'd figure out how to support his assertions. I'm simply encouraging him to do so.

How evil is the US media? For me I'd give it a 10 because thy brainwash us with their views of peer pressure, false ideas of beauty. They profit off the suffering of others, mainly celebrities. The teenage populace seems to worship them the same way cultists worship there gods. The media tries to indoctrinate us with their views against conservatism, Christianity and their shows are filled with sex and violence. They seem to only focus on the negative. They only care for profit and don't care how they influence others whether for bad or good just as long as they get paid.


You let yourself be brainwashed then? Just switch them off and find the truth yourself.

Look, really, you do realize that A101 is often disagreed with. I don't know that I've ever agreed with him.

I think we've agreed on Israel once or twice. Frankly I think I've never had the opportunity where I haven't agreed with SOMEBODY at least once.

Especially when Israel is involved, because for some reason people who tend to sit at the exact opposite side of the fence from me on most political issues tend to agree with me about Israel....

Fine I'll get you an argument.

The media profits off the suffering of celebrities and the suffering of others, they ruin people's reputations, they libel. They are notorious for all this. They even helped start the Spanish-American war because "war sells" (source Journalism Ethics by[forgot the author])

OK, good, this is actually somewhat of a reasonable argument. And cited a real example. Great, this is a good start. And I say this without any sarcasm, this is a nice start to it.

You set up a premise, then use evidence to support that premise. Yellow journalism which stirred up the spanish-american war strictly to sell newspapers, and thus cost lives as a result of a lie.

Good!

I can counter with the following. Libel is illegal, defamation is an actionalable offense. Media is acceptable when it falls within the bounds of the law. When they violate the law, sue em.

As for the suffering of celebrities, it is the job of the media to report facts. If britney spears goes into rehab, she goes into rehab whether someone reports that fact or not. In many instances the media reports on facts of celebrities that happen independantly of the the reporting.

So are they causing the suffering, or merely reporting on the suffering that has occured anyway?

OK, good, this is actually somewhat of a reasonable argument. And cited a real example. Great, this is a good start. And I say this without any sarcasm, this is a nice start to it.

You set up a premise, then use evidence to support that premise. Yellow journalism which stirred up the spanish-american war strictly to sell newspapers, and thus cost lives as a result of a lie.

Good!

I can counter with the following. Libel is illegal, defamation is an actionalable offense. Media is acceptable when it falls within the bounds of the law. When they violate the law, sue em.

As for the suffering of celebrities, it is the job of the media to report facts. If britney spears goes into rehab, she goes into rehab whether someone reports that fact or not. In many instances the media reports on facts of celebrities that happen independantly of the the reporting.

So are they causing the suffering, or merely reporting on the suffering that has occured anyway?

The issue here is that you have to do more than claim the media did X, but show that they did X. He claims they started the SA war, and cites a source that he isn't actually sure of, without saying in what way, they started the war.

The issue here is that you have to do more than claim the media did X, but show that they did X. He claims they started the SA war, and cites a source that he isn't actually sure of, without saying in what way, they started the war.

well true, it was an inadequate citation. However I happen to know what he's talking about, so I give him credit for it anyway.

he's right, he doesn't know, or doesn't say, HOW he is...but he is, so I'll let this slide.

It really depends on what you think of as "evil". Let me explain.

In the USA, the media has an advantage over the media in Britain (for example). The British media is constrained by the official secrets act, which prohibits the dissemination of just about anything the government wants to keep secret - from nuclear submarine movements (understandable) to school league table results (things like this are often kept secret for partisan political purposes). There is also no constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press in Britain, and our libel laws are absolutely crazy - far more harsh and restrictive than in the USA.

The US media is virtually unconstrained by comparison - none of it is state controlled, you have a proper freedom of the press, you have no official secrets act, and thanks to the Supreme court (ruling against Jerry Falwell in the 1970's in the case Falwell Vs. Flynt), the chances of being prosecuted for libel are slim.

Therefore it is bizarre to see the US media (Fox news in particular but the others too) behaving like tools of the ruling party. The blatantly biased and partisan agenda pushed by a media system which is capable of being completely free and impartial is what I would call evil.

