A Perfect Example

[KvHagedorn]

Alright, do you want proof that the media is just a leftist tool?

On the front of my local paper's sports page today was this headline: "Controversy Fuels Masters." What controversy? Some feminist (who isn't a golfer, just a professional bitch) decided to create an issue of the all-male Augusta National golf club, so she wrote a letter to the club and called the media. Bingo! Instant controversy! So now Jesse Jackson is marching with his "hate the white male power broker" brigade, Rainbow PUSHy, and the club had to release all its TV sponsors, who were too trembly to lend support to an obviously sexist-racist-fascist-name-your-ism organization. All because this bitch decided to call the media and whine. I have issues with a lot of things, but the media would take no interest.. only when it is some tired old left wing protest fodder do they create a "controversy." What's amusing is that if you took a poll, I would bet that 90% of people don't really give a crap if some golf club wants to restrict its membership to males.

[az]

Sorry, but there's right media and there's left media. And in the end, they write what they think earns them money, so they blow almost everything out of proportion (how about al gore inventing the internet for example?).

AZ

[Jammrock]

In the US, it's mostly left. And most of that is left enough to be called left-wing in Europe.

Jammrock

[UtwigMU]

I think you're having trouble regarding left and right.

You're mixing everything into left/right issue.

I'd say most mainstream media are central with slight left or right inclination.

I'd say that we can hardly talk anymore about classic left and right anymore.

[KvHagedorn]

Let's define it as vehement mindless social liberal deconstructivist.

[az]

It's really just "what makes us the most money? To blow everything out of proportion, preferably with big feelings/controversy/against politicians attached". And would you call the al gore stuff leftist? (it's the only example of ALL american media writing bullshit in the recent history, that's why I use it so often)

You really read too much "left conspiracy" into it, like Utwig said.

AZ

[KvHagedorn]

It isn't a conspiracy. It's simply a bad habit of reacting in a certain way to certain pieces of information. Conspiracy implies a grand design which implies intelligence. There is no intelligence at work here.. it is the same principle as moths being attracted to light or lemmings jumping off a cliff.. it's just one of those eternal stupidities.

[az]

It's just the principle that when you make things look bigger, worse, or otherwise more extreme than they are (again, until you stop ignoring it, this is the same thing that was done to al gore, and it could well have tipped the scales for the election, sad as it is that people are influenced that easily), people will buy your paper/watch your channel, thus earning you more money. And journalism is at least as much about making money as it is about reporting facts. This might not be the case for some single journalists, but their bosses run a business, and thus have to attract customers (the moths) with out-of-proportion news (light). Truth is left in the dust too often That's capitalism. (NOTE: I'm NOT saying communism is better or anything, but it's a fact that when you have to SELL your news, and you have competition, you start "shaping" the facts in order to sell more.)

AZ

[Technoid]

I agree with az,
The news we are feed are getting more and more "designed" for everyday :-\

[Brian Ellis]

What you guys seem to miss out on is the difference between capitalism and communism.

Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man; communism is exactly the opposite.

[Jammrock]

St00pid yellow journalism.

Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man; communism is exactly the opposite.

uh ... no. Totalitarianism and monarchical governments are the exploitation of man by man. Communism by practice (not philosophy) does practically the same. Just look at the old USSR and China.

Capitalism is survival of the fittest. Keep up or get out. Someone can be exploited in capitalism (as someone can in all systems), but the doors are wide open to move ahead with enough hard work, determination and smarts.

Socialism is a cross somewhere between capitalism and communism (philisophical). Depending on where you are from determines the mix.

Jammrock

[SpiralDragon]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
What you guys seem to miss out on is the difference between capitalism and communism.

Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man; communism is exactly the opposite.

so what you are saying is that communism is the exploitation of woman by woman (woman being the oposit of man )

darn... i want to be a communist then.... someone tell the Americans what they missed out on during the cold war years

[az]

Jammy, even the Financial Times is yellow...

But honestly, there is no such thing as a good, unbiased news source.

Brian: I just included that disclaimer to protect myself from being accused of being a "commie"

AZ

[Brian Ellis]

Well, this the first time ever, in all my 70 years, that I've heard that capitalists never exploit their labour forces. We live and learn. Why, that means that Trade Unions have never had their raison d'être because workers in the capitalist society have always been paid a fair wage for a fair job: that capitalists have always provided social services for those who cannot work, for any reason: that there is never hunger or untreated illness in a capitalist society.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have owned and been the main shareholder of a number of companies and corporations. I admit that some of my employees were paid "the going rate" for their labour. So I'm a capitalist. However, I would have liked to have paid them more, but doing so would have meant increasing our selling prices to non-competitive levels and the capitalist credo of supply and demand would have possibly meant our going out of business. So yes, capitalism IS the exploitation of man by man.

However, in lean times, my employees always got paid their salaries: I sometimes didn't (and my salary was the lowest in the corporation, but I admit I had a number of compensatory perks - I had a good tax accountant!)

[Jammrock]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Well, this the first time ever, in all my 70 years, that I've heard that capitalists never exploit their labour forces. We live and learn. Why, that means that Trade Unions have never had their raison d'être because workers in the capitalist society have always been paid a fair wage for a fair job: that capitalists have always provided social services for those who cannot work, for any reason: that there is never hunger or untreated illness in a capitalist society.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have owned and been the main shareholder of a number of companies and corporations. I admit that some of my employees were paid "the going rate" for their labour. So I'm a capitalist. However, I would have liked to have paid them more, but doing so would have meant increasing our selling prices to non-competitive levels and the capitalist credo of supply and demand would have possibly meant our going out of business. So yes, capitalism IS the exploitation of man by man.

However, in lean times, my employees always got paid their salaries: I sometimes didn't (and my salary was the lowest in the corporation, but I admit I had a number of compensatory perks - I had a good tax accountant!)

Allow me to quote myself:

Someone can be exploited in capitalism (as someone can in all systems), but the doors are wide open to move ahead with enough hard work, determination and smarts.

To say communism, at least in it practiced form, not philosophical form, is *not* exploitation of laborers is a simple lack of historical knowledge. The country that exploits laborers the most in the entire world is China. Guess what system of government they use?

Forcing people to live "on the same level" in inhuman and unatural. Thus communism will never truly succeed. That's why socialism was created. Not as depressing as communism (i.e. the common man has a shot at becoming something more than a simple laborer), but still provides basic services for all casts of society.

Jammrock

PS - Despite what the European socialist liberal media says, the US does provide services and compensations for people without work. They may not be as robust as socialist nations, but they do help. I know several people that have lived off unemployment for months at a time during bad economical times (like now). I myself have lived off welfare for a year in my childhood.