Thread: 'Freedom of the press'... The Levenson enquiry etc.

I haven't yet read nor would I know where to find a copy of the Leveson enquiry.

I do find the whole matter rather interesting and have heard a lot of politicians such as William Hague bleeting on about the importance of the freedom of the press.

I think the press has an extremely important role to play in influencing people.

I find it a bit odd that there isn't a thread about this subject already, at least I couln't find one.

So, are the press too big for their boots?
Why do we have a media controlled by private bussinessmen when it is obviously such a tool to influence politics?
Who are these people who spend billions on media in order to influence people? and yet they are not even politicians?

Can anybody think of any good guidelines which they feel the press should have to follow?

We don't want the families of victims to have their phones hacked into illegally in the name of a news story do we?

We don't want the bussiness sector to control our entertainment as well as our education in current affairs do we? Can we trust them? it's no wonder capitolism has been so completely unchallenged when the media is owned by capitolist bussinessmen is it?

It's no wonder wars continue to happen when the people who own the media are in the same organisations and have the same beleifs as the men who launch rocket attacks.

If we are going to change from what is widely accepted as a corrupt unsocial and unsustainable capitolist system into a way of living that ensures we don't exploit the Earths resources and we leave something for our children and grandchildren... Are private powerful global bussinessmen the best people to run the media which promotes this change for the good?

I propose private bussinessmen will always be looking after their own capitolist agenda and cannot, should never have been trusted to control a media.

I don't know what the Leveson enquiry said or found or suggested... but I find it laughable that we have mega rich bussiness men controlling the 'Media'.

So, in this context 'FREEDOM and 'LIBERTY' of the press really means freedom and liberty of the rich powerful bussinessmen who control our minds using the media?

We obviously don't want a government owned press either... they can pay for it, but keep there medelling fingers out of it.

What we need is a peoples press, paid for by the peoples, not for profit but for the good of all and the advancement of mankind, bound by a set of regulations which prevent abuses of the system such as we have finnally witnessed in recent times.

Power to the people!!!

If any of you have any insights or opinions on the matter of 'freedom of press' then please share them.

Cheers

*Sorry about the spelling mistakes

Not worried about it. Big money has always had a big part in influencing the population, and if anything there were far fewer sources just a couple decades ago. Now there's hundreds of places to get news, and even more to get first hand on-scene accounts, meaning it's often available before the the mass media has even had a chance to apply any spin.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Not worried about it..

I find it cause for concern if i'm honest.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Big money has always had a big part in influencing the population,

Quite true..., since the big money gained by religions and states started to be used to fund a 'media', a go between. Which has a lot to do with why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? And a lot to do with why even today we are still attacking our brothers from other lands and taking their oil and resources?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

and if anything there were far fewer sources just a couple decades ago. Now there's hundreds of places to get news, and even more to get first hand on-scene accounts, meaning it's often available before the the mass media has even had a chance to apply any spin.

But the press is still an authority and major influencer on what is known and thought. The media empires also own the most if not all t.v and internet branches of the media.

It isn't the news thats important.. its what news is reported and how it is used to influence peoples actions.

We'v always been heading for doom... it's no excuse to not worry about it.

If our policies are going to change for the better then we need unbiased coverage of current affairs and history... biased sources are ofcourse going to mislead.
it doesn't matter how it happened in the past, if we want to move forward then we need to break away from the past and move in a positive direction.

Why would you trust this Leveson guy more than the news media?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Why would you trust this Leveson guy more than the news media?

I don't.

All I know about him is that he is a lord... and he compiled a report on the press which is much discussed (in part) at present.

From what i've heard... I don't trust this to be a blunt honest report.

I have no clue why this particular lord was chosen to compile the report... Who is he? who is he working for? I don't think Big bussiness single handedly highjacked the media. I think the rich members of the state made regulations and allowed for the privatisation in order for their state agenda plus private bussiness interests to both florish. But that's just my hunch... I havent looked into the history of it all. It seems to me this Leveson is just another rich member of the state with private bussiness interests... what qualifies him to be impartial I have no clue.

Thats why I want the people of all kinds to say what they think about the situation, just honest, blunt opinions and considerations regarding the situation. I consider it a very important issue.

What do you know about him Harold?

I tell you what though.. we should be able to trust the government who are voted in to opperate for the good of the people they repesent, more than we can trust private bussiness people with self serving profit agendas.

When the government is bassically made up of people with private bussiness interests then it's hard to trust the government to do what is best for the greatest number of the people they represent.

Also.. if private bussiness has such an influence over the media... then can we trust politicians and political parties to upset the apple cart and risk there own media support running up to the next election?

The wolrds of media/big bussiness and politics/government are so entwined that we can't trust the government to be impartial in it's decisions.

We need regulations that ensure our political future is not being dictated by people who seek personal profit.


We need a press independent of big bussiness and government which works for the greater good of the greatest number and is completely resistent to future corruption.

We need regulations that ensure our political future is not being dictated by people who seek personal profit.

No one forces you to vote, or vote for any particular person---so nothing is really being dictated unless it's the will of the people and in accordance with the constitution which serves to protect from tyranny by majority.

We need a press independent of big bussiness and government which works for the greater good of the greatest number and is completely resistent to future corruption.

Nothing is stopping people from getting news from non-profits.

We need regulations that ensure our political future is not being dictated by people who seek personal profit.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

No one forces you to vote, or vote for any particular person---so nothing is really being dictated unless it's the will of the people and in accordance with the constitution which serves to protect from tyranny by majority.

Opinion is being dictated. Credibility is being dictated. I find your comments quite ambiguous... the constitution accords protection from tyranny by majority, to who? for what? what exactly is tyranny by majority?

We need a press independent of big bussiness and government which works for the greater good of the greatest number and is completely resistent to future corruption.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Nothing is stopping people from getting news from non-profits.

Who funds the non profits? What are the biggest and best names in the news agents?

I find your comments quite ambiguous... the constitution accords protection from tyranny by majority, to who? for what? what exactly is tyranny by majority?

Credibility must be earned.
As for the Constitution it's for everyone, for those things in the bill of rights; they are protections that limit Federal (and by extension many State) government action, even when 99% of the population supports that action.

Non-profits are funded by a variety of mechanisms....ads, donations...etc. PBS is one of the most recognized.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I find your comments quite ambiguous... the constitution accords protection from tyranny by majority, to who? for what? what exactly is tyranny by majority?

Credibility must be earned.

Non-profits are funded by a variety of mechanisms....ads, donations...etc. PBS is one of the most recognized.

Credibility can be destroyed unjustly...

Ads, paid for by big bussiness. Donations, from who? for what? Big bussiness surely? This sounds as free and impartial as the the mainstream media and the political parties... Not very.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Not worried about it. Big money has always had a big part in influencing the population, and if anything there were far fewer sources just a couple decades ago. Now there's hundreds of places to get news, and even more to get first hand on-scene accounts, meaning it's often available before the the mass media has even had a chance to apply any spin.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength and bid
defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson.

Your above statement is far from reality.
America's founding fathers did not take any crap, from the large corporations, that currently control our media and government.
The press in the days of the founding fathers, would call corporate puppets like Ronald Reagan and GW Bush, "stupid" to their faces. And they called them "stupid" in the press.

Our current press does not have the morals or strength, of the press in the time of the founding fathers of America.
Our current corporate controlled press, was created by large corporations like GE.
And our legendary past American government officials, would have (crushed) our present corporate media system.

Real sorry if I was rude,
Chad.

Originally Posted by question for you

I haven't yet read nor would I know where to find a copy of the Leveson enquiry.

I do find the whole matter rather interesting and have heard a lot of politicians such as William Hague bleeting on about the importance of the freedom of the press.

I think the press has an extremely important role to play in influencing people.

I find it a bit odd that there isn't a thread about this subject already, at least I couln't find one.

So, are the press too big for their boots?
Why do we have a media controlled by private bussinessmen when it is obviously such a tool to influence politics?
Who are these people who spend billions on media in order to influence people? and yet they are not even politicians?

Can anybody think of any good guidelines which they feel the press should have to follow?

We don't want the families of victims to have their phones hacked into illegally in the name of a news story do we?

We don't want the bussiness sector to control our entertainment as well as our education in current affairs do we? Can we trust them? it's no wonder capitolism has been so completely unchallenged when the media is owned by capitolist bussinessmen is it?

It's no wonder wars continue to happen when the people who own the media are in the same organisations and have the same beleifs as the men who launch rocket attacks.

If we are going to change from what is widely accepted as a corrupt unsocial and unsustainable capitolist system into a way of living that ensures we don't exploit the Earths resources and we leave something for our children and grandchildren... Are private powerful global bussinessmen the best people to run the media which promotes this change for the good?

I propose private bussinessmen will always be looking after their own capitolist agenda and cannot, should never have been trusted to control a media.

I don't know what the Leveson enquiry said or found or suggested... but I find it laughable that we have mega rich bussiness men controlling the 'Media'.

So, in this context 'FREEDOM and 'LIBERTY' of the press really means freedom and liberty of the rich powerful bussinessmen who control our minds using the media?

We obviously don't want a government owned press either... they can pay for it, but keep there medelling fingers out of it.

What we need is a peoples press, paid for by the peoples, not for profit but for the good of all and the advancement of mankind, bound by a set of regulations which prevent abuses of the system such as we have finnally witnessed in recent times.

Power to the people!!!

If any of you have any insights or opinions on the matter of 'freedom of press' then please share them.

Cheers

*Sorry about the spelling mistakes

You asked, Can anybody think of any good guidelines which they feel the press should have to follow?

I believe if a news group is owned/controlled by large corporations/business, they will not follow guidelines. These business news outlets will always protect business. Corporations that acquire news outlets, do this partly for publicity, and for controlling the news.

When you watch business tv news, you are basically/kinda watching a tv commercial for that group of businesses.


Instead of fight these business owned news groups, perhaps regular citizens should nurture, protect, and finance real news outlets.

Here in America we have several "real" news outlets. Problem is they cant compete with news groups financed by huge corporations.

(edited to make correct by Strange's comments.)


And to say Americas news outlets are not controlled by large US corporations, is a joke.

Television stations like ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and Fox, are (not) allowed to say bad things about US corporations like GE.
If a reporter at any of those tv stations, dares to say anything bad about large US corporations. They are told to write a different story. And if they don't stop they are fired, or sent to work in a department, where they cant write stories.