So why is this the case? Well, it all started when Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine back in the 1980's, and then started removing regulations on cross-ownership of media. This allowed the then heavily regulated media to grow into the behemoths we have today (Fox news, Clearchannel, etc). The powers that be in the media empires therefore know that in order to grow (and hence make more money), they need to curry favour with the ruling party, in return for the removal of more regulations. Therefore they have an enormous incentive to present the news the way the government would like to see it - and no incentive not to.

Liberal bias? Don't make me laugh. Just try publishing news that doesn't toe the party line, printing a story critical of the administration, or attacking a corporate power - you won't hold your network post for long.

Indoctrination against conservatism? What complete nonsense is this, FFS? The people who own and run the US media empires are, for the most part, conservative or religious ideologues - they certainly aren't liberal in any sense of the word. The only reason why they broadcast programming which seems to conflict with the religious / conservative ideologies is that in reality, hardcore conservatism in the USA is a minority group (albeit a minority group with a lot of loud voices and power disproportionate to it's size). You have to at least pretend to have liberal views if you want to get decent ratings.

In stark contrast, the BBC in Britain, which actually is state owned and state run, is probably the most politically impartial news source on the face of the planet. Why? Because everyone knows it is government run - we pay a tax (called the TV licence) which funds the BBC - they are not influenced by corporate powers in any way, and do not advertise anything except their own programming. The BBC therefore has to be very careful not to appear like a tool of the ruling party (or a tool of any other pressure group, for that matter). If it did, then it would lose it's right (granted by the Queen) to collect a tax from the people to fund itself. Therefore it has to remain politically impartial, if only to protect its own existence.

well true, it was an inadequate citation. However I happen to know what he's talking about, so I give him credit for it anyway.

he's right, he doesn't know, or doesn't say, HOW he is...but he is, so I'll let this slide.

I'm trying to encourage him to go further with his arguments. I'm sure you and I both would be happy to see him become a regular poster of interesting topics and reasoned debate. He thinks you're out to get him. Maybe you are, but in reality he can't blame everyone's reactions on you. If he would put a little more work into his claims instead of preaching at people, I'm sure he'd find a very different reaction.

But then, everyone thinks I'm an ass on NS, so what do I know?

I'm trying to encourage him to go further with his arguments. I'm sure you and I both would be happy to see him become a regular poster of interesting topics and reasoned debate. He thinks you're out to get him. Maybe you are, but in reality he can't blame everyone's reactions on you. If he would put a little more work into his claims instead of preaching at people, I'm sure he'd find a very different reaction.

But then, everyone thinks I'm an ass on NS, so what do I know?

I don't really think you're an ass. I think you're opinionated, and I don't always agree with your opinions, but you do a fair job of backing them up.

True, the citation could have gone further.

A one to ten scale? Pfff

As Nigel Tufnel would say, "This one goes to eleven".

Therefore it is bizarre to see the US media (Fox news in particular but the others too) behaving like tools of the ruling party. The blatantly biased and partisan agenda pushed by a media system which is capable of being completely free and impartial is what I would call evil.
Fox news is as popular as it is because many Republicans tune into it, which are a sizable portion of the market.

So why is this the case? Well, it all started when Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine back in the 1980's, and then started removing regulations on cross-ownership of media. This allowed the then heavily regulated media to grow into the behemoths we have today (Fox news, Clearchannel, etc). The powers that be in the media empires therefore know that in order to grow (and hence make more money), they need to curry favour with the ruling party, in return for the removal of more regulations.
Or in some cases to maintain the regulation to protect themselves from competition. This is hardly an argument against private newstations though - it does show, however, what a source of pressure the government can be.

In stark contrast, the BBC in Britain, which actually is state owned and state run, is probably the most politically impartial news source on the face of the planet.
Utter bullshit. Its bias may not be as political as say, Fox news, but it is one of the worst stations out there in this regard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Amazingly (and I mean that in the most sarcastic way possible), state newstations can also be biased, without corporate influence even coming into the picture.

I hate the way the media dictates how people look. Magazines like "Cosmo Girl" and fashion magazines piss me off to no end. "Get a body like Rihanna in 30 days!" No thanks. People make money out of the exploitation of people's feelings and desires, and it's sick.

Utter bullshit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Amazingly (and I mean that in the most sarcastic way possible), state newstations can also be biased, without corporate influence even coming into the picture.

The Daily Mail is as bad as Fox News, if not worse. Notice the "dominated by liberals" and "lean against Christianity, and support multiculturalism." Yes, state owned newstations can be biased, but on the whole, the BBC is pretty good.

So why aren't they making money off you then?

What? Well, being a guy, I don't read Cosmo Girl and other such magazines, so I'm less likely to buy into it. But even so. I just can't stand the way people TELL their readers what to wear, what to do and who to look like. We're all different people, we're not all celebrities.

I hate the way the media dictates how people look. Magazines like "Cosmo Girl" and fashion magazines piss me off to no end. "Get a body like Rihanna in 30 days!" No thanks. People make money out of the exploitation of people's feelings and desires, and it's sick.
So why aren't they making money off you then?

The Daily Mail is as bad as Fox News
It has a bias against the BBC, sure. And the BBC certainly has its own biases. Denying that on account of Daily Mail being the source of this little expose will not do much good.

Yes, state owned newstations can be biased, but on the whole, the BBC is pretty good.
No better than CNN.

What? Well, being a guy, I don't read Cosmo Girl and other such magazines, so I'm less likely to buy into it. But even so. I just can't stand the way people TELL their readers what to wear, what to do and who to look like. We're all different people, we're not all celebrities.
So tell me, when is Fox or ABC planning on rounding up girls in concentration camps, forcing them to look like the celebrity du jour?

I never said the BBC wasn't biased. Of course it is biased, on many issues, as is just about every news source.

However, what I did say is that the BBC is politically impartial. Meaning that it doesn't lend support to any political party, and doesn't behave as a tool of the ruling party.

Please do learn the difference. It is important.

However, what I did say is that the BBC is politically impartial. Meaning that it doesn't lend support to any political party, and doesn't behave as a tool of the ruling party.
Labour and BBC differ very little in the agendae which they push. BBC of course does not overtly clamour for Labour, but one can certainly tell it has little liking for the Tories.

I'm not much of a fan of corporations which twist regulations to their favour either though, and certainly have little time for newstations such as Fox - about as little as I have for the BBC.

Please do learn the difference. It is important.
Except there is little difference in this case.

I'm sorry, but there is a difference.

Some people, particularly those of a Daily Mail persuasion (thanks for the link, very entertaining), will point out that the BBC is left wing. But compared to what? The Tories? No surprise there. The Tories are a right wing party. But then so are Labour, although they don't like to admit it.

My point is that American networks routinely manipulate the news in order to support the ruling party. I'm not saying they lie (although some people might claim that they do). The easiest way is to simply leave out information which the Government doesn't want the people to hear.

You want a concrete example? Here's one:

Remember when there was a failed coup d'etat against President Chavez of Venezuela back in 2002? You might also remember many US news stations reporting that prior to the coup, 200,000 people marched through Caracas, protesting against Chavez.
What you almost certainly don't know is that at the same time, four times as many people were marching in favour of Chavez, a fact that was ignored by nearly every news source in the US (and most sources in Britain as well, I'm sorry to say). The exceptions were the Guardian, and of course Newsnight - A BBC program, if I'm not mistaken.

Who cares if the BBC are portrayed as left wing? Who cares if they don't like the Tories? Who actually does like the Tories? It's not the point! The individual political views of people who work for the BBC are irrelevant to this argument - it's the organisation as a whole that matters.

The BBC does not manipulate news in order to support the ruling party. It doesn't openly support any political party. It's simply not allowed to. It is therefore politically impartial. End of.

Some people, particularly those of a Daily Mail persuasion (thanks for the link, very entertaining), will point out that the BBC is left wing. But compared to what? The Tories? No surprise there. The Tories are a right wing party. But then so are Labour, although they don't like to admit it.
They are left-wing, in the same fashion as Labour is (economics aside, although I do not count Blair's "Third Way" as right-wing).

My point is that American networks routinely manipulate the news in order to support the ruling party. I'm not saying they lie (although some people might claim that they do). The easiest way is to simply leave out information which the Government doesn't want the people to hear.