Even PBS which claims to be independent, edits its stories about corporations like GE, so these corporations don't look bad..
When corporations like GE do dangerous things, the whole story is covered up.

Example, if a corporation like GE, almost spills enough toxic waste, to kill 100,000 people. The press says, "GE had to shut down power today in one of its plants, but everything is ok."


example, during the time GW Bush, was giving TV station owners huge tax cuts. People had to promise the tv station CEO's, that they would not say bad things about Bush on the air. If they did not make the promise, they were not allowed on the air.

example, when US presidents do favors for large corporations, so the corporations can let out more pollution. And the extra pollution kills 10,000's of Americans, the press is not allowed to say a word about the deaths of those people.

(Only a small hand full of US news groups, have reporters that are allowed to write negative stories, about US corporations.)


Countries like Germany, Switzerland, France, ex.ex.ex. may have major news outlets, not controlled by large corporations?
But Americas news media is fully controlled by large corporations.

Originally Posted by question for you

I tell you what though.. we should be able to trust the government who are voted in to opperate for the good of the people they repesent, more than we can trust private bussiness people with self serving profit agendas.

The government is voted in by people who are influenced by the media, and any number of other corrupt influences. That's my point.

When the government is bassically made up of people with private bussiness interests then it's hard to trust the government to do what is best for the greatest number of the people they represent.

Also.. if private bussiness has such an influence over the media... then can we trust politicians and political parties to upset the apple cart and risk there own media support running up to the next election?

The wolrds of media/big bussiness and politics/government are so entwined that we can't trust the government to be impartial in it's decisions.

We need regulations that ensure our political future is not being dictated by people who seek personal profit.

Whom do you trust to write the regulations?

We need a press independent of big bussiness and government which works for the greater good of the greatest number and is completely resistent to future corruption.

Impossible.

Originally Posted by chad

Countries like Germany, Switzerland, France, ex.ex.ex. have a free press?
America does not have a free press.

Thanks for your insights chad.

I don't know about those three countries but I think these major media coorperations are pretty much global and have global interests. Rupert Murdoch who owns News international which owns fox also owned the sun and the Times in the UK. He's an australian but his companies are all over the world. It was the practises of his editors which sparked the public outrage which led to the leveson inquiry which was just released in the UK.

It seems there is now a lot of interference from big bussiness into cultures and governments across the whole globe.

Originally Posted by chad

America does not have a free press.

Do you mean that the USA does not have an independent press?

I assume the consitution ([whichever it is] amendment?) guarantees a free press, but that doesn't mean you will get a balanced presentation of news and opinion.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The government is voted in by people who are influenced by the media, and any number of other corrupt influences. That's my point.

Actually 'the people' don't get to vote on much... A party or it's leader once every four years. It's merely the illusion of having a say.

The majority of the government including all the interfering rich big bussiness men and lords such as leveson havent been voted in by the public. They might have a vote in the house of lords, or they might be appointed by Prime minister/Queen or whoever. Idk.

The establishment was never voted in... it got in by bringing darkness onto the people of the lands. AkA The dark ages.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Whom do you trust to write the regulations?.

Who can ya trust? I trust myself.
I trust a process of debate among the public to iron out some of the problems faced.

Bassically anybody who has expressed their concerns with the current system and has presented some good options going forward is going to inspire some trust.

From what I have read of the leveson report so far, it is seeming quite fair minded. I have a long way to go.

It seems you perhaps don't trust this report?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Impossible.

We can certainly improve a great deal on the current corruptions.

Originally Posted by chad

And to say there is freedom of the press in America, is a joke.

America does not have a free press.

Well the problem is chad that America does have a free press... The press are free to do whatever they want within reason. Thats why the papers and t.v stations are full of consumer items and products that make you want them. Thats why some issues can be highlighted and some corruptions in government can be highlighted but other issues can be completely ignored. The press are free to do as they please it seems... isn't that the problem?

There needs to be an independent body completely responsible and accountable for all press activities, the government needs to be responsible and accountable for that independent body, the law system needs to hold the goverments responsible and accountable.

Everybody needs to be held to account by the law which they promote. 'Freedom' (and beleive me, I was the most libertine youngster) is just a word that means people can get away with whatever they want. Reasonable regulations are what is needed, not people bleeting after 'freedom' and 'free press'.

Originally Posted by question for you

The majority of the government including all the interfering rich big bussiness men and lords such as leveson havent been voted in by the public.

Even more reason to distrust them.

It seems you perhaps don't trust this report?

I don't know anything about it other than what I read in the corrupt, untrustworthy media. So, no, I don't trust it.

We can certainly improve a great deal on the current corruptions.

What makes you think so?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by question for you

The majority of the government including all the interfering rich big bussiness men and lords such as leveson havent been voted in by the public.

Even more reason to distrust them.

Especially when the bussiness world has them all wrapped around their little fingers. 'Government' is not voted in, but at least prime ministers to the Queen are... all we need is a couple of decent candidates to pick from. We should stop using politically trained people and start using real people to represent us. It isnt rocket science... any idiot can see what will be benificial and what will be negative. All you need from a prime minister is altruism and integrity. Certainly don't need a degree in bussiness or finance in order to look after peoples welfare.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What makes you think so?

We can't do any worse. We couldn't have been led more down the garden path if we had tried. The only way is up.

Though in fairness to the press, they have done a good job at promoting a liberal perspective. Except when it comes to war.

Originally Posted by question for you

Though in fairness to the press, they have done a good job at promoting a liberal perspective.

Do you think it is the function of the press to promote a liberal perspective? I thought they were supposed to report the news.

error

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by question for you

Though in fairness to the press, they have done a good job at promoting a liberal perspective.

Do you think it is the function of the press to promote a liberal perspective? I thought they were supposed to report the news.

I beleive it is most certainly a function they have devised for themselves.

I would agree a 'pure' press would simply report as much news as possible without any intention to lead or direct. In reality the press do promote all kinds of agendas and perhaps this is one of the major problems with the way they operate? Especially when that agenda belongs to self serving private organisations.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by chad

America does not have a free press.

Do you mean that the USA does not have an independent press?

I assume the consitution ([whichever it is] amendment?) guarantees a free press, but that doesn't mean you will get a balanced presentation of news and opinion.

Free press - a body of book publishers, news media, etc., not controlled or restricted by government censorship in political or ideological matters.
Free press | Define Free press at Dictionary.com

I used the term free press to describe a news media, (restricted by large corporations), not the government.


I edited my post and replaced "free press". It now says " And to say Americas news outlets are not controlled by large US corporations, is a joke. "

But I noticed in a British online dictionary, free press definition was this.

Free press- If a country has a free press, its newspapers, magazines and television and radio stations are able to express any opinions they want, even if these criticize the government and other organisations.
free press noun - definition in British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online

Perhaps I could have used the term free press.
But since I am describing (American) media/laws. I think most likely I used the wrong term.

Chad.

The news agents are under the influences of large bussinesses and that is a result of 'free press'... if we didn't have a completely free press and instead had regulations which restrict some of the abuses, then we would be free from the influences of the free press.

The press shouldn't be free in my opinion. It should be accountable and responsible. The people should be free to read news without subliminal suggestions being placed upon them. The press shouldn't be free to use subliminal auto suggestion or promote blatantly negative influences on culture.

The press is a tool of the establishment. It should not be free to act as it pleases and deny all responsibility. The government should be responsible for the actions of the press. free press means the government are free from responsibility for it's actions. They should be accountable, not free. imo.

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by chad

And to say there is freedom of the press in America, is a joke.

America does not have a free press.

Well the problem is chad that America does have a free press... The press are free to do whatever they want within reason. Thats why the papers and t.v stations are full of consumer items and products that make you want them. Thats why some issues can be highlighted and some corruptions in government can be highlighted but other issues can be completely ignored. The press are free to do as they please it seems... isn't that the problem?

There needs to be an independent body completely responsible and accountable for all press activities, the government needs to be responsible and accountable for that independent body, the law system needs to hold the goverments responsible and accountable.

Everybody needs to be held to account by the law which they promote. 'Freedom' (and beleive me, I was the most libertine youngster) is just a word that means people can get away with whatever they want. Reasonable regulations are what is needed, not people bleeting after 'freedom' and 'free press'.

You said, "The (American) press are free to do whatever they want within reason."

Your above statement is untrue.

Almost 100% of American mainstream reporters and writers, are (not) free to do whatever they want.
The CEO bosses of American reporters, will (not) allow their reporters, to air or publish negative stories, about large US corporations, or US politicians that give the tv station owners tax cuts. ex.ex.


I strongly agree, there needs to be an independent body completely responsible and accountable for all press activities. I believe this is needed for honesty, justice, education, and the protection of people and this planet.

The word and belief 'freedom' is very interesting. In my ideal society of 'freedom', you are (not) free to hurt innocent people. You are (not) free to kill any animal you want, or destroy ecosystems. You are (not) free to distribute dangerous drugs. ex.ex. This really has me thinking.

You said, Reasonable regulations are what is needed. As far as I am concerned you said it all.

Gess man. The answer is not more regulation. News is easy to find from multiple sources and has never been easier. Both the mainstream conservative and liberal news outlets pander to their viewership because that brings the most rating for them. But they are an increasingly smaller fraction of the total amount of new available because of our communication advances. To use a simple example, less than half of the conservative base watch Fox News; even a smaller fraction listen to Limbaugh. You could probably find similar numbers for MSNBC. Most as people's views are embedded in them anyhow--my home town's libertarian type conservative views have only changed slowly over the past 350 years for example. Of course their TV watching, online newspaper, blog and the rhetoric as the local town hall meetings are going to be in accord with those deeply held views.

Originally Posted by question for you

In reality the press do promote all kinds of agendas and perhaps this is one of the major problems with the way they operate? Especially when that agenda belongs to self serving private organisations.

I think that self serving public organizations are worse than self serving private organisations. The public organizations are using public money to promote their agenda, including the money of people who disagree with them. That's the thing that really galls me. At least the self serving private organizations are using their own money.

Originally Posted by chad

You said, "The (American) press are free to do whatever they want within reason."

Your above statement is untrue.

Almost 100% of American mainstream reporters and writers, are (not) free to do whatever they want.
The CEO bosses of American reporters, will (not) allow those reporters, to air or publish negative stories, about large US corporations, or US politicians that give the tv station owners tax cuts.