No, some certain networks manipulate it in favour to appease the ruling party. However, I have already mentioned that I'm not partial to corporations having to fear that the government might strip them of their licence, forcing them to lick its boot. So on that we may agree.

I take it we're not going to get any further support from SL, huh? Disappointing.

I take it we're not going to get any further support from SL, huh? Disappointing.

Oh? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0315/p08s01-comv.html

*cough* "win hearts and minds" *cough*

This commentary is basically saying that the US media wants to start and international propaganda campaign.

To prove there is an intellectual war try reading the thread "Blogs of War"

http://www.thoseshirts.com/
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11093093#post11093093
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=515632
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,252747,00.html
http://www.ketchupandcurry.blogspot.com/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_he.htm
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=483572
These links convince me that there's a social/intellectual war, another source supporting this is the book "Why mommy is a Democrat"

Oh? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0315/p08s01-comv.html

*cough* "win hearts and minds" *cough*

This commentary is basically saying that the US media wants to start and international propaganda campaign.

Again, that's not you making an argument. Do you not know how to make an argument? Have you ever written a paper for school? What grade are you in?

Out of curiousity, you do realize those are government programs, no? That's not the general American media, no?

Now do you have your OWN argument?

This commentary is basically saying that the US media wants to start and international propaganda campaign.

See, no. That's not what it's saying. That's what you are saying it's saying.

And if you wish to interpret it that way, you need to show us HOW you reached that interpretation.

Because the US GOVERNMENT is adapting new technologies to handle it's public broadcasts (while at the same time having massive CUTS in other areas...hardly an auspicious start) and the GOVERNMENT is broadcasting reasons and rationale for american policy, this does NOT mean that "the US media wants to start and (sic) international propaganda campaign"

See, no. That's not what it's saying. That's what you are saying it's saying.

And if you wish to interpret it that way, you need to show us HOW you reached that interpretation.

Because the US GOVERNMENT is adapting new technologies to handle it's public broadcasts (while at the same time having massive CUTS in other areas...hardly an auspicious start) and the GOVERNMENT is broadcasting reasons and rationale for american policy, this does NOT mean that "the US media wants to start and (sic) international propaganda campaign"

I think he doesn't realize that it's not talking about US media like CNN and whatnot as he has been saying all along. This is the government media.

I think he doesn't realize that it's not talking about US media like CNN and whatnot as he has been saying all along. This is the government media.

I know...that's what makes it kinda sad...

Unless when he said "US media" he meant all along government media. However I don't know how many teenagers in Washington State listen to Voice of America....

I know...that's what makes it kinda sad...

Unless when he said "US media" he meant all along government media. However I don't know how many teenagers in Washington State listen to Voice of America....

Well, especially since many of these programs are ONLY heard overseas. And since they assuredly aren't following around celebs and whatnot, like he implies. He was clearly talking about commercial media.

And what does this have to do with him being an eyewitness to the evil media? Honestly, surely he's written a persuasive paper at some point in his life.

Well, especially since many of these programs are ONLY heard overseas. And since they assuredly aren't following around celebs and whatnot, like he implies. He was clearly talking about commercial media.

take all the fun out of my joke why doncha?

take all the fun out of my joke why doncha?

Nah, not really. I think VoA actually is heard here.

Nah, not really. I think VoA actually is heard here.

and is the favorite entertainment for 13-17 year olds in back woods washington? Dude, seriously, teenagers these days are BORING.

and is the favorite entertainment for 13-17 year olds in back woods washington? Dude, seriously, teenagers these days are BORING.

Good thing he's saving them. Cuz you know right after rap it's the most listened to media in America.

If he wants to keep them from being brainwashed by VoA all he has to do is, um, not mention it. I bet you not 1% of the whole country knows what it is. Pretty weak brainwashing campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America

Gotta agree with you there :( *does usual nerdulent activities* StarCraft ghost is still delayed?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, are you just trying to get laughed at? You claimed a bunch of things about commercial media and you support it with an article you didn't write that is about something completely different.

Are you telling me that VoA bashes Christians and Conservatives?

Good thing he's saving them. Cuz you know right after rap it's the most listened to media in America.

If he wants to keep them from being brainwashed by VoA all he has to do is, um, not mention it. I bet you not 1% of the whole country knows what it is. Pretty weak brainwashing campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America

Dude, I have a degree in international political theory. I have studied, for YEARS, the politics of nations.

Up until about 6 months ago I didn't know what it was.

and is the favorite entertainment for 13-17 year olds in back woods washington? Dude, seriously, teenagers these days are BORING.

Gotta agree with you there :( *does usual nerdulent activities* StarCraft ghost is still delayed?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

The U.S. media is not so much evil, as it is controlled.

Well, since he's suddenly talking about government-controlled media, I suppose that's a truism.

The U.S. media is not so much evil, as it is controlled.

Evil - no

Self serving - Yes

The media was originally intended to be a public service, serving itself rather than completing its purpose of being a source of factual information for the public makes it kinda like a worthless tumor in America the way I see it but then again thats me.
Corporate media caters to its consumers in order to profit - it's already serving them.

The media was originally intended to be a public service, serving itself rather than completing its purpose of being a source of factual information for the public makes it kinda like a worthless tumor in America the way I see it but then again thats me. All tumors do is take nutrition without benefiting or even damaging cells around it.

Again, support your claims. We'll wait. You've bashed commercial media, which of course must operate as a commercial product. But you say it shouldn't even though you've not said why or how or what it's doing wrong.

You've bashed government media for being *gasp* biased towards the government. You did so without bothering with your own argument, instead only citing an article that doesn't support any claim you actually made. In fact, I question whether you knew it was government media that it was talking about.

So what is your argument. What's the alternative. What's your point? Where's your support?

Have you ever written a paper? Why are do you refuse to make even a semblence of an argument?

Meanwhile, you do realize that media has been around pretty much since it was possible to mass produce text. What is your evidence that it was originally a public service?

Evil - no

Self serving - Yes

The media was originally intended to be a public service, serving itself rather than completing its purpose of being a source of factual information for the public makes it kinda like a worthless tumor in America the way I see it but then again thats me. All tumors do is take nutrition without benefiting or even damaging cells around it.

The media was originally intended to be a public service, serving itself rather than completing its purpose of being a source of factual information for the public makes it kinda like a worthless tumor in America the way I see it but then again thats me. All tumors do is take nutrition without benefiting or even damaging cells around it.

its stops being a public service when its privately owned but the government owned isn't going to be any better. Hell even the BBC has its agenda. an unachievable goal I'm afraid

its stops being a public service when its privately owned but the government owned isn't going to be any better. Hell even the BBC has its agenda. an unachievable goal I'm afraid

When was it ever a public service?

When was it ever a public service?

indeed, when its owned by an actor that has an agenda it becomes biased and then stops being a public service.

The media was originally intended to be a public service

Source?

Considering that alot of countries only have one news channel, the government news channel, I would say the US media is not that evil. But if you hang on CNN's every word like a media slut, your stupid and you need electroshock therapy.

Considering that alot of countries only have one news channel, the government news channel, I would say the US media is not that evil. But if you hang on CNN's every word like a media slut, your stupid and you need electroshock therapy.

lol we need the electro shock therapy treatment for the people obsessed with the media just as China has that treatment for internet addicts.

Kid: Hey did you hear about Brittany Spears? *zap* What happened on the last episode of this blubbery talk show about teenage bands? *zaps*


MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

lol we need the electro shock therapy treatment for the people obsessed with the media just as China has that treatment for internet addicts.

Kid: Hey did you hear about Brittany Spears? *zap* What happened on the last episode of this blubbery talk show about teenage bands? *zaps*


MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Ah. Nevermind. I see. You came here to chat. That's why you're getting upset with Arthais101. He like most of us expects you to support your positions and calls you on it.

A tip: If you're just looking to do that, you'd be better to pick topics like "what dwarf would you be from Snow White?" or "What color is your left sock?" or something. Topics where people don't expect anything substantial from you.

If you keep choosing topics that involve debate, you're going to keep getting reactions from people who recognize that you can't.

Why would you take the soldiers word for it? They've more reason to lie than anyone.

such as....?

such as....?

Soldiers are not immune from the vice of irrationality that plagues humanity. Because they want to believe that the cause they fought for was worth fighting for, that they were serving their country and not a political party, they lie to themselves and everyone else.