But reporters are not the press. The press is free to dictate to these journalists what they can and cannot report on, within reason.

The journo isn't free beuase the editor tells them what to write about and what sentances to edit. the editor is doing a job for his boss. Ultimately the likes of rupert murdoch are having a massive influence on politics and culture in many countries.. purely because they can afford own a load of media companies.

The government is supposed to be voted in by the public to protect the interests of the public. Not to protect the interests of a rich mogul who wants to influence culture for whatever reasons.

An independent body subjected to the law, of which it is the responsibility of the police and government to monitor and ensure that the founding principles are upheld and adapted suitably if and when necesary.

Originally Posted by chad

The word and belief 'freedom' is very interesting. In my ideal society of 'freedom', you are (not) free to hurt innocent people. You are (not) free to kill any animal you want, or destroy ecosystems. You are (not) free to distribute dangerous drugs. ex.ex. This really has me thinking.

You said, Reasonable regulations are what is needed. As far as I am concerned you said it all.

Freedom is interesting.

We do ofcourse have freedom to do anything we can, and so do others. Lets take an extreme example... I have the right to take something from somebody, that person has the right to take it back, or to go and tell somebody else, who then has the right to try to get this thing back from me. others have the right to invent 'police' in order to get revenge for that person who I took something from. I have the right to go on the run, or to build an army and fight for my right to take from another. People have the right to influence and manipulate each other, and people have the right to punish those who manipulate others.

Will all have the right to do what we chose and that's called free will. That is the first law of being a human, do as thou will.

All the good laws that protect people are made becuase people have had enough of the treachery they see, they say 'oi no! we will not take this! Don't tell me, I'll tell you!'

It's the law of free will and anything that inhibits free will is inhibiting a mechnism of the evolutionary process, which is as 'bad' as it gets. But things are getting a little complicated.

We have free will but there are many who try to create the illusion that we do not. Or to create an illusion that we are exercising our own free will when we are not. We are free to do as we want but that doesn't change the fact that others are too, and there will always be reactions to actions, consequences.

In the case of a law... it is often the will of a person who is long since dead, being exercised. This could be a good thing or bad thing and that could be debated all day. It is amazing, from a certain perspective, that we are subjected to the will of peoples who are long since dead. This doesn't prevent us from exercsing our own will in itself, it just means that if you do a load of people who are not necesarily exercising there own 'free' will, will seek revenge on you in the name of a law which was the collective will of people who usually have died, but often has been modified or created recently.

In the case of murder, you'r effectively being subjected to the will of whoever wrote the 10 commandments. One had the free will to break the commandment, and now one must suffer the consequences of the will of the person who wrote the comandment, plus the will of the collective who obey it and uphold it.

It's all freedom in action. We are free to do anything and we choose to surrender that freedom for our ancestors and for 'the good of all'... we chose to fight each other and follow the will of our ancestors... In the future people will follow whoever has the strongest will combined with the most intelligence today.

This will probably be done by building a collective will, the united will of many people. Even now there are battles of will that are ongoing, all of life is a batle of wills. Whoever won the battle in the past has made the present. Who wins the battle in the present will make the future.

By getting people to agree with you, you are strengthening the effects that your will can acheive. Creating a collective will that stands a better chance of winning a battle of the wills. Some people cannot get anybody to agree with their selfish will... so they dupe others into wanting the same result by another name. For example, nobody wants to support some power hungry madman if he wants to go into another country and take over, steal there oil etc. But if he/she makes people beleive that the war is necesary to protect themselves from 'terrorists', then people want the same thing, to win the war. Now lots of will power is going into the battle of the wills, and everybody has freely added there weight to the cause, but everybody has different beleifs that have motivated them to express their free will in this way.

Thats the only real problem I think, influencing the will of other people by misleading and lieing to them. But if thats what they will do, then they are free to do so. Wanna hold them responsible? feel free.

When the will of enough little people start to become aligned for the same cause, such as when everybody decided it is disgusting that certain parts of the media hacked the phones of the families of victims of horrible crimes... then nothing can stop that will power from doing as it will do. Thats when governments and everybody else starts to worry and make changes. Thats why we had a leveson enquiry and if people can remain outraged for long enough then changes will be made.

All people need to do is aligne there will, to want the same thing, and to want it with conviction. Then nothing can stop it happening.

Thats why you must divide people in order to conquor, becuase together the collective will power is too strong to defeat.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by question for you

In reality the press do promote all kinds of agendas and perhaps this is one of the major problems with the way they operate? Especially when that agenda belongs to self serving private organisations.

I think that self serving public organizations are worse than self serving private organisations. The public organizations are using public money to promote their agenda, including the money of people who disagree with them. That's the thing that really galls me. At least the self serving private organizations are using their own money.

This is getting complicated now.
A 'self serving public organisation' would be serving itslef by serving the public. So it's fine to use public money for that.

If you mean a corrupt public company then it's the private individual in that company thats secretly syphoning assets.

I think most of the waste of tax payers money comes from contracting private firms to provide public services.

What truly public organisation are you thinking of these days Harold? Haven't most of the public institutions been sold off to private firms? The press was sold off a long time ago... *maybe sold out is a better word choice.

Seems like deregulation and privatisation frees up profits for wealthy investors who may or may not be members of parliment and take prime ministers/presidents out for dinner and takes away responsibility from governments at the same time, passing liability on so to speak.

The problem is how do you build a public institution with public funds and graft, and keep the private profiteers out of it for good?

Originally Posted by question for you

A 'self serving public organisation' would be serving itslef by serving the public. So it's fine to use public money for that.

Private organizations serve the public, too. That's why people pay money for their goods and services. You seem to have a lot of faith in public orgianzation, despite the fact you think they are corrupt.
Let's say there is something like a public health service. They would have a vested interest in getting more clients into the system. This would expand the empire of the bureaucrats in charge, perhaps justifying salary increases for themselves. In their position they can manipulate data to make their agency look more effective than it actually is.

If The problem is how do you build a public institution with public funds and graft, and keep the private profiteers out of it for good?

There is your bias against private companies again.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by question for you

A 'self serving public organisation' would be serving itslef by serving the public. So it's fine to use public money for that.

Private organizations serve the public, too. That's why people pay money for their goods and services. You seem to have a lot of faith in public orgianzation, despite the fact you think they are corrupt.
Let's say there is something like a public health service. They would have a vested interest in getting more clients into the system. This would expand the empire of the bureaucrats in charge, perhaps justifying salary increases for themselves. In their position they can manipulate data to make their agency look more effective than it actually is.

If The problem is how do you build a public institution with public funds and graft, and keep the private profiteers out of it for good?

There is your bias against private companies again.

Well ok you're making a point by highlighting that I'm expressing a bias in speaking of 'private bussiness people' as no good and anybody in a public institution as trust worthy. Thats not what I meant to say.

It's a fair point aswell, people in all positions have private and social desires and the feild your in, private or public, doesn't necesarily have much bearing on how altruistic or selfish you are. Thank you for pointing out this bias I have been expressing.


There is just this sense I have that somehow the actions of a public organisation can be scrutinised and affected by public opinion more effectively than a private organisation. Must be something to do with the law. Big bussiness's get away with practices that government couldn't in my opinion. Thats why I see all the privatisation as a loophole, a way to avoid taking responsibility for the destructive 'progress' that is being made in many cases.

There is also the ellement of public organisations being the duristiction of a person or party who has been elected. In a fair democrasy this would count for something.

So that hopefully clears up the bias i'm courting. I admit private firms are subject to laws aswell, but surely not as many. Lately we're finding out more and more mutinational companies and high earners have been exploiting tax loopholes. I can't blame them but this is not people acting in the public interest, at least not on the surface, each case could be different I suppose.

The pay structures of an National health Service can be regulated by the government, as well as the practices. People get a say in how it's run, it's our bussiness, it's public, it's in our interest to keep it in good shape. Any profits our ours.

That shouldn't be sold to profiteers, it's a valuable service. It's not like me to trusting or backing 'the government', this is a new position for me. I am thinking of government as it should be, not government littered with bankers and profiteers. Obviously with the current 'showers', there's no reason to trust them any more than the bussiness world as a whole, well almost no reason.

It doesn't seem to make sense to have a health service that is busy curing those who can afford it from the deseases they caught from those who can't. Though i'm sure it's a very profitable system for some.

It's definitely easier to be unscrupulous in a private bussiness, legally and psychologically, I would think.

There should be a stronger sense of humility towards the client, fairness, and duty and even pride in providing a honest service as part of public owned organisation. You know that you own a part of that company and it will serve you if you need it.

In the bussiness world attitudes are different, perspectives are different. Many bussiness people are becoming more and more socilly aware, but even with these pioneers, profit is still the number one rule taught in school. It's a whole different mentallity. At least in my opinion it should be a different mentality, the bussiness mentality can change for the better if it wants, but the social public service mentality should not become more like the classical bussiness world philosophy.

Public organisations are not imune to profiteers. My diagnosis is that infection has reached epidemic proportions, with serious cause for concern.

Step one of treatment: Accept truth of diagnosis. Get ready to take your medicine.

Further treatment to be decided.

Good job i'm not a Doctor eh, or am I?

Seems rather odd the conservatives would set up an inquiry into press standards, appoint a respected lord to head it and then after months of work and millions spent completely undermine him and reject his central recommendations, btw I happen to agree with them but that really is not the point here.

Could we use changes to the way our press is regulated?, did the press behave appaulingly?, should we ensure our press is not dominated by one man? Yes, but there are ways to go about it. To start with we should be prosecuting those responsible for the corruption and phone hacking, and fine the companies they worked huge sums as a deterant. But what we shouldn't be doing is forcing ordinary journalists to be regulated and controlled. This would be a very dangerous path to go down and a free press is supposed to be at the heart of every free country.

The is also a kind of sense of revenge hanging over this enquiry with certain politians seemingly with knives out for the newspaper that broke the MP's stealing expense money story. Makes me kind of wonder if such stories would ever come out again this the kind of regulation Levenson is suggesting.

The MP's screamed blue murder they weren't all at it when they were cought with their fingers in the cookie jar, yet it seems there were hundreds of them that were allowed to repay expense money without facing criminal charges, so just why are so many supporting Levenson and wanting all reporters punished for the rogue actions of a few, seems like hypocracy to me a massive scale.

So my view is compensate the victims, prosecute the guilty, say a polite no thank you to Levenson's proposals, shout at the Conseratives for wasting our money and tell Labour to stop being hypocrites and that we want to live in a free country.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Gess man. The answer is not more regulation. News is easy to find from multiple sources and has never been easier. Both the mainstream conservative and liberal news outlets pander to their viewership because that brings the most rating for them. But they are an increasingly smaller fraction of the total amount of new available because of our communication advances. To use a simple example, less than half of the conservative base watch Fox News; even a smaller fraction listen to Limbaugh. You could probably find similar numbers for MSNBC. Most as people's views are embedded in them anyhow--my home town's libertarian type conservative views have only changed slowly over the past 350 years for example. Of course their TV watching, online newspaper, blog and the rhetoric as the local town hall meetings are going to be in accord with those deeply held views.

Respected scientists call the major US news outlets "corporate propaganda."
Since this is a forum of science, perhaps we should stop using the term "major US news outlets.", perhaps we should use the official scientific term "corporate propaganda".

Yes, we have more news sources than ever, but all these sources are corporate controlled. Let me give some examples.
Our national debt is around 100% to GDP, and we have huge deficits (this is dangerous for America.)

When was the last time you heard the main stream news, speak about our deficits or national debt?
When was the last time you heard the main stream news, speak about the dangers of our deficits or national debt?

When was the last time you heard the major news networks, speak about the many US areas, that are filled with cancer/asthma causing pollution?
When was the last time you heard our news networks, speak about the causes of this pollution?

When was the last time you heard the major news networks, speak about the (massive) amounts of our new prescription drugs, that cause heart attacks, birth defects, cancer, ex.ex.ex?

Our major corporate news outlets, don't speak about the above things, because corporations like GE who own the networks, do not want to speak of these things. And the CEO's who run the networks, will not allow their reporters to speak of these things.

You dont hear about our deficits and debt on the news, because GE helps create our deficits/debt, with their 0% federal tax rate.
You hear no talk about deficits and debt, because the news networks CEO's, have a 0%-17% federal tax rate, this also helps create our deficits and debt.
(GE and the CEO's got these low tax rates, by giving US politicians the millions of dollars, they need to run for office.)

And these news groups do not speak of dangerous cancer/asthma causing pollution, because corporations like GE, put out the dangerous pollution, by cutting corners to make more money.

And these news networks, don't speak about the (massive) amount of dangerous prescription drugs. Because the Pharisaical drug corporations, are deeply tied into the major news networks. Reporters are not allowed to run/air news stories, that would make the drug makers look bad.

Our major news networks are a joke. You can get more "investigative" news, from watching certain talk shows, than you can from watching the major news networks.

And why am I calling it "news networks", real life scientists call our major news networks "corporate propaganda."


I regret so much, speaking to you like this. But you are the toughest republican, I have ever crossed paths with.

Take care of yourself, and have a great night/day,
Chad.

[QUOTE=question for you;375306]

Originally Posted by chad

You said, "The (American) press are free to do whatever they want within reason."

Originally Posted by chad

The word and belief 'freedom' is very interesting. In my ideal society of 'freedom', you are (not) free to hurt innocent people. You are (not) free to kill any animal you want, or destroy ecosystems. You are (not) free to distribute dangerous drugs. ex.ex. This really has me thinking.

You said, Reasonable regulations are what is needed. As far as I am concerned you said it all.

Reporters are the most important part of the press. Reporters think of, investigate, and write the stories, that are important to peoples well being.
And the mainstream US reporters have huge restrictions on them.

And freedom is more than interesting. One of your last posts caused me to look at freedom, in a way I have never done before.

Perhaps this thing called "freedom", that lives in my/our minds, is an (irrelevant) idea that was created 100's of years ago.
Perhaps my/our feelings of freedom, were carried into us by our relatives of 100's of years ago?
I am talking about their desire to, get out of the control of the church, and get out of the control of kings, and perhaps that "same" feeling (partly) still lives in us today?

I do not want the worlds people to have the "freedom", to kill or hurt innocent people.
I don't want the freedom to make plants and animals go extinct.
ex.ex.ex.

But I do want the freedom, to be able to do what I want, as long as it does not hurt anyone else.

I hope that someday some one starts a thread, in the proper forum section about "freedom", this is deep. If I ever start that thread, I will give you credit for coming up with the idea.


You said, That is the first law of being a human, do as thou will.
Perhaps its also, "do as thy genetically programmed behavior, and thy environment force you to do."

All this really makes me think.

When was the last time you heard the main stream news, speak about our deficits or national debt?
When was the last time you heard the main stream news, speak about the dangers of our deficits or national debt?

Do you watch the news Chad? The debt is on the News EVERY NIGHT...well at least from conservative sources, often with comparisons of US current and projected debt load with other nations in deep trouble right now..such as Greece. If you're not getting that than your looking in the wrong places. Google up Fox News and debt and your get a long list of recent stories specifically about the debt problem. (https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+...ient=firefox-a)
Last week even MSNBC there was coverage...though spun as if it's the Tea Party's fault there might be another show down in March when the next debt ceiling crisis comes up. (http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/06/its-t...-debt-ceiling/)
Pull up the stories in economic journals and you'll also get a high frequency.

When was the last time you heard the major news networks, speak about the (massive) amounts of our new prescription drugs, that cause heart attacks, birth defects, cancer, ex.ex.ex?

Major recalls and studies of drugs with severe side effects are always reported. Though like all science stories, they are usually easy to check by pulling up secondary sources such as the peer-review studies that brought forth the result.

Originally Posted by question for you

I do find the whole matter rather interesting and have heard a lot of politicians such as William Hague bleeting on about the importance of the freedom of the press.

I think the press has an extremely important role to play in influencing people.

I find it a bit odd that there isn't a thread about this subject already, at least I couln't find one.

So, are the press too big for their boots?
Why do we have a media controlled by private bussinessmen when it is obviously such a tool to influence politics?
Who are these people who spend billions on media in order to influence people? and yet they are not even politicians?

Can anybody think of any good guidelines which they feel the press should have to follow?

We don't want the families of victims to have their phones hacked into illegally in the name of a news story do we?

If any of you have any insights or opinions on the matter of 'freedom of press' then please share them.

Cheers

*Sorry about the spelling mistakes

Well we could make some giant strides forward in terms of political independance, I mean if we are really going to see some sort of press reforms then why not ensure that all political reporting should be fair and balanced, the BBC are expected to maintain impartiality so why not our major newspapers?, also you have to consider that for the most part the press is supposed to report on news stories without bias so just how the heck have they been managing to get away with their own political spin on politics, certainly makes you wonder, but something we could regulate out with no real detriment to a 'free' press, we wouldn't accept the press distorting the facts in other news stories so lets not let them get away with it anymore in politics.

Also we could, and should, stop anyone from having a monopoly over our newspapers, I mean come on to shut down the NotW and replace it with the Sunday Sun just takes the biscuit after what they were upto, the simple answer would be to prevent Murdoch from being able to print any Sunday newspapers whatsoever. Also why should we allow him to maintain, and INCREASE, his stake in Sky Television whilst keeping all his newspaper interests. This again is allowing him a virtual monopoly over our news media, something we should certainly put a stop to.

What we also need to do is put in a legal framework of compensation so that ordinary people who are wronged or defamed by the media are treated fairly, how many times have we seen famous and powerful people being give hundreds of thousands in compensation whilst your average Joe can be slandered by a newspaper have their lives ruined, lose their job etc.. and simply not be able to afford to take legal action against the newspapers responsible and if by some chance they can end up with a few thousand, the case of Christopher Jefferies is particularly striking, he was being branded a murderer right across the media for weeks whilst the police investigation was still going on, only then for it to proved he was completely innocent and the real culprit found and convicted, but during that time the press had completely destroyed his life, his friends and family disowned him, lurrid stories about his private life surfaced daily and his face was plastered across every channel and newspaper, I mean this was just an ordinary guy what chance did he have. So If we could ensure everybody is treated fairly and given equal compensation without having to first lay out tens of thousands in legal costs that would certainly be some useful legislation.

One thing though I do feel strongly about, we mustn't do, is stop or control the stories that independant journalists can publish, we don't want to end up with a centralised censorship body that has the power to preview every story and decide whether or not they are in the public interest, any sort of efforts to go down this route will be most unwelcome.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

One thing though I do feel strongly about, we mustn't do, is stop or control the stories that independant journalists can publish, we don't want to end up with a centralised censorship body that has the power to preview every story and decide whether or not they are in the public interest, any sort of efforts to go down this route will be most unwelcome.

This is completely contrary to everything else you just wrote that preceded it. How do you think you will implement the heavy handed restrictions you outlied previously, withut a centralized censorship body?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

One thing though I do feel strongly about, we mustn't do, is stop or control the stories that independant journalists can publish, we don't want to end up with a centralised censorship body that has the power to preview every story and decide whether or not they are in the public interest, any sort of efforts to go down this route will be most unwelcome.

This is completely contrary to everything else you just wrote that preceded it. How do you think you will implement the heavy handed restrictions you outlied previously, withut a centralized censorship body?

I think there is a real issue here with the way that certain newspapers have been behaving and the anger and problems that has caused, I guess it's difficult trying to find that balance where the editors of these newspapers can exercise some responsibility, and yes if necessary be forced to do so, but at the same trying to ensure the independance of the actual journalists so as we don't have some new government body deciding which stories can and can't be published and to be fair maybe possibly does sound a bit contradictory, but the real problem is there is a cross over of objectives here. Probarbly one of the reasons of just why there is so much controversy surrounding it. You see on the one hand we want to make the press behave properly and on the other we don't want to interfere with the 'good' journalists who are bringing us real human interest news stories and after whats being going on, especially taking on board some of the vested interests, this is never going to be easy to get right, I'm sure on this one if you ask a 100 people for their opinions you might get back a hundred different answers.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

One thing though I do feel strongly about, we mustn't do, is stop or control the stories that independant journalists can publish, we don't want to end up with a centralised censorship body that has the power to preview every story and decide whether or not they are in the public interest, any sort of efforts to go down this route will be most unwelcome.

This is completely contrary to everything else you just wrote that preceded it. How do you think you will implement the heavy handed restrictions you outlied previously, withut a centralized censorship body?

I think there is a real issue here with the way that certain newspapers have been behaving and the anger and problems that has caused, I guess it's difficult trying to find that balance where the editors of these newspapers can exercise some responsibility, and yes if necessary be forced to do so, but at the same trying to ensure the independance of the actual journalists so as we don't have some new government body deciding which stories can and can't be published and to be fair maybe possibly does sound a bit contradictory, but the real problem is there is a cross over of objectives here. Probarbly one of the reasons of just why there is so much controversy surrounding it. You see on the one hand we want to make the press behave properly and on the other we don't want to interfere with the 'good' journalists who are bringing us real human interest news stories and after whats being going on, especially taking on board some of the vested interests, this is never going to be easy to get right, I'm sure on this one if you ask a 100 people for their opinions you might get back a hundred different answers.

I find many of your posts frightening. There is nothing that the news media could possibly be doing that could be worse than the crackdown on the free press that you envision. Why not just enforce your current laws that surely cover slander, libel and things of that nature.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I find many of your posts frightening. There is nothing that the news media could possibly be doing that could be worse than the crackdown on the free press that you envision. Why not just enforce your current laws that surely cover slander, libel and things of that nature.

Well I guess we have different views on the best way to achieve the right results, I don't think you have anything to be frightened of, many people have different ideas on the best way to do things, most of your views come across to me as if you want things left alone, really you don't seem at all fond of legislation. I get the feeling your view of the world is that quite often when legislation is attempted to solve problems it makes them worse, now this is a school of thought that is perfectly reasonable and normal as far I am concerned and in many instances I would agree with it, but I'm not wedded to such a position, in fact there are often times when I really believe that then potential for legislation to fail and make a problem worse is far outwayed by the actual need for the legislation in the first place, a point of difference. Though there are so many areas of people's lives where I genuinely believe that government has absolutely no business in interfering at all, to the point where I'm sure we would both end up agreeing on so many things, it seems though we always end discussing areas where we have different pov's, this said though with regard to the current discussion I would actually support your position and agree with things being left as they are, with the proviso that the current legislation was implemented properly, rather going to far down the regulatory road as to actualy start erroding civil liberties.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

When was the last time you heard the main stream news, speak about our deficits or national debt?
When was the last time you heard the main stream news, speak about the dangers of our deficits or national debt?

Do you watch the news Chad? The debt is on the News EVERY NIGHT...well at least from conservative sources, often with comparisons of US current and projected debt load with other nations in deep trouble right now..such as Greece. If you're not getting that than your looking in the wrong places. Google up Fox News and debt and your get a long list of recent stories specifically about the debt problem. (https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+...ient=firefox-a)
Last week even MSNBC there was coverage...though spun as if it's the Tea Party's fault there might be another show down in March when the next debt ceiling crisis comes up. (It’s time to break up with that temptingly naughty Debt Ceiling)
Pull up the stories in economic journals and you'll also get a high frequency.

When was the last time you heard the major news networks, speak about the (massive) amounts of our new prescription drugs, that cause heart attacks, birth defects, cancer, ex.ex.ex?

Major recalls and studies of drugs with severe side effects are always reported. Though like all science stories, they are usually easy to check by pulling up secondary sources such as the peer-review studies that brought forth the result.

Lynx_Fox,

Since scientists call our main stream news "corporate propaganda", I don't watch it. People like Adolf Hitler and USSR dictators use propaganda.

Tell me the last time you saw a "investigative" mainstream news story, that spoke about how our deficits/debt were created, and how to eliminate them?
(that was not a lie created in corporate think tanks.)
You never heard a investigative reporters (segment) about this, on main stream news.

When was the last time you saw a mainstream news story, that spoke about how pharmaceutical drug makers, put drugs on the market, after (their) clinical trials showed the drug killed people?
You never heard a investigative reporters (segment) about this, on main stream news.

Just so you know,
Large US pharmaceutical companies, often know their new drugs kill people, from the data they receive in their own clinical trials.
But these corporations put the drug on the market anyway.
They know before hand the drug will be recalled, and they will be sued for customer deaths.
But they know the drug will make 4 billion dollars in profits, and they will only have to pay $1 billion in lawsuit compensations.
And in the end they make a $3 billion dollar profit.

They hide the fact their new drugs cause death, from their customers.
The main stream media does (not) do "investigative" news stories, about things like these.

Look how the media attacked Bill Clinton with an army, for his human reproduction lie.
And notice how the media lets the pharmaceutical drug makers kill people.

Hint, Clinton raised taxes on the rich, and large corporations..........


If I ever upset you please inform me, have a nice night/day,
Chad.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Seems rather odd the conservatives would set up an inquiry into press standards, appoint a respected lord to head it and then after months of work and millions spent completely undermine him and reject his central recommendations, btw I happen to agree with them but that really is not the point here.

Could we use changes to the way our press is regulated?, did the press behave appaulingly?, should we ensure our press is not dominated by one man? Yes, but there are ways to go about it. To start with we should be prosecuting those responsible for the corruption and phone hacking, and fine the companies they worked huge sums as a deterant. But what we shouldn't be doing is forcing ordinary journalists to be regulated and controlled. This would be a very dangerous path to go down and a free press is supposed to be at the heart of every free country.

The is also a kind of sense of revenge hanging over this enquiry with certain politians seemingly with knives out for the newspaper that broke the MP's stealing expense money story. Makes me kind of wonder if such stories would ever come out again this the kind of regulation Levenson is suggesting.

The MP's screamed blue murder they weren't all at it when they were cought with their fingers in the cookie jar, yet it seems there were hundreds of them that were allowed to repay expense money without facing criminal charges, so just why are so many supporting Levenson and wanting all reporters punished for the rogue actions of a few, seems like hypocracy to me a massive scale.

So my view is compensate the victims, prosecute the guilty, say a polite no thank you to Levenson's proposals, shout at the Conseratives for wasting our money and tell Labour to stop being hypocrites and that we want to live in a free country.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. But I don't think you realize the (total) corruption, of American supported news groups. But it seems you got a little taste of this corruption, with Fox news in England. These corporate news groups have taken over all of Americas mainstream news. And they recently purchased/acquired almost all of Americas radio stations and newspapers.

Americas government is also fully controlled by large corporations. American politicians no longer even write American federal laws, our federal laws are written by lawyers from large US corporations. I greatly fear this American corruption spreading to the rest of the world.

American news sources like ABC, NBC, and CBS hide the truth, and live to protect large corporations.
And American news sources like Fox news, say/repeat 1,000's of lies, that increase profits for large corporations.

It is my opinion that along with regulations for news groups, honest and trustworthy news groups, should also be financed and protected.
Even if you place regulations on corporate news groups, they can still (hide) the truth, and they can still (bend) the truth.

Tell me the last time you saw a "investigative" mainstream news story

Other than occasionally seeing something that self-proclaims itself as a "investigative" story, I don't really know what would distinguish one. Its usually applied to breaking a story--which wouldn't apply to the debt at all. It's no secret how the debt came to be, the demographics driving the huge increases in medicare and social security aren't anything new (they really ARE THE DEFICIT)....hell both have been discussed and forecast and largely ignored by the US legislatures for at least 3 decades. The issue isn't about investigation ..its just elementary school math; the problem is completely lack of will by politicians, voters, and denial by too many Americans.

And yes, the DEBT is on the news darn near every night from some sources being carried in varying levels of detail.

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Seems rather odd the conservatives would set up an inquiry into press standards, appoint a respected lord to head it and then after months of work and millions spent completely undermine him and reject his central recommendations, btw I happen to agree with them but that really is not the point here.

Could we use changes to the way our press is regulated?, did the press behave appaulingly?, should we ensure our press is not dominated by one man? Yes, but there are ways to go about it. To start with we should be prosecuting those responsible for the corruption and phone hacking, and fine the companies they worked huge sums as a deterant. But what we shouldn't be doing is forcing ordinary journalists to be regulated and controlled. This would be a very dangerous path to go down and a free press is supposed to be at the heart of every free country.

The is also a kind of sense of revenge hanging over this enquiry with certain politians seemingly with knives out for the newspaper that broke the MP's stealing expense money story. Makes me kind of wonder if such stories would ever come out again this the kind of regulation Levenson is suggesting.

The MP's screamed blue murder they weren't all at it when they were cought with their fingers in the cookie jar, yet it seems there were hundreds of them that were allowed to repay expense money without facing criminal charges, so just why are so many supporting Levenson and wanting all reporters punished for the rogue actions of a few, seems like hypocracy to me a massive scale.

So my view is compensate the victims, prosecute the guilty, say a polite no thank you to Levenson's proposals, shout at the Conseratives for wasting our money and tell Labour to stop being hypocrites and that we want to live in a free country.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. But I don't think you realize the (total) corruption, of American supported news groups. But it seems you got a little taste of this corruption, with Fox news in England. These corporate news groups have taken over all of Americas mainstream news. And they recently purchased/acquired almost all of Americas radio stations and newspapers.

Americas government is also fully controlled by large corporations. American politicians no longer even write American federal laws, our federal laws are written by lawyers from large US corporations. I greatly fear this American corruption spreading to the rest of the world.

American news sources like ABC, NBC, and CBS hide the truth, and live to protect large corporations.
And American news sources like Fox news, say/repeat 1,000's of lies, that increase profits for large corporations.

It is my opinion that along with regulations for news groups, honest and trustworthy news groups, should also be financed and protected.
Even if you place regulations on corporate news groups, they can still (hide) the truth, and they can still (bend) the truth.

Well generally speaking when I've turned on the news or picked up a newspaper I've expected that what I was seeing or reading to be reasonably accurate, I'm mean sure it can kind of depend which newspapers you are choosing to read, but in the most part I've thought most were factual. But you can see bias it's become a part of life really, it's you have try and look beyond any particular spin that is put on a particular story to see the real facts. But really I suppose it's now become the way of the world, in many cases we have long since accepted that much of American culture will arrive upon our shores sooner or later, in this respect though mainland Europe has always had a type of balancing effect that has really stopped us from pulling to far towards total capitalism, so we've not really seen the media over here ever dominated by corporate interests to quite the same extent as you guys have seen, at least any particular media agenda has been less overt in it's execution. But whilst on the surface this may seem like something positive in many cases it's left us unprepared to fully appreciate the type of propaganda campaigns that can take place, perhaps it's been the case that a particualarly subtle brand of influence has been propagating within our society for along time and it was indeed our own naivety that has for so long prevented us from realising it's true effect.

What is for sure though is there has been a reaction and from now on people will not be so trusting, questions will be asked and collectively we are all starting to wake up to the fact that we simply can't expect to always believe the things we see and hear are going to be true.

BTW I've watched Fox News and consider it entertainment only, certainly not news.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

The MP's screamed blue murder they weren't all at it when they were cought with their fingers in the cookie jar, yet it seems there were hundreds of them that were allowed to repay expense money without facing criminal charges, so just why are so many supporting Levenson and wanting all reporters punished for the rogue actions of a few, seems like hypocracy to me a massive scale.

So my view is compensate the victims, prosecute the guilty, say a polite no thank you to Levenson's proposals, shout at the Conseratives for wasting our money and tell Labour to stop being hypocrites and that we want to live in a free country.

Very good points. Maybe it is a revenge thing. Maybe the media did overstep the mark with that one and the government decided to restrict them. The thing is that it has highlighted the hypocrasy of politicians, and the hypocracy of the media. I would need to know more about how these stories broke in order to have an opinion on whether its a power struggle between politicians and media. Who exposed the expenses scandel? was it News international? Who exposed the phone hacking scandel?

It's highlighted that we need a press that rats out all rogues in society, including within the establishment and business worlds. If there is a distinction between them.


I still don't know much about the leveson proposals. I intend to finish looking at that soon.

Here's the link:

The Leveson Inquiry

Originally Posted by chad

This really has me thinking.

And freedom is more than interesting. One of your last posts caused me to look at freedom, in a way I have never done before.

But I do want the freedom, to be able to do what I want, as long as it does not hurt anyone else.

I hope that someday some one starts a thread, in the proper forum section about "freedom", this is deep. If I ever start that thread, I will give you credit for coming up with the idea.


You said, That is the first law of being a human, do as thou will.
Perhaps its also, "do as thy genetically programmed behavior, and thy environment force you to do."

All this really makes me think.

Well this is really the biggest compliment I could recieve on here chad. Making people think deeper or differently about something is the best thing that can come from a forum in my opinion.
I've also thought deeper about it based on your comments.

Freedom is a real thing I think. It's called free will.

Nobody wants to have murders or brute attacking them or their people. If everybody is equally fit and healthy and happy then such crimes are very unlikely.

But when the species becomes so pathological then it all gets very complicated.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.



Laws are like rituals, the court process is like a ritual.

People lost harmony a long time ago... lost the way.

There is still no restriction upon your freedom other than that which you yourself and physical reality place on you... There are just a load of pathological influences on our free will which need to be gaurded against, and there are a load of consequences for our actions if we follow any of the ideas that hurt others.

In many cases there are consequences for us if we do something which doesn't hurt anybody else, this is an attempt to restrict the free will of others for no good reason. It's pathological in itself. Theres other cases where people can hurt a lot of others but get away with it. There are great injustices in the legal systems we use which causes great inequality in society.

But in such a pathological species as we have become... it's bound to be messy.

The important thing is we need to gaurd against those who attempt to influence our freewill... such as the media, make sure they have integrity and are honest. The only way this can happen in our current world is by making laws to restrict the freedom of anybody who might be following pathological urges of greed, power etc. So the press cannot be free to influence people as they wish and see fit, especially not when they are funded by the advertisments of big bussinesses.

The government cannot be free to use the press as a tool of manipulation any more than the big bussiness media companies can.

The news is the news and the truth is the truth. deception is deception, misleading is misleading.

I would think it is easy enough to create the right laws to restrict the freedoms of anybody who wants to misuse the press but still enable or enforce the press to freely report the truth and honest accounts of current affairs.

This whole conversation is ridiculous, the whole media is as corrupt as the establishment. The people are the people, the establishment is the establishment, the media is a go between. It's whole job is to maintain the established order of things by any means necesary. I hope we have some fundamental changes to way the things work and we can all maybe oneday not need laws to seek revenge on the pathological actions of sick people. A good start we be to stop creating pathological ideas.
Take a good look at the movie industry, those images of sheer evil are not going to go away anytime soon, the movie industry is so heavily promoted in cultures by media.. people wouldn't tollerate them being banned as it would be an infringment on 'freedoms'. So at the end of the day lots of people are going to be exposed to sick images and ideas.

Don't get me wrong I like a good movie, but it's always good to be critical about the motives of those who made the movie, or wrote the artical or book... all too often it's plain to see manipulation at work.

People are free to scare children with horrific images and mislead them with silly ideas... and if anybody suggests we make laws to stop it then it's 'government censorship', 'supression of freedom', 'restriction of liberty'. The government get called a dictatorship and slagged off all over the big bussiness owned medias.

The fact we have only had the media exposing one government corruption, expenses, eventually... (Still haven't said much about the tory pedo ring under thatcher have they? Thats all been kept quite compared to jimmy saville, almost snuck it out the back door as the journalists busily greet the jimmy saville affair at the front entrance.)... The expenses scandel, which probably saw off the last government (though did labour even have a media campaign in 2009/2010?), and the fact that the government seem to be insisting they don't want control of the media, suggests to me that they are all in cahoots and it being in the hands of private men a mechanism that allows the press to promote materialism, capitalism, fame, riches and whatever else without ever causing people to rise up against a government who is responsible. It's all the fault of the big bussiness men and media moguls that we live in a brainwashed state of consumerism and materialistic personal aspirations, it's the bussiness world polluting the world and exploiting resources... it's nothing to do with the government or establishment... yeah right.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Here's the link:

The Leveson Inquiry

Cheers, I have the documents. Just need to get round to it.

[QUOTE=Chrisgorlitz;375994]

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

.

Well generally speaking when I've turned on the news or picked up a newspaper I've expected that what I was seeing or reading to be reasonably accurate, I'm mean sure it can kind of depend which newspapers you are choosing to read, but in the most part I've thought most were factual. But you can see bias it's become a part of life really, it's you have try and look beyond any particular spin that is put on a particular story to see the real facts. But really I suppose it's now become the way of the world, in many cases we have long since accepted that much of American culture will arrive upon our shores sooner or later, in this respect though mainland Europe has always had a type of balancing effect that has really stopped us from pulling to far towards total capitalism, so we've not really seen the media over here ever dominated by corporate interests to quite the same extent as you guys have seen, at least any particular media agenda has been less overt in it's execution. But whilst on the surface this may seem like something positive in many cases it's left us unprepared to fully appreciate the type of propaganda campaigns that can take place, perhaps it's been the case that a particualarly subtle brand of influence has been propagating within our society for along time and it was indeed our own naivety that has for so long prevented us from realising it's true effect.

What is for sure though is there has been a reaction and from now on people will not be so trusting, questions will be asked and collectively we are all starting to wake up to the fact that we simply can't expect to always believe the things we see and hear are going to be true.

BTW I've watched Fox News and consider it entertainment only, certainly not news.

I guess because of the fact America and England speak the same language, its easier for American ways to spread to England.

I have watched documentaries about your government, and I have a good amount of respect, for your government officials. They seem to be in touch with England's financial problems, they respect the poor, and have at least some concern of ecological problems. I love the way your politicians get close to each other and yell, while in government buildings (they have not lost touch with being human.)

You may resent this, but I also respect the way your "symbolic/not in power" royal family acts. It seems prince Charles has a good interest in global warming, and just loves organic farming. He also flies on commercial flights to save money, and make less pollution. His sons do great charity work that their mother did, they also serve in the military, rather than hiding like many powerful people do. And the Queen is impressive.

I hope all people in England consider Fox news to be entertainment, and not news. Fox news just says 1,000's of outright lies, to make corporations more money.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Tell me the last time you saw a "investigative" mainstream news story

Other than occasionally seeing something that self-proclaims itself as a "investigative" story, I don't really know what would distinguish one. Its usually applied to breaking a story--which wouldn't apply to the debt at all. It's no secret how the debt came to be, the demographics driving the huge increases in medicare and social security aren't anything new (they really ARE THE DEFICIT)....hell both have been discussed and forecast and largely ignored by the US legislatures for at least 3 decades. The issue isn't about investigation ..its just elementary school math; the problem is completely lack of will by politicians, voters, and denial by too many Americans.

And yes, the DEBT is on the news darn near every night from some sources being carried in varying levels of detail.

I did not know any of these things until I got satellite dish tv, and 2 non-corporate tv channels called Freespeech and Link tv. If you would watch the (specified) 9 minutes of links bellow, you would hear the sources I base my facts on. The facts spoken about in these documentary's, are not allowed on mainstream tv.


The people speaking in the following documentary are former network presidents, and very high level network employees. This documentary is old and things are much worse now.

Fear and Favor In The Newsroom - YouTube

(time 11:43 - 15:55.)



Time (0:25 - 1:30) of the following documentary, shows very high ranking news employees speaking. If you would read, or listen to the sources that I do, you would "fully" understand what these people are talking about.

Orwell Rolls in his Grave (Full 3HR Documentary) - YouTube



The first documentary is fully nonpartisan, and shows the roots of today's media problems.
The second documentary is 3 hours long, and (may) have a few ideas in it, that are not true. But all of the high level experts that speak in it, can not be denied.



You speak of the mainstream news constantly speaking about "Social Security", but you don't know the reason why they speak of it so much.
And I believe you having so many stocks, and knowing the stock market so well, has clouded your judgement on the following subject.

The mainstream news speaks of Social Security so much, because the CEO's at the Networks, want to privatize Social Security.
All of the CEO's that run the networks are highly intertwined, with the CEO's on Wall Street.
If Social Security is privatized, the Wall Street CEO's will get $750 billion dollars in fees, taken from everyone's retirement money.
And then all these CEO's, will also get everyone's Social Security money invested in their corporations, and then these CEO's will make more money.

But the biggest problem is, every/most other country or state, that has ever privatized their Social Security system, has seen their retirement recipients get much (less) money in benefits. Also when the stock market falls or crashes, everyone's Social Security money just vanishes, and they no longer have that retirement money.

The lies said by our media system about Social Security, much be one of the biggest set of lies, ever placed on a group of people.


Time (0:00 - 3:47) in the following link, explains some of the lies our media says about Social Security. There's a good chance you will not understand the first part, because you never look at the information that I do. And I believe they edited the following preview the wrong way, you have to watch the whole thing for it to make sense. You should read the note: bellow, before watching.

Will you help Senator Sanders expose the Koch Echo Chamber? - YouTube

Note: These interests want to take down government agencies, because a group of American CEO's wants to eliminate the IRS and the EPA, so these government agencies can no longer bother their corporations. One of the plans of these CEO's, involves taking down any government program or agency they can, to get the momentum to abolish the IRS and EPA. Believers of Fox news already want to abolish the IRS.


Chad.

You haven't explained what so mysterious about our debt problem that it would benifit from investigative reporting. As I said before, it's no secret--it's simple math and age projections. Not shore what the point was of the vid you showed. The Koch brothers are pointing to one way to fix the system. The vid also claims SS is secure, while completely ignoring that SS is nearly entirely built on OIU to future contributors and the future general funds.

National medical cost are much more difficult to project.

Also when the stock market falls or crashes, everyone's Social Security money just vanishes, and they no longer have that retirement money.

Pretty much a myth. Periodic fluctuations have no effect on 40+ year retirement funds of any type, whether they be public or private. While I could point at loosing nearly 40% of my private retirement funds about five years ago, I didn't lock in my looses and have nearly tripled those funds since as the markets rocketed upward the past few years. Even if I'd been drawing it down by 5% a year or so, which will be my projected lifespan after I reach 65 or so, I'd still be WAY AHEAD. And chad I'm not some crazy risk taking investor who got lucky....I've been a pretty conservative investor through the years. I just paid myself first when I was working, always lived BELOW my means, never let my debt pile up and stuck to a routine--it's trivially easy now compared to 30 years ago.

Originally Posted by question for you

Very good points. Maybe it is a revenge thing. Maybe the media did overstep the mark with that one and the government decided to restrict them. The thing is that it has highlighted the hypocrasy of politicians, and the hypocracy of the media.

Well if you want a real life how about former MP Margaret Moran, she fiddled £53,000 in expenses, doesn't turn up at court claims she's ill and gets away with it, the judge ruled she was unfit to stand trial for mental health reasons, she was given a two-year supervision and treatment order, not even order to repay the money she stole, it just beggars belief. Apparantely she claimed nearly her entire annual allowance in one bogus expense entry and forged invoices for more than £20,000 for non-existent goods and services and then the MP's wonder why the press exposed what they were upto!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

You haven't explained what so mysterious about our debt problem that it would benifit from investigative reporting. As I said before, it's no secret--it's simple math and age projections. Not shore what the point was of the vid you showed. The Koch brothers are pointing to one way to fix the system. The vid also claims SS is secure, while completely ignoring that SS is nearly entirely built on OIU to future contributors and the future general funds.

National medical cost are much more difficult to project.

Also when the stock market falls or crashes, everyone's Social Security money just vanishes, and they no longer have that retirement money.

Pretty much a myth. Periodic fluctuations have no effect on 40+ year retirement funds of any type, whether they be public or private. While I could point at loosing nearly 40% of my private retirement funds about five years ago, I didn't lock in my looses and have nearly tripled those funds since as the markets rocketed upward the past few years. Even if I'd been drawing it down by 5% a year or so, which will be my projected lifespan after I reach 65 or so, I'd still be WAY AHEAD. And chad I'm not some crazy risk taking investor who got lucky....I've been a pretty conservative investor through the years. I just paid myself first when I was working, always lived BELOW my means, never let my debt pile up and stuck to a routine--it's trivially easy now compared to 30 years ago.

I like you very much, but our political conversations are pointless.
Scientists call the news sources you trust "corporate propaganda", these phony news groups say 1,000's of lies.
How in the hell is it ok to trust news sources, that say 1,000's of lies?

Our debt problem is very simple, Ronald Reagan and GW Bush created it, by giving billionaires and large corporations tax cuts ex.ex.
But main stream news never speaks about this, because Reagan and Bush gave the TV station owners, (huge) tax cuts and many other favors.

The Koch brothers are pointing a way, for CEO's to steal $750 billion dollars of everyone's retirement money.
The Koch brothers are pointing a way, for every one to get smaller SS checks each month.
Why do you want to do the above things?


Other countries like Chile that have privatized their Social Security, have seen everyone get less money in monthly payments. And huge numbers of people never even get into the Social Security system, in these countries. But since your political party is against feeding hungry American children, you all could care less if 50% of Americans did not get SS.
You even said (you) lost nearly 40% of your private retirement funds about five years ago, then you got (LUCKY) and got it back. Why do you want to gamble my mothers retirement money?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/bu...sion.html?_r=0

And before you post a source that discredits the above source. Remember this is a forum of science. The traditions of science discredit and dismiss sources that lie.


You speak of Americas future problems, but how can you speak of the future, when you don't understand the past?
Just imagine if republicans R. Reagan and GW Bush, never got elected. Our nation debt would be around 65% to GDP, and America would have trillions of dollars to borrow, for our future problems. But you could care less about this. You just want to make Americas problems even worse.



The following song is about Americas media, and also US republicans.

Green Day - American Idiot w/Lyrics (Clean) - YouTube


When the song speaks of "subliminal" it means- the US media is "corporate propaganda", and most Americans don't realize it. The corporate think tanks that write Fox new's ex.ex. stories, have a subliminal link with their followers.

When the song says "were everything isn't meant to be ok" it means- republicans are against feeding hungry US children, and giving people medical care. They only fight to max out Americas credit cards/n. debt, just so billionaires can have lower tax rates than regular people.

"television dreams of tomorrow" meaning- believing the 1,000's of fantasy world lies the US media says.

The writer singer of the song also believes in gay people having rights. The unedited (over 18) song version is much better, but the above video has lyrics.


As always have a great day/night,
Chad.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

You haven't explained what so mysterious about our debt problem that it would benifit from investigative reporting. As I said before, it's no secret--it's simple math and age projections. Not shore what the point was of the vid you showed. The Koch brothers are pointing to one way to fix the system. The vid also claims SS is secure, while completely ignoring that SS is nearly entirely built on OIU to future contributors and the future general funds.

National medical cost are much more difficult to project.

Also when the stock market falls or crashes, everyone's Social Security money just vanishes, and they no longer have that retirement money.

Pretty much a myth. Periodic fluctuations have no effect on 40+ year retirement funds of any type, whether they be public or private. While I could point at loosing nearly 40% of my private retirement funds about five years ago, I didn't lock in my looses and have nearly tripled those funds since as the markets rocketed upward the past few years. Even if I'd been drawing it down by 5% a year or so, which will be my projected lifespan after I reach 65 or so, I'd still be WAY AHEAD. And chad I'm not some crazy risk taking investor who got lucky....I've been a pretty conservative investor through the years. I just paid myself first when I was working, always lived BELOW my means, never let my debt pile up and stuck to a routine--it's trivially easy now compared to 30 years ago.

Also one of the "claimed" benefits of privatizing Social Security, is helping the economy, by giving money to corporations to invest in new jobs.
But US corporations are building their new factories in Asia, and other parts of the world for cheaper labor.
If we privatize Social Security, Americas retirement money will be in the hands of Americas corporate CEO's.
American CEO's would do the following things with everyone's retirement money.

The CEO's will vote themselves pay raises.
The CEO's will buy brand new corporate jets.
Then these corporations will build a bunch of new factories in Asia, to get cheaper labor, and increase their profits once again.

And it will also give our corporations/CEO's, more money to give to our politicians.

The CEO's who run our media and government, must want to privatize Social Security really bad. Just imagine all the money that would flow to them.
What do you think the corporate CEO's, would do with everyone's retirement money?

and increase their profits once again.....

As well as the profits of every investor, including savers for retirement.

You whole argument and much of your anst seems to be against the very engine of our economy which made the US the most successful nation on earth; the very people who made it successful; and one of the best ways to climb to the sort of financial success all people dream for. You seem against the primary means to achieve the American dream.


Meanwhile strong defense of the current ss system is regressive...the poor, minorities, and males receive the least return. It takes money from young families who can least afford to give and gives it to the wealthiest age demographic.

Here's a rough example of how the media works.

GW Bush gave the TV station owners (huge) tax cuts, he gave them enough money to buy Lear jets, huge homes, ex.ex.ex.
The TV station owners loved GW Bush.

That's why GW Bush could go to Iraq, and kill 100,000 innocent Iraqi people for nothing, and the US media never said a word about it.
Thats how GW Bush turned America's federal surpluses into huge deficits, and the media never said a word.
When Bush took office our national debt was going down, but Bush made it rise to 99% to GDP. And the media never said a word.

But Bill Clinton raised the TV station owners tax rates, to the same rate as my friends who make 100,000 a year. And greedy TV station CEO's hated Clinton.
That's why when Clinton said one personal life lie, the tv station owners sent an army of reporters to attack him.
But when GW Bush's White House, said 935 documented lies about Iraq, the media never said a word about it.


GW Bush took away Americas children's ability to borrow money in the future, his White Houses said 935 lies about Iraq, and he killed 100,000 innocent Iraqi people for nothing. And the media never said a word.

Clinton says 1 personal life lie, and a media army camps outside his house, and attacks him.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

and increase their profits once again.....

As well as the profits of every investor, including savers for retirement.

You whole argument and much of your anst seems to be against the very engine of our economy which made the US the most successful nation on earth; the very people who made it successful; and one of the best ways to climb to the sort of financial success all people dream for. You seem against the primary means to achieve the American dream.

The thing that made America the richest country on Earth. Was that in the 1950's/1960's if anyone on Earth wanted a computer, tv, radio, missile, or circuit board, ex.ex. you had to pay America for it. Back then America made up a small percent of the population, but produced the majority of the worlds high tech goods. Its simple business, we got rich.

Today you republicans claim, that it is the traditions of CEO's, like the Koch brothers that made America so great. But in reality the CEO's you stand with today, created America's debt, stopped low income American's income growth, killed the middle class, and built a bunch of factories in Asia.

The America you are actually thinking of, was 1970 when an American actually made the computers, TV's, cars, and radio's we sold to the world.
And those American workers that made TV's, radios, cars, clocks, and camera's they had it good.

That 1970's American factory worker (that was the American dream.) They had a nice house, nice car, boat, and they took a vacation every year.
But the livers of the American dream, had their jobs moved to Asia.

Go talk to people who work at Walmart, ask them if they live as well as their 1970 counterparts.

Go talk to all the Americans with college degrees, who cant find a job because US corporations outsourced it.
Go talk to the millions of Americans who have lost their homes.
Go talk to the families of the 40,000 Americans who died last year, from from lack of health insurance.
Research how many American children dont get enough food to eat.


The American dream has changed.

Chad.

The thing that made America the richest country on Earth. Was that in the 1950's/1960's if anyone on Earth wanted a computer, tv, radio, missile, or circuit board, ex.ex. you had to pay America for it. Back then America made up a small percent of the population, but produced the majority of the worlds high tech goods. Its simple business, we got rich.

You do realize you're a hundred years off. The US has economically been the most powerful nation on the planet since about 1870....long long before the mechanisms you propose. Back than there was no choices of news---it was the local paper owned by the a businessman. Today you can get news of what ever view you want easily.

You have have a lot of myth in your follow on comments. College graduates have remained fully employed during the economic downturn with unemployment never getting above 7% at any point.

Our problem is primarily the under educated either by choice or lack of opportunities--Neither of which has much of anything to do with people's media choices. And yes that includes "That 1970's American factory worker (that was the American dream.) They had a nice house, nice car, boat, and they took a vacation every year." Quite true. Now uneducated American's shouldn't expect to live any better than the 3rd world nation worker who can do exactly the same job cheaper. Why does this even bother you? Would you prefer your products be more expensive? Do you think being forced to pay higher prices because of artificial laws and some poorly designed idealism about uneducated people being entitled to live in large homes is good for us? I certainly don't.

I do agree with your comments about healthcare--and we are part way there. Health is at it's core one of the few things people can't plan for and probably deserves forms of protection as part of our greater social contract to support. Aging isn't a surprise.

The thing that made America the richest country on Earth. Was that in the 1950's/1960's if anyone on Earth wanted a computer, tv, radio, missile, or circuit board, ex.ex. you had to pay America for it. Back then America made up a small percent of the population, but produced the majority of the worlds high tech goods. Its simple business, we got rich.

You do realize you're a hundred years off. The US has economically been the most powerful nation on the planet since about 1870....long long before the mechanisms you propose. Back than there was no choices of news---it was the local paper owned by the a businessman. Today you can get news of what ever view you want easily. Now I'm not arguing that the rail barons and industrial giants and sweat shops of the 19th century are the way to go here--but it would be foolish not to ignore their key role in powering American economic domination. Moderated capitalism is at the heart of maintaining freedom.

You have have a lot of myth in your follow on comments. College graduates have remained fully employed during the economic downturn with unemployment never getting above 7% at any point.

Our problem is primarily the under educated either by choice or lack of opportunities--Neither of which has much of anything to do with people's media choices. And yes that includes "That 1970's American factory worker (that was the American dream.) They had a nice house, nice car, boat, and they took a vacation every year."
Yes I remember those days. And what you say is only partially true. They had much smaller homes, typically only one car and often poor health coverage. Kids were far more malnourished than today and the disabled with often warehoused Some union employees had it well. The one significant advantage many 70's employees had is company backed pension plans.

Now those same types of uneducated American's shouldn't expect to live any better than the 3rd world nation worker who can do exactly the same job cheaper. Why does this even bother you? Would you prefer your products be more expensive? Do you think being forced to pay higher prices because of artificial laws and some poorly designed idealism about uneducated people being entitled to live in large homes is good for us? I certainly don't.

I do agree with your comments about healthcare--and we are part way there. Health is at it's core one of the few things people can't plan for and probably deserves forms of protection as part of our greater social contract to support. Aging isn't a surprise.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The thing that made America the richest country on Earth. Was that in the 1950's/1960's if anyone on Earth wanted a computer, tv, radio, missile, or circuit board, ex.ex. you had to pay America for it. Back then America made up a small percent of the population, but produced the majority of the worlds high tech goods. Its simple business, we got rich.

You do realize you're a hundred years off. The US has economically been the most powerful nation on the planet since about 1870....long long before the mechanisms you propose. Back than there was no choices of news---it was the local paper owned by the a businessman. Today you can get news of what ever view you want easily.

You have have a lot of myth in your follow on comments. College graduates have remained fully employed during the economic downturn with unemployment never getting above 7% at any point.

Our problem is primarily the under educated either by choice or lack of opportunities--Neither of which has much of anything to do with people's media choices. And yes that includes "That 1970's American factory worker (that was the American dream.) They had a nice house, nice car, boat, and they took a vacation every year." Quite true. Now uneducated American's shouldn't expect to live any better than the 3rd world nation worker who can do exactly the same job cheaper. Why does this even bother you? Would you prefer your products be more expensive? Do you think being forced to pay higher prices because of artificial laws and some poorly designed idealism about uneducated people being entitled to live in large homes is good for us? I certainly don't.

I do agree with your comments about healthcare--and we are part way there. Health is at it's core one of the few things people can't plan for and probably deserves forms of protection as part of our greater social contract to support. Aging isn't a surprise.

EDIT, I FULLY REALIZE THAT I DESERVE TO BE PUNCHED IN THE MOUTH, OR MUCH, MUCH WORSE, FOR SAYING WHATS BELLOW.


Since you live in a false reality, of believing our founding fathers, were men like the Koch brothers and Mitt Romney. I assumed you knew nothing about American history. But yes America was kicking everyone's butts in 1870 as well.

Lets look at the facts. People like you have destroyed this country.

People like you and Reagan started our dangerous national debt.
Then people like you and GW Bush, made our national debt 99% to GDP.
Without you and your piers, our national debt would be around 60% to GDP.
But you all don't care.
What do you all care about?

People like you created our national debt, by giving corporations and billionaires, tax cuts and other favors.
These corporations used the money people like you gave them, to build factories in China for cheap labor, and moved Americas middle class jobs to China.
And today countless Americans with college degrees cant find jobs, because of people like you. And once again you don't care.
What do you all care about?

40,000 Americans suffer and die each year, because people like you, won't give them health insurance.
And once again you don't care, that these people suffer and die.
What do you all care about?

Millions of American children don't get enough food to eat, and they are hungry.
But people like you, will not let the federal government feed them. And once again you don't care.
What do you all care about?


You just keep posting and posting. But the facts show people like you, have destroyed this country, with everything I said above.

Scientists call your political party a corporate propaganda group.
This propaganda group says 1,000's of lies.
Why am I debating a propaganda group member?


Please realize that people like you have destroyed this country, with national debt, and financing the moving of US jobs to China.
Realize the above, and then try to act like a civilized person. Then at least try to stop, being against our federal government, feeding hungry American children.


As always have a great day/night,
Chad.

It's funny I can write "Health is at it's core one of the few things people can't plan for and probably deserves forms of protection as part of our greater social contract to support. " As well as supporting nationallized healthcare in many other threads and yet you continue to put me in your black and white world view and write....

"40,000 Americans suffer and die each year, because people like you, won't give them health insurance.
And once again you don't care, that these people suffer and die.
What do you care about?"

If you want to trade ideas and dialog with me, all I ask is you actually read my responses. Or if they are unclear, please ask me to clarify them before engaging in rant mode and charging windmills against positions I don't hold.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It's funny I can write "Health is at it's core one of the few things people can't plan for and probably deserves forms of protection as part of our greater social contract to support. " As well as supporting nationallized healthcare in many other threads and yet you continue to put me in your black and white world view and write....

"40,000 Americans suffer and die each year, because people like you, won't give them health insurance.
And once again you don't care, that these people suffer and die.
What do you care about?"

If you want to trade ideas and dialog with me, all I ask is you actually read my responses. Or if they are unclear, please ask me to clarify them before engaging in rant mode and charging windmills against positions I don't hold.

Even though your a self gun trigger altering soldier (no insult intended), and the toughest republican I have ever crossed paths with. I hate the way I end up talking to you, it makes me feel like I am not even human.

I said those things out of respect for the financial well being of my country, for the well being of my countries citizens, and for the present and future welfare of Americas children.
And when I started writing that post, all of the above things outweighed the proper respect that I should give to you.
And to be honest, I can't allow not even you, to discredit anything I said above, about America or its citizens.

I have conceded several times, that I often assume things about you that are not true, and I apologize.


You support GW Bush, and you supported the Koch brothers in this very thread.
The very, very powerful Koch brothers, are against saving those 40,000 Americans that die each year.
People and groups you support, want to do everything I said above, and then 20 other take from the poor, and give to the rich things.

When you support men and groups, as powerful as the Koch brothers, you risk/support putting all their ideas into practice.


I have stated several times, that you are a person of intelligence, love, fairness, family, service, compassion, respect, morals, manners, virtue, community, and charity. It would be impossible to insult your character, so please don't think that I did. And I have also stated before, that you are a lot smarter than me.

I hope you have a great night/day, and take care of yourself,
Chad.

My only problem with privatized press is I don't think any onegroup or class should have exclusive control of a thing like that. I think the government should own its own news network that competes with the private ones. Then we wouldn,t only get to hear what the oligarchy want us to hear. We'd get different complete mindsets on different channels.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

When was the last time you heard the main stream news, speak about our deficits or national debt?When was the last time you heard the main stream news, speak about the dangers of our deficits or national debt?

Do you watch the news Chad? The debt is on the News EVERY NIGHT...well at least from conservative sources, often with comparisons of US current and projected debt load with other nations in deep trouble right now..such as Greece. If you're not getting that than your looking in the wrong places. Google up Fox News and debt and your get a long list of recent stories specifically about the debt problem. (https://www.google.com/search?q=fox+...ient=firefox-a)Last week even MSNBC there was coverage...though spun as if it's the Tea Party's fault there might be another show down in March when the next debt ceiling crisis comes up. (It’s time to break up with that temptingly naughty Debt Ceiling)Pull up the stories in economic journals and you'll also get a high frequency.

Yes but an intelligible breakdown of the spending, or listiing of the private organizations receiving gov money and/or. Contracts is not.They'll echo the. Public's dismay back at their listeners, but they don't dare point any fingers at leastnot at their sponsors.

When was the last time you heard the major news networks, speak about the (massive) amounts of our new prescription drugs, that cause heart attacks, birth defects, cancer, ex.ex.ex?

Major recalls and studies of drugs with severe side effects are always reported. Though like all science stories, they are usually easy to check by pulling up secondary sources such as the peer-review studies that brought forth the result.

Probably the ones who didn't buy much advertising this year. You only get press black out privileges if you're a major customer